Robert J. Huston, Chairman

R. B. "Ralph" Marquez, Commissioner

Kathleen Hartnett White, Commissioner

Jeffrey A Saitas, Executive Director

."")~?, /~~

'::

;''::.;/'1' I I ~\;>..RI."l..L,t,· '" '~l \iE"u" -'utl L: f)O

:-- v, IR PLANNING SEC.

02 AUG -1 AM 9: 23

TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution

July 31, 2002

Mr. Gregg Cooke

Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Dear Mr. Cooke:

r-...~

::t>

....., ........,

=.::

::0 ....-~)'

v :r.;:o..

r'l c::: rn ~::E

G') () I

Cl~-: w rn I (f)

:::Uti)

rn :JI::

--u <

(") rn

-l w 0

P r

z -J

On May 22,2002, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (Commission) adopted

revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The Commission adopted new and amended sections to Chapter 39, Public Notice; and new and

amended sections to Chapter 116, Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or

-Modification. The adopted changes to Chapter 39 and Chapter 116 concern requirements and .

procedures for the permitting of grandfathered facilities and an incentive program for the reduction of

emissions of nitrogen oxides from ~ertain grandfathered reciprocating interrial combustion engines

associated with pipelines. The new and amended sections of Chapter 39; all sections of Chapter 116,

Subchapter H except §116.776; and the new and amended sections of Chapter 116, Subchapters A and

I are being submitted as a revision to the SIP.

Enclosed are the proposed revisions to the SIP, a public hearing certification, a complete record of the

public hearing, and the accompanying order. I look forward to your expeditious approval of these SIP

revisions.

ly,

Chairman

RJH/js

cc: The Honorable Rick Perry, Governor of Texas

Ms. Wendy Wyman, Environmental and Natural Resources Policy Director, Office of the

Governor '

Mr. Jeffrey A. Saitas, P.E., Executive Director, Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission

Enclosures

- . P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 5121239-1000 • Internet address: www.tnrcc.state.tx.us

prinkJ un r~·cyd~J p<lper lIsing soy-bJ:.eJ ink
Mr. Gregg Cooke

Page 2

bee: Mr. Randolph Wood, Deputy Director, Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and

Assessment

Mr. Jim Muse, Director, Policy and Regulations Division

Ms. Heather Evans, Strategic Assessment Division

Ms. Jill Burditt, Policy and Regulations Division

OEPAA file
Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission

Public Hearings

January 22-24, 28, 29, 2002

Concerning revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116,

Subchapters A, H, and I, Control of Air Pollution by Permits for

New Construction or Modification; and Chapter 39, Subchapter H

and Subchapter K, concerning Public Notice; and a revision

to the state implementation plan

Rule Log Number 2001-076-116-AI
INTRODUCTION

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission) held public hearings to receive

testimony regarding revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 39 and Chapter 116, and to the state implementation plan

(SIP). The public hearings were held at the following times and locations: January 22, 2002, 7:00 p.m.,

Tyler Junior College Regional Training and Development Center, Room 104, 1530 South Southwest Loop

323, Tyler; January 23, 2002, 7:00 p.m., City of Houston, City Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 901 Bagby,

Houston; January 24, 2002, 7:00 p.m., City of Odessa, City Council Chambers; 5th Floor, 411 West 8th

Street, Odessa; January 28, 2002, 6:30 p.m., City of Irving, Central Library Auditorium, 801 West Irving ..

Boulevard, Irving; and January 29, 2002, 2:00 p.m., Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission,

12100 North 1-35, Building F, Room 2210, Austin.

This volume concerns new and amended sections to Chapter 39, Public Notice; and new and amended

sections to Chapter 116, Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification. The

adopted changes to Chapter 39 and Chapter 116 concern requirements and procedures for the permitting.

of grandfathered facilities and an incentive program for the reduction of emissions of nitrogen oxides from

certain grandfathered reciprocating internal combustion engines associated with pipelines. The new and

amended sections ofChapter 39 are being submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) as a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP). All sections of Subchapter H except §116.776,

are being submitted to the EPA as a revision to the SIP. The new and amended sections of SUbchapter A

and I are also being submitted to the EPA as a revision to the SIP.

Written comments were accepted through January 29, 2002. All testimony and comments have been

reviewed and seriously considered. This hearing record contains a complete record of the public hearings

and is divided into the following four sections:
o Public Notification and Proposal

o Written and Oral Testimony

o Evaluation of Testimony

o Staff Recommendations

Additional copies ofthis hearing record are maintained in the TNRCC central office at 12100 Park 35 Circle,

Austin, Texas 78753. For further information, please contact Jill Burditt at (512) 239-0560.
WRITTEN AND

ORAL TESTIMONY
Reference Number

W-1

W-2

W-3

W-4

W-5

W-6

W-7

W-8

W-9

W-10

W-11

W-12

W-13

W-14

W-15

W-16

W-17

INDEX OF WRITTEN TESTIMONY

Submitted by

The Honorable Lon Burnam, Texas House of

Representatives

The Honorable Warren Chisum, Texas House of

Representatives

The Honorable Warren Chisum, House Committee on

Environmental Regulation, Texas House of

Representatives

John W. Fainter, Jr., Association of Electric Companies of

Texas, Inc.

Patrick J. Nugent, Association of Texas Intrastate Natural

Gas Pipelines; and Mark Sutton, Gas Processors

Association

Robin Schneider, Texas Campaign for the Environment

Christine Wilson, Texas Campaign for the Environment

The Honorable Lee Brown, Mayor, City of Houston

Cynthia Levesque, City Public Service of San Antonio

Cynthia Levesque, City Public Service of San Antonio

Becky Bornhorst, Downwinders at Risk; and Katy

Hubener, Blue Skies Alliance

Ramon Alvarez, Ph.D., Environmental Defense

Jole C. Luehrs, United States Environmental Protection

Agency

John D. Wilson, Galveston-Houston Association for Smog

Prevention

Brandt Mannchen, Houston Sierra Club

Cindy L. Morphew, Texas Oil and Gas Association

William E. Driscoll, TXU Business Services
01/29/2002 12:35 8179246788 BURNAM PAGE 01

DISTRiCT OFFiCE:

1305 W. MAGNOUA, SUITE C

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76104 B~ 7-924-1997

FAX B 17-924-6788

LON BURNAM

Januat"2P~Cl DISTRICT 90 • FORT WORTH

Refere~ce#201~l10761116~Ai I' ' , ,

I wish to convey I!1Y r~grets thatI could not be with you last night because of a prior

comm ent:'

'J i 'TE',XAS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

, ' I

'CAPIT.OL. OFF:I E:

p.o. BOX 29' 0

AUSTIN, TEXAS 8768-29 10

, 512-4S~·0'140,

FAX512-4S3-10 5 , ·EMAIl.:L;oN..BUi.l~M@HOU~I;;.STATE.iX.US.

I ask truLt tb;e tecorP. ~-efiect my general support ofthe comments,previously submitted by

the H ton Si~m'a Club and theTex.as Campaign For the Environment. '

. .'. II wOuJ~ also'~e 10 pam! a;It to you for your particularatteDti~ # ?f~e Houston " 'Sierra blubs co:m.ti1ents. The reqwrement that all comments be subnutted m wnting IS on the

face it tinfaiI:and antidemocratic. Apublic meeting or hearina should be just that public and

,about ' ariD' .. Just b,eCa~e the'"major polluters might prefer a more private, ifnot clandestine,

comni ..catioi: doeS not jU$ufy the attempt to force all communications into writing.

," Inde~: maYQ~ ev~One should be required to appear in public and publicly state that

they efer a'pJ!)ces~, that,un4ennines,public health in order to maximize private profit. Ifthey

:~:7qu,ir.ed t~.> sPeak: th~ir ,~~sition in ~ont ofthose most harmed, th~ pro~es's would be better

epresexrtEltive Lon B~

",

COMM'1'Ti::ES: JNSURANCE • URaAN AFFAIRS • RUl.ES & RE:SOLUTIQNS

NOT ~AINTEO 14T $T14TI: ctP,EN8E
House of. Representatives .

January 29. 2002

AlJ8TlNO,.,.ICI:

P.o, JO)(10'0 • AUSTIN.TEXA"'7I1HtIO

(811) ..307M

DISTRICTOP'JOI:

P.O. BOX aOlf

PAMPA.'rEXA87808B.R06f

____(101_:(;)

~003/003

IaI 002

P.ras.

AIR PERMITTING

TNRCC-INTER GOVT RELATIO

CHISUM ~12 46Se211

01/29/02 16:21 ~512 239 5698

01/29/02 14:45 FAX 512 239 33: ~AH-29-~2 021Z, PM WAR~~H

i

I Wal'l'8n-=hllunl

STAlt: REPRESENTATIVE

I

eoMMITTE&8: I

INVlAONMeNT!L RiOlJI.~TlClN ~A I

COUNTYAFf'A1 I

HOUSEADMiNI,TAATION

!

I

Mr~ JctrSlltas .

Executive Director

Te~B8 Natural R.esource Conservation Commlsslon

P,q. Box 13087

Au~tin, TX 78711-3087 I

I

I

I

: Re: Proposed rules relating to grandfBthered pipeline faeJ1ltles in West Texas.

I

I

ut«• nwu

Olelrfct 118: CIlIClfI. Child,.••,CCllOnglWOrlh. 0111l1li, Darny,

Gray.HIli. Hanalord. Hlltey, Hemphill.Hutdllnlon. L1p~, Cahlllr... A~,Sherman,WIwc*

I Dcar Jeff:

Th~ you for providina the House Committee on Environmental Regulation with an update on the

statps ofthe various rules packages on January 9, Ithousht Iwould follow-up on aUf discussion

abollt the rules for pipeline facilities In the West TeXIS region,

I I

Aft; reviewing the role and the language in the preamble, it seems clear to me that the agency

inte ds to follow the statute and allow, "up to a 20% reduction·· in NOX and VOCs, and not

imp ement at least a I% reduction. this is consistent with the lesisJative Intent. because in many

CBS", I 0.0% reduction in NOX or voe. wl1l be completely appropriate In West Texas. I am

plc~led to have the fecllna that the qency realizes thatwe Bhould·e~end resources where we can

ma~bnize benefits. Specifical1y, spending time and effort to reduQe emissions from pip~ines in

Weat Texas will often not provide even nominal environmental benefits or improve the quality of

lifeJ

I

YoJ certainly have a full plate, and I appreciate your work and the efforts of your staff to

suc4esafully implement the myriad oflegislative mandates.

Sln+ere1f.

wblUln,

Sta~ Representatlve

I

,

•

I

1

I

!

I

:
(::\FX14

V

~001l003

JaJ003

p.el

Fax I

. Fax Transmittal Memo

Januazy2S.2002

• I

TEXAS HO\J3! QIl RIllJU!S!NTATIVES

.To: . Committee on . ,

Environmental Regul t-:-c_o.: -+- --l

___________ 771h Texas Leals1ature , Dept.:

1---:---------+-:---..:....:.;....------1

Faxi

,

;Mr.J.rrBBlw, Executive Director

:TexlJNatoralltosourceConservationCommission ~,.O. Box 13087

,Austin, TX78111.3087 ,

I

Wamnl Chisum

CAuflm", .

" 'i ' DennlslBonnen . VI" C~Cl/'IJIQ1t

01/29/02 16:19 fr512 239 5698 AIR PERMITTING

01/29/02 114:46 FAX 512 239 33' TNRCC-INTER GOVT RELATIO

JAN-2,-B2 1e:85 AM WARRKN CHISUM 512 4&~e211

I

I

I

I

R.: Proposed rutesretaUnS to buml~ ottuel oUln pndtathered olectric generating facllitlesi

RuleLoS No. 2001-o76·1J6·AI .

iDearJcff:

:

:

I.wantedto sbaromy thouahts ontheportionorlbeproposedrulesretatfn,to thepermlttlDsofJrIIl4tatbered

;facilities that wt11 implement 1382.05185(1) ofthe: Texal Clean Air Act ('''reM''), which relatet to the

;bumlngoftuet 011 In grandra~ered electric leneratln, (aemUes ("EQPs'?

:Tv.:g ~v~rrldlng peticy goals controlled nur deUberations when we wrote the ru.t 011 lan&uale. "'irst.we

:wanted to provid. for the widest nnse orfUel 011 UIC PoSilbl.. to'stve pdratbered EOF.'. meanlnaf\11

I choice offuel. Second, we expected the rCau1aUohs to ensure emlssloDJ controll would not (ntcrf'ercwlttJ .

·the Stato Implementation Plans ("SIP.s'. speolftcaUy wIth rellrd 10 NOX. We presumed that Ifan BOF

:obt~ed I pennlt under SIB. 7tromt!Je 19991cgll1!atlve IC58lon, thentbe 1'eJU1atJoDS forth. facUlty already

:llelmced ~omlca1 electricity lenmtion with environmental stewardship. Th, Nt. as proposed moves

:us offthe mark eDvlstoned by die legislature. I

, .

: At the wtse\, "desill'edto bum" in t382.0~ 185(i) orthe atatutemeansI racUity was deslaned to bum tiro'

iUcloil pdc- even ifthe pdewill no Jonacrbe considered acceptable torbumfng toUowln;lheadoption

· ort~e I\ltcs. The NIcs should provide that anBOP is "dc:s1anc4 to bum" fuel oU.fthenop hI.tqd~l)"

· ever burned fuet oU III • grandtathered facUlty. 1M $tltute only Ilmfts Iho grade offutt 011 ~vCl1y,

: butdoes not meanthepdehIlltoricallybumc4shouldprohIbitbumlnlillahterpd.inthe futuro. Further,

.' , I the term "destgned to b.urn'.' should o~y Pto~blt ~,phYllca\ c~ ~at w~td ~~tl~c • modlfieatlon , .'. '. \lt1dcr30TAt t1J6,10(9). FQr example. chaDslnl burnertips from time to tIme to allow thebumlna ofd'O" ,

'.: ICCeptable aradc offUel 011 under the naiea'should not be amodification: . ' ...". ..., ',..

I lebo have a s'gnlRcane coneem about bowtheTNllCC PfOPOSCI to determlne wh8t ;rac!es ofbtoU ate, · acceptable. OurIntent wasthat indetcrmlnln, aec~ptlble aradel ot&e1 ou.the TNR.~ wOllld contlnueto

anow I.much flexlblUty U pollible rclttive to the pes offue1 on that can be bomed In pndtathcrccl

EGF.. The proposed rules., ltoWOVel. wo\lld pl&ec unte810llOblc aM UN1eeetauy Umitl Oil the ."l1lty or

1J'111dCathttedEOPa to burncurr.rwtaradcs otfueton. Pint·orall, tho evaluation ofcft'ectJIcreenJqlevels

rOLs'') relative to the bum1ng oftuel all is Improper b~aUl' ESLs Iflll10t alr quality "atandarc!s".

, ~;llc Ohu•• ClIlIlmhlllf CWI

OffiCI: Tom ttllllol F.xtcnalna. Room 13.1" • 5120463-0t7. ' M~II: P.O, D\ll~ 2pll1 • Au,tln, Till" • 7A761·291U • t'"X 412·"U-O'41

!dmunc! K\,Icn1pcl, Fr~4 M. ~. D.R. 'torn" t1her

%eb Z'onlnl:k, OWU. ~. Oawnnll Dukes. OwIl' Ocrlll
01/29/02 16:20 ~512 239 5698 AIR PERMITTING

01/29/02 t4:4B FAX 512 239 33: TNRCC-INTER GOVT RELATIO

!512 46SC!211

,Mr.ltft"Slltaa

JmUlI')' 25,2002

'11·2

~002l003

tal 004

p.e2

Moreover. I cUaaar~ wl~ th. P1'OPcled 1imitatl~1l ot tho'~OI ~r tUet ~U that w~~cI b. coD.I~~ acceptabletothole that an arandtatheredBOP, can bumwithout any partlewu.o alte causm, aceedlMc ot

the SOa prap~y Un. ltaftdud In 1112.1 of the 'MOO rulel. Imtead. the TNR.CC Bould .Uo",

pandfatherc4EOFa \0 bumany pdtotAlel onthatmeetstbe .peelt1oltlanlIn 1112.9 ut&heTNaCCrules.

with the proviso (wblch alrNc1y is Include41n proposed f 116.118(11» that the owner or operator orthe

srandfathered EOF must ensuro that tho b\lt11b1s orlbe desired arade offuel on Inthat BOP will I\otCI\I$C

• violaUOI\ of'the S02 property line 1tAndard.

ToImplementtheae conunentJ,IIUgg~ that the propose<!deftnltlon ot'~tural ps-fire4EOP" Inproposed

1116.18(11) be revised to nad I. follows:

,.

.' ,

(A) Ame:lcan' S~leiy fat Tatins '~d Material., (ASTM) Brade

rwmbez 1 or t £\le1 oil. l)tc 1zpmlDJ of wbich wID GP'Dply with the

azml1gablc Urn", In I 112,' cuntmams act iIIOle lIiSa 8:396 .~Pca ""

. weiJlst·

(B). Any other pde offucl on whichtbe O"iiCf et OfIetatoi ofthe EOP

demCMbltw to the ex~tiv. dircc:tor' d£termlnf!:lls protective orlb! &03

property Un. muda", In I '12.' ptrbHe health mid plv*iee1 pr"petti. I

1'hm\k )'OU tor)'our eonlideration otlhese comments.

.

, . . . " . e, ·t. '.,..

. 8Inccrol)',

::"'£)~~" Wama Chlaum.'Chab' ' House Committee onEnvironmental Jlesul,aUon

CO~ Han. TomUher, State Repretent&Uv.

TNRCC Copm1}sslonerl

.'

. ,

, .. :. • •• 0° 0'

, '.
01/29/02 15:50 FAX ~002

ASSOCIATION OF .,-------.:..------------:.------=-----

rl rr-rnlC r.Oll An A I\.'IES OJR.l1S l. SEIDLrrS AMERICANEJ.K.TRJCPOWER

I::LC'- , "" L,I 1VuwnJ "#1 ~iflMn f1 PASOF./.fCTRICCOMPANY

President" CEO nN\5NEWMExICO ltQWE1l C.OMP,J,N(

Wi\l.TON BhUM

.. ' .'

" ,,' I'.

. " .' ,J~uary29,1002 ', :,' , ' '.,

• '0'

Ms. Joyce Sp~pcer ' : ,,', , , " ' ,

Office ofEnviromnentaiPolicy, Analysis, and ASsessment " ' lNRCC

P.O. Box 13087, MC-205 ,"

Austin, Texas 78711-3087 '

"

TXlJ

>:CEL ENfR(j'(

','

, " Dear Ms. Spencer: ... ' .

The ~Ciation' '~f ,Electd~' 'C~~anies' of,'Te~'" fu~., .r'AEC~) ,apPreeiate~ fue'

opportunity to submit these comments,regarding the above~referenced proposed rules relating t~ , ., '

permitting of ~athered facilities. AECT is a. trade association repres~nting, ~e seven'

investor-owne~ electric .utilities ofTexas. The member companies are responsible for generating

over 85% ofthe state's electricity and serve over 75% ofthe state's,electricity customers.

, AECT's comments are limited'to ~arious aspects' of-the proposed' definition offue't~ "natural gas-fired EGF' in proposed § 116.18(11), as ,it relates to the bUl'Ilip.g of fuel oil in

grandfathered electric generating fucilities ("EGFs~). The purpose of that defiIiition is to,

implement § 382.0S185(i) ofthe,Te~ CleanAir Act ("TCAA").

"Designed to burn" condition - propOsed § '116.18(1 1) ,,' , . , "

One ofthe conditions fc)]:'a'grandfathered EGF to be' autli~iized to bumfue~'oil'und~,itS' ',' ,., ' Senate Bill 7 ,permit (under Chapter 116, Subchapter 1), is· that the EGF'be' "designed to' burn"

fuel oil . AECT requests that proposed §:116.18(11) and the associated preamble language be '

revised as descnbed below to ensure that the "designed to bum" condition is properly,interpreted . and implemented. ' . .'..'. . .

The TNRCC's interPretation of.tlie:t~l."designed to.~" on page '80'ofthe'jai1~arY 4" ,

2002 Texas Register is more narrow than allowed by the statutorY hinguage'iIi § 382.0518S(i) of '

the TCAA. According to that discussion, the lNRCC interprets the term "designed to burn" to .

mean that all equipment that comprises the EGF and all other equipment that is involved in fuel

AUSTIN 313603vl 54026-00001
01/29/02 15:50 FAX

Ms. Joyce Spencer

January 29, 2002

Page 2

~003

oil bunting (e.g.• fuel oil tanks) ~~~'~ve,be~n'co~Ct~'arid'~iain~'t~'aii~w'~e b~g' .. ," .', '

offuel oil, and that no modification would be necessary to allowthe burning 'offuel oil. '.

, "

The TNRCC's interpretation, however, is not supported by., the language, of '....

§ 382.05185(i) and the underlying legislative intent. Based'on § 382.05185(i) and ,its legislative '

intent, the term "designed to bum" should be interpreted such that a grandfathered EGF is '

"designed to bum" fuel oil ifit can burn fuel oil without any physical change that would be a

"modification" (as defined in § 116.10(9» having to be made to any of the equipment that

comprises the EOF. The term "EOP" is defined in § 101.330(12) !is a facility that generates

electric energy for compensation. The term "facility" is defined in § 116.10(4) as a discrete or

identifiable structure or equipment that constitutes or contains a stationary point of origin of,

emissio~ including appurtenances other than air pollution equipment. Based on these

definitions. the EOF does DDt include every piece of equipment at a grandfathered EOF site that

is involved with the bmning offuel oil. Accordjngly. only physical changes to equipment that

comprise the grandfathered EOF that are made to allow the EGF to bum fuel oil need to be

evaluated to determine whether they prevent the EGF from being "designed to bum" fuel oil.

With respect to what physical changes would prevent a gr'dDdfathered EGF from being "designed

to bum" fuel oi~ ABet believes that any maintenance or repairs to any equipment that

comprises the EGF, or any like-kind replaCement of any such equipment. that is necessary to

allow the EGF to burn fuel oil, should not prevent the EGF from being considered to be

"designed to bum" fuel oil.

"

. "

" ,

As a final point relative to the "designed to bum" condition, ifan 'EGF is "designed to

burn" a grade offuel oil, the fact that such fuel oil grade may not be considered acceptable under

the :final rules should not prevent the EOF from meeting the "designed to bum" condition. ..

Proposed § 116.18(11) and the associated preamble language need to be revised to, clearly

provide that the "designed to burn" condition is met for such an EOF. More specifically" AEeT

requests that the first sentence ofthe proposed § 116.18(11) be revised to read as follows: "For ,

purposes ofSubchapter I ofthe chapter, an EGF that was designed to burn either natural gas or ' " . ' .

fuel oil and that when burning fuel oil. burns fuel oil ofa grade detennined by the commission .

to be acceptable.n

Acceptable fuel oil grades - proposed § 11.6.18(1 DCA) , " , .

Based on an August 15, 2001 le~er ':from Rep~eD.tative .Wmeri ~~,ChaiImari ~f., " .'

the House Committee on Environmental Regulation, to Jeff Saitas, and a September II, 2001

response letter from Mr. Saitas, the intent ofthe drafters of§ 382.0S18S(i) ofthe TCAA was that .

in detennining what grades offuel oil would be acceptable to be burned in grandfathered EGFs, " , '

the TNRCC would designate as being acceptable as broad of a range of grades of fuel on as .. ...'.

possible, as long as air quality standards would be met. Designation of a broad range of ,"

acceptable grades of fuel oil is critical since it will ensure maximum fuel flexibility for '

. grandfathered EGFs, which is essential to ensuring continued availability of reliable electric

power in Texas.

AUSTIN: 31J60Jvl S4026-00001
01/29/02 15:50 FAX ~004

Ms. Joyce Spencer

JanU3I}' 29, 2002

Page 3

.....

'I ."

" '

"

. ",

" ,

"

Proposed § 116:18Ci~)~-: ~~~ev~,' ,d~~S" ~o~' 'r~~c~ "~e' 'l~~l~ti~~' ~tent.' Underlyfug' " , ,-

§ 382.05l85(i) because it would unneces'sarily and umeasonably limit the'range of fuel oil , '

grades that could be burned in grandfathered EGFs. The cause of this problem 'is that the

evaluations used as the basis fOf the language in proposed § 116.18(11)(A) are not consistent

with such legislative intent. '

First, according to page, 80 of the JanWuy.4" '2002 Texas' RegiSter, the' proposed

, specification ofacceptable fuel oil grades'was based in part on ail,evaluation ofeffects screening

levels (nESLs"). An evaJuatio~ of ESLs, however, is beyond the legislative, intent of

§ 382.05185(i) ofthe TCAA, as recognized by Jeff Sanas in his -letter of September 11, 2001

(See Enclosure 1). In Mr. Saitas' letter, he stated his understanding that the intent of the '

legislature relative to the language of § 382.05185(i) is that any "natural gas-fl1'ed EGFs, that , '

were originally designed to bum fuel oil will be authorized to do so under their electric

'generating facility permit as long as air quality standards are met." (emphasis added.) Clearly,

ESLs are not air quality "standards"; they are merely guidelines. Accordingly, evaluation of '

ESLs in the determination ofacceptable grades offuel oil is contrarY to the legislative intent.

Another problem with the proposed specification of acceptable fuel oil grades is that it

would significantly, unreasonably, and unnecessarily restrict thefleXlbility of grandfathered

EGFs to bum different grades offuel oil. As discussed above, this is· contrary to the legislative

intent of § 382.0S185(i). In determining the proposed specification of acceptable grades of:fuel

oil, the TNRCC staff conducted modeling of S02 emissions from each grandfathered EGP at

each site1 to determine whether the SOz property line standard in § 112.3 will be satisfied if

various grades offuel oil are burned. Then, based on the modeling results, staff established the

proposed specification of acceptable grades of fuel oil such that no site ,with grandfathered ",'

EGF(s) will exceed the S02 property line standard. Setting·the specification of acceptable fuel' ,

oil grades in this manner unnecessarily restricts the flexibility of grandfathered EGFs to bum ,, '

different grades offuel oil (notwithstanding the case-by-case determination option in proposed "

§ 116.18(l1)(B»), because the 802 property line standard can be protected appropriately without

taking such a stringent approach. ",

"

, "

ABeT suggests that the legislativ~ int~nt of §'38i.05185(i) ofthe TC,M,will be 'met it: , ," ' 'the rules specify that acceptable grades of fuel oil are those that will ,be protective'ofthe S02, ,',' .. " '

national ambient air quality standards ("NAAQS") and that each 'owner or operator of a ' "

. grandfiUhered EGF(s) that is "designed to burn" fuel oil will have the responsibility to ensure'" , ' "

,that the burning of fuel oil in such EGF(s) at a site will comply with the S<h property line , '

" standard in § 112.3. Addressing compliance with the SCh property line standard in this manner is " ,

,appropriate since this is the manner that compliance with sen property line standard is addressed '

for all S02 einissions sources, such as fuel oil-burning grandPd.thered EGFs, that are not subject

to a full health effects review as part ofthe permit application review process under Chapter 116,

',Any additional modeling the TNRCC may conduct for grades offue1 oil besides number 1 or'2 shouldDot be based

on the assumption that any such grade offue1 oil contains more than o:rlo sulfur by weight since the maximum

sulfur content that fuel oil can have under § 112.9 is approximately 0.7%. ' " .'

'. ,,'

AUSTIN 313603vl 54026-00001 " '
01/29/02 15:50 FAX

Ms. Joyce Spencer

January 29. 2002

Page 4 " ,

~005

"

. ,',

....

Subchapter B. Moreov~r~ ~ropOsed' {1;~.~ ~('1'~') '~nt~~ ~~'~t' ~'~~~es '~t, "

notwithstanding the specification of acceptable fuel oil grades in proposed § 116.18(11), the,

owner or operator of a grandfathered EGF(s) that bums fuel oil must ensure that all applicable '

emissions limits in any other state rule. such as the S02 property line standard., will be met. With

respect to compliance with the S02 NAAQS. specifying acceptable grades offuel oil that are

protective of the S02 NAAQS will be simple since the limits Specified in § 112.9 were

established to ensme that the S02 NAAQS will be met throughout the state (see, e.g., 'page 7086 " ",'

ofthe October 9, 1992 Texas Register (see Enclosure 2)). The § 112.9 limits are' apparently

accomplishing their goal since all parts ofTexas are in compliance with the S02 NAAQS. In ,. '

summary, the approach described in this paragraph would satisfy the legislative intent of '

§ 382.05185(i) because it would provide the maximum flexibility possible for burning fuel oil in '

grandfathered EOPs, without jeopardizing compliance with any air quality standards.

To further increase flexibility in fuel oil burning in grandfutbered EGFs Without,

threatening compliance with any air quality standards, ABCT ,suggests that § 116.18(11) not ' " "

define acceptable fuel oil grades using ASTM grade numbers, but instead that it,define them as"

constituting any ASTM grade that will not result in noncompliance with the applicable limits in " '

§ 112.9. The reason for this request is that ASlM grades offuel oil do not necessarily dictate ' .'" "

the sulfur content of the :fuel oil Fuel oil with a higher ASTM grade number should not be ' "

proluoited from being burned in a grandfath~d EGF ifthe oil's sulfur content is such that the "."

burning ofthe fuel oil will comply with the applicable limits in § 112.9.

To address the preceding ABCT comments regarding acceptable fuel oil grades. ABCT

requests that proposed § 116.l8(l1)(A) be revised to read as follows:

(A) Any American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) grade No.'l or 2 of

fuel oil the hurning ofwhich will comply with the awlicable limits in § 112.9·

, Gontaimag not Bl6fe1:BaH 0.3% 5U1:fur ay Vtreight.

Case-hy-case determinations ofacceptable fuel oil gIades - proposed § 116:18(11)(8)- , , "

. . ."'

The scope of case-by-case determinations of acceptable fuel' oil, grades in proposed,: '

§ 116:18(1I)(B) is too broad in that it would require demonstration that "public health and

physical property" would have to be demonstrated to be protected. For the reasonS discussed ' "

above, according to the legislative intent of § 382.0S18S(i) of the TCAl\, the only relevant " ,:

protectiveness issue regarding whether a grade offuel oil should be considered acceptable is "

, whether air quality standards (and not the ESLs guidelines) will be protected when that grade of' '"

fuel oil is burned. Therefore, ABCT suggests that the term "public health and physical property" " , "

"be changed to IIS02 property line standard in § 112.3", since according to the preamble " ,

discussion on page 80 ofthe January 4,2002, Texas Register. the S02 property line standard is " , ,

the only air quality standard that might not be protected during the burning of certain grades of '

fuel oil at certain sites. ' ,

' .. '

, 'AOS'!JN 313603vl 54026-00001
01/29/02 15:51 FAX

Ms. Joyce Spencer

January 29~ 2002

PageS

, , '

, "

~006

, '

The other conC~' AECT has with'i~spect'to ,c~e-by~e 'deterininations'oi acceptable'

fuel oil grades relates to the process by'which such determinations will be made. ABeT requests ,,' ,

that the process for making such case-by-case determinations be quick and simple; not as long

and ,onerous as the permit application process. Fot' example, case-by-case determinations

, regarding acceptable fuel oil grades should not require the submission ofa permit application or

involve the issuance ofpublic notice. The case-by-case determination process should be based

on modeling and/or monitoring results relating to the impact ofthe burning ofthe desired grade

offuel oil on the ability of the site where the grandfathered EGF(s) is located to meet the SCh '

, property line standard in § 112.3.

More specifically, AECT requests that the case-by-case determination process regarding' ,'

acceptable fuel oil grades be as follows: The owner or operator ~fthe grandfathered EOF(s) will ,', ,

submit a written request to the appropriate lNRCC staff personnel that provides all of the , ,

, relevant information about the fuel oil that it desires to burn in such EGF(s), including the

maximum sulfur content of the fuel oil, the identity of the grandfathered EGF(s) in which the

fuel oil will be burned, the stack parameters associated with each such EGF(s), and the ' ,

maximum hourly rate offuel oil that is proposed to be burned in each individual EGF and that

would be burned collectively in all of the EGFs at the site simultaneously. If the TNRCC

,already bas adequate modeling and/or monitoring results from prior analyses (including the

, modeling analyses conducted as part ofthis rulemakjng) to determine whether the burning ofthe

desired fuel oil grade in the grandfathered EGF(s) at the site would be protective of the S02

'property line standard, the TNRCC will send a written determination to the owner or operator

,that the desired grade offuel oil cap. be burned in the EGF(s) iftbe modeling and/or monitoring

results demonstrate that the SO;z property line standard would be met. Ifthe TNRCC does not

, have adequate modeling and/or monitoring results to make a determination as to whether the

burning of a desired grade of fuel oil in the grandfathered EGF(s) would be acceptable, the

,TNRCC will either conduct the necessary modeling or will request the owner or operator ofthe

EGF(s) do so and submit the results ofsuch modeling to the lNRCC. Based on such modeling' ,

, and/or monitoring results, the TNRCC will make a detennination as to whether the desired grade '

offuel oil is acceptable based on whether the results indicate the SOz property line standard will

be met..

:

",

.0 '.'

" ','

AECT requests that this case-by-case determination process be desen1led in the preamble

to the final rule. AECT also requests that since under this process the owner or operator will not '

, have to make a demonstration that a requested grade of fuel oil is acceptable if the TNRCC " "

,"already has performed modeling that makes that demonstration, the language in proposed '

§ 116.18(11)(B) be changed to rerer to an Executive Director "determinationll, rather than an ",

owner or operator "demonstration". Fina11y~ AECI' requests that the TNRCC include in ",',' , ,proposed § 116.18(1l)(B) a statement that an owner or operator ofa,grandfatherctfEGF may' "

request reconsideration of an Executive Director case-by-case determination of acceptable fuel

oil grades under Chapter 55.

"

"

AUSTIN 313603vl 54026-00001.

",
01/29/02 15:51 FAX I4J 007

Ms. Joyce Spencer

January 29) 2002

Page 6 .. ' ..

.' ' .' ' , .

To address the'precedfug'~~~~ts 're~arding '~~by~~~~e' deteiminatjo~ ofa~~bi~ '. ' fuel oil grades, ABeT requeststhat proposed § 116.18(11)@) be revised to read as follows: .• I'

(B) Any other grade of fuel oil which tlie O\\'Bef, &f eper-ator of the i!:GF

deme:a:st:.nHes to the executive director detennines is protective .of the SOl

propert~ line standard in § 112.3' p1:lblis health aaa physieal prejJefty.' In the event

. "that the owner or 012erator of the EGF disagrees with the executive director's

determination. the owner or operator may request a reconsideration of that

determination under the procedures of Chapter 55.

, "

:' Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. If you have any questio~

please call Keith Courtney at (512) 499-3865.

. ...

.. ...

..... " .

..... , "

"

...

.'

I" .'

", .

.. . , • " ,0

.' ,

. "

..

" " ...,

. ,' ..

.' .

'0' •

",

" ,

AusTIN 3l3603vls4026-ooooJ
01/29/02 15:51 FAX

RobertJ. Huston. Chairman

R. B. "Ralph" Commissioner

John M..Baker. Commissioner

Je{~y A. Saitas. Exet:ldilJe Director

i

TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

Proleding Te.ms fig Ret/udng andPreDentfngPollution

September 11,2001

/

TheHonorable Warren Chisum

Chairman, House Committee onEnvironmentalRegulation

Texas House ofRepresentatives

P.O, Box 2910

Austin, Texas 78768-2910

Dear Chairman Chisum:.

~008

Thank you for your letterreganting Section 382.0S18S(i) ofthe Health & Safety Code, goveming

e~ectric· generating facility permitting. Your correspondence bas clarified the intent ofthis new

section, created byHouseBill 2912 duringthe 77thLegislativeSession. I understarJdthatitwasthe

IDte"! ofthe LegislabIre that natma1 gas-fired electric generating facilitiS tbat were ocisi!JaUy

designed to bum fuel oil will be authorized to do so undertheir electric ~erating facilitrR-mni.t

as tong as air qualio/ standards are met.

I also appreciate your comment relating to the suggested 0.7 pemmt sulfur standard for fuel oil.

That suggestion which a.etua1Iy came from representatives ofthe electric generating tacilities will

also be considered as we continue to implement the rules goveming electric generating facilities in

Texas.

As always, your comments;md insight into these issues are verymach appreciated.. Please contact

me at (512) 239-3900 orMr. John Steib, Director ofour.AirPermitsDr.isicm, :It(512) 239-5718 if

we c:m be ofassiitance to you mthe future. .

Sincerely,

ENCLOSUREl

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin. Tws 78nl·3087 • 512.1239·1000 • lnb:met address: www.tnrcc.slate.tLus
•

" ! '

f'

~;

., i.•

~:I

"r ••••

~~

15:51 FAX

!41 009

-
January 29, 2002

Via Facsimile @ 239-4808

Joyce Spencer

MC205

Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

P. O. Box 13087

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

Re: Rule Log No. 2001-076-116-AI, Proposed Rules for the Permitting of

Grandfathered Facilities

Dear Ms. Spencer:

This letter represents the comments of the Association of Texas Intrastate

Natural Gas Pipelines and the Gas Processors Association ("Associations") on the

above-identified proposed rules for the permitting of grandfathered facilities. The

Association of Texas Intrastate Natural Gas Pipelines is composed of member

companies who gather, process, treat, and transport natural gas within the State of·

Texas. The Gas Processors Association is comprised of 105 corporate members

engaged in the processing of natural gas. The active membership as a group accounts

for approximately 90% of all natural gas liquids produced in the United States. These

companies own and operate grandfathered reciprocating internal combustion engines

("RIC engines") across Texas that are connected to or are a part of pipeline systems

and are used to compress and transmit natural gas through these systems. Section

382.05186 of H.B. 2912 specifies emissions reductions and other requirements for the

permitting of grandfathered RIC engines by the Pipeline Facilities Permit. Proposed

Rule § 116.779(b) implements the statutory provisions for the Pipeline Facilities Permit.

The Associations will address their comments to the proposed rules for the Pipeline

Facilities Permit, in particular, as well as other general provisions of the proposed rules.

Comments on Proposed § 116.779 (b), Pipeline Facilities Permit:

1. Reductions in the Hourly Emissions Rate.

The Associations support the provisions of this proposed rule that require

grandfathered RIC engines to achieve reductions from the hourly emissions rate,

expressed in terms of grams per brake horsepower-hour. This provision conforms the

regulatory provisions to the express language of the statute and carries out legislative

intent to protect a pipeline's capacity and not impair the deliverability of natural gas

throughout Texas.

W:C:\Files\wp\Grandfather rules comments.doc
2. East Texas NOx Reductions.

Proposed § 116.779(b)(1) provides that grandfathered RIC engines located in East

Texas shall demonstrate that each engine will achieve "at least" a 50% reduction of the

hourly emissions rate of NOx, expressed in terms of grams per brake horsepower-hour.

This section establishes a more stringent reduction standard than the statute - the statute

mandates a flat 50% reduction in NOx' While the Associations anticipate that in some

cases the addition of control technology will produce reductions in the hourly emissions

rate greater than 50%, H.B. 2912 does not authorize the TNRCC to impose higher

reduction levels than provided for in the statute. Accordingly, the Associations recommend

that the TNRCC delete the term "at least" in the draft rule, so that it will not be construed

that the TNRCC may mandate reductions greaterthan 50% from RIC engines in attainment

areas of East Texas in carrying out this program. That interpretation would be contrary to

the express language of the statute and legislative intent.

3. East Texas voe Reductions.

Proposed § 116.779(b)(1) provides that the Commission "may" also require a 50%

reduction of the hourly emissions rate of VOCs, expressed in terms of grams per brake

horsepower-hour. This standard does not provide due notice to owners/operators of

grandfathered RIC engines of what, if any, reductions in vacs will be required in order to

obtain a Pipeline Facilities Permit, but merely reiterates the nonspecific standard of the

statute. § 382.0~186(e), TEX. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. The TNRCC could have made

this standard more specific by adopting rules setting forth criteria for determining the extent

and level of the vac emissions reduction that will be required from these engines in the

permitting process, but to date, has not done so. Moreover, the rule creates practical

implementation problems. Some types of Nax emissions controls result in increased

emissions ofVaCs. Because ofthe need to consider the impact on vac emissions when

developing a proposed plan for Nax emission reductions, the owners/operators of these

engines should be advised in advance of applying for a Pipeline Facilities Permit the

criteria for determining the extent and level of vac emissions reductions. The statute is

permissive in that it uses the word may. The Commission is not required to achieve

reductions in emissions of VOCs at all and should not mandate reductions of vac

emissions without a demonstrated regional air quality or public health need.

Many of the grandfathered RIC engines in East Texas are fueled by pipeline quality

qas and are not significant sources ofVaC emissions. Diesel-fueled engines, on the other

hand, emit relatively significant quantities. Emission reductions, if warranted by regional

air quality needs, should be imposed on diesel, rather than natural gas, engines. The

Associations recommend that the Commission modify this section to provide that

grandfathered RIC engines located in East Texas fueled by pipeline quality natural gas are

not required to achieve any reductions in vac emissions in order to receive a Pipeline

Facilities Permit as these facilities are not a significant source ofVaC emissions. If there

is a demonstrated need for reductions in emissions ofVaCs, the Associations suggest that

the Commission consider requiring only diesel-fueled grandfathered RIC engines to

W:C:\Files\wp\Grandfather rules comments.doc
achieve reductions in the hourly emissions rate of VOCs at a specified level, up to 50%.

With this approach, VOC emissions reductions would be mandated for the category of

sources that is most likely to contribute to ambient air quality problems and certainty in the

permitting process will be provided.

4. West Texas Emissions Reductions.

Proposed § 116.779(b)(2) provides thatthe commission shallrequire "up to a 20 percent"

reduction of the hourly emissions rate of NOx and may require "up to a 20% reduction in

the hourly emissions rate ofVOCs from grandfathered RIC engines located in West Texas.

Staff indicated at the October 11 Stakeholder Meeting that the range for NOx emission

reductions did not include zero rather it means at least a 1% reduction in these emissions.

However, the statutory language does not mandate reductions of either pollutant, but

indicates that the Commission must make a finding that "up to a 20 percent reduction" of

NOx emissions is required and that the Commission "may" also require up to a 20 percent

reduction of VOC emissions. For both pollutants, therefore, the statute allows the

Commission to find that zero reduction is required.

This interpretation is contrary to legislative intent and the provisions of the Texas

Clean Air Act. The Act provides that "[t]he policy of this state and the purpose of this

chapter are to safeguard the state's air resources from pollution by controlling or abating

air pollution and emissions of air contaminants, consistent with the protection of public

health, general welfare, and physical property ...." § 382.002, TEX HEALTH & SAFETY

CODE. (Emphasis Added.) Any mandate to reduce emissions from existing sources must

comply with this overall policy. A reduction in air emissions simply for the sake of a

reduction without an attendant improvement to the protection of public health, general

welfare or physical property is not authorized by the Clean Air Act. Emissions from

grandfathered RIC engines in West Texas do not pose a threat to public health or the

environment. No public health threat or regional air quality condition would be improved

by reducing these emissions. Any expenditure of funds by industry in this region to

achieve emissions reductions is not justified and serves to consume personnel and capital

resources that could otherwise be directed toward making improvements in the East Texas

and non-attainment regions of the state.

The legislature certainly did not intend to require emission reductions in every case.

Indeed Senator Bernsen omitted West Texas entirely from his Senate Floor Amendment

to HB 2912. In doing so he stated: "Notice in my amendment that I do not speak to West

Texas ... I do not want to address West Texas because it is in (sic) East Texas ... that

we need to address." Excerpt from the Senate Floor debate on HB 2912, Tape 3 of 5, side

2. Further, in his letter to TNRCC Staff dated August 9, 2001 he stated that it became

clear in the conference committee discussions on HB 2912 with Representative Chisum

that they needed to provide a mechanism whereby TNRCC could require "limited

reductions [in West Texas] in order to meet regional air quality needs." Accordingly, the

legislature viewed the West Texas emissions reductions as a very narrow provision, not

to be applied in a blanket-fashion across the breadth ofWest Texas but rather only to meet

W:C:\Files\wp\Grandfather rules comments.doc
limited regional air quality needs. If no need exists, as is the case in the vast majority of

West Texas, the TNRCC should not require any emissions reductions in order to permit

grandfathered RIC engines.

Even assuming thatthe proposed rule properly incorporated statutory criteria foremission

reductions, we are not aware of information showing that emissions from grandfathered

RIC engines in West Texas pose a threat to public health or the environment. West Texas

generally achieves the health standards (national ambient air quality standards) for NOx

and ozone. There is no modeling or other evidence that a 20% or less reduction of the

relatively minor emissions from the grandfathered RICs would improve public health or

any regional air quality condition.

Moreover, a 1% reduction level is an arbitrary floor. The Commission staff has no

modeling or other data to demonstrate that a 1% reduction in the hourly emissions rate of

NOx or VOCs will improve air quality in West Texas. If 1% is an acceptable floor, why is

not .01 % or .0001 % the appropriate floor? Staff is mistaken that any reduction level is

mandated by the statute. The statute is stated in permissive terms. It provides that the

Commission may require "up to a 20%" reduction of the hourly emissions rate of NOx and

VOCs. The term "may require" certainly includes the option not to require anything at all.

The Commission should exercise its discretion narrowly and only for purposes ofprotecting

public health and serving limited regional air quality needs.

5. Cost Analysis to Control Grandfathered RIC Engines.

The Commission's cost analysis in the preamble ofthe proposed rules significantly

underestimates the costs that pipeline entities will need to incurto comply with these rules.

First, the Commission's cost analysis fails to take into account the engineering costs and

studies that must be performed by a pipeline entity to study and analyze the types of

controls that will be successful in achieving emission reductions on a particular engine at

the applicable emission reduction level. No one-size-fits-all control technology or

parametric controls will work for every engine. Performing the studies to determine which

engines to control and the kinds of controls to put in place for those engines will be an

expensive endeavor by itself and one that is not justified in regions like West Texas where

no demonstrable improvements to air quality will be achieved.

Second, the Commission's estimate forthe capital costs to install lowemission combustion

("LEC") technology is low. The Commission estimates the total capital cost to install LEC

on a 1,000 horsepower lean-burn engine is $292,000 and the annual cost would be

$72,400. Based upon our experience, the installation of LEC technology typically varies

in capital cost from $800,000 to $1,300,000 (total project cost), depending largely on the

types of modifications that are needed to accept this technology. Typically, modifications

are needed to one or more of the following systems: exhaust, air intake, turbocharger,

aftercooler or fuel delivery. The extent of these modifications playa large part in the

overall cost of LEe technology and vary from engine to engine.

W:C:\Files\wp\Grandfather rules comments.doc
Third, the Commission's estimate forthe capital costs to install non-selective catalytic

reduction ("NSCR") is similarly low. The Commission estimates that the capital cost for

NSCR for a 1,000 horsepower rich-burn engine is $42,200and the total annual cost is

$90,300. The installation of NSCR, however, on a four stroke rich-burn engine typically

costs between $75,000 and $125,000 (total project cost). The catalyst element is a small

part of this cost. The necessary costs that contribute greatly to this total are exhaust

modifications and fuel/air ratio control. These grandfathered RIC engines are typically not

controlled to the tight tolerance required for successful NSCR operation. Installation ofthe

fuel/air ratio control system will require a new controller, fuel and/or air piping modifications,

and integration with the existing automation and monitoring. controls.

6. More than one RIC engine may be covered by a Single Permit.

The Associations support the provisions in proposed § 116.779(b)(3) that allow an

owner/operator of more than one grandfathered RIC engine to cover all of its engines

under a single Pipeline Facilities Permit. The Associations also support the provisions that

allow owners/operators to average emissions reductions achieved among more than one

RIC engine statewide. Together these provisions provide the flexibility needed for

owners/operators of large fleets of grandfathered RIC engines statewide to study their

fleets of engines and develop a cost effective strategy to comply with these new permit

rules.

7. Grandfathered Engines located in Non-attainment Areas.

While it may be intended, the language of § 382.05186, TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY

CODE, and proposed § 116.779(b) do not specifically state that engines in non-attainment

areas are not subject to the emission reduction requirements of these sections, rather they

are subject to the provisions of the state implementation plan applicable to the area. The

Associations suggest that the Commission incorporate language in this section or in

proposed § 116.775, Eligibility for Pipeline Facilities Permits, that clarifies the applicability

of these provisions to grandfathered RIC engines located in non-attainment areas.

8. Emission Averaging Calculations.

The Associations note that the TNRCC has not yet developed the criteria to be used

in the averaging calculations authorized by proposed § 116.779(b)(3). The Associations

recommend that such criteria be developed and incorporated into a rule, or at the very

least a guidance document. In the development of such a rule, the Associations

recommend the following criteria be incorporated:

• Because emissions reductions are to be measured in terms of grams per brake

horsepower-hour ("g/bhp-hr"), emissions averaging calculations should be made

in the same unit of measure. If engines have different horsepowers, the glbhphr should be extended so that g/bhp-hr becomes the unit of measure used in the

averaging calculation.

W:C:\Files\wp\Grandfather rules comments.doc
• Because a shut-down of a grandfathered RIC engine is considered a control

technology, the retired g/bhp-hr and horsepower of that shut-down engine may

be utilized in the permitting of an operating grandfathered RIC engine.

• Emission reductions, expressed in terms ofg/bhp-hr, achieved or grandfathered

RIC engines shut-down since September 1, 1997 should be utilized in an

averaging calculation in an application for a pipeline facilities permit. This date

coincides with the effective date of HB 3019, passed in the 75th Legislative

Session directing the TNRCC to develop a program for the Voluntary Permitting

of grandfathered facilities. By incorporating emissions reductions achieved

since September 1, 1997, the Commission will be rewarding, not penalizing,

early participants in the voluntary program.

• A mechanism to bank and utilize emission reduction credits should be

developed within the TNRCC. In the alternative, an accounting of emission

reduction credits that are generated or utilized should be kept by the

permiteelTNRCC.

• Affected facilities should be allowed to utilize various emissions credits available

under other agency emissions credit programs for the purposes of emission

averaging, such as, DERC. ERC and MERCs

• If emission averaging is utilized in the permitting of a particular facility, a

supporting schedule should be incorporated into the pipeline facilities permit that

documents the creation and utilization of emission credits. This wayan afterthe-fact inspector will be able to more readily determine the facility's compliance

with the pipeline facility permit.

• An entity with excess emission credits should be allowed to transfer or sell those

credits to another entity.

Comments on Proposed § 116.779(a), General Provisions:

9. Health Effects;

Proposed § 116.779(a)(1) provides that emissions from the facility must comply with

the rules and regulations ofthe Commission, including the protection ofhealth and physical

property. The Commission notes in its preamble to the proposed rules that an appropriate

health effects review for each permit application for a grandfathered facility will be

conducted and the details of the review will be developed and provided in a guidance

document. TheAssociations support this approach and encourages the TNRCC to ensure

that the extent and nature of the review corresponds to the potential health risks from a

particular facility. The Associations look forward to working with the staff in the

development of such guidance.

W:C:\Files\wp\Grandfather rules comments.doc
10. MACT.

Proposed § 116.779(a)(5) provides that an application to permit a grandfathered

facility must demonstrate that it meets the requirements of any applicable maximum

available control· technology ("MACT"). The Associations seek to clarify that the

Commission does not expect owners/operators of RIC engines to have installed MACT

technology by the date it must submit an application for a Pipeline Facilities Permit if

federal rules provide a later deadline by which it must install these controls.

11. Emission Modeling.

Proposed § 116.779(a)(9) provides that the Commission may require computerized

air dispersion modeling or ambient air monitoring to determine air quality impacts from the

grandfathered facility. The Associations support air dispersion modeling if necessary to

determine impacts from the facility. Ambient air monitoring is not generally warranted

because of the expense and time involved in performing the monitoring in remote areas

of the state where many of these facilities are located.

Comments on Proposed 116.779{c), Existing Facility Permit:

12. Need for 10-Year BACT Guidance Document.

Proposed·§ 116.779(c) provides that an application for an existing facility permit

shall propose an air pollution control method that is at least as beneficial as the best

available control technology ("BACT") thatthe commission required orwould have required

for a facility of the same class or type as a condition for permitting 120 months before the

submittal of the existing facility permit application, considering the age and remaining

useful life of the facility. If this review were to take place on a case-by-case basis an

enormous amount of staff time and energy and expense to the applicant will be incurred.

The Associations, therefore, urge the Commission to develop a guidance document that

identifies 10-year BACT for many common grandfathered sources in order to streamline

this process.

Comments on Proposed § 116.775, Emissions Reductions Incentives Account:

13. Distribution of Funds from the Emissions Reductions Incentive

Account.

In general, theAssociations support the provisions ofproposed § 116.775 governing

the distribution of funds from the Emissions Reductions Incentives Account. However,

establishing eligibility in part on achieving actual reductions in emissions of NOx from the

1997 Emissions Inventory detracts from the statutory scheme based upon reductions from

the hourly emissions rate.

W:C:\Files\wp\Grandfather rules comments.doc
The Associations support the provision to make engines that are required to reduce

emissions by some other state or federal law ineligible for reimbursement as this provision

carries out legislative intent. The purpose of this provision was to shift the burden of

meeting high emission reduction goals from sources within the non-attainment regions of

Houston-Galveston and Beaumont-Port Arthur to sources outside these areas but within

the East Texas Region. The fund was created to help pay for the cost of higher reductions

from grandfathered RIC engines in the attainment areas of East Texas. However, the

Associations suggest that the Commission clarify this section so that it clearly state the

intended consequence, otherwise this section could be misconstrued to make ineligible

those engines that will be subject to a MACT standard, which is not intended. In addition,

it appears that proposed § 116.775(c)(1) contains a typo in that it still have a reference to

a facility that is located in a non-attainment area for ozone. That clause should be deleted

in order to be consistent with other subsections of this section.

Finally, proposed § 116.775(a)(6) provides that a pipeline facilities permit must be

issued before the owner/operator can request a distribution from the reimbursement

account. In practice, it seems that this requirement will be awkward as a review of

eligibility for reimbursement from the fund should be taking place simultaneously with the

review of the application. The Associations, recommend that the Commission consider

revising this section to provide that an application for a pipeline facilities permit must be

filed and undergoing technical review before the owner/operator may request a distribution

from the fund.

14. Processing of Permit Applications.

Finally, the Associations recommend that the TNRCC establish a procedure

whereby all permit applications for grandfathered facilities at the same account be

processed at the same time. One account may have several Existing Facilities Permit

applications and one or more Pipeline Facilities Permit applications. The Associations

recommend that timing oftechnical review and permit issuance be coordinated so that the

permits for all grandfathered facilities at the same account are issued at the same time.

This concludes our comments on these proposed rules. If you have any questions,

please contact us.

Sincerely,

Patrick J. Nugent

Executive Director

Association of Texas Intrastate

Natural Gas Pipelines

512/478-2871

W:C:\Files\wp\Grandfather rules comments.doc
W:C:\Files\wp\Grandfather rules comments.doc

And

Mark Sutton

Executive Director

Gas Processors Association

918/493-3872
Sent by: WorkCenter 250

January 29, 2002

01/29/02 4:1~PM Job 10

---~--_.

TeE

Page 2/6

Ms. Joyce Spencer

TNRCC

Office ofEnvironmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment

MC205

P. O. Box 13087

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

Sent Via Fax 512-239-4808

Dear Ms. Spencer,

Texas Campaign for the Environment is pleased to have this opportunity to comment on

the TNRCC's rule making regarding Chapter 116, Subchapter A, Definitions~

Subchapter H, Voluntary Emissions Reduction Permits and Subchapter I, Electric

Generating Facilities necessary to implement the legislative revisions to the TCAA, and

revisions to Chapter 39, Public Notice, necessary to implement the provisions ofHB

2912, § §5.02-5.05. The comments presented today are preliminary and Texas

Campaign for the Environment will submit additional, more detailed comments by the

January 29,2002 deadline as published by the commission, page 53 ofChapter 116 Draft

Regulatory Language and page 20 ofChapter 39 Draft Regulatory Language.

Texas Campaign for the Environment has been working since 1997 to close the

Grandfather Loophole to order to reduce the serious air quality problems in Texas,

including, but not limited to, ozone problems. TCE is concerned that certain provisions

ofthe rule will not necessarily result in significant reductions in emissions. We believe

that the Legislature's intent was also to affect real, meaningful reductions in the tonnage

of pollutants emitted into Texas air. Neither TeE nor the Legislature worked on this

issue to see tonnage reductions on paper only.

Texas Campaign for the Environment wants to make sure that compliance history ofthe

grandfathered plants is thoroughly reviewed, including but not limited to violations and

complaints, before permits are issued to any grandfathered facilities - small and large.

COMMENTS REGARDING: CHAPTER 116 CONTROL OF POLLUTION BY

PERMITS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION

Extensions, Draft Regulatory Language, page 3, paragraph 3, relating to good

cause:

611 S. Congress Avenue, Suite 200

Austin. Texas 78704

TEXAS ··CAMPAIGNj Telephone: (512) 326-5655

.lt~ ENVIR9NMENT_ Fax:(SI2)326-S922

www.texasenvironment.org
Sent by: WorkCenter 250 01/29/02 4: 17PM Job 10 Page 3/6

TeE Comments on Rule Log No. 2001-076-116-Al

Page 2 of5

TCE is requesting clarification by the commission regarding the acceptable definitions or

conditions that justify good cause for the commissions granting of a one-year extension

ofadding controls ifthe permit is not issued. Since facilities have a long lead time to

install controls, TeE does not want minimal delays in issuing pennits to result in

automatic one-year delay for the installation of controls. Nor would we want the agency

to short-circuit the process with permits by rule or standard exemptions to lessen the

workload for agency staff.

Pipeline ProvisioDs, including Draft Regulatory Language, page 4, paragraph 2,

relating to emissions reductions for grandfatbered reciprocating internal

combustion engines that apply for a pipeline facility pennit and other sections

relating to pipeline emissions i.e. Draft Regulatory Language, page 7, paragraph 1.

When this issue was debated on the floor ofthe State Senate, that body rejected an

amendment to the legislation that called for only 20% reductions ofNOx and voe from

pipelines in the eastern half ofthe state. Instead, the Senate approved the 50% minimum

because the Senate desired a meaningful level ofreductions in air pollution emissions in

Texas.

Please note recall that the Senate voted on this 50% figure prior to the Houston SIP

settlement that created the funding mechanism for reciprocating internal combustion

engines associated with pipelines. The proposed rules require real reductions in order.to

apply for these funds, which TeE supports. However. Texas Campaign for the

Environment has serious concerns that the rules as proposed by the commission which

apply to internal combustions along pipelines would only result in emissions rate

reductions versus actual, meaningful reductions oftonnage ofpollutants. We believe that

this would be counter to the legislative intent and undermine efforts to clean up serious

air quality problems in our state. This double standard ofmeasurable real reductions for

reimbursement but no measurable reductions in emissions for a pennit is troubling.

The agency should closely analyze reported pipelines emissions data to the Emissions

Inventory and information submitted regarding the hours ofoperation to determine

whether reported baseline emission rates are valid. Pennits that require a minimum of

50% reduction in NOx emission rates and in addition to VOC reductions should not be

issued without substantial changes to those facilities. Agency staffshould pledge to

make databases that track the specifics ofthe pipeline reductions available for inspection

on the Internet to allow the maximum amount ofpublic access to the information.

Specifically, TeE is concerned about the commission determining and verifying the

following for all ofthe pipeline emissions control efforts:"

I. The determination ofthe emissions rate.

2. Verification ofthe actual rates prior to and post reduction by the commission.
Sent by: WorkCenter 250 01/29/02 4:1 7 PM Job 10 Page 4/6

TeE Comments on Rule Log No. 2001-076-1 16-AI

Page 3 ofS

3. Baseline rate estimation - how will the commission calculate the baseline emissions

for the facilities that are required to make the 50 and 20% reductions in the emissions?

4. Guarantee oftonnage reductions.

5. Commission verification ofapplicants that choose to average emissions are not also

including reductions made to comply with other state or federal requirements.

6. Pipeline data reliability.

7. Verification ofreductions in rate and data on actual emission levels after pollution

controls are applied.

Guidance Documents, including the reimbunement criteria debtiled in Draft

Regulatory Language, page 7, paragraph 1 and Draft Regulatory Language, page

1S, paragrapb 1, relating to development of health effects review for EGF's. TCE is

concerned that many aspects ofthe implementation ofthe legislation is left to guidance

documents. The criteria should not be detennined solely by the commission in an

internal commission generated guidance document. For instance, the health impacts

review should include a review of complaints against the facility.

We are concerned that the public has such a limited role in the guidance document.

process. A more inclusive process could be to fonn a balanced work group that is

comprised ofindustry, environmental groups and citizens that all meet simultaneously to

work on the guidance document generation.

Issues of grandfatbered EGF's, Draft Language page 9

TCE is concerned that the modeling described for EGF's able to burn fuel oil in the draft

regulatory language is not sufficient to make a determination that any grade offuel oil

should be allowable. We understand that the agency has not completed its modeling of

these emissions.

In general, with regard to EGF's we believe the agency should take a broad look at the

exposure from aU the pollutants that grandfathered power plants emit, i.e. mercury, 5-

minute exposure to sulfur compounds, and take a very protective stand towards public

health. (Numerous research reports demonstrate that exposure to S-minute bursts of802

allowed by the current national air quality standard can trigger severe and incapacitating

asthma attacks among those with a history ofasthma.)

When there are findings ofpotential harm to public health from grandfathered EGF's, the

TNRCC should take the initiative to require clean up for both grandfathered and nongrandfathered facilities. We are concerned about effects from power plants located in

close proximity to residences, businesses and other locations where people congregate.

We are also concerned about power plant pollution that hanns waterways that are far
Sent by: WorkCenter 250 01/29/02 4:1 Q PM Job 10 Page 5/6

TCE Comments on Rule Log No. 2001-076-116-AI

Page 4 of5

from the source. Ifimpacts can be found, we are concerned that the agency might not

consider ordering changes ifthe unit is operated less than 10% ofthe time, as outlined on

page 10.

Draft Regulatory Language, page 15, paragraph 1, relating to provisions for the

measurement of air eontaminaots, including installation ofsampling ports and

sampling platforms:

TeE takes exception to the use ofthe word may and believes "may" should be changed

to "shall." The word "may" implies total freedom ofdiscretion on a case-by-case basis.

This is not protective ofpublic health, safety and the environment. Furthennore, it does

not provide unifonnity in practice. In addition, the rules do not include requirements for

certified monitoring data.

Fees, Draft Regulatory Language, page 19, paragraph 1, relating to permitting:

TeE has serious concerns that the $450 fee. for all but small business stationary sources,

is far too low. The facilities that applied for a VERP only had to pay $450, there should

be a much higher fee for companies that failed to participate in the voluntary program. In

addition, $450 is the minimum fee for a normal permit. The agency should find

appropriate staffto·deve]op a fair and equitable fee structure that covers the costs to the·

taxpayers ofstate employees doing this important work, whether or not the funds go into

the agency's budget or General Revenue.

The TNRCC could use the existing formula for a new pernrit (one-tenth or 1% ofthe

capital costs ofconstruction with a $75,000 maximum and a $450 minimum). The

agency could consider hiring a person who could determine an appropriate assessment if

there is a better benchmark than old construction costs. This is probably better done by

someone with an accounting. rather than an engineering background. However, just one

permit at the maximum level of$75,000 would pay most ofthe costs for a staffperson

who could bring in funds for the state budget.

Furthermore. the charge for a pennit for numerous facilities along a pipeline should not

be set as ifit isjust one facility.

General Comments

TCE is pleased to see that the commission has stated on page 23, paragraph 1 that: Ir there

may be additional special conditions attached to an existing facility flexible pennit upon

issuance or amendment ofthe permit that may be more restrictive than the requirements

ofthe section".

TeE is also pleased to see that the commission has stated on page 24. paragraph 1 that:

"the commission does not believe that an insignificant emission factor would be

necessary or appropriate for grandfathered facilities, since use ofthe ten year old BACT
sent by: WorkCenter 250 01/29/02 4: 10PM Job 10 Page 6/6

TCE Comments on Rule Log No. 2001-076-116-AI

Page 5 of5

method will provide sufficient flexibility for these facilities". TeE recognizes this as

limiting "wiggle" room for applicants.

COMMENTS REGARDING CHAPTER 39 PUBLIC NOTICE

Draft Regulatory Language, page 12, last paragraph, last sentence:

TCE is concerned about who will compile an accurate listing ofthe additional large

business grandfathered facilities that were not included in the 1997 emissions

inventory. How will the agency find them and add them to the list oflarge business

grandfathered facilities? How will the identification and addition ofthese facilities affect

the SIP's?

Draft Regulatory Language, page 14 paragraph one, relating to pipdine facilities

that may apply for a small business stationary source permit rather than a pipeline

facility permit:

TCE is concerned that the pipeline facilities may indeed be above the 50 tpy threshold of

any regulated air pollutant or may emit more than 75 tpy ofall regulated air pollutants

since the pipeline industry itselftestified at House and Senate Hearings that they did not

have exact emission figures for every single pipeline facility. TeE is concerned that

pipeline facilities may be improperly exempt from having to obtain an existing source

permit.

Draft Regulatory Language, page 18 paragraph one, line 11 , relating to nonaddressing of prevention of public nuisance:

TCE wants the rule revision to specifically address the prevention ofpublic nuisance and

the prevention ofimmediate threat to life or property in addition to the rule inclusion for

prevention ofreal and substantial threat to public health and safety.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these rules.

r~ere.ly. COl

\<..{)7)L-~··- Robin Schneider

Director
TEXAS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Preliminary Comments to the TNRCC on Cllapter 116 and Chapter 39

12/19/01

TEXAS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Comments Regarding Rule Log No. 2001-076-1l6-AI

Chapters 39 and 116

My name is Christine Wilson. here on behalf ofTexas Campaign for the Environment. in

the capacity as a Board Member ofTexas Campaign for the Environment. Texas

Campaign for the Environment is pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the

TNRCC's rule making regarding Chapter 116. Subchapter A, Definitions ;Subchapter H.

VolUl1.tary Emissions Reduction Permits and Subchapter I.Electric Generating Facilities

necessary to implement the legislative revisions to the TCAA, and revisions to Chapter

39, Public Notice, necessary to implement the provisions ofHB 2912, § §5.02 -5.05.

The comments presented today are preliminary and Texas Campaign for the Environment

will submit additional, more detailed comments by the January 29. 2002 deadline as

published by the commission. page 53 ofChapter 116 Draft Regulatory Language and

page 20 ofChapter 39 Draft Regulatory Language. At that time. Texas Campaign for the

Environment will submit its final written comments regarding revisions to Chapter 116

and 39.

Texas Campaign for the Environment is here today because TCE wants to see real

significant reductions in emissions not just reductions on paper. TCE wants real tonage

reductions in emissions. During the 77-th Legislative Session, the Legislature's intent

was to affect real, meaningful reductions in the tonage of pollutants emitted into Texas

air, the Legislatures intent was not to see reductions oftonage on paper. Recall that a

very heated debate ensued on the Senate Floor when a proposal for 20 %reductions of

NOx and VOC's was made. The Senate debated this issue and came up with a 50%

reduction in NOx and VOC's because the Legislatures intent is to make real. meaningful

reductions in air pollution emissions in Texas. Please recall that the Senate voted on this

50% figure prior to the Houston SIP litigation. The litigation settlement created the

funding mechanism that addresses reciprocating internal combustion engines associated

with pipelines. in HB 2914. Texas Campaign for the Environment has serious concerns

that the rules as proposed by the commission would only result in emissions rate

reductions versus actual. meaningful reductions oftonage ofpollutants.

This would be counter to the Legislative Intent.

TpY::l<: C'::lmn::lion fnr thp Fnvirnnmpnt (;11 C'nnoTP<:<: AvpnllP A\I<:tin TpY::l<: 7R704 ~1?-1?(;_~(;~~
TEXAS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Preliminary Comments to the TNRCC on Chapter 116 and Chapter 39

12/19/01 .

COMMENTS REGARDING: CHAPTER 116 CONTROL OF POLLUTION BY

PERMITS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION

1. Draft Regulatory Language, page 3, paragraph 3, relating to good cause:

TCE is requesting clarification by the commission regarding the acceptable definitions or

conditions that justify good cause for the commissions granting ofa one-year extension

for the permitting process for grandfathered facilities that are now required to obtain a

commission permit.

2. Draft Regulatory Language, page 4, paragraph 2, relating to emissions

reductions for grandfathered reciprocating internal combustion engines that apply

for a pipeline facility permit:

TCE is requesting the methodology for determination of emissions reduction to a 50%

NOx emissions level and up to a 50% reduction in VOC emissions for facilities located in

East Texas and an up to 20 % emissions reductions in NOx and VOCs in West Texas.

Specifically, TCE is concerned about the commission determining and verifying the

following:

1. The detennination ofthe emissions rate.

2. Verification ofthe actual rates prior to and post reduction by the commission.

3. Bas,eline rate estimation - how will the commission calculate the baseline

emissions for the facilities that are required to make the 50 and 20% reductions in

the emissions?

4. Guarantee oftonage reductions.

5. Commission verification ofapplicants that choose to average emissions are not

also including reductions made to comply with other state or federal requirements.

6. Pipeline data will be sparse and oflimited reliability.

7. Detennining whether or not a pipeline facility truly qualifies for HB 2914

funds.

3. Draft Regulatory Language, page 6, paragraph 3, relating to commission criteria

for determination of whom will receive money and how much they will receive:

TCE is requesting clarification regarding the specific criteria that the commission is

referring to. Language is vague.

4. Draft Regulatory Language, page 7, paragraph 1, relating to 50% reduction in

actual emissions of NOx:

TCE is concerned about the following, as was stated in Chapter 116 Comment 2, above:

1. The detennination ofthe emissions rate.

2. Verification ofthe actual rates prior to and post reduction by the commission.

2
TEXAS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Preliminary Comments to the TNRCC on C~apter 116 and Chapter 39

12/19/01

3. Baseline rate estimation - how will the commission calculate the baseline

emissions for the facilities that are required to make the 50 and 20% reductions in

the emissions?

4. Guarantee oftonage reductions.

5. Establishment of control check point criteria and verification ofsaid criteria.

6. Method of prioritization by the commission for reimbursement ofHB 2914

funds.

7. Calculation and verification ofthe 1997 industrial source point emissions

inventory. What methodology exists for evaluation ofunder reporting of 1997

figures?

5. Draft Regulatory Language, page 7, paragraph 1, and last sentence relating to

issuance of guidance:

TCE believes that the reimbursement criteria should be part ofthe Draft Regulatory

Language and such subject to Public Comment as opposed to being issued as a guidance

document, because this excludes the implementation ofthe reimbursement program from

the public comment process. The criteria should not be detennined solely by the

commission in an internal commission generated guidance document.

6. Draft Regulatory Language, page 15, paragraph 1, relating to development of

health effects review for EGF's:

TCE believes that the development ofthe health effects review should be part ofthe

Draft Regulatory Language and such subject to Public Comment as opposed to being

discretionarily reviewed by the commission of a permit by permit application basis

because this excludesthe formation ofsuch reviews from the public comment process.

The health effect parameters that were to be considered should be included in the Draft

Regulatory Language not in an internal commission generated guidance docwnent.

7. Draft Regulatory Language, page 15, paragraph 1, relating to provisions for the

measurement of air contaminants, including installation ofsampling ports and

sampling platforms:

TCE takes exception to the use ofthe word may and believes may should be changed to

shall. May implies total freedom of discretion on a case by case basis. This is not

protective ofpublic health, safety and the environment. Furthermore, it does not provide

uniformity in practice.

8. Draft Regulatory Language, page 19, paragraph 1, relating to permitting fees:

TCE has serious concerns that the $450 fee, for all but small business stationary sources,

will only partially offset the cost for the commission to process the said permits. This

relates back directly to Chapter 39, page 12, paragraph 3, relating to the commissions

3

TpY:lC: (':lmn:lian for thp Fnvirnnmpnt /'ill ('onarpc:c: AvpnllP Allc;tin TpY:lC: 7R704 'il?1?n-'\/'i'\'\
TEXAS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Preliminary Comments to the TNRCC on Chapter 116 and Chapter 39

12/19/01 .

estimation that the actual nwnber ofaffected large businesses will be higher than the

figures provided in the 1997 emissions inventory. TCE would like to know why large

businesses are only being charged $450 for a permit? These polluting facilities have run

for 30 years without a permit. -

7. Draft Regulatory Language missing language:

TCE does not find any language relating to HB 2914 emission rate reductions. Please

provide TCE with this specific Draft Regulatory Language so that we may review and

comment during the public comment phase ofthe rule making process.

8. General Comment # 1:

TCE believes that the rules should be modified such that the criteria for real reductions in

emissions should apply to all pipeline facilities not just those that get dollars from the HE

2914 fund.

9. General Comment # 2:

TCE finds it problematic to use the terminology emission rate reduction instead ofreal

emissions tonage reductions, as was the legislative intent ofHB 2912. This translates

into on paper emissions rate reductions versus real,reductions in actual total emissions,

That is not the ,intent ofthe Legislature.

9. General Comment # 3:

TCE is pleased to see that the commission has stated on page 23, paragraph 1 that: " there

may be additional special conditions attached to an existing facility flexible permit upon

issuance or amendment ofthe permit that may be more restrictive than the requirements

ofthe section".

9. General Comment # 2:

TCE is pleased to see that the commission has stated on page 24, paragraph 1 that: "the

commission does not believe that an insignificant emission factor would be necessary or

appropriate for grandfathered facilities, since use ofthe ten year old BACT method will

provide sufficient flexibility for these facilities". TCE recognizes this as limiting

"wiggling" room for applicants.

4
TEXAS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Preliminary Comments to the TNRCC on Chapter 116 and Chapter 39

12119/01 .

COMMENTS REGARDING CHAPTER 39 PUBLIC NOTICE

1. Draft Regulatory Language, page 12, last paragraph, last sentence:

TCE is concerned about who will compile an accurate listing ofthe additional large

business grandfathered facilities that were not included in the 1997 emissions

inventory. How will the agency find them and add them to the list oflarge business

grandfathered facilities? How will the identification and addition ofthese facilities affect

the SIP's?

2. Draft Regulatory Language, page 14 paragraph one, relating to pipeline facilities

that may apply for a small business stationary source permit rather than a pipeline

facility permit:

TCE is concerned that the pipeline facilities may indeed be above the 50 tpy threshold of

any regulated air pollutant or may emit more than 75 tpy of all regulated air pollutants

since the pipeline industry itselftestified at House and senate Hearings that they did not

have exact emission figures for every single pipeline facility. TCE is concerned that

pipeline facilities may be improperly exempt from having to obtain an existing source

permit.

3. Draft Regulatory Language, page 14 paragraph one, relating to the statement

that there may be additional grandfathered small and micro-businesses that have

not shown up on the 1997 emissions inventory:

TeE is concerned about who will compile an accurate listing ofthe additional small and

micro-business grandfathered facilities that were not included in the 1997 emissions

inventory. How will the agency find them and add them to the list ofsmall and microbusiness grandfathered facilities? How will the identification and addition ofthese

facilities affect the SIP's?

4. Draft Regulatory Language, page 16 paragraph three, relating to the definition of

a major environmental rule:

TCE is requesting clarification ofthe commission's determination that implementing HB

2912 §§ 5.02 - 5.04 does not meet the definition ofa" major environmental rule".

5

TpYll"l rllmnllian for thE'! F'nvimnmpnt nIl ronarp"l"l AvpnllP Alldin TpYll"l 7R704 ~l?-~?Il-~n~~
TEXAS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Preliminary Comments to the TNRCC on Chapter 116 and Chapter 39

12/19/01

5. Draft Regulatory Language, page 18 paragraph one, line 11 , relating to nonaddressing of prevention of public nuisance:

TeE wants the rule revision to specifically address the prevention ofpublic nuisance and

the prevention ofimmediate threat to life or property in addition to the rule inclusion for

prevention ofreal and substantial threat to public health and safety.

Ck~u~ /:t/lq/() (

~a<~.-f fk $,(/Iflw.4-

6
CITY OF HOUSTON

Office of the Mayor

Lee P. Brown

8

Mayor

p.o. Box 1562

Houston.Texas 77251-1562

901 Bagby. 3rd Floor

Houstori.Texas 77002

January 21, 2002

The Honorable Jeff Saitas, Executive Director

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

P. O. Box 13087

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

Dear Mr. Saitas:

T. 713.247.2545

F. 713.247.1067

www.cityofhouston.gov

i

The City of Houston worked very closely with the Texas Legislature during the

last legislative session to have legislation adopted that would eliminate grandfathered facilities as well as reduce industrial upsets. House Bill 2912 contains

specific provisions that address each of these very important policy issues.

The City of Houston is pleased that the Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission (Commission) has proposed regulations to implement the provisions

of HB2912 relating to grand-fathered facilities. My staff has carefully reviewed

the proposed regulations; I take this opportunity to offer the following comments

to ensure that these regulations achieve the intended effects of HB2912:

1. The City commends the TNRCC for drafting regulations for grandfathered facilities that specifically track the provisions of HB2912 and

urges prompt adoption of these proposed regulations.

2. Significant emission reductions should be achieved in the HoustonGalveston-Brazoria non-attainment Region as grand-fathered facilities

are permitted and pollution control technology is installed. Additional

and perhaps as significant emission reductions are likely to be

achieved as the upset control provisions of HB2912 are implement~d.

The City of Houston urges the Commission to quantify these likely

emission reductions at the earliest opportunity and to complete air

quality modeling to determine the ozone and fine particle reductions

that will result from the control of grand-fathered facilities and fewer

industrial upsets. These modeling results will enable the City of

Houston to work with various other Regional stakeholders to develop

an early strategy to avoid non-attainment of the forthcoming fine

particle standard. Attainment of the ozone standard also may be

Council Members: Bruce Tatro Carol M. Galloway Mark Goldberg Ado Edwards Addie WiseITon Mark A. Ellis Bert KoPer Gabriel V~'quez Carol Alvarado

Ann"", D. Porker Gordon Quan Shelley Sekula-Rodriquez M 0 Michael Berrv err'nll Rnhimnn ;::':"'n"""'" , :-:" n ._
FROM : DR PAMELA BERGER MAYORS OFFICE FAX NO. 7132471379 Feb. 01 213132 l2I3: S2PM . PS

';':11' H'.l:"~r.:-'!.~ H.I ';·.1i:r.l\. l:Xt,¢lj!;VIl Di")I:IOI

f:t~r:. l\.tl)'\)t Lf..'" P AtOLVn

I ;';,m.nI'IoII. Ha2{)1:1

Jcmuu'y?3. 200? ~"ngEl2 1)1

assured by the implementation of the grand-fathered facilities and

upset control provisions of HS2912. .

3. HB2912 allows the Commission to take up to two years to review

permit applications that are submitted with regard to grand-fathered

faclJities. Fine particles and ozone fevels are certain to be reduced as

emissions from these types of facilities are reduced. Because of this

fact, the three million Texans who live in the Houston Region Will

receive significant pUblic health benefits as these proposed regulations

are implemented. The City of Houston urges, therefore.· that

procedures be established by the Commission to promptly review the

permit applications submitted by grand-fathered facilities so that

related permits are issued within six to twelve months after receipt of

the permit applications.

4. The proposed regUlations allow large industrial facilities to obtain

facility wide, flexible permits for their grand-fathered facilities rather

than just· plant specific permits. The Commission should take extra

care as facility wide permits are issued to ensure that the emissloh·

reductions standards of HB2912 are also consistently met in these·

Instances.

The proposed regulations regarding grand-fathered facilities, coupled with the

ozone State Implementation Plan for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria nonattainment Region and the forthcoming emphasis on industrial upsets, ensure

cleaner, healthier airfor Houstonians to breathe within the next five to six years.

As Mayor of the City of Houston, I thank you for your hard work on these Issues

for ttie benefit of our citizens.

rt

Lee P. Brown

Mayor

LPB:PMB

....

cc: The Honorable Robert J. Huston, Chairman

The Honorable R. B. aRalphDMarquez, Commissioner

The Honorable Kathleen Hartnett \Nhite, Commissioner

i

i
JAN-29-2002 TUE 05:53 PM STR~~r.GIC &ENV PLANNING FAX NO. 21° i53 3012 P. 02

City Public Service

of

San Antonio, Texas

G

January 29, 2002

Ms. Joyce Spencer

Office ofEnvironmental Policy, Analysis and Assessment

Texas Natural Resourco Conservation Commission

Mail Code 205

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

Dear Ms Spencer:

City Public Service, tho electncutility.that provides electricity and gas to the citizens of .

San Antonio, Texa.~~ submits the following comments on Rule Log No. 2001·076·116~AT.

Thank yOll for your attention and the opportunity to comment on these proposed nIles. If

you have any questions, please contact me at 210~353-2875.

Sincerely, t'

.... ";t~~

Cynthia Levesque

Supervisor, Pennits Section

"',.,.. " , """ -
JAN-29-2002 TUE 05:54 PM STRP~~GIC &ENV PLANNING

City Puhlic Service (CPS)

Comments on Chapler 116

Rule Log No. 2001-076·116wAI

FAX NO, 21 P i53 3012 P. 03

Senate 13i11 7 required the TNRCC to develop an allowance based system for electric

generating lacililies (EOP's) :For the units in near-nonaUainmC:lllt areas in cast Texas such

m: CPS facilities, this program is promulgated in TNRCC regulations, Chapter 117

Subchapter B. Division 2, and Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 2 which allows system

averaging and is based on an annual allocation of tons based On the years 1996 through

1998. An al1(,~wance·bascd or cnp-and~trade program is one in which n~xibility of control

is the key. Based on Ulis premise, it seems reasonable to develop an EGF permit program

which allows flexibility of control to meet annual allowances envisioned by Scnatc Bill 7.

CPS believes that some ofthe language in proposed Chapter 11 (j may heed to be changed

in order to maintain this flexibility.

• The proposed Section 116.771 should not apply to EGFs (Subchapter I) becausc it

implies that controls arc mandated and that an implementation schedule must bo

provided for the installation and operation ofsuch controls. The proposed statement to

. thi~ cm~ct is: "If installation of additional controls is requIred.. , the pCJ.·mitshnti ..

. specify an implementation schedule...Any such schedule shalll'cquire installation rind

·operation of controls before March 1.2007", First, the deadline for issuing pemlits and

implementntion ofthe 813 7 progmm is 2003 and EOPs would have applied cont.rols by

th,lt lime, not 2007. Secondly, SD 7 did not impose any type of specific control

technology but allows flexibility to determine how to meet allocated allowances. In the

January 7, 2000 Texas Register, page 201 preamble to the adopted Chapter 116 rules~

tho TNRCC stated, 'The commission agrees that the TNRCC cannot require a

grandfathercd or ejecting EGF to usc any specific control technology to ensure that

their actual emissions do not exceed their allotted allowances". FLlrthelmorc. existing

Section 117.138 provides for a l1exible system cap. Therefore, the wording in the

proposed Section 116.771 should be changed to exclude EGl~s which lire s'llbjcct to

Subchapter I since controls arc not mandated nor is n schedule of implementation

required und~r the program.

• All EOPs under the proposed Section 116.911 (d) arc com~;dered permitted for an

contaminants. CPS would hope that the lNRCC would continue the idea envisioned

by Senale Bill 7 that these permits would be considered as unique from other permits in

providing the flcxilibility of control Dnd allocation of allowances based on annual limits

provided for Chapter 101, Subchapter H. Division 2.

• Under the proposed Section 116.9101 an BOP may re-open the pennit to include such

units ns auxiliary boilers or emergency generators. Irowever, under lhe proposed

methodology Lor adding the new units at existing EGFs, at proposed Section 116.917~
JAN-29-2002 TUE"05:55 PM STR~~~GIC &ENV PLANNING FAX NO, 21 r 153 3012 P, 04/04

the permit is brought into tho standardi:t.ed staLe permitting requirements rather than

conLinuation ofthe flexible allowance based system previously described, For example,

proposed Scction 116.918 (b)(S» continues the "command and control" thought process

in language that states liThe permitted facilities shall not be operated unless all air

pollution emission capture and abatement equipment is maintained in good wOi'king

order and operating proporly during normal facility operations." This statement rlcgatc~

the flexibility provided under the allowance-based system provided for EGFs in which

companies can detemline their own method of compliance. The proposed language

needs to be ehLUlgod to provide for the allowance based ~ystem envisioned by Senate

Bill?
JAN-30-2002 WED 05:51 PM STRAT~~IC &ENV PLANNING FAX NO. 210 153 3012 P. 02

v, . fJ'~d~"il~~ ~'~;'tl..·d ...,,' :.,. "''.l..' 'W••

,'..:.:' \., '.

City Public Service

of

San Antonio, Texas

January 30, 2002

8

Ms. Joyce Spencer

Office ofEnvironmenlal Policy, Analysis and Assessment

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commi:;~ion

Mail Code 205

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

Dear Ms Spencer:

City Public Service (CPS), submitted comments yesterday on Rule Log No. 2001-076-116-

AI. We have one additional comment that we failed to include in those comments that we

would respectfully like to ask that you consider.

The comment is regarding the level of percent sulfur ill the fuel oil. CPS has historically

obtained fuel oil of grades 2 through 6, with contracted levels of sulfur at or below 0.7%.

We have done calculations which show that burning ruel oil at or below 0.7% sulrur allows

us to meet the TNRCC state regulation of 400 ppm found at Section 112.9. 1 enclose n.

chart which depicts the result ofthese calculations;

CPS believes that TNRCC should consider allowing utilities to burn fuel oil at levels of

sulfur at or below 0.7% or at least consider modeling these levels to determine impacts

with the stnte standards.

Thank you for your attention and the opportunity to comment on these proposed rules. If '

you have any questions, please contact me at 7,10~353-2875.

Sincerely. • /

~.-,~~ /'~nthia Levesque

Supervisor, Permits Section
(Y)

<::)

........

(Y)

<::)

MAXIMUM SULFUR CONTENT IN OIL

TO MEET STATE EMISSION LIMITS

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PERCENT SULFUR

1.0 ,----------------------------------------,

360 --,., PPM

19000 20000

--=_=.LII_

12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000 18000

BTU CONTENT OF FUEL OIL (BTU/LB)

11000

._--------- ..- ---- - ---- -

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.6

0.6

0.2 r- -.---------------

i

0.1 ~-------------

0.0 j'--__-.l.. ....L- ..L-__--L -.l-. _..L .....l___---I

10000

0.4

I

t ' 0.3'" ------------------------. I

I

N

-

<::)

(Y)

(Y)

Ln

('I"'"

Co

-N

g

:x:

<C

t.z..
FROM FAX NO. :

DOWNWINDERS AT RISK

BLUE SKIES ALLIANCE

Tuesday, January 29.2002

Ms. Joyce Spencer Office ofEnvironmenta1 Policy, Analysis and Assessment

MC205

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, TX 78711-3087

FAX 512/239-4808

Jan. 29 2002 04:15PM P1/3

8

Comments Regarding Rule Log No. 2001-076-116-AI

Chapters 39 and 116 .

Below are comments concerning TNRCC's rule making regarding Chapter 116, SUbchapter.A,

Definitions; Subchapter H, Voluntary Emissions Re~ucti~m Pe~ts and Subchapter I. Elect:t~ Generating Facilities necessary to implement the legtslatlVe reVISions to the TeM, and teVISlonS to.

Chapter 39, PUblic Notice, necessary to implement the provisions ofHB 2912, § §S.02 -5.05 submttted

on behalfofDownwinders at Risk and Blue Skies Alliance. . .

The job ofthe TNRCC is the carry out the intent ofthe Texas Legisiature The law must be enforced,

loopholes closed. and public health protected. The TNRCC must be committed to these three goals arid

write strong rules which do not undennine the intent ofthe Texas Legislature-an intent which was

explicit. Consider the heated debate that ensued on the Senate Floor when a proposal for 20%

reductions ofNOx and VOC's was made. In the end the Senate supported 50% reduction in NOx and

VOC's, not the 20%, because their intent was to make real, meaningful reductions in air pollution

emissions in Texas.

The recent release ofthe Environmental Protection Agency's MOBlLE6 study which projects that

vehicles will-emit 90% more NOx and 21%VOCs in 2003 than once thought means that reductions will

have to be made elsewhere in order for cities, including the DallaslFort Worth Metroplex, to meet the

goals oftheir State Implementation Plans (SIPs). The proposed rule prompts concern over whether it

will push for meaningful reductions that will assist non-attainment areas in meeting federal law and

protecting the public from harmful air pollution.

To begin, there is concern over whether the proposed rules, especially regarding combustion engines

along pipelines, meet with the Legislature's intent. & you know, combustion engines along pipelines

are a significant source ofNOx and VOCs and they, along with other grandfathered sources, should be

asked to make real reductions. The methodology for determining emissions reductions should use

baseline rate estimation, guarantee tonnage reductions. and emissions should be reliably monitored and

tracked to ensure greatest reductions.

Downwinders at Risk and Blue Skies Alliance believe that the development ofthe health effects review

should be pan ofthe Draft Regulatory Lan~uage and such subject to Public Comment as opposed to

:- 972.296.9100. Fax 972.296.9106

400 North Main Street - DUDcan-viUe, TX 75116

P.O. Box 763844 • Dallas, TX 75376-3844
FROM FAX NO. Jan. 29 2002 04:15PM P2/3

being discretionarily reviewed by the commission on a permit by pennit application basis because this

excludes the fonnation ofsuch reviews from the public comment process (Draft Regulatory Language,

page IS, paragraph 1, relating"to development of health effects l"eview for EGF's).

The health effect parameters that were to be considered should be included in the Draft Regulatory

Language not in an internal commission generated guidance document.

Downwinders at Risk and Blue Skies Alliance take exception to the use ofthe word "may" and believe

"may" should be changed to "shall". ''May'' implies total freedom ofdiscretion on a case by case basis.

This is not protective ofpublic health, safety and the environment. Furthennor~, it does n~t.provide

uniformity in practice (Draft Regulatory Language, page 15, paragraph 1, relating to ~rovlsl0ns for the

measurement of air contaminants, including installation ofsampling ports and samplmg platforms).

Downwinders at Risk and Blue Skies Alliance have serious concerns that the $450 fee, for all but small

business stationary sources, will only partially offset the cost for the commission to process the said

permits. This relates back directly to Chapter 39, page 12, paragraph 3, relating to the commissions

estimation that the actual number of affected large businesses will be higher than the figures provided in

the 1997 emissions inventory. Downwinders at Risk and Blue Skies Alliance would like to know why

large businesses are only being charged $450 for a permit? These polluting facilities have run for 30

years without a pennit (Draft Regulatory Language, page 19. paragraph 1, relating to permitting fees).

Downwinders at Risk and Blue Skies Alliance believe there are problems with the use ofthe

.terminology "emission rate reduction" instead ofreal emissions tonnage reductions, as was the.

legislative intent ofHB2912. This translates into on paper emissions rate reductions versus real

reductions in actual total emissions. That is not the intent ofthe Legislature.

Downwinders at Risk and Blue Skies Alliance are pleased to see that the commission has stated on page

23, paragraph 1 that: " there may be additional special conditions attached to an existing facility flexible

permit upon issuance or amendment ofthe permit that may be more restrictive than the requirements of

the sectionll• Downwinders at Risk and Blue Skies Alliance is pleased to see that the commission has

stated on page 24, paragraph 1 that: lithe commission does not believe that an insignificant emission

factor would be necessary or appropriate for grandfathered facilities, since use ofthe ten year old BACT

method will provide sufficient flexibility for these facilities". Downwinders at Risk and Blue Skies .

Alliance recognize this as limiting "wiggling" room for applicants.

COMMENTS REGARDING CHAPTER 39 PUBLIC NOTICE

Downwinders at Risk and Blue Skies Alliance are concerned about who will compile an accurate listing

ofthe additional large business grandfathered facilities that were not included in the 1997 emissions

inventory. How will the agency find them and add them to the list oflarge business grandfathered

facilities? How will the identification and addition ofthese facilities affect the SIP's? (Draft Regulatory

Language, page 12, last paragraph, last sentence)

Relating to pipeline facilities that may apply for a small business stationary source pennit rather than a

pip~~i~e facili~y permit, Downwinders at Risk and Blue Skies Alliance are concerned that the pipeline

faclhtles may mdeed be above the 50 tpy threshold of any regulated air pollutant or may emit more than

7S tpy of all regulated air pollutants since the pipeline industry itselftestified at House and Senate

;- Hearing.~ that they did not have exact emission figures for every single pipeline facility. Downwinders at
FROM FAX NO. Jan. 29 2002 04:16PM P3/3

Risk and Blue Skies Alliance are concerned that pipeline facilities may btl impropedy exempt from

having to obtain an existing source permit. (Draft Regulatory Language, page 14 paragraph one)

Relating to the statement that there may be additional grandfathered small and micro-businesses that

have not shown up on the 1997 emissions inventory, Downwinders at Risk and Blue Skies Alliance are

concerned about who will compile an accurate listing ofthe additional small and micro-business

grandfathered facilities that were not included in the 1997 emissions inventory. How will the agency

find them and add them to the list ofsmall and micro-business grandfathered facilities? How will the

identification and addition ofthese facilities affect the SIP's? (Draft Regulatory Language, page 14

paragraph one)

Downwinders at Risk and Blue Skies Alliance are concerned that the Commission did not include

mercury and lead in this role-making. This is a good opportunity to obtain lower emissions ofthese

harmful pollutants.

Thank you {or allowing our conunents on this critical issue. We are looking forward to your positive

action toward closing the loophole on these outdated facilities.

Sincerely,

t!::::zo~- Co-Chair, Downwinders at Risk Education Fund

Katy ubener

Director, Blue Skies Alliance
JAN-29-2002 rUE 10:28 AM

J.anuary 29, 2002

FAX NO.

e

eNVIRONMeNTAL OeFeNSe

finding Ihr,: waY$ that work

P. 02

8

Joyce Spencer

Offlce ofEnvironmental Policy, Analysis and Assessment

.Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Me 205

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, TX 78711-3087

Re: Rule Log Number 2001-076-116-AI

1)ear~s.Spcnce~

Environment31 Defense submits the following COInments on the proposed rules for the permitting of

gnl.ndfllthercd faciliries. Environmental Defense represents approximately 15,000 members in Texas.

Gencnll S\lpportfor the way HE 2914 funds are used

We support the proposed requirement in §116.776(a)(1) that actual emission reductions of50% occur

in order to qualify for incentive funds. We also support the criteria proposed for distribution offunds

for pipeline £l.ciliries in §116.776(c), with one exception. The funds should not be used for reductions

alrccl.dy required in a SIP; facilities in nonartainment arc~s should thus be ineligible for incentives.

ClarifY. when New SI)UrCe Review applies

The TNRCC should ensure that pipeline open\tors do not use permits established in HB 2912, 77'b

Texas Legislature, as a way to make operational or physical changes such as increasing the utilization,

capacity, or throughput ofexisting unies without going through the normal new source review

permitting process. The commission should clarify that a conventional new source review permit

would be required ifan applicant, as part ofpermitting a grandfathered facility, wishes to make a

physical or operational modification that has the potential to significantly increase emissions. For

example, the size ofthe emissions cap under an e.'<isting faciUty flexible permit, as proposed in

§116.800, is based on "expected maximum capacity.n Similar concerns apply to pipeline facilities

permits. The commission should add a requirement that the expected ma..'lCimum capacity under any

grandfathered permit may not significantly exceed historica11evcls.

Establish a cap on cmi$~ioo~ from pipeline faciliries

The TNRCC should use its existing general authority to protect public health and adopt stronger rules .

;- that ensure predictable and significant emissions reductions occur from the permitting of

rO",1.'\ (J/llce' 44 Fnt.t Avp.nue· flu:.lin. TX 76701 •Tel 512 476 5161 •fax 612 0478 81'10· www.onvlronml!ntaJdcrcn~(r.org

NWI York, NY' W",.hingloll. DC· O:akl:md, CI\ • BOl.lldor, CO . Raloiyh. NC Projcc.1 Orri('o~ • l:3('1ftton. MJ\ •lOll MUe1cll. Cf\
JAN-29-2002 rUE 10:28 AM FAX NO. P. 03

grnndfathercd pipeline facilities. The TNRCC relied on this general authority to require a 50%

reduction in the emissions ofall power plants in East and Central Texas (even though legislation only

called for 500/0 reductions from grandfathered plants), along with a number ofother strategies that have

been included in the SIPs for DFWand HGA. To the extent that TNRCC is going to claim credit

for the permitting ofgrandfathercd pipeline faciliti~s in the SIP, itmust provide reasonable assurance

that the projected emission reductions will be achieved in practice. The September 2001 HGA SIP

revision states that "[t]hc Lcgisla~e requires grandfathered sources in this region to reduce: emissions

ofNOx by approximately 50%" (p. 6-3). The TNRCC will have to do more than adopt a 50%

reduction in emission rates from pipelin~ facilities in order for this meaSure to be creditable under tho

SIP, We urge the commission to est.\blish a cap on emissions from pi}1eline facilities, modelcd after

the emission reduction progr-c\m established in SB7.

DefiQc a den.T m~rhorlology to determine the haseline from which pipeline facilities' emissions

reductionsJll"e measured

§116.779 does; notspecify how baseline emissions or emissions ratcs ofpipeline facilities will be

determined. We anticipate that the data on the operation ofaffected pipelinc facilities will be sparse

and oflimited reliability. We fear that affected pipeline operators wilt artificially inflate the baseline

emission rates in order to qualify for a higher emission rate in its permit. (This would nor be a pfohlem

under an emissions cap, as established in SB7j all facilities would be allocated a limited number of

emission allowances equal to 50% ofthe total tons ofemissions ill the baseline year). .

IfthcTNRCC does not establish an SB7 type ofcap on pipeline facilities, then in esmblishing the

baseline from which reductions will be measured, the commission should either:

• require certified monitoring data that establishes the baseline emission rate for each affected

facili ty; or

• establish default baseline rates for various engine types, on the basis ofpublished emissions data or

certified ~missions tesring ofa representative sample ofaffected units in Texas. Variables to

consider include size, age, load factor, fuel type, operating char.lctenst'ks (lean-burn, e.g.); f\.leI

type, and control devices, ifany. .& a cross-check, the product ofthe baseline emissions rate and

the annual bours ofoperation ofa representative facility should be approximarely the same as the

reported annual emissions.

Define how average emissions from m\ll!ipte pipeline £"ldlities arc cakuhltcd

The proposed rules at §116.779(b)(3) do not describe how an average emissions rate from multiple

pipeline f.'lcilities is calculated. The commission should define how such a calculation should 1?e

performed. This calculation must weight individual units by their capacity and hours ofoperation to

ensure that the averaging process docs not decrease the actual amount ofemissions reduction that

would have been achieved through the permitting process ifthe units had been permitted individually.

I

I

I
JAN-29-2002 rUE 10:29 AM

Ccrtific:ation o(grandf.\thered.stlltus at time ofpermitting

FAX NO. P. 04

The legislature intended for the provisions ofHB 2912 to apply only to facilities that were legally

grandfathcrcd, namely they predate the Clean Air Act and had not been modified since 1971. We

urge the commission to add a. requirement that in qrder for a grandfarhered facility to be issued a

permit; the applicant must provide a certification, signed by a responsible official, that the facility has

not been modified since 1971. Such a certification should be included as an additional piece of

information to be provided under §1l6.779(a) and §116.794.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments.

~~PhJ). Scientist~!J
JAN-29-2002 16:58 6PD EPA REGION 6 2146657263 P.02/07

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 6

1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200

DALLAS. TX 75202-27:33

Mr. Herbert W. Williams, Jr.

Director

Policy and Regulations Division

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, TX 78711-3087

RE: Proposed Revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC)

Chapters 116 and 39 to Revise the State Implementation Plan

Rule Log Number: 2001-076-116-AI

Dear Mr. Williams:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed

changes to 30 TAC Chapters 39 and 116 to revise the State

Implementation Plan. We are very pleased with the efforts in the

State of Texas to significantly reduce emissions from Electric

Generating Facilities and Grandfathered Faciliti~s. These

regional reductions will not only result in improvements to air

quality in and around the facilities, but should provide a direct

benefit in reducing ozone levels in the nonattainment and near

nonattainment areas of the State and a direct benefit in reducing

regional haze. We are fully supportive of the efforts of the

State in developing these important regulations. We offer the

enclosed comments to help strengthen the overall plan.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

forward to seeing the final rule when submitted. If you

questions, please call Mr. Rick Barrett of my staff at

(214) 665-7227.

Sincerely yours,

l:::~ Air Permits section

Enclosure

We look

have any

cc: Ms. Joyce Spencer

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Internet Address (URL) - http~"www.eDa.qov/9aI1h1 raJ

RecycledIRecyclable - Printed with Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (MInimum 30% Poetoonsumer)
JAN-29-2002 16:58 ~PD EPA REGION 6 2146657263 P.03/07

Rule Log Number: 2001-076-116-AI

Comments from the Air Permits Section (6PD-R)

CHAPTER 39, Subchapters Hand K concerning Public Notice.

NO COMMENTS

CHAPTER 116, Subchapters A, H, and I concerning Control of Air

Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

1. In the "BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE

PROPOSED RULES", it reads that House Bill 2912 provides that

gas-fired Electric Generating Facilities (EGF) that were

required to obtain a permit under Senate Bill (SB) 7, or

were exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit under

SS 7, are considered permitted for all air contaminants.

Clarification and discussion of the portion which reads "are

considered permitted for all air contaminants H should be

included.

2. In the "SECTION BY SECTION DISCUSSION", it would"be helpful

to include more discussion on what is a "Small Business"

under Section 382.014 of the Texas Clean Air Act.

SUBCHAPTER A: DEFINITIONS (Sections 116.10, 116.18)

3. Section 116.18. Electric Generating Facility Permits

Definitions. Section 116.18 (11) (a) reads "American Society

for Testing and Materials (ASTM) grade number 1 or 2 fuel

oil containing not more than 0.3% sulfur by weight." In

order to insure compliance, we recommend adding "as

determined by ASTM method D396" to the end of the sentence.

4. Section 116.18. Electric Generating Facility Permits

Definitions. Section 116.18{11} (B). Part of this section

reads that acceptable fuel oil grades are "any other grade

of fuel oil which the owner or operator of the EGF

demonstrates to the executive director is protective of

public health and physical propertyq. There should be

"replicable" procedure for how the executive director will

determine if "any other grade of fuel oil" is protective of

public health and physical propertyu.

S. Section 116.18. Electric Generating Facility Permits

Definitions. Section 116.18(12). This definition reads:

"Normal Annual Operating Schedule - For the purposes of

,.
JAN-29-2002 16:58 6PD EPA REGION 6

2

2146657263 P.04/07

§116.911(f) (1), the average annual operating hours for all

electric generating facilities located at a single account

for the calendar years 1997, 1998, and 1999." What is the

basis for selecting the calendar years 1997, 1998, and 1999,

and why are the years 2000 and 2001 excluded?

SUBCHAPTER H; PERMITS FOR GRANDFATHERED FACILITIES [VOLUNTARY

EMISSION REDUCTION PERMITS] (Sections 116.770 116.807)

6. Section 116.771. Implementation Schedule for Additional

Controls. Part of this section reads that "the permit shall

specify an implementation schedule for such additional

controls." The rule should clarify that the implementation

schedule is agreed upon prior to permit issuance and

incorporated into the permit.

7. Section 116.772. Notice of Shutdown. In this section,

"Form PI-1GSD, Notice of Shutdown" is discussed. Is this

form available for public review and comment? This comment

also applies to Section 116.779. Applications for Small

Business Stationary Source Permits, Pipeline Facilities

Permits, or Existing Facility Permits, Sectio~ 116.779(a}.

See -below. -

8. Section 116.772. This rule should clarify that a source

which shuts down and then restarts must be re-permitted

under SUbchapter B of Chapter 116 or under Chapter 106.

9. Section 116.776. Distribution of Funds from the Emissions

Reductions Incentives Account for Control of Emissions from

Grandfathered Reciprocating Internal combustion Engines

Located in the East Texas Region. Sections (a) (4), and (5)

discuss the reimbursement of a porcion of the cost of

controls from the Emissions Reductions Incentives Account.

The provisions of a schedule for controlling emissions

should be agreed upon prior to permit issuance and included

as terms and conditions of the permit.

10. Section 116.776 (b), (c) and (d). This section discusses

the reimbursement of a portion of the cost of controls from

the Emissions Reductions Incentives Account. The provisions

pertaining to the reimbursement of funds does not need to be

submitted as a part of the State Implementation Plan.

11. Section 116.777. Eligibility for Existing Facility Permits.

This section should clarify how an ."Existing Facility

Permit n differs from a permit to operate under section

116.770. \ .
JAN-29-2002 16:58 6PD EPA REGION 6

3

2146657263 P.05/07

12. Section 116.779 (b). This section should provide that the

application for a pipeline facilities permit should include

the control measures to be used, and the schedule for

installing and implementing the control methods which will

be a part of the permit.

13. Sections 116.779 (b) (1), (2). The pipeline facilities

permit needs to specify the method for determining how the

source will demonstrate achievement of 50 percent and 20

percent reduction, respectively, on a continual basis.

14. Section 116.780. Public Participation for Initial Issuance

of Pipeline Facilities Permits and Existing Facility

Permits. This section discusses initial permit issuance. . HOw will 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.161 (Public

Availability of Information) be met for revisions and

modifications to previously issued permits?

15. Section 116.780. This section should also specify that all

information relating to the permit, such as units being

permitted, control methods, air quality impacts, etc., are

available to the public.

16. Section 116.781. Notice and Comment Hearings for Initial

Issuance of Pipeline Facilities Permits and Existing

Facility Permits. It is not clear that this rule satisfies

the public participation requirements of 40 CPR 51.161 for

revised or modified permits. The Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission (TNRCC) should require public notice

for revisions and modifications to meet 40 CFR 51.161.

17. Section 116.786. General and special Conditions. Section

115.786 (b) (2) does not meet 40 CFR 51.212 (c) which

provides that compliance must be determined by methods in

40 CFR 51 Appendix M, 40 CFR 60 Appendix A, or as approved

by the EPA Administrator.

18. Section 116.786. (b) (3). This section should also discuss

public availability of records. Records should be available

to the public upon request unless determined to be

confidential business information under 40 CFR 2.

19. Section 116.786. (c) (2) (A). This section discusses special

conditions for written approval. The public record for any

permit application should document the basis for requiring,

or not requiring, prior written approval from the executive

director.

,.
JAN-29-2002 16:59 6PD EPA REGION 6

4

2146657263 P.06/07

20. Section 116.793. Eligibility for Existing Facility Flexible

Permits. Please clarify how an "Existing Facility Flexible

Permit H is distinguished from a "Flexible Permit" under

Subchapter G.

21. Section 116.794. Existing Facility Flexible Permit

Application. Section 116.794(3}. The air pollution control

methods should be agreed upon prior to permit issuance and

incorporated as terms and conditions into the permit.

22. Section 116.794(14}. This section discusses proposed

control technology and compliance demonstration. It should

also include the schedule for installing controls or

implementing emission reductions.

23. Section 116.795. Public Participation for Initial Issuance

of Existing Facility Flexible Permits. It is not clear that

this rule satisfies the public participation requirements of

40 CPR 51.161 for revised or modified permits. The TNRCC

should require public notice for revisions and modifications

to meet 40 CFR 51.161.

24. Section 116~799. General and Special Conditions. section

116.799 (c) (2) does not meet 40 CPR 51.212(0) which

provides that compliance must be determined by methods in

40 CFR 51 Appendix M, 40 CFR 60 Appendix A, or as approved

by the Environmental Proteotion Agency (EPA) Administrator.

25. Section 116.801. Implementation Schedule for Additional

Controls. Control measures and schedules must be agreed

upon prior to permit issuance and incorporated as terms and

conditions of the permit.

-

SUBCHAPTER I: ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY PERMITS (Sections

116.910 - 116.930)

26. Section 116.911. Electric Generating Facility Permit

Application. Section 116.911 (d) reads that "Any

grandfathered natural gas-fired EGF for which a permit

application was filed under subsection (a) of this section,

has obtained a permit in accordance with subsection (a) of

this section, or is excluded in accordance with §116.910(d)

of this title (relating to Applicability) from the

requirement to submit an application under subsection (a) of

this section is considered permitted for the emissions of

all air contaminants from that EGF." The public record

should clarify and e~plain that portion which reads "is

considered permitted for the emissions of all air
2146657263 P.07/07

5

contaminants from that EGF."

27. Section 116.913. General and Special Conditions. Portions

of Sections (a) (1) (Al and (E) read ~emissions of all air

contaminants" and "all air ~ontaminantsn, respectively. The

public rec~rd should clarify and explain ~[emissions ofl all

air contaminants".

28. Section 116.917. Electric Generation Facility Permit

Application for Certain Grandfathered Coal-Fired Eleotric

Generating Facilities and Certain Grandfathered Facilities

Located at Electric Generating Facility Sites. Section

116.917 Ca) (2) regards the measurement of emissions. The

Electric Generating Facility Permit should contain

provisions for measuring the emission of air contaminants as

determined by the Commission.

29. Section 116.917 (a) (6) regards performance demonstration.

In order to insure initial and ongoing compliance, the

Commission should require both initial and ongoing

compliance measures; for example, periodic monitoring.

30. Section 116.918. Additional General and Special Conditions

for Grandfathered Coal-Fired Electric Generating Facilities

and Certain Grandfaehered Facilities Located at Electric

Generating Facility Sites. Section 116.918(b) (2) regards

equivalency of methods by alternative methods. The Section

does not meet 40 CFR 51.212 (c) which requires that

compliance be determined by methods in 40 CFR 51 Appendix M,

40 CFR 60 Appendix A, or as approved by the EPA

Administrator.

31. Sec~ion 116.921. Notice and Comment Hearings for Initial

Issuance. Section 116.921 (a) reads that ~The notice and

comment hearing requirements apply only to the initial

issuance of sn [a] electric generating facility permit

(EGFP)n. The TNRCC should require public notice for

revisions and modifications to meet 40 CFR 51.161.

TOTAL P.0?
From: John D. Wilson To: Joyce Spencer

January 29, 2002

Date: 1/29/2002 Time: 4:56:40 PM Page 2 of3

8

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment

MC205

P. O. Box 13087

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

Attn: Ms. Joyce Spencer

Re: Rule Log Number2001-076-116-AI

Dear Commissioners:

Please accept the enclosed comments from the Galveston-Houston Association for Smog

Prevention (GHASP) on the proposed rule revisions to establish requirements and procedures

for the permitting ofgrandfathered facilities and related matters.

GHASP enthusiastically supports these revisions and congratulates the elected officials of

Texas whose leadership made these rules possible. We are pleased to support TNRCC in its

efforts to fully implement the law. GHASP has advocated for many years in favor of this step. In

1998, GHASP and the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club published Grandfafhered Air

Pollution: The Dirty Secref of Texas Indusfries, in which we identified the top 1,000 Texas

grandfathered plants.

There are several points within the proposed revisions that should be addressed.

1. We believe others have raised legitimate concerns about the details of rules related to

certain grandfathered pipeline facilities and ask that the Commission address those issues

fully.

2. All health effects reviews. but particularly those of facilities that will not be required to make

pollution reductions in exchange for a permit, should include an examination of complaints

against the facility, notices of violation and any other compliance information that might

indicate past problems at a site.

3. The TNRCC should minimize the duration of any good cause extension provided under

382.05181 (g). This section requires that the extension be for a period of no more than 12

months. The commission should not automatically issue a fUll1-year extension. but should

consider the minimum possible duration of any extension.

518 Woodland st•• Houston, TX 77009-7249 • 713·868-2601 • wlIsonlghasp.org
From: John D. Wilson To: Joyce Spencer Dale: 112912002 Time: 4:56:40 PM Page 3 of3

4. The permit fee of $450 for large businesses is set at such a low level that TNRCC will be

subsidizing the permit applicant. No evidence Is presented to justify such a low fee; a $450

permit fee undervalues the time, experience, effort, and resources of TNRCC employees

and the agency. We do support the lower fee for small businesses.

5. GHASP is concerned that TNRCC may require public statements to be made in writing, as

proposed in 116.796(d)(1). There are a number of circumstances under which an individual

may prefer to make oral rather than written comments, and TN RCC should always record

pUblic statements so it can use them later in the comment consideration process. Such a

requirement may be a violation of the federal Clean Air Act.

6. The provision allowing an electric generating facility to operate for 10% of its operating

hours without applying for a permit Is too broad. Under the most extreme circumstances. this

could amount to almost 900 hours or 37 days in a year, which could occur during the peak

ozone season. The provision should be revised to establish a maximum weekly operating

limit of 20 hours in addition to the proposed restriction.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and congratulations on this historic proposal.

Sincerely,

John D. Wilson

Executive Director
SIERRA

CLUB

January 18,2002

Houston Regional Group

Houston,

P.O. Box

Texas

3021

77253-3021

8

W-15

713/895-9309

Ms. Joyce Spencer

TNRCC

Office Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment

MC205

P. O. Box 13087

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

Dear Ms. Spencer,

Enclosed are the comments of the Houston Sierra Club (HSC) regarding 30 TAC 39.404, 411,419,420,

603,604, and 606 and 30 TAC 116.10, 18,910,911,913,921,930,770-772,774-777, 779-781, 783, 785-

788,790,793-802,804-807,917,918,926, and 928.

1) In 30 TAC 39, 116.780(b), 116.795, and 116.921, when the TNRCC is required to hold a public

hearing (TIISC, TCAA, 382.0561), we are concerned that there is no explanation as to when the State

determines that "the basis of the request by a person who may be affected is determined to be

unreasonable" and therefore no public hearing will be held TNRCC should provide the criteria it uses

to make this determination so the public can review and comment as to the appropriateness, adequacy,

and fairness of the criteria From the perspective ofthe HSC if a person is breathing or may breathe

the air pollution that a company emits then this person is "affected." The HSC c:ioes not believe that·

the TNRCC has· the legal right to withhold from any person the right to have a public hearing...The

definition of "who may be affected by emissions" must be put in these rules so the public can review

and comment on the adequacy ofTNRCC's definitions. After all TNRCC's decision will either allow

a person to participate or take this right away from them.

2) In 30 TAC 116.776(c)(3), among the criteria used to determine which reimbursements for emission

reductions will be prioritized first, the criteria, "highest percentage reductions" and "projects that occur

early" should be weighed more heavily than those that "are most cost effective." Cost effectiveness

deals more with a financial decision made by the company and not by TNRCC. It might be more cost

effective for a company to buy emission credits. This action however ignores the environmental

justice and local community impacts of continuing to allow a company to pollute the air and shorten

the life of people in the community and affect their health, welfare, and environment.

3) In 30 TAC 116.18, the HSC supports requiring electric generating facilities to undergo new source

review permitting ifthey decide they want to bum fuel oil rather than natural gas.

4) In 30 TAC 116.779(a)(I), 116.794(1), and 116.917(a)(1), the HSC does not agree that the details ofthe

health effects review, which will ensure that the permits are protective of public health and property,

should be developed and provided in a guidance document We want specific criteria spelled out in

rule form so that TNRCC cannot act mbitrarily and capriciously by treating some facilities in a more

beneficial riumner than other facilities. The public has a right to review and comment on the criteria

that will be used to determine if their lives, health, property, welfare, and environment will be

negatively affected by a grandfathered facilities air emissions.

5) In 30 TAC 116.779(b)(2), the HSC does not agree that "up to a 20%" reduction in NOx and VOC

could be made for grandfathered reciprocating internal combustion engines in West Texas. We want

TNRCC to maximize reductions so they will be 20%. There is a visibility problem in West Texas that

is negatively affecting Guadalupe Mountains National PaIk, Big Bend National PaIk, Big Bend Ranch

State Natural Area, Franklin Mountains State Park, Hueco Tanks State Historic Park, Fort Davis State

"When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe." John Muir

....,__ 0
Historic Park, and many other important ecological areas (for example: properties owned by The

Natural Conservancy of Texas). TNRCC has been negligent in protecting these important natural

areas. Now is the time to require maximmn reductions. No more delays!

6) In 30 TAC 116.785, 116.798, 116.926(a), the HSC disagrees that the fee should be $450. TNRCC is

vastly underestimating the cost of processing these permits. A minimum of a $1,000 should be

charged. TNRCC is subsidizing industry by charging a low permit fee. The time, experience, effort,

and resources ofTNRCC employees and the agency are certainly worth much more than a $450 permit

fee. It is time that industry is charged what it really costs to process a permit

7) In 30 TAC 116.7%(d)(l), the HSC opposes the TNRCC mandate that requires that statements must be

submitted in writing at a public meeting. Some people may be illiterate. Some people may write very

poorly. Some people may fee more comfortable making an oral presentation. Some people may not

have the time to sit down and write a statement TNRCC should always record public statements so it

can use them later in the comment consideration process.

8) In 30 TAC 116.802, the HSC opposes the avoidance ofnew source review permitting for any company

that increases its emissions. TNRCC provides no definition of what "significanf' is. The public

should be told what the definition of "significant" is then should be and allowed to review and

comment on this definition.

9) In 30 TAC 116.911(f)(1), the HSC does not favor allowing a company to run an internal combustion

engine for 10% ofits operating hours (which amount to almost 900 hours or 37 days in a year) without

applying for a permit. Thisis a significant amount oftime. Emissions could be generated during peak

ozone season when they would have the most impact on citizens' health and welfare.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment Thank you.

Sincerely,

Brandt Mannchen

Conservation Committee

Houston Sierra Club

5115 Maple

Bellaire, Texas 77401

H713-664-5962, W713-640-4313

2
"'''I~ ':::0 .:::~~.::: .l.::><i::J rK IX MW-CONTINENT 512 472 3859 TO 2~94808 P.02/04

TEXAS OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION

. January 28, 2002

Jon IlcJ<1-.AlWny

QlA1IllWI

Jlobert L Austill I'IIi5nl5NI"

WI1Ii.un L Ennil,AuItIn YlCl!-H1'SIllOlt 10& t4Wla

"""D IolED&4lli1.Al1ON$

Cindy L. Morphew. Austin ~fOll

~~

BenJulin W. Sell., AllIIlp

Y!CE'1'ASICQlf FCl

~Al.Af1A111S

District

Vil:C"Presldents

Hillold D. Caunon. AlNrlUo

lHli I'I\NIWIIllI.I

Donnis Ii. Faprstone.Irvlns ...:llnl CDmIAL 'IilCAS

Can AI1aI Hu&h"'-lr.lIftorilIe tHE LCMEIl cnIU' c;oAS1

A. V.'OlWlI,Jr. A\bU\y W!5TCENTIlAI.trW

\fich&cl E. Ull/c. SuI""lillClio

SOlffilWl;l;T

:"nis W, Mcwboume.Tyler toSrT1lCAS

.rna It Mcm"'i""- HO\I3lcn 111i ut'tU ClJU' CDA5I'

Ms. Joyce Spencer

Office ofEnvironmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment

MC205

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, Texas 78711-3087

Re: Rule Log No. 2001-076·116-AI

Dear Ms. Spencer:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking, Members

of the Texas Oil and Gas Association have been active participants in the

voluntary permitting of grandfathered facilities, and we appreciate your

consideration ofour conunents and sugg~stions.

Texas Oil and Gas Association ['c-rxOGA"] is a multi-purpose trade

association representing all segments of the oil and gas industry operating in

Texas. TxOGA has over 2000 members which account for over 90 percent of

all the oil and gas production in Texas and approximately 95 percent of the

reftning capacity in Texas. .

TxOGA requests the following suggestions be incorporated into the final

rule.

Proposed Section 116.777(b)(3), relating to control requirements,

states "the owner or operator of more than one grandfathered

reciprocating internal combustion engines may average the

reductions achieved among more than more than one

reciprocating internal combustion engine connected to orpart ofa

gathering or transmission pipeline in order to demonstrate the

reductions required.... II

TxOOA requests that the TNRCC clarify that engine shutdowns may be

included in averaging emissions reductions.

TxOGA requests that the agency clarify and afflJ'm that credit may be

taken for all emission reductions which have been achieved through the

Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program (VERP).
JAN 28 2002 15:39 FR TX MID-CONTINENT 512 472 3859 TO ~~g4808 P.03/04

TxOOA Comments - Rule Log No. 2001-076-116-AI

January 28.2002

Page two

In addition, TxOGA notes that in the question and answer session in Odessa staff

clarified that some West Texas pipeline facilities would be able to qualify for a permit without

making any reductions. In light of Executive Director Jeff repeated statements that he sees no

justification for facilities making significant investments in an area where there is little benefit,

TxOGA requests that the TNRCC clarify that iero reductions may be acceptable in instances in

West Texas where reductions cannot be economically achieved.

Specific to pipeline facilities, TxOGA makes the following request.

The proposed 30 TAC 116.779 would require owners/operators to obtain existing facility permits

on a site-by-site basis. At this time, there are three alternatives to obtaining a permit under 30

TAC 116.779: .

• Claim permit-by-rule if the site qualifies. However. pennit-by-rule can likewise only be

claimed on a site-by.site basis.

• Obtain an existing facility flexible pennit in accordance with 30 TAe 116.795. This

alternative does not allow the use of a flexiblepennit to cover more than one account

site.

• Obtain a multiple plant permit in accordance with 30 TAe 116.1011. As currently

written, ]16.1011(b) states that grandfathered facilities which do not apply for a multiple

plant pemtit prior to September 1, 2001 must first obtain a pennit under Subchapter B

(relating to New Source Review Permits) before they are eligible to be included in a

multiple plant permit. .

A fourth alternative is requested for grandfathered tank or pipeline facilities. This would

allow these sources to obtain a regional permit for aggregated facilities, with allowable emissions

that meet the equivalent overall emission limit ofcurrent BACT.

There are many businesses that own and/or operate a multitude ofsmall pipeline-related

emissions sources throughout the state. These sources may consist ofa few storage tanks, piping

component fugitive,s. small heaters. etc.

Requiring individual permits or registrations for each site will result in an enonnous

administrative burden for both the TNRCC and the owner/operator. A significant quantify of

time will be spent on the part of the owner/operator to prepare applications and track applicable

requirements. Likewise. a great deal of time will be spent by the TNRCC processing

applications and subsequent renewals.

Moreover, since many pipeline facilities consist ofone orjust a few small sources, these

facilities would not necessary benefit from the usc of a flexible permit. As such, these sites

would require 10-year-old BACT on a source-by-sourcc basis. This could result in significant

funds being applied to achieve small emissions reductions.

Allowing a regional permit to be used to meet grandfathered source requirements would

provide a significant reduction in administrative time and cost by aggregating sources into a

single permit. Control costs would be reduced since the owner/operator could apply additional

controls al some siles to compensate for others. Overall emissions reductions would be the same ;-.
JAN 28 2002 15:39 FR TX MID-CONTINENT 512 472 3859 TO ?~94808 P.04/04

i·

TxOGA Comments .. Rule Log No. 2001-076-116-Al

January 28, 2002

Page.three

or better than those achieved under the proposed rule, since the permittees would be required to

demonstrate that an emission reduction equivalent to current BACT is achieved.

Please feel free to call me ifI can answer any questions regarding our comments. I can

be reached at 5121478-6631.

Cindy w

Vice- President for Environmental Affairs

Texas Oil and Gas Association

CLM:ad
eTXU JAN-29-2002 rUE 04:40 PM rxu nlJSINESS SERVICE FAX NO. 21' q12 4365 P. 02

TXU Business ServlclI!ls

1601 Bryan Street

Dallas.TX 75201-3411

Tel: 214 812 5151

Fax:2148124365

blILdrlscoll@txu.com

William E."81l/" Driscoll

Vice Plesident, Environmental,Health and Safety

January 29, 2002

8

Joyce Spencer

Office of Environmental Policy. Analysis and Assessment, MC 205

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission·

P.O. Box 13087

Austin. Texas 7871 ]-3087

Re: Permits for Grandfathered Facilities

(Rule Log Number 2001-076-116-AI)

TXU Business Services Company submits the foHowing comments on behalf of

TXU Energy (hereinafter referred to as TXU) concerning the Texas Naturcl1

Resource. Conservation Commission's (TNRCC) proposed rille implementing

grandfathered facility permitting procedures as published in the Texa'l Register on

January 4. 2002. The principal business of TXU is the production of electricity

and the transmission of natural ga~ in north. central. east and west Texas. TXU is

also a member of the Association of Electric Companies of Texas (ABet) and

supports their comments provided under separate cOVer.

TXU appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule. The

comments will address the following subjects: genenl1 comments on the

pemlitting of existing facilities, the definition of a natural gas-fued electric

genenlting facility (EGF), the definition of normal annual operating schedule, the

distribution offunds for internal combustion engines, and demonstrations for nonEGF generators and auxiliary bollers.

General Comments on the Permitting of Existing Facilities

Although 30 TAC Chapter 116 is entitled "Control of Air Pollution by Permits for

New Construction or Modification," the additions and revisions to the chapter in

the referenced rulemaking relate to permitting of existing facilities. The

permitting of existing faclllties is not mandated by federal requirement nor is it

initiated by new consn'Uction or a modification. The current requirements for

permitting existing facilities were delineated in Senate Bill (SB 7) from the 76m

Legislature and by House Bill 2912 (HB 2912) from the 77111 Legislature.
JAN-2"9-2002 TUE 04:40 PM TXU n'lSINESS SERVICE

Page 2 - January 29,2002

FAX NO, 21 ft ~12 4365 p, 03

Several times in the preamble to this rulemaking the phrase ''in order to be

consistent with the current review process for pennits" is used. The pennitting of

existing facilities is a new process and does not necessarily have to be consistent

with the current review process. The permitting process for grandfathered

facilities should adhere closely to what is authorized in SB 7 and lIB 2912 and

not add on traditional permitting procedures.

Definition of Natural Gas·fired EGF

HB 2912 directs the TNRCC to adopt rules regarding acceptable fuel oil grades

for natural gas-fired EGFs that were designed to combust fuel oil. This "designed

to bum fuel oil" requirement was included so that a grandfathered EGF that could

only fire natural gas would have to use the current permitting process for

modifications to be authorized to convert to fuel oil-fll'ing capability. The process

to establish acceptable fuel oil grades causes TXU a great deal of concern.

TXU has 20 natural gas-fired EGFs that can combust No.5 fuel oil as a secondary

fuel. The approximate cost to convert 14 of these units to No.2 oil would be $30

mimon [0 $40 million with the majority of the cost being the removal of No.5 oil

and the replacement with No.2 oil. Given this significant cost. the TNRCC

should carefully consider its modeling analysis. TXU and other utilities have

provided the TNRCC with infonnation on which units can fire oil and of what

grade. In calculating the sulfur dioxide emissions resulting from any grade of oil,

the maximum sulfur content in the oil should be 0.7 percent because a sulfur

content higher than rhis would result in a stack concentration that exceeds the

limit in Chapter 112 (30 TAC 112.9). If this reanalysis of the impacts indicates

that only a few plants may have a problem» then the rule should not penali~e all

the other plants in the state by making them conduct case by case modeling. The

grade of acceptable fuel oil should be changed to any grade with 0.7 percenr

sulfur unless the TNRCC requires further analysis from the owner or operator of

the specific plants with a potential problem. The analysis process for other grades

of fuel oil should be an open process that includes a review by the owners of the

facilities being modeled. This review will ensure that the model inputs are

accurate.
JAN-29-2002 TUE 04:40 PM TXU t1IJSINESS SERVICE

Page 3 - January 29. 2002

FAX NO. 21~ q12 4365 P. 04

In any case. the EGF permit for the natural gas-fired site should allow the owner

or operator to combust the fuel oil currently stored on-site. and restrict only the

receipt of any fuel oil that is not deemed acceptable by the TNRCC. If residual

oil-firing is restricted for utility plants. then the market for this oil wiU be

extremely limited in this sta~e and could be combusted by sources that have a

greater potential for impacting the public because ofthe location and height of the

emissions. A prohibition on burning No. S oil could also impact winter reliability

ifnatural gas is curtailed before a conversion to No.2 oil can be accomplished.

Definition of Normal Operating Schedule

HB 2912 allows an owner or operator of a site that has applied for an BOP permit

to apply for a permit for "a generator that does not generate electric energy for

compensation and is used not more than 10 percent of the normal annual

operating schedule." The bill does not address what equipment or process· to

which the operating schedule applies. The operating schedule should not be that

of the EGFs at the site. but rather that of the electrical grid whose electrical

energy the emergency generators replace. Since the normal annual operating

schedule of the electric grid is 8760 hours (8784 in leap year), the 10% operation

should be 876 hours.

The Distribution of Funds for Internal Combustion Engines

Section 116.776(a)(1) of the proposed rule requires that grandfathered

reciprocating internal combustion engines in the East Texas Region must make a

50% reduction in annual emissions of nitrogen oxides in order to qualify for a

reimbursement of a portion of the costs of controls. Both HB 2912 and HB 2914

(which establishes the reimbursement program) require a 50% reduction in hourly

emissions of nitrogen dioxide. The criteria for an annual reduction should be

deleted from this paragraph.

Demonstrations for Non-EGF Generators and Auxiliary Boilers

The proposed § 116.917(a) references an application for grandfatbered facilities

identified in § 116.6] I (f)(1) or (2). Section 116.611 does not have a paragraph

(t). so the correct reference must be § 116.9) 1 (f)(I) and (2). Ifthat is case, then

§ 116.917(a)(1) requires the owner or operator of a site obtaining an EGF permit

to demonstrate that emissions from grandfathered facilities identified in §

116.911 (e) and (t)(l) and (2) meet protection of public health and welfare

requirements. HB 2912 is very clear when this demonstration is required.
JAN-29-2002 TUE 04:40 PM TXU nl~INESS SERVICE

Page 4 - January 29, 2002

FAX NO. 21} q12 4365 P, 05

For grandfathered coal-fIred RGFs this analysis includes criteria pollutants other

than sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. For non-BOF

generators and auxiliary boilers, the only requirement is to include their emissions

in the emission allowance trading program, but not issue any allowances. In other

words, this equipment consumes allowances issued for the EGF. Similarly in §

116.917(11), the TNRCC requires the application to identify "air contaminants".

The term "air contaminants" should be replaced with U relevant criteria

pollutants."

TIro appreciates the opportunity to work with the TNRCC in resolving these

important issues.

Sincerely,
INDEX OF ORAL TESTIMONY

January 22,2002,7:00 p.m. - Tyler Junior College Regional Training and Development Center

Reference Number

0-1

Submitted by

L. J. Forrest, The Birds-i Network
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE

TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

AUSTIN, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF: )

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 30 TAC)

CHAPTER 39 AND CHAPTER 116 )

AND THE STATE ,IMPLEMENTATION)

PLAN (SIP) )

PUBLIC HEARING

TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2002

BE IT REMEMBERED THAT at 7:11 p.m. on

Tuesday, the 22nd day of 9"anuary 2002, the

above-entitled matter was heard at the Tyler

Junior College Regional Training and

Development Center, Room 104, Tyler, Texas,

before STEVE HAGLE, P.E.; and the following

proceedings were reported by Aloma J. Kennedy,

a Certified Shorthand Reporter of:

81:;;rt\?18H:

a record ofexcellence

1801 Lavaca • Suite 115 • Austin, Texas 78701 • 512-474-2233
2

PRO C E E DIN G S

Small Business & Local Government Assistance

TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2002

office here in Tyler.

with the Tyler

Yes.

My name is Steve

MR. HAGLE: First of all, I would

MR. HAGLE:

MR. MURRAY:

I would also like, in the aUdience~

We're here this evening to receive oral

the TNRCC.

and/or written comments on proposed revisions to

Regional Office, and Cynthia Skief with the

Conservation Commission.

like to welcome e~erybody to the public hearing

being conducted by the Texas Natural Resource

Hagle, and I'm with the Air Permits Division of

30 T.A.C. Chapter 116, Control of Air Pollution

is that your official title?

Charles Murray who is the Air Section Manager --

1

2

3

4

07:11 PM 5

6

7

8

9

07:11 PM 10

11

12

13

14

07:11 PM 15

16

17

-

18

19 by Permits for New Construction or Modificationj

07:12 PM 20 Chapter 39 public notice, and the State

21 Implementation Plan.

22 If you intend to present oral comments

23 and haven't already signed in at our

24 registration table near the entrance, please do

07:12 PM 25 so now. Copies of the proposal from the issue

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
3

1 of the Texas Register are available on the

The final rules will be available on

information on where to fax or mail those in.

the TNRCC's Web page after they're adopted. The

send written comm~nts, you can quickly find the

registration table. We also have copies of the

hearing notice so that if anyone is planning to

2

3

4

07:12 PM 5

6

7

8 Web address is listed on the hearing notice for

9 anyone who needs it. For those of you who do

07:12 PM 10 not have access to the internet, we have sheets

11 available on the registration table, and I'll

12 put those out. On your way out, if you want to

13 stop by and fill in your name and ~ddress, then

14 we'll mail the copies of the final version of

07: 12 PM 15 the rules to you. We will continue to accept

16 written comments on this proposal until

17 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, January.29th.

-

18 This hearing is structured strictly for

19 the receipt of oral or written comments. Open

07:13 PM 20 discussion during the hearing is not allowed.

21 However, if anyone has additional questions or

22 comments regarding this proposal, there will be

23 another opportunity after the hearing for open

24 discussion.

07:13 PM 25 We'll now being receiving comments ~n

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
4

Network.

I've seen the rate of diabetes zoom from less

But as far as the health effects of the

We only have one person signed up so

Once I call

I'm not a

-- and it's going to

Well, I'm not really

Okay.

I think my politics is

MR. HAGLE:

MR. FORREST:

MR. FORREST:

My interest ~n environmental quality has

Mr. Forrest, will you come up here so

than 10 percent to more than 30 percent in my

to do with mercury in particular.

the order in which you registered.

coal-burning smokestacks, over a 25-year period

as lupus and mysterious lupus-like symptoms are

community, and other chronic immune illness such

or anything like that.

pretty much rampant.

take a while to wade through that for one thing,

and I'm not all that fa~ili~r with" how that

the Court Reporter can

goes.

crazy tree-hugger or an animal rights activist

pretty conservative.

far, Mr. L. J. Forrest, representing the Birds-i

prepared to comment on this particular matter --

your name, please begin your comments.

07:13 PM 1

2

3

4

07:13 PM 5

6

7

8

9

07:14 PM 10

11

12

13

14

07 :14 PM 15

16

17

18

19

07:14 PM 20

21

22

23

24

07:15 PM 25

\'

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
5

And the idea that these humongous

genitals.

corporations can try to equate this with

babies without arms, I'm hearing a lot about

Now I'm seeing

that news. And I said, "Well, this explains

I'm just a technician, not a scientist.

smog-induced asthma just strikes me as just

everything I've seen around me."

And I was really unaware that there was

time charting biological populations and their

babies with no brain and babies with ambiguous

1998, and it took me a couple of weeks to digest

mercury ash coming from these smokestacks, until

looking at what's happening around me.

But in my working career, I have spent a lot of

responses to changEs in the environmental

parameters, so this gives me a different way of

07:15 PM 1

2

3

4

07:15 PM 5

6

7

8

9

07:16 PM 10

11

12

13

14

07:16 PM 15

16

17

18 unreal. So in the past three years, I've been

19 over and around this mercury situation.

07:17 PM 20 In 1991, EPA started delivering an

21 annual report to Congress on mercury. So J.n

22 '91, '92, '93, the utility cartel started

23 getting pretty nervous about all of this. By

24 '95, they had written legislation. In '96 they

07:17 PM 25 got it passed so that they could elect their

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
6

statements that were filed for Welch and

on ice until somebody sued them and made them

publish it.

looks like there's a lot of things occurred

And by 1997, they

It had no sooner hit the

This appears to be organized criminal

By 1997, each one of these annual

And the way this has all transpired

"We've got to have that back," and they put it

to get my hands on copies of these annual

And for two years, I have been trying

EPA actually did that.

congressmen's desk than they went and said,

reports as well as the environmental impact

accumulated profit into an accounting tool, an

defects and immune illness.

accounting instrument called a qualified subcorporation that would render their accumulated

activity.

in lobbying to have that report retracted, and

illegal.

during that period, during the nineties, that

reports makes the utility cartel look more and

more culpabie as far as liability for the birth

wealth, would protect it from liability.

was at least inappropriate if not totally

were so worked up that they were very aggressive

07:17 PM 1

2

3

4

07:18 PM 5

6

7

8

9

07.:18 PM 10

11

12

13

14

07:18 PM 15

16

17

-

18

19

07:19 PM 20

21

22

23

24

07:19 PM 25

\'

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
7

07:19 PM 1 Monticello. The reason I am so conscious of

smokestacks.

Reservation in Colorado.

when those were built is because I shot the

talked about the tilters on that plant with

I think

Well, I was unaware until

They were building Monticello at the

And I have just been allover this

to get some testimony from these utility

than 60 indictments, criminal indictments, for

A federal grand Jury did issue more

mercury issue for three and four years.

lignite-fired plants have no filters on the

how that plant was being operated, and I just

because I think there's precedent with what

very clearly want a federal grand jury convened

we're not uSlng all the tools at our disposal

happened at, say, Rocky Flats Nuclear

after examining that, it appears that all the

on Welch ln '77.

engineers at the time.

recently that that late they actually wrote a

permit for Monticello with no filters. And

same time it seems -- I'm not sure when they

cranked that one up, but they fired the boilers

elevations for the road and dam at Welch, and I

2

3

4

07:19 PM 5

6

7

8

9

07:20 PM 10

11

12

13

14

07:20 PM 15

16

17

-

18

19

07:20 PM 20

21

22

23

24

07:21 PM 25

\'

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
8

nineties.

this hearing is now closed, and we appreciate

on about this mercury issue.

Now, all of these executives, as the

Is there anyone

7:22 p.m.)

Okay.

Once agaln, . the comment period

MR. HAGLE:

Okay.

And I think that's about all I've got

Thank you.'

(Hearing concluded:

If there are no further comments, then

to say.

there's some really questionable activity went

think there's good reason to subpoena internal

officials about what occurred during the

time?

of two and three million dollars in hush money

else who would like to make any comments at this

destroyed or shredded during that decade because

mergers occurred, .racked off, you know, upwards

so they're probably not going to talk; but I

documents and ask if any documents have been

closes on Tuesday, January 29th, at 5:00 p.m.

you coming this evening.

07:21 PM 1

2

3

4

07:21 PM 5

6

7

8

9

07~22 PM 10

11

12

13

14

07:22 PM 15

16

17

18

19

07:22 PM 20

21

22

23

24

25

i

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
9

out.

C E R T I FIe ATE

mentioned matter occurred as hereinbefore set

SS.

}

}

}

I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT the proceedings

nedy

Certified horthand Reporter

CSR No. 494 - Expires 12/31/02

Kennedy Reporting Service, Inc.

1801 Lavaca Street, Suite 115

Austin, Texas 78701

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set

I, Aloma J. Kennedy, Certified

transcription of the original notes.

foregoing pages are a full, true, and correct

my hand and seal this 31st day of January 2002.

supervision, later reduced to typewritten form

of such were reported by me or under my

under my supervision and control and that the

Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of

Texas, do hereby certify that the aboveCOUNTY OF TRAVIS

STATE OF TEXAS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

\

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
'.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Public Hearing Registration

Location: Tyler Date: January 22, 2002

Concerning: Oral and/or written comments on proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of Air

Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification; and 30 TAC Chapter 39, Public Notice.

Name Representing Presenting Oral

Testimony?

(Please Print) (Circle One)

- L . .j .. 'f= b R ~-:.- sT } f-{ (=- Dt«J}s- IlJe"t VJf(f\ ~NO

""DAV I'D '7 -0 UN cit tV l5<u Yes @

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No
INDEX OF ORAL TESTIMONY

January 23, 2002, 7:00 p.m. - City of Houston, City Council Chambers

Reference Number

0-1

0-2

0-3

0-4

0-5

0-6

0-7

0-8

0-9

Submitted by

Bessie Swindle, on behalf of Southeast Coalition of Civic

Clubs

Margaret Jenkins, on behalf of Greater Sugar Valley Civic

Club and Southeast Coalition of Civic Clubs

Larry V. Green, on behalf of the Honorable Sheila Jackson

Lee, United States House of Representatives

Lucille Broussard, on behalf of Southeast Coalition of Civic

Clubs

J. Ashiru, on behalf of Southeast Coalition of Civic Clubs

Ada Edwards, council member, on behalf of City of

Houston, District D

The Honorable AI Edwards, Texas House of

Representatives

Shannon Hudson, on behalf of Southeast Coalition of Civic

Clubs and Sunnyvale Garden Estates

Eli Williams, on behalf of St. Francis Xavier Church
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE

TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

AUSTIN, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF: )

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 30 TAC )

CHAPTER 39 AND CHAPTER 116 AND )

THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN )

PUBLIC HEARING

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2002

BE IT REMEMBERED THAT at 7:28 P.M. on

Wednesday, the 23rd of January, 2001, the

above-entitled matter was heard at the City of

Houston City Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 901

Bagby, Houston, Texas 77001, before STEVE HAGLE,

and the following proceedings were reported by

Constance A. Pollet, a Certified Shorthand

Reporter of:

l~l~l ---~-~--- "111~11\"·

a record ofexcellence

1801 Lavaca • Suite 115 • Austin, Texas 78701 • 512-474-2233
1

2

3

PRO C E E DIN G S

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2002

(7:25 p.m.)

2

4 MR. HAGLE: Good evening. I would

5 like to welcome everyone to this public hearing

6 being conducted by the Texas Natural Resource

7 Conservation Commission. My name is Steve

8 Hagle, and I'm with the Air Permits Division of

9 the TNRCC. We're here this evening to receive

10 oral and/or written comments on proposed

11 revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, "Control of Air

12 Pollution by Permits for New Construction or

13 Modification"~ Chapter 39, "Public Notice"; and

14 the state implementation plan.

15 If you intend to present oral comments

16 and haven't already signed in at our

17 registration table near the entrance, please do

18 so now. Copies of the proposal from the issue

19 of the Texas Register are available on the

20 registration table. We also have copies of the

21 hearing notice so that if anyone is planning to

22 send in written comments you can quickly find

23 the information on where to fax or mail those

24 in.

25 The final rules will be available on

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
3

1 the TNRCC's web page after they are adopted.

2 The web address is listed on the hearing notice

3 for anyone who needs it. For those of you who

4 do not have access to the Internet, we will have

5 some sheets available on the registration table.

6 On your way out you can stop by and fill in your

7 name and address and we will mail copies of the

8 final version of the rules to you.

9 We will continue to accept written

10 comments on this proposal until 5:00 p.m.,

11 Tuesday, January 29th.

12 This hearing is structured strictly for

13 the receipt of o~al or written comments. Open

14 discussion during the hearing is not allowed;

15 however, if anyone has any additional questions

16 or comments regarding this proposal, there will

17 be another opportunity after the hearing for

18 open discussion.

19 We will now begin receiving comments 1n

20 the order in which you registered. Once I call

21 your name, please come up to the microphone up

22 here at the front and begin your comments.

23 Okay. Bessie Swindle with the

24 Southeast Coalition of Civic Clubs.

25 pronounced your name correct.

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233

I hope I
1

2

3

MS. SWINDLE:

MR. HAGLE:

MS. SWINDLE:

"Swindle."

I'm sorry.

That's okay.

4

4 I am totally in support of what the

5 State's representatives are working on for the

6 permits and whatever it allows, because we have

7 a lot of problems. And I know I'm just supposed

8 to say that, but I have to tell you about a show

9 that I saw on TV January the 21st at 3:00

10 o'clock in the morning. It was presented by

11 CBS, and it's called "Up to the Minute." It

12 shows how the firemen 1n New York, since this

13 "happened on September the 11th, they have

14 serious sinus infections, they have developed

15 signs of lung cancer, and this has not been a

16 year. So I need to be sure that this is

17 understood, that whatever comes in our area,

18 whether it's permitted or not, we need to know

19 who's getting permits for those plants out in

20 our area, and we'd like to know how that could

21 be possible. And we're working strong with

22 State Representative Al Edwards and Ron Wilson,

23 and we would like for you-all to seriously

24 consider letting us know when things are coming

25 up in our area, especially places that need

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
5

1 permits like that, because they are detrimental

2

3

to our health. Thank you.

MR. HAGLE: Thank you.

4 Margaret Jenkins, also with the

5 Southeast Coalition of Civic Clubs.

6 MS. JENKINS: Good evening, and

7 thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak.

8 I'm here today in support of the permits. I

9 think that everyone that has something to do

10 with businesses outside that will involve ~lean

11 air, they should get a permit. And I would like

12 to make sure that every company that sets up

13 business in the area are permitted, whether they

14 are 1971 to present date.

15 I'm not able to speak on what I came

16 for, but I'm in total agreement of permits for

17 companies that are less than are polluting

18

19

the air. Thank you.

MR. HAGLE: Thank you.

20 Larry Green with Congresswoman Sheila

21 Jackson Lee's office.

22 MR. GREEN: Good evening. Again,

23 thank you for the opportunity. I am Larry Green

24 with Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee's office.

25 And again, this is a subject that I really

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233

--------_._-- .-
6

1 wasn't prepared to talk on, but after reviewing

2 the literature I can say that we are in support

3 of House Bill No. Section 2912. However,

4 with regard to the content of the bill, I would

5 hope that there's a notice.provision to the

6 residents of the area. Inasmuch if a permit

7 will be issued, that the residents would be

8 given a 60- to 90-day notice of an actual permit

9 about to be issued.

10 Secondly, with regard to the bill, I

11 would hope that it would have a provision that

12 would also take into account the public input;

13 that ·if, in fact, you do have --for House Bill

14 2912, if a permit is issued, however, if there's

15 a substantial number of residents who, in fact,

16 are opposed to the actual permit being issued,

17 that their considerations be taken into account

18 prior to issuing the permit. Thank you.

19 MR. HAGLE: Thank you.

20 Lucille Broussard with Southeast

21 Coalition.

22 MS. BROUSSARD: Good evening. I'm

23 Lucille Broussard. I am in support of any

24 legislation requiring facilities affecting our

25 pollution to get a permit, and it should go

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
1 through a public hearing process. I also hope

7

2 that the small facilities require permits since

3 they can do the same harm as the larger

4

5

facilities. Thank you.

MR. HAGLE: Thank you.

6 I missed you on my registration, but J.

7 Ashiru, did you wish to speak?

8 last name correct?

Did I get your

9

10

MS. ASHIRU: Yes.

MR. HAGLE: Okay.

11 MS. ASHIRU: Good evening. I'd

12 just like to say that I am in support of

13 grandfathering -- I can't read my own writing.

14 Whatever the legislation is that affects or

15 requires a permitting process for any

16 organization affecting air pollution; that is,

17 the ones in our area, one that's small, one

18 that's large. I do feel that it's necessary for

19 the inhabitants of the area to have some sort of

20 notice whenever something that is affecting

21 something as precious as the air in any area,

22 that they be -- that the public be notified.

23 MR. HAGLE: Thank you.

24 At this time 1S there anyone else who

25 would like to present comments?

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
1 Yes, ma'am. Could you come up and

8

2 state your name for the record, please?

3 MS. EDWARDS: My name is

4 Ada Edwards. I'm a City Council member for the

5 City of Houston, District D. I am in overall

6 support of the permits, but I would just like to

7 very strongly suggest an add, that the permits

8 not be used to -- that they be as user-friendly

9 to the constituents of our communities as they

10 are to the businesses. And as I noted 1n your

11 responses as to definitions, they seem more

12 leaning towards the business operations as

13 opposed to quality-of-life issues. And so, I

14 would hope that two things would happen: that

15 the residents would get timely notification. As

16 the young man there, Mr. Green there suggests of

17 60 to 90 days, I would suggest in the writing,

18 in the codification of the permits, that the

19 businesses and the state have even a wider

20 window that we're looking at. I would say there

21 should be a six-month to a year window to issue

22 permits, because it takes -- there's a all of

23 the stipulations that you're talking about that

24 would have to be met, the residents have to come

25 up to speed with. And secondarily, that the

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
9

1 permits -- when those notices are issued, that

2 they're issued in a more user-friendly manner

3 for the constituents. Say, it's not in the

4 small, way-in-the-back part of the paper but ln

5 notifications that the general public will use.

6 And I'd appreciate that, if you would. I don't

7 know how that would fit into the protocol of

8 what you're doing, but if it needs to be in

9 writing, I will be more than happy to submit

10 that in writing. Thank you.

11 MR. HAGLE: Thank you.

12 Representative Edwards?

13 MR. EDWARDS: I just want to make

14 sure that I go on record speaking in favor of

15 the grandfathering phase or the clause of House

16 Bil~ 29 -- whatever. I don't remember.

17 However, I do realize that there are some areas

18 that we are dealing with, and since we are going

19 on record, that we do want to see changes that

20 deal with addressing the more recent issues of

21 the rock crushers and then any other facilities,

22 because there's another -- our own plants that

23 produce oil and other type things, chemicals,

24 those companies, even though we don't see smoke

25 stacks going up in the area, we want those

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
10

1 companies to be permitted, because I think a

2 couple of three years ago out here in

3 Pleasantville people thought they were just

4 passing warehouses and it wasn't about anything.

5 Come to find out they started exploding, and

6 they exploded for weeks because they had

7 chemicals out there. So not only do we want to

8 see permitting for the ones we can obviously see

9 and the rock crushers, but any facility that's

10 dealing with chemicals, drugs or whatever. We

11 want them to be permitted, because they, too,

12 produce emissions to a degree that can be

13 harmful to the public.

14 MR. HAGLE: Representative -- I'm

15 sorry. Could I get you to state your name for

16 the record?

17 MR. EDWARDS: Oh. I'm

18 Representative Al Edwards.

19 MR. HAGLE: Thank you.

20 Is there anyone else at this time who

21 would like to speak?

22 Okay. Once agaln, the time period

23 closes on Tuesday, January 29th. I'm sorry. Is

24 there someone coming up? And again, could you

25 state your name for the record?

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
1 MS. HUDSON: Sure. My name is

11

2 Shannon Hudson. I represent the Southeast

3 Coalition of Civic Clubs and I'm the Sunnyside

4 Garden Estates Vice President. And I'm sorry

5 about not wearing my shoes, but I tore them

6 coming up here. And I thank you for this

7 opportunity to say how I feel. And I do feel

8 that they should be able to get permits, that we

9 should have permits for -- they need to be

10 permitted. I'm for the permits, and we should

11 have notification of at least 60 to 90 days.

12 And I am offended by all the companies that are

13 in our neighborhood. I don't believe that it's

14 a black/white issue, but I do believe that it's

15 a money 1ssue, and it's -- and shame on them.

16 Everybody who's being paid, taking on money in

17 order to -- and everybody's health is just being

18 messed up because of all of this. I'm just

19 letting you know: Shame on you.

20 MR. HAGLE: Thank you.

21 Okay. One more time, is ther~ anyone

22 else who would like to speak at this time?

23 Come on up. Again, sir, would you

24 state your name for the record?

25 MR. WILLIAMS: Eli Williams,

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
12

1 St. Francis Xaviers Church.

2 You've talked about the large

3 companies, and we find a lot of companies that

4 find the loopholes, and where they're supposed

5 to have, like, a hundred people, they've got 99

6 people, and they run their business in our area,

7 and you can't do anything about it. Any

8 business that's getting in there with 15 or 20

9 people that's moving into our area, we'd like to

10 find out about it. And I'm for this bill here,

11 but you shouldn't limit this to a hundred people

12 or 50 people. It's for any company that

13 pollutes the area.

14 MR. HAGLE: Thank you.

15 Anyone else? Okay. If there are no

16 further comments, then this hearing 1S now

17 closed. We appreciate you coming. And again,

18 I'll stick around for any questions that anyone

19 may have.

20

21

22

23

24

25

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
JAN-29-02 03:43 PM CONSTANCE POLLET 2:=: 1304C17t.2

- 1

--_._--------------------------

C E R T I F I CAT E

13

2 TH~ STATE OF TEXAS

3 COUNTY OF HARRIS

4 I, Constance A. pollet, a Certifi~d

14

5 Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas,

6 do heroeby certify that the above-mentioned matter

7 oC2urred as hereinbefore set out.

8 1 FURTHER CERTIFY THAT the proceejings of

9 such were reported by me or under my supervision,

10 later reduced to typewritten form under my

11 supervision and control and that the foregoing

12 pages are a full, true and correct transcription of

13 the original notes.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereurito set my

15 hand and seal this 24th day of January, 2002.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CONSTANCE A. POLLET

Certified Shorthand Reporter

CSR No. 4225-Expires 12/31/03

Kennedy Reporting Service, Inc.

1801 Lavaca, Suite 115

Austin, Texas 78701

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512) 474-2233
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Public Hearing Registration

Location: __.!..!H~o~u~st~o:...!...!n _ Date: January 23, 2002

Concerning: Oral and/or written comments on proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 1161 Control of Air

Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification; and 30 TAC Chapter 391 Public Notice.

Name

(Please Print)

Chr/C:J C!(J vtr

Representing

blJ 14 e- d--/J/t Coo>--ltll 0 i1I

b. <0/ VII u vI i/

Presenting Oral

Testimony?

(Circle One)

ED No

@NO

Yes ®

Yes ®

Yes

Yes
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Public Hearing Registration

Location: Houston " Date: January 23, 2002

Concerning: Oral and/or written comments on proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of Air

Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification; and 30 TAC Chapter 39, Public Notice.

Name Representing Presenting Oral

Testimony?

\ .~ i(p,eaSe Print) y C,!?fJI-' I 1

M (Circle One)

/ £" {}E G-t4 C! 7/v 4 ,-

(

JOHN E >1+14-1lJ /<: L I IV C/I!CeLs CI VI C- CLUJ Yes @

ttchl- ef1,vJ~

60 u.-- .tv '~J~"'I j) Yes

Co~

~5j5.M!"t\(G t WALI<~~ Yes No

.3 !J' .~ Att LS 6N I...Atv'b.-·

iA-ffl-l II CI2En1/ ~OI\S (t.sSW!)P1A~ fA. 5h~//1 -r</c.'Jo...!..~ B No

<./

)

f rev\;-.I ~rf~J: C.rr.1/A.\JCvv/,-,,..., .£A..,,-,ft ..j(<;.~

Yes ®

'\ .

C!bc1JJ~ ~cJ.~fuvrituA('f1 f!w,v([ Yes
Texas Natur'al Resource Conservation Commission

Public Hearing Registration

Location: __...LH~o~u~st~o~n.!- _ Date: January 23, 2002

Concerning: Oral and/or written comments on proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of Air

Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification; and 30 TAC Chapter 39, Public Notice.

Name

(Please Print)

Representing Presenting Oral

Testimony?

(Circle One)

/ J\

Yes No

~NO

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No
~,

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Public Hearing Registration

Location: Houston Date: January 23, 2002

Concerning: Oral and/or written comments on proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116/ Control of Air

Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification; and 30 TAC Chapter 39/ Public Notice.

Name Representing Presenting Oral

Testimony?

(Please Print) (Circle One)

U~dc: Adc;.rvt 0 /IIHytJf1:S C/7-0 Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No
"

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Public Hearing Registration

Location: __....L.H~o~u~st=o~n~ _ Date: January 23, 2002

Concerning: Oral and/or written comments on proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of Air

Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification; and 30 TAC Chapter 39, Public Notice.

Name

(Please Print)

Representing Presenting Oral

Testimony?

(Circle One)

Yes <§;

Yes W

Yes

::::5f-.. R~Ls ~a....v {c.ru+b/(e- r.d

~NO
~I

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Public Hearing Registration

Location: Houston Date: January 23, 2002

Concerning: Oral and/or written comments on proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of Air

Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification; and 30 TAC Chapter 39, Public Notice.

Name Representing Presenting Oral

Testimony?

(Please Print) (Circle One)

/""bc.tel-h{f ~e f-J- r Y?~ Yes V

J;.ntc.e.... }/}/oo dS )1- _. C/JILYC), Yes

=c- VzOf h!

l<:> ~Oo\" ~~C-Ac.12.. G: \ p~~ Q Cor-p.

Yes

-..J

I/' - - Yes @

( 1PLJLC't fJ I~· J--rr fA I:::' S ~l\,~ eJ2.,v-1r -I

I\\-\~ \- , -S-I\M. fj " ~.." Yes ®

'..IV IC\ fl.....~\-\:..... tV'Leu b

L1dI A-- S.-+w~I Sf. QOA-t~r>llof Ql\)f t. Q..\u..bS

Yes

- 09
"

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Public Hearing Registration

Location: __....!...H~o~u.:::!.st~o!...!..n!...-- _ Date: January 23, 2002

Concerning: Oral and/or written comments on proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of Air

Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification; and 30 TAC Chapter 39, Public Notice.

Yes

Presenting Oral

Testimony?

(Circle Onnpc

Name Representing

.Ill / ,p~lease .,erint) .

;1/ Iv 01./ I Dr

Yes

Yes ~-

r;1j~ 5'~ Yes §)

Cr

Yes

Yes (ff;) ,

(.s e 5 Lz'tV
"

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Public Hearing Registration

Location: __..!...H~o:...l:::!u~st~o~n.l......- _ Date: January 23, 2002

Concerning: Oral and/or written comments on proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of Air

Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification; and 30 TAC Chapter 39, Public Notice.

Name

(Please Print)

Representing Presenting Oral

Testimony?

(Circle One)

Yes No

Yes No

Yes

--:JcJ 7V £ 5 (' 0 G E (2 " V ( <?

Yes

Yes Q

Ij Yes V
INDEX OF ORAL TESTIMONY

January 24, 2002, 7:00 p.m. - City of Odessa, City Council Chambers

Reference Number Submitted by

No oral testimony was received pertaining to the proposal.
Texas Natu'ral Resource Conservation Commission

Public Hearing Registration

Location: Odessa Date: January 24, 2002

Concerning: Oral and/or written comments on proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of Air

Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification; and 30 TAC Chapter 39, Public Notice.

Name Representing Presenting Oral

Testimony?

(Please Print) (Circle One)

c;)<>.P D665 k-Xf1C<:J E c~ P Yes G

~6.L\rJ 'C ? '-""'C .-- ~~.-..-~ -0/Lf t N \ cfL Yes~

JC!7- D¥a.... /

~h'~~L:- Yes 69

~.:::;-.:).·c __~c_~o- ///;r/L-L./ £ , Yes V

d~JL~~ J) f/\ k'r: .T,:

r

,1 c' v' '.. ~.. r"r,(> I

.

r.(

IJ S"., -rv " t, "C', "'>

Yes ® , 1/

,J v~r\ ~. ~vJ~,A X~'L:~5t- Yes ®

.,
--_.._--_..... -

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Public Hearing Registration

Location: Odessa Date: January 24, 2002

Concerning: Oral and/or written comments on proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of Air

Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification; and 30 TAC Chapter 39, Public Notice.

Name Representing Presenting Oral

Testimony?

'(Please Print) (Circle One)

-:5? '~ -C

"',:-..,. Yes (;) \' f\'f\\ ell \ u\ G)'J"(\ . U l • ¥ <: , \.) -\.. (s,'C'- I<lX1. \

. "

/2~hC/~/ ~ti'" s.'Ie U ~<-.e- £n~~ Yes (9

ShAY~ WOOJA')'

I

~(!/f Yes cEV I

GwAl Dv-ll..L r,(.~ 1::-'~J1

- Yes @

L -

f

Yes No

Yes No
INDEX OF ORAL TESTIMONY

January 28, 2002, 6:30 p.m. - City of Irving, Central Library Auditorium

Reference Number

0-1

Submitted by

Rita Eason, on behalf of the League of Women Voters of

Dallas
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE

TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

AUSTIN, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF: )

PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 30 TAC)

CHAPTER 39 AND CHAPTER 116 )

AND THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION)

PLAN (SIP) )

PUBLIC HEARING

MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2002

BE IT REMEMBERED THAT at 6:41 p.m. on

Monday, the 28th day of January 20·02, the

above-entitled matter was heard at the Central

Library Auditorium, 801 West Irving Boulevard,

Irving, Texas, before STEVE HAGLE, P.E., and

the following proceedings were reported by

Aloma J. Kennedy, a Certified Shorthand

Reporter of:

l'~l~ll'l\~l~;l-f'~~" ._~~~- ~~-----

a record ofexcellence

1801 Lavaca . Suite 115 . Austin, Texas 78701 • 512-474-2233
2

so now.

PRO C E E DIN G S

Permits Division of the TNRCC.

Chapter 39 Public Notice, and the State

MR. HAGLE: All right. Good

MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2002

I would like to welcome everybody to

We're here this evening to receive oral

If you intend to present oral comments

the public hearing being conducted by the Texas

and haven't already signed in at our

registration table near the entrance, please do

evening.

name is Steve Hagle, and I'm with the Air

and/or written comments on proposed revisions to

30 T.A.C. Chapter 116, Control of Air Pollution

by Permits for New Construction or Modification,

Implementation Plan.

Natural Resource Conservation Commission. My

1

2

3

4

06:41 PM 5

6

7

8

9

06:41 PM 10

11

12

13

14

06:42 PM 15

16

17

18

19 Copies of the proposal 'from the issue

06:42 PM 20 of the Texas Register are available on the

21 registration table. We also have copies of the

22 hearing notice so that if anyone is planning to

23 send in written comments, you can quickly find

24 the information on where to fax or mail those

06:42 PM 25 1.n.

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
3

discussion.

The final rules will be available on

not have access to the internet, I'll have

your name, please begin your comments. I'm

Open

Once I call

The first

And I'll pass.

Okay.

For those of who you do

MS. HUBENER:

MR. HAGLE:

We will continue to accept written

And on your way out, you can stop

the order in which you registered.

We'll now begin receiving comments ln

the receipt of oral or written comments.

This hearing is structured strictly for

another opportunity after the hearing for open

going to pass this microphone around.

However, if anyone has additional questions or

discussion during the hearing is not allowed.

comments regarding this proposal, there will be

the hearing.

rule to you.

mail final copies of the final version of the

comments on this proposal until 5:00 p.m.,

Tuesday, January 29th.

by and fill in your name and address, and we'~l

anyone who needs it.

the TNRCC's Web page after they're adopted. The

sheets available on the registration table after

Web address is listed on the hearing notice for

06:42 PM 1

2

3

4

06:42 PM 5

6

7

8

9

06:42 PM 10

11

12

13

14

06:43 PM 15

16

17

18

19

06:43 PM 20

21

22

23

24

25

\'

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
4

1 speaker is Katy Hubener with Blue Skies

2 Alliance.

3 MS. HUBENER: And I'll pass. I

4 wi 11 submi t wri t te.n comments.

06:43 PM 5 MR. HAGLE: If you would, just

6 state your name for the record.

7 MS. EASON: I'm Rita Eason, and I

8 am the Air Quality Chair for the League of Women

9 Voters of Dallas. And I have not had time to

06:43 PM 10 actually go through very carefully wha t is in

11 the draft regs, and I would prefer really to

12 send in written comments rather than verbal

13 comments becaus~ that will give me a little bit

14 more time to go through the sections I have

06: 44PM 15 concerns about on the health, public health

16 lssues, and on the citizen hearing process and

17 whether, indeed, that has any real impact on

- 18 what the agency does when it gives out a permit

19 because we've had an experience here in the area

06:44 PM 20 wi th a cemen t plant tha t wanted to burn certain

21 toxic or hazardous waste, and the permit was

22 basically given without input from the

23 community.

24

06:45 PM 25

And one of the things we know about air

quality is that the way the wind blows,

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
5

That's tomorrow .

But we feel like that this -- the

to present comments?

And with that, we'll have some written

well, the

I did not have

Industries do not

Okay.

Once again, the comment period

MR. HAGLE:

Okay.

comments from the Dallas League.

this time, is there anyone else who would like

closes on Tuesday, January 29th, at 5:00.

anyone else signed up to give oral comments. At

person, that people have a right to breathe

does present a health hazard to any single

healthy a1r.

right to breathe clean air.

agency 1n the past, and citizens do have the

issues on clean air have been dealt with by the

have the right to pollute our air, so that it

weakest points in the way in which some of the

worst -- perhaps one of the more

carried quite far.

League itself has felt that this 1S one of the

currents aren't a~ways the same so they can be

also to a number of areas, and those wind

goes in that wind and it goes to the north and

prevailing wind blows, that whatever 1S emitted 06:45 PM 1

2

3

4

06:45 PM 5

6

7

8

9

06:45 PM 10

11

12

13

14

06:46 PM 15

16

17

18

19

06:46 PM 20

21

22

23

24

06:46 PM 25 .. KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
And again, I'll stay around for

additional questions if you have any.

If there are no further comments, then 06:46 PM 1

2

3

4

06:46 PM 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

\'

this hearing is now closed.

you coming.

(Hearing concluded:

And we appreciate

6:46 p.m.)

6

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
7

C E R T I F I CAT E

out.

Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of

7tbfl/ -----7------

SS.

)

)

)

nnedy

Certified horthand Reporter

CSR No. 494 - Expires 12/31/02

Kennedy Reporting Service, Inc.

1801 Lavaca Street, Suite 115

Austin, Texas 78701

I, Aloma J. Kennedy, Certified

I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT the proceedings

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set

transcription of the original notes.

of such were reported by me or under my

foregoing pages are a full, true, and correct

my hand and seal this 31st day of January 2002.

under my supervision and control and that the

supervision, later reduced to typewritten form

Texas, do hereby certify that the abovementioned matter occurred as hereinbefore set

COUNTY OF TRAVIS

STATE OF TEXAS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

- 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

\'

KENNEDY REPORTING SERVICE, INC.

(512)474-2233
"

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Public Hearing Registration

Location: Irving Date: January 28, 2002

Concerning: Oral and/or written comments on proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of Air

Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification; and 30 TAC Chapter 39, Public Notice.

Name Representing Presenting Oral

Testimony?

(Please Print) (Circle One)

'.

t/.~ t-t?v.£, @J RI'ra- • e::> ,L eu..C;i,{ '" ,<1 .r-W~ N1(.Jh...

c.-c2 5' 6J J"1. , UC(J! a. s

lJLllf\U-- ~ll s~CQ., f'Jo..Liv-cJ( Gc~

-~~'\I\~G ~~ fQ,~~ SGL(CL't\ (j 1/\

Yes @

C--~/J) Ir};Ltd~ Ch} OJ Ptrlt;y Yes 6)

? DuJtJ c AAJ

,

I X· LJ-. 'V/IVID Yes GJ

Yes No

Yes No

. ,~
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Public Hearing Registration

Location: Irving Date: January 28, 2002

Concerning: Oral and/or written comments on proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of Air

Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification; and 30 TAC Chapter 39, Public Notice.

Name Representing Presenting Oral

Testimony?

(Please Print) (Circle One)

\\\~\\~~,-\\.~V\ -\K~c..L:5 ~~--(\A ~~CV\ Yes €) ~~_-4- n~~ -, '-' ,

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

I

Yes No
Texas NatiJral Resource Conservation Commission

Public Hearing Registration

location: Irving Date: January 28, 2002

Concerning: Oral and/or written comments on proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of Air

Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification; and 30 TAC Chapter 39, Public Notice.

Name Representing Presenting Oral

Testimony?

(Please Print) (Circle One)

KPfr( ftUBB\fCre l3W& Sh~s AU,tttNC£-

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

I,
INDEX OF ORAL TESTIMONY

January 29, 2002, 2:00 p.m. - TNRCC

Reference Number Submitted by

No oral testimony was received pertaining to the proposal.
"

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Public Hearing Registration

Location: Austin - 2:00 p.m. Date: January 29, 2002

Concerning: Oral and/or written comments on proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of Air

Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification; Chapter 39, Public Notice; and the state

implementation plan.

Name Representing Presenting Oral

Testimony?

(Please Print) (Circle One)

'liM GOLD/l-4;4N Bit.AU5" ;/ gLeLrJ(IC ~eof? Yes €V I

'»11111 D ~()AJC4JJ .

I'XU Yes €)

"5h4'!(le- I)J~Ar-!- 5e/~ /

Yes e ?~(L.- CqAA~( :7D-r Yes

i1e h \ lC-.~ Yes

Ph,-

J e::::>

Yes No