Robert J. Huston, Chairman R. B. "Ralph" Marquez, Commissioner Kathleen HartnettWhite, Commissioner Jeffrey A Saitas, Executive Director

### /~~**."")~?,** ;''::.;/ ' I**~\** 

### RI." '"**'~l** 

## \iE"u" L: 

### f)O ':: '1 I ;>.. l..L,t,· -'utl
:-- v, 

### IR PLANNING SEC. 02 AUG -1 AM 9: 23 

### TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Protecting Texas byReducing andPreventing 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) --u 

# < rn :JI:: 

## rn (") w -l 

### 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 ofAir Pollution by Permits for New Construction or -Modification. The adopted changes to Chapter 39 and Chapter 116 concern requirements and
. procedures for the permitting ofgrandfathered facilities and an incentive program for the reduction of emissions ofnitrogen oxides from**~ertain** grandfatheredreciprocating interrial combustion engines associated with pipelines. The new and amended sections ofChapter 39; all sections ofChapter 116, Subchapter H except §116.776; and the new and amended sections ofChapter 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 ofthe public hearing, and the accompanying order. I look forward to your expeditious approval ofthese SIP revisions. ly,

Chairman RJH/js

cc: The Honorable Rick Perry, Governor ofTexas Ms. Wendy Wyman, Environmental and Natural Resources Policy Director, Office ofthe 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 inkMr. 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 fileTexas 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-AIINTRODUCTION
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission) held public hearings to receive testimony regarding revisions to 30 TAC Chapter39 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 ofChapter39 are being submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a revision to the state implementation plan (SI P). 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 ofthe 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 TESTIMONYReference 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 Services01/29/2002 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 DISTRICT 90 • FORT WORTH

# Januat"2P~Cl**Refere~ce# 201~l10761116~Ai**  I' '

, , 

### Iwishto 

### conveyI!1Y**r~grets** 

### thatI could not

### be withyou 

### lastnightbecause 

### ofaprior 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

### truLttb;e

# tecorP.**~-efiect** my

### general supportofthe comments,previously submittedby theH ton**Si~m'a** Club andtheTex.as 

### CampaignFor

### the Environment. '



# . .'. II

# wOuJ~ also'

# ~e 10pam! 

### a;Itto

### youforyour

### particular

# atteDti~ #

# ?f~e Houston " 'Sierrablubs 

### co:m.ti1ents. Thereqwrementthatall 

### comments be 

### subnuttedm

### wnting IS 

### on

### the face it

### tinfaiI:and antidemocratic. Apublic meeting orhearina 

### shouldbejustthatpublic 

### and ,about ' ariD'
.. Just**b,eCa~e** 

### the'"majorpolluters mightprefera 

### moreprivate, if

### not clandestine, comni
..

### catioi: doeS notjU$ufythe attemptto 

### force all 

### communications into writing. 

### ,"**Inde~: maYQ~** **ev~One** shouldbe

### requiredto 

### appearinpublic 

### andpublicly statethat they efer**a'pJ!)ces~,** 

### that

### ,un4ennines,public health in 

### orderto maximize

### privateprofit. If 

### they**:~:7qu,ir.ed t~.>**  sPeak:

### th~ir**,~~sition** in

### ~ont ofthose mostharmed,

### th~**pro~es's** would bebetter

epresexrtEltive Lon**B~**

", COMM'1'Ti::ES: JNSURANCE • URaAN AFFAIRS • RUl.ES & RE:SOLUTIQNS NOT**~AINTEO** 14T $T14TI: ctP,EN8E

# House ofRepresentatives

. . 

### January 29. 2002 AlJ8TlNO,.,.ICI: P.o, JO)( 10'0 • AUSTIN.TEXA"'7I1HtIO (811)

..307M DISTRICTOP'JOI:

P.O. BOXaOlf 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 

### ConservationCommlsslon P,q. 

### Box 13087**Au~tin,** 

### TX 78711-3087 I I I I 

### : Re: Proposedrules relating to 

### grandfBtheredpipeline faeJ1ltles in 

### WestTexas. I I u t 

### «• 

## nwu

Olelrfct 118: CIlIClfI. Child,.••,CCllOnglWOrlh. 0111l1li, Darny, Gray.HIli. Hanalord. Hlltey,Hemphill.Hutdllnlon.**L1p~,** Cahlllr

...**A~,** Sherman,

### WIwc* I 

# DcarJeff:

# Th~ you for

### providinathe

### HouseCommittee

### on

### EnvironmentalRegulation

### with anupdate

### on

### the statps ofthe 

### various rules packages on

### January

### 9, Ithousht

### Iwould follow-up on aUf 

### discussion abollttherules 

### forpipelinefacilities 

### IntheWest 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 ementatleast a I%

### reduction. 

### this is 

### consistentwith the lesisJative Intent. becausein many CBS", I 

### 0.0% reduction in 

### NOX 

### or

# voe. wl1l be completely appropriate In West Texas. I 

### am**plc~led** 

### to havethe 

### fecllna thatthe

### qencyrealizes 

### thatwe**Bhould·e~end** 

### resources where wecan**ma~bnize** 

### benefits. 

### Specifical1y, spending time and effort

### to reduQe emissions from**pip~ines** 

### in 

### WeatTexas will often notprovide

### evennominal environmentalbenefits 

### orimprovethequality

### of lifeJ I 

### YoJ certainly have 

### a 

### full plate, and I appreciate your work and the efforts 

### ofyour staff to 

### suc4esafully implementthemyriad oflegislativemandates. 

### Sln+ere1f. 

# wblUln,**Sta~** 

### Representatlve I • , I 1 I

### ! I :

# (::\FX14 

# V**~001l003** JaJ003 p.el



### Fax I 

## . FaxTransmittal 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, ExecutiveDirector 

### :TexlJNatoralltosourceConservationCommission**~,.O.** 

### Box 13087 ,Austin, TX78111.3087 , I 

### WamnlChisum 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.: ProposedrutesretaUnS to**buml~** 

## ottueloUlnpndtatheredolectricgeneratingfacllitlesi RuleLoSNo. 2001-o76·1J6·AI
. 

### iDearJcff: :

: 

### I.wantedto

### sbaromythouahtsontheportionorlbeproposed

### rulesretatfn,to

### thepermlttlDsof

### JrIIl4tatbered ;facilities that

### wt11 implement 

### 1382.05185(1) ofthe: TexalClean Air Act ('''reM''), which relatet

### to the 

### ;bumlng of

### tuet 

### 011 In**grandra~ered** electric

### leneratln, (aemUes ("EQPs'?
:Tv.:g

### ~v~rrldlng peticy goals controllednurdeUberations whenwewrote

## the

# ru.t 011 lan&uale. "'irst.

### we :wanted toprovid. for the widest

## nnse orfUel 011 UICPoSilbl
..to'stve

### pdratbered EOF.'. meanlnaf\11 I

### choiceoffuel. 

### Second,weexpectedtherCau1aUohstoensureemlssloDJ controllwould

### not (ntcrf'ercwlttJ
.

·the StatoImplementationPlans ("SIP.s'. speolftcaUywIthrellrd 10

### NOX. Wepresumed that

### IfanBOF :**obt~ed** IpennltunderSIB. 7tromt!Je 19991cgll1!atlveIC58lon,then

### tbe1'eJU1atJoDSforth. facUlty

### already :llelmced**~omlca1** electricitylenmtionwithenvironmental stewardship. Th, 

### Nt. asproposed

### moves :us offthemarkeDvlstonedbydie

### legislature.
I , . 

### : Atthe

### wtse\, "desill'edtobum" 

### in**t382.0~** 

### 185(i)

# orthe

### atatutemeans I 

### racUitywas deslaned

### tobum tiro'

iUcloil 

### pdc

- evenif thepdewillnoJonacrbeconsidered

### acceptabletorbumfng

### toUowln;lheadoption



### ·**ort~e** I\ltcs. TheNIcs shouldprovidethatanBOP is

### "dc:s1anc4to bum" fuel 

### oU.fthe

### nop**hI.tqd~l)"**



### · everburnedfuetoUIII • grandtathered

### facUlty. 1M$tltute

### onlyIlmfts Iho 

### gradeoffutt

### 011**~vCl1y,** : butdoes

### notmeanthe

### pdehIlltoricallybumc4

### shouldprohIbitbumlnlillahterpd. inthefuturo. Further, .' , I 

### theterm "destgnedto b.urn'.' 

### should**o~y Pto~blt** **~,phYllca\ c~** **~at w~td** **~~tl~c** 

### • modlfieatlon

, .'. '. \lt1dcr

### 30TAt

### t1J6,10(9). 

### FQrexample.

### chaDslnlburnertips from

### timetotImetoallowthe

### bumlnaofd'O" , 

### '.: ICCeptablearadc of

### fUel 011 underthenaiea'should

# notbe a

### modification: . '
... ". ..., ',..

I lebohavea

### s'gnlRcaneconeem

### aboutbowtheTNllCC PfOPOSCI

### to determlnewh8t 

### ;rac!esofbt

### oUate,

· acceptable. OurIntentwasthatindetcrmlnln,**aec~ptlble** aradel

### ot&e1 ou.the**TNR.~** wOllld

### contlnueto



### anow I. 

### muchflexlblUty U 

### polliblerclttiveto the 

### pes offue1 

### on

### thatcanbe

### bomed In 

### pndtathcrccl EGF.. The proposedrules., ltoWOVel. wo\lldpl&ec unte810llOblc aM UN1eeetauy Umitl Oilthe ."l1lty

### or 

### 1J'111dCathttedEOPatoburncurr.rwtaradcsotfuet

# on. Pint·orall,

### thoevaluationofcft'ectJ

### IcreenJqlevels rOLs'') relativeto thebum1ngoftuel all isImproper**b~aUl'** ESLs Iflll10talrquality "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' Ocrlll01/29/02 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

### anarandtatheredBOP,canbum

### without

### anypartlewu.oalte

### causm,

### aceedlMcot the SOa**prap~y** Un. 

### ltaftdud In 

### 1112.1 of 

### the 'MOO 

### rulel. Imtead. 

### the TNR.CC 

### Bould .Uo", 

### pandfatherc4EOFa\0

### bumanypdt

### otAlelonthatmeetstbe.peelt1oltlanlIn 

### 1112.9ut&heTNaCCrules. 

### with

### theproviso (wblchalrNc1y isInclude41n

### proposed

### f 116.118(11» that

### theowneroroperatoror

### the srandfatheredEOFmustensurothatthob\lt11b1s orlbedesiredaradeoffuel on In

### thatBOPwill I\otCI\I$C 

### • violaUOI\of'theS02propertyline 1tAndard. ToImplementtheae**conunentJ,IIUgg~** thatthepropose<!deftnltlon**ot'~tural** ps-fire4EOP"

### Inproposed 

### 1116.18(11) be

### revisedto

### nad

# I. follows:



### ,. . ' , (A) Ame:lcan'

## S~leiy fat

## Tatins**'~d** Material., (ASTM) Brade rwmbez 1 or t £\le1 oil. l)tc 1zpmlDJ of

### wbichwID GP'Dply with the azml1gablc Urn", In I 112,' cuntmams act iIIOle lIiSa 8:396**.~Pca** 

### ""



## .weiJlst·

(B). Anyotherpdeoffucl onwhichtbe O"iiCfet OfIetatoi oftheEOP demCMbltw tothe**ex~tiv.** dircc:tor'

### d£termlnf!:llsprotectiveorlb! &03 propertyUn. muda", In I '12.'ptrbHehealthmidplv*iee1 pr"petti. I 1'hm\k)'OU tor)'oureonlideration

### otlhesecomments. 

### .

, 

## . . . e, ·t. '.,
.. " 

# . . 8Inccrol)',

# ::"'£)~~" WamaChlaum.'Chab' ' HouseCommitteeonEnvironmental Jlesul,aUon**CO~** Han. TomUher, StateRepretent&Uv. TNRCC

### Copm1}sslonerl .'

. , ,

### .. :. • •• 0° 0'

, '

## .01/29/02 15:50 FAX**~002** 

## ASSOCIATION OF

# .,-------.:..------------:.------=----- rl rr-rn 

### lCr.Oll An A

## I\.'IES OJR.l1S l. SEIDLrrS AMERICANEJ.K.TRJCPOWER I::LC'- , "" L,I 1Vu wnJ"#1**~iflMn** f1 PASOF./.fCTRICCOMPANY

President" CEO nN\5NEWMExICO ltQWE1lC.OMP,J,N( Wi\l.TON BhUM

.. ' .'

" ,,' I'. . " .'

### ,J~uary 

### 29,1002',:,' , ' '.,

• '0' Ms. Joyce**Sp~pcer** ' : ,,', , , " ' , Office ofEnviromnentaiPolicy, 

### Analysis, and

### ASsessment " ' lNRCC P.O. Box 13087, MC-205 ," Austin, Texas 78711-3087 '

" TXlJ >:CELENfR(j'(

','

, " DearMs. Spencer:

... ' . The

# ~Ciation'**'~f ,Electd~'** **'C~~anies'** 

# of,**'Te~'" fu~.,**  

# .**r'AEC~) ,apPreeiate~**  fue' opportunity to submit these comments,regarding the**above~referenced** proposedrules 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 over75% 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~** CleanAirAct ("TCAA"). "Designedto 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 descnbedbelow to ensure that the "designedto 

### 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 bythe 

### 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 54026-0000101/29/02 15:50 FAX



### Ms. Joyce Spencer 

### January29, 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, 

### andthat 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 ofthe 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 ofequipment 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. Withrespectto whatphysical 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 ofany 

### such equipment. 

### that is necessary to allow the EGF to 

### burn fuel oil, should not prevent the EGF from being considered to be "designedto bum" fuel oil. "



### . "

" ,


### As a final point relative to the "designed to 

### bum" condition, if

### an '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 thatthe "designedto burn" conditionis met for such an EOF. More 

### specifically" AEeT requests thatthe first sentence ofthe proposed 

### § 116.18(11) be revised to read as follows: "For , purposes ofSubchapterI 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 JeffSaitas, and a September II, 2001 response letterfrom

### 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 ofa range 

### ofgrades offuel 

### 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 ofreliable electric

power

### in Texas.

AUSTIN: 31J60Jvl S4026-0000101/29/02 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 ofthis 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 ofSeptember 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 determinationofacceptable grades offuel oil is contrarYto the legislative intent. Another problem with the proposed specification ofacceptable 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 ofacceptable grades of:fuel oil, the TNRCC staffconducted modeling ofS02 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 onthe modeling results, staffestablished 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 ofacceptable fuel' , oil grades 

### in this manner unnecessarily restricts the flexibility ofgrandfathered 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 offuel 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 offuel oil 

### in such EGF(s) at a site 

### will comply with the S<h property line , '
" standard in § 112.3. Addressing compliance withthe SCh property line standard in this manner is " ,

,appropriate since this is the mannerthat compliance with

## sen propertyline 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 applicationreview process under Chapter 116, ',AnyadditionalmodelingtheTNRCC may conductfor grades offue1 oilbesides number 1 or'2 shouldDot be based on the assumption thatany suchgrade offue1 oil containsmorethan o:rlo sulfur by weight sincethemaximum sulfurcontentthatfuel oil canhaveunder § 112.9 is approximately 0.7%. ' " .' '. ,,'

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

Ms. 

### JoyceSpencer January

### 29. 2002 Page4 " ,**~005**

" . ,',

.... Subchapter B.

# Moreov~r~**~ropOsed'** {1;

# ~.~**~('1'~') '~nt~~** **~~ '~t'** **~'~~~es '~t,**  " notwithstanding the specification ofacceptable 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 staterule. such as the S02property 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 throughoutthe 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 of

### Texas 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 wouldprovide the 

### maximum flexibility possible forburning fuel oil 

### in ' grandfatheredEOPs, withoutjeopardizing 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 thatASlM grades of

### fuel oil do not necessarily 

### dictate ' .'" " the sulfur content ofthe :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 complywiththe applicable limits in 

### § 112.9. To 

### address the preceding ABCT comments regarding 

### acceptable fuel oil grades. ABCT requests thatproposed 

### § 116.l8(l1)(A) be revisedto read as follows: (A) Any 

### American Society for

### Testing and

### Materials (ASTM) grade

### No.'l or2 of 

### fuel oil the hurning of

### which will 

### comply with the awlicable limits in 

### § 112.9·

, Gontaimag not

### Bl6fe1:BaH 0.3% 5U1:fur

## ayVtreight. 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) ofthe TCAl\, the only relevant " ,: 

### protectiveness issue regarding whether a grade of

### fuel 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 IIS0 2 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 ofcertain 

### grades of ' fuel oil at certain

### sites. ' ,

' 

### .. '

, 'AOS'!JN313603vl54026-0000101/29/02 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'oiacceptable' 

### fuel oil grades relates to theprocess 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 of

### apermit 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 ofthe site where the grandfathered EGF(s) is located to meet the 

### SCh '

, property line standard

### in § 

### 112.3. More specifically, 

### AECT requests thatthe case-by-case determination process regarding' ,' acceptable 

### fuel oil grades be 

### as follows: The owner or operator**~fthe** grandfatheredEOF(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 ofthe fuel oil, the identity ofthe 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 ofthe 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 whetherthe burning of

### the

desired fuel oil grade in the grandfathered EGF(s) at the site would be protective ofthe S02 'property line standard, the TNRCC will send a written determination to the owner or operator ,thatthe 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 offuel 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/ormonitoringresults, the TNRCC will make a detennination as to whetherthe desired grade '

offuel oil is acceptable based on whether the results indicate the 

### SOz property 

### line standardwill 

### be met.. :

",

.0 '.'

" ',' AECTrequests 

### thatthis case-by-case determinationprocess be desen1led 

### in the preamble 

### to the final rule. 

### AECT also requests that since under this process the 

### owner or operatorwill not '



### , have to make a demonstration that a requested grade offuel oil 

### is acceptable ifthe 

### 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 ofan Executive Director case-by-case determination ofacceptable fuel oilgrades 

### under Chapter 55.

"

"

AUSTIN313603vl 54026-00001. ",01/29/02 15:51 FAX 

### I4J007



### Ms. Joyce Spencer January

### 29)2002 Page 6 .. ' .. .' ' .' '
, 

### . To address the'

# precedfug'

# ~~~~ts**'re~arding '~~by~~~~e'** **deteiminatjo~** of

# a~~bi~ '. ' fuel oil grades, ABeTrequests thatproposed 

### § 116.18(11)@) berevised

# 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 physiealprejJefty.' Inthe event

. "that the owner or 012erator ofthe EGF disagrees 

### with the executive director's

determination. the owner or operator may request a reconsideration of that determinationunderthe procedures of Chapter 55.

, " 

### :' Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Ifyou have any**questio~** please call KeithCourtney at (512) 499-3865.



### . ...

.. ...

..... " .

..... , "

" 

### ...

.'

I" .' ", 

### .



### .. . , • " ,0 .' ,



## . " 

### .. " " ... ,



### . ,' 

### .. .'
.

'0' • ",

" ,

AusTIN 3l3603vl

### s4026-ooooJ01/29/02 15:51 FAX

RobertJ. Huston. Chairman R. B. "Ralph" Commissioner John M..Baker. Commissioner**Je{~y** A. Saitas. Exet:ldilJeDirector i 

## TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Proleding Te.msfig Ret/udngandPreDentfngPollution 

### September 11,2001 / 

### TheHonorable Warren Chisum Chairman, House Committee onEnvironmentalRegulation 

### Texas House ofRepresentatives P.O, Box2910 Austin, Texas 78768-2910 

### DearChairmanChisum:.**~008**



### Thankyouforyourletterreganting 

### Section

### 382.0S18S(i) oftheHealth & 

### SafetyCode, goveming**e~ectric·** 

### generating facility 

### permitting. Your correspondence bas 

### clarified the intent 

### of

### this new section, createdby

### HouseBill2912duringthe77thLegislativeSession. IunderstarJdthat

### it

### wasthe 

### IDte"! ofthe LegislabIre that 

### natma1 gas-fired 

### electric generating 

### facilitiS tbat 

### were 

### ocisi!JaUy designed to bum 

### fuel oil willbe authorized

### to do 

### so under

### theirelectric**~erating** 

### facilitrR-mni.t as tong as airqualio/

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

### suggestionwhich

### a.etua1Iycamefrom representatives ofthe electricgenerating tacilities will 

### also beconsideredas wecontinuetoimplement

### therules goveming

### electricgeneratingfacilities 

### in 

### Texas. As 

### always, yourcomments ;md

### insightinto these issues areverymachappreciated.. 

### Pleasecontact me at

### (512) 239-3900 orMr. JohnSteib,

### Directorofour.AirPermitsDr.isicm, :It

### (512) 239-5718 if 

### we c:m 

### be ofassiitance to 

### you

# m thefuture.
. Sincerely,

ENCLOSUREl

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin. Tws 78nl·3087 • 512.1239·1000 • lnb:metaddress: 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 ofthe 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\Grandfatherrules comments.doc2. 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 levelsthan provided for in the statute. Accordingly, theAssociations recommend that the TNRCC delete the term "at least" in the draft rule, so that it will not be construed thatthe TNRCC maymandate 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 ofthe 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 ofwhat, ifany, reductions in vacs will be required in orderto 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 fordetermining 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 considerthe impact on vac emissions when developing a proposed plan for Nax emission reductions, the owners/operators ofthese engines should be advised in advance of applying for a Pipeline Facilities Permit the criteria for determining the extent and level ofvac 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 ofthe grandfathered RIC engines in EastTexas 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, ifwarranted 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 EastTexas 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. Ifthere is ademonstrated need for reductions in emissions ofVaCs, theAssociations suggestthat the Commission consider requiring only diesel-fueled grandfathered RIC engines to
W:C:\Files\wp\Grandfather rules comments.docachieve 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 likelyto contribute to ambient airquality problems and certainty in the permitting process will be provided. 4. West Texas Emissions Reductions. Proposed 

### § 116.779(b)(2) providesthatthe commission shallrequire "upto a20 percent" reduction of the hourly emissions rate of NOx and may require "up to a 20% reduction in the hourlyemissions rate ofVOCs from grandfathered RIC engines located in WestTexas. 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, andphysicalproperty
.... " 

### § 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 notjustified and serves to consume personnel and capital resources that could otherwise be directed toward making improvements in the EastTexas and non-attainment regions ofthe state. The legislature certainly did not intend to require emission reductions in every case. Indeed Senator Bernsen omitted West Texas entirely from his Senate FloorAmendment 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." Excerptfrom the Senate Floordebate on HB 2912, Tape 3 of5, 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 ofWestTexas but rather onlyto meet
W:C:\Files\wp\Grandfather rules comments.doclimited 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 assumingthatthe proposed rule properly incorporated statutorycriteriaforemission reductions, we are not aware of information showing that emissions from grandfathered RIC engines in West Texas pose a threat to public health orthe environment. WestTexas 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 mayrequire "up to a 20%" reduction ofthe 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 narrowlyand onlyforpurposes ofprotecting public health and serving limited regional air quality needs. 5. Cost Analysis to Control Grandfathered RIC Engines. The Commission's costanalysis inthe preambleofthe 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 itselfand one that is notjustified in regions like West Texas where no demonstrable improvements to air quality will be achieved. Second, the Commission's estimateforthe capital coststo 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\Grandfatherrules comments.docThird, the Commission's estimateforthe 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 tighttolerance required forsuccessful NSCR operation. Installation ofthe fuel/air ratio control system will require a newcontroller, fuel and/orairpiping 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 undera single Pipeline Facilities Permit. The Associations also supportthe 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 subjectto the emission reduction requirements ofthese sections, rather they are subject to the provisions ofthe 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 ofthese provisions to grandfathered RIC engines located in non-attainment areas. 8. Emission Averaging Calculations. The Associations notethatthe TNRCC has notyet 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 ofgrams per brake horsepower-hour("g/bhp-hr"), emissions averaging calculations should be made in the same unit of measure. Ifengines have different horsepowers, the glbhphrshould be extended so that g/bhp-hrbecomes the unit ofmeasure 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 ofthat shut-down engine may be utilized in the permitting of an operating grandfathered RIC engine.

• Emission reductions, expressed in terms ofg/bhp-hr, achieved orgrandfathered 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 forthe 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 intothe pipelinefacilities permitthat documents the creation and utilization of emission credits. This wayan afterthe-fact inspectorwill be ableto more readily determine the facility's compliance with the pipeline facility permit.

• An entitywith excess emission credits should be allowed to transfer orsell those credits to another entity. Comments on Proposed § 116.779(a), General Provisions: 9. Health Effects; Proposed § 116.779(a)(1) providesthat emissions from the facility must complywith 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 supportthis approach and encouragesthe 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\Grandfatherrules comments.doc10. 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 thatthe Commission may require computerized airdispersion modeling or ambient air monitoring to determine airquality 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 ofthe state where many ofthese 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 ofthe same class ortype 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 stafftime 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 IncentivesAccount: 13. Distribution of Funds from the Emissions Reductions Incentive Account. In general, theAssociations supportthe 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 Inventorydetracts from the statutoryscheme based upon reductions from the hourly emissions rate.

W:C:\Files\wp\Grandfather rules comments.docThe Associations supportthe provision to make engines that are required to reduce emissions by some otherstate orfederal 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 EastTexas Region. The fund was created to help payforthe 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 facilitythat is located in a non-attainment area for ozone. That clause should be deleted in order to be consistent with other subsections ofthis 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/operatormay 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 sothatthe permits for all grandfathered facilities at the same account are issued at the same time. This concludes our comments on these proposed rules. Ifyou have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely,
Patrick 

### J. Nugent Executive Director Association ofTexas Intrastate Natural Gas Pipelines 512/478-2871

W:C:\Files\wp\Grandfatherrules comments.docW:C:\Files\wp\Grandfather rules comments.doc And Mark Sutton Executive Director Gas Processors Association 

### 918/493-3872Sent 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 ofpollutants emitted into Texas air. Neither TeE northe 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 ORMODIFICATION 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.orgSent 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 thatjustify good cause for the commissions granting ofa 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 ofcontrols. Norwould 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 halfofthe 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 priorto 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 counterto 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 datato 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 notbe issued without substantial changes to those facilities. Agency 

### staffshould pledge to make databases that trackthe 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 orfederal 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 DraftRegulatory Language, page 1S, 

### paragrapb 1, relating to development ofhealth 

### 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 commissiongenerated guidance document. For instance, the health impacts review should include a review

# ofcomplaints 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 abalanced work group that is comprised ofindustry, environmental groups and citizens that 

### all meet simultaneously to work on the guidance document generation. Issues ofgrandfatbered EGF's, Draft Language page 9 TCE is concerned that the modeling described for EGF's able to burn fuel oilin 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 powerplants emit, i.e. mercury, 5- minute exposure to sulfurcompounds, 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 otherlocations wherepeople congregate. We are also concerned about power plant pollution that hanns waterways that are farSent by: WorkCenter 250 01/29/02 4:1 QPM Job 10 Page 5/6

TCE Comments on RuleLog 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 

### unitis operated less than 10% ofthe time, 

### as outlined on page 10. Draft Regulatory Language, page 15, paragraph 1, relating to provisions for the measurement ofair 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-casebasis. This is not protective ofpublic health, safety and the environment. Furthennore, 

### it does not provideunifonnity 

### in practice. 

### In addition, the rules do not include requirements for certified monitoring data. 

### Fees, DraftRegulatory Language, page 19, paragraph 1, relating to permitting: TeE has serious concerns that the $450 fee. for all but small business stationary sources, is fartoo low. The facilities that applied for aVERP 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 anormal 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 ornotthe funds go into the agency's budget orGeneral Revenue. The TNRCC could use the existing formula for a new pernrit (one-tenth or 1% ofthe capital costs ofconstructionwith a $75,000 maximum and a $450 minimum). The agency could consider hiring a person who could determine an appropriate assessment if there is abetterbenchmarkthan old construction costs. This is probably betterdone 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 thatthe commission has stated on page 23, paragraph 1 that: Ir there may be additional special conditions attachedto anexisting facility flexible pennit upon issuance oramendment 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 believethat an insignificant emissionfactor wouldbe necessary orappropriate for grandfathered facilities, since use ofthe ten year oldBACTsent 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 CHAPTER39 PUBLIC NOTICE Draft Regulatory Language, page 

### 12, last paragraph, last sentence: TCE is concerned about who will compile an accurate listing of the 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 ormay emit more than 75 tpy ofall regulated 

### airpollutants 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 maybe improperly exempt from having to obtain an existing source permit. Draft Regulatory Language, page 18 paragraph one, line 11 , relating to nonaddressing ofprevention ofpublic 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 DirectorTEXAS CAMPAIGN FORTHE 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 behalfofTexas Campaign for the Environment. in the capacity as a BoardMember ofTexas Campaign for the Environment. Texas Campaign for the Environment is pleased to have this opportunity to comment onthe TNRCC's rule making regarding Chapter 116. SubchapterA, Definitions ;SubchapterH. VolUl1.tary Emissions Reduction Permits and SubchapterI.Electric Generating Facilities necessary to implementthe legislative revisions to the TCAA, and revisions to Chapter 39, Public Notice, necessary to implementthe provisions ofHB 2912, § §5.02 -5.05. The comments presented today are preliminary and Texas Campaign forthe 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 DraftRegulatory 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 notjustreductions 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 ofpollutants 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 priorto 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 counterto 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 FORTHEENVIRONMENT Preliminary Comments totheTNRCC on Chapter 116 and Chapter 39 12/19/01
.
COMMENTS REGARDING: CHAPTER 116 CONTROL OF POLLUTION BY PERMITS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION ORMODIFICATION 1. Draft Regulatory Language, page 3, paragraph 3, relating to good cause: 

### TCE is requesting clarificationbythe commissionregarding the acceptable definitions or conditions thatjustify good cause for the commissions granting ofa one-yearextension for the permittingprocess for grandfathered facilities that are nowrequiredto obtain a commissionpermit. 2. DraftRegulatory 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 ofemissions reduction to a 50% 

### NOx emissions level and up to a 50% reduction in VOC emissions for facilities located in EastTexas 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 priorto and postreduction by the commission. 3. Bas,eline rate estimation

- how will the commission calculatethe baseline emissions for the facilities that are requiredto 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 orfederal requirements. 6. Pipeline data will be sparse and oflimited reliability. 7. Detennining whether or not apipeline facility truly qualifies for HB 2914 funds. 3. Draft Regulatory Language, page 6, paragraph 3, relating to commission criteria for determination ofwhom will receive money and how much they will receive: 

### TCE is requesting clarification regarding the specific criteriathat the commission is referring to. Language is vague. 4. Draft Regulatory Language, page 7, paragraph 1, relating to 50% reduction in actual emissions ofNOx: 

### TCE is concerned about the following, as was stated in Chapter 116 Comment2, above: 1. The detennination ofthe emissions rate. 2. Verification ofthe actual rates priorto andpostreductionby the commission.

2TEXAS CAMPAIGN FORTHE ENVIRONMENT Preliminary Comments tothe 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 requiredto make the 50 and 20% reductions in the emissions? 4. Guarantee oftonage reductions. 5. Establishment ofcontrol checkpoint criteria and verification ofsaidcriteria. 6. Method ofprioritizationby the commission for reimbursement ofHB 2914 funds. 7. Calculation and verification ofthe 1997 industrial source pointemissions inventory. Whatmethodology exists for evaluation ofunderreporting of1997 figures? 5. DraftRegulatory Language, page 7, paragraph 1, and last sentence relating to issuance ofguidance: 

### TCE believes thatthe reimbursement criteria should be part ofthe DraftRegulatory Language and such subjectto Public Comment as opposedto 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 solelyby 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 DraftRegulatory Language and such subjectto Public Comment as opposed to being discretionarily reviewedbythe commission ofapermitby permit application basis because this excludes the formation ofsuch reviews from the public commentprocess. The health effectparameters that were to be considered shouldbe included inthe 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 ofair contaminants, including installation ofsampling ports and sampling platforms: 

### TCE takes exceptionto the use ofthe word may andbelieves may shouldbe changed to shall. May implies total freedom ofdiscretion on a case by casebasis. This is not protective ofpublic health, safety andthe environment. Furthermore, it does notprovide uniformity in practice. 8. Draft Regulatory Language, page 19, paragraph 1, relating to permitting fees: 

### TCE has serious concerns thatthe $450 fee, for all but small business stationary sources, will only partially offsetthe cost for the commission to process the said permits. This relates back directly to Chapter39, 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 CAMPAIGNFORTHE ENVIRONMENT Preliminary Comments to the TNRCC on Chapter 116 and Chapter39 12/19/01
. 

### estimationthat the actual nwnberofaffectedlarge businesses will behigherthanthe figures provided inthe 1997 

### emissions inventory. TCE would like to know why large businesses are onlybeing charged $450 for apermit? Thesepolluting facilities have run for 30 years without apermit.

- 7. 

### DraftRegulatory Language missing language: TCE does not find any language relatingto HB 2914 

### emission rate reductions. Please provide TCE with this specificDraftRegulatoryLanguage so that we mayreview and comment during the public commentphase ofthe rule making process. 8. General Comment # 

### 1: TCE believes thatthe rules should be modified suchthat the criteriafor real reductions in emissions should applyto all pipeline facilities notjustthose 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 onpaperemissions 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 thatthe commission has stated on page 23, paragraph 1 

### that: " there may be additional special conditions attached to an existing facility flexible permitupon issuance oramendment ofthe permit that may be more restrictive than the requirements ofthe section". 9. General Comment# 

### 2: TCE is pleased to seethatthe commission has stated on page 24, 

### paragraph 1 

### that: "the commission does notbelievethat an insignificantemissionfactor wouldbe necessary or appropriate for grandfathered facilities, since use ofthe ten year oldBACT method will provide sufficientflexibility for these facilities". TCErecognizes this as limiting "wiggling" room for applicants.

4TEXAS CAMPAIGN FORTHEENVIRONMENT Preliminary Comments tothe TNRCC on Chapter 116 and Chapter39 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 addthem 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 thatthe 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. TCE is concerned that pipeline facilities may be improperlyexempt 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 CAMPAIGNFORTHE ENVIRONMENT Preliminary Comments to the TNRCC on Chapter 116 and Chapter39 12/19/01 5. Draft RegulatoryLanguage, page 18 paragraph one, line 11 , relating to nonaddressing ofprevention ofpublic nuisance: TeE 

### wants the rule revision to specifically address the prevention ofpublic nuisance and the prevention ofimmediatethreatto life orproperty inaddition to the rule inclusion for prevention ofreal and substantial threatto public health and safety.

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

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

6

# CITY OF HOUSTON Office of the Mayor 

# 8
Lee 

### P. Brown 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 ofthese 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 forttie benefit of our citizens. 

# rt

Lee P. Brown Mayor LPB:PMB 

### ....

cc: The Honorable Robert 

### J. Huston, Chairman 

### The Honorable 

### R. B. 

### aRalphD 

### Marquez, 

### 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 Code205 P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 

### 78711-3087 

### DearMs 

### Spencer: City Public Service, tho electncutility.that provides electricity and gas to the citizens of
. SanAntonio,**Texa.~~** 

### submits thefollowing comments onRule LogNo.**2001·076·116~AT.** 

### Thank yOll 

### for your attention and the opportunity to comment on these proposed nIles. If you have any questions, please contactme at**210~353-2875.**



### Sincerely,**t'**

....**";t~~** 

### CynthiaLevesque Supervisor, Pennits Section

"',.,.. 

### " , """ 

### -

## JAN-29-2002 TUE 05:54 PM**STRP~~GIC** 

## & ENV PLANNING

City Puhlic Service (CPS) 

### Comments on Chapler 

### 116 Rule LogNo. 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 

### SubchapterB. Division 2, and Chapter 101, 

### Subchapter H, Division 2 

### which allows system averaging and 

### is based on 

### an annual allocation oftons based 

### On the years 1996 through 1998. An**al1(,~wance·bascd** 

### or**cnp-and~trade** 

### program is one in which**n~xibility** 

### ofcontrol is 

### the key. 

### Based on Ulis premise, it 

### seems reasonable to develop an 

### EGF permit program which allows flexibility ofcontrol 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 orderto 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 statementto

.**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 ofcontrols 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 thatthese permits wouldbe considered as unique from other permits in providing the flcxilibility ofcontrol Dnd allocation ofallowances based on annual limits providedfor Chapter 

### 101, SubchapterH. 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 systempreviously 

### described, Forexample, 

### proposed Scction 

### 116.918 (b)(S» continues 

### the "command and control" thoughtprocess 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 ofcompliance. 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 onRule Log No. 2001-076-116- AI. We have one additional commentthat we failedto include in those comments that we would respectfully like to askthatyou consider. The comment is regarding the level ofpercent sulfur 

### ill the fuel oil. CPS has historically obtained fuel 

### oil ofgrades 2 through 6, 

### with contracted levels ofsulfur 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 of400 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 withthe stnte standards. Thank you for your attention and the opportunity to comment on these proposed rules. If ' you 

### have any questions, please contactme 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**~-------------** 

### j 0.0 '--

__-.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 concerningTNRCC's rule makingregarding Chapter 116, SUbchapter.A, Definitions; SubchapterH, VoluntaryEmissions

### Re~ucti~m**Pe~ts** and SubchapterI.

### Elect:t~ GeneratingFacilities necessary to implementthe legtslatlVereVISions to the 

### TeM, and teVISlonS to. Chapter 39, PUblic Notice, necessaryto implementtheprovisions ofHB 2912, § §S.02 -5.05 submttted onbehalfofDownwinders at

### Risk and Blue Skies Alliance.

. . Thejob ofthe TNRCC is the 

### carry outthe intentoftheTexas Legisiature The law 

### mustbe enforced, loopholes closed. andpublic healthprotected. The TNRCC mustbe committedto these three goals arid write strongrules which do notundennine the intent oftheTexas Legislature-an intentwhich was explicit. Considerthe heated debate that ensued on the SenateFloorwhen aproposal for 20% reductions ofNOx andVOC's was made. In the end the Senate supported 50% reduction inNOx and VOC's, notthe 20%, because theirintentwas to make real, meaningful reductions in airpollution emissions in Texas. The recentrelease ofthe Environmental ProtectionAgency's MOBlLE6 studywhich projects that vehicles will-emit 90% moreNOx and 21 

### % VOCs in 2003 than once thoughtmeans thatreductions will have to bemade elsewhere in order for cities, including the DallaslFort Worth Metroplex, to meetthe goals oftheirState ImplementationPlans (SIPs). Theproposedrule prompts concern overwhetherit will push for meaningful reductions that will assistnon-attainment areas in meeting federal law and protecting the public from harmful airpollution. To begin, there is concern overwhetherthe proposedrules, especiallyregarding combustion engines alongpipelines, meetwiththe Legislature's intent. & you know, combustion engines along pipelines are asignificant source ofNOx and VOCs and they, along with other grandfathered sources, shouldbe asked to makereal reductions. Themethodology for determining emissions reductions shoulduse baselinerate estimation, guarantee tonnage reductions. and emissions shouldbereliably monitored and tracked to ensure greatestreductions. Downwinders atRisk and Blue Skies Alliance believethatthe development ofthehealth effects review should bepan ofthe DraftRegulatory**Lan~uage** and such subject to Public Comment as opposedto :- 972.296.9100. Fax 972.296.9106 400 North Main Street

- DUDcan-viUe, TX 75116 P.O. Box 763844 • Dallas, TX 75376-3844FROM FAX NO. Jan. 29 2002 04:15PM P2/3
being discretionarily reviewedbythe commission on apermitbypennit application basis becausethis excludes the fonnation ofsuchreviews from thepublic commentprocess (DraftRegulatoryLanguage, page IS, paragraph 1, relating"to development ofhealth effects l"eview for EGF's). Thehealth effectparameters that were to be considered shouldbe included in the DraftRegulatory Languagenot in an internal commission generated guidance document. Downwinders atRisk 

### andBlue 

### Skies Alliancetake exception to the use ofthe word "may" andbelieve "may" shouldbe changedto "shall". ''May'' implies total freedom ofdiscretion on acasebycasebasis. This is notprotective ofpublic health, safety and the environment.**Furthennor~,** it does**n~t.provide** uniformity in practice (DraftRegulatory Language, page 15, paragraph 1, relating to**~rovlsl0ns** forthe measurementofaircontaminants, including installation ofsamplingports and samplmgplatforms). Downwinders atRisk andBlue Skies Alliancehave serious concerns thatthe $450 fee, for all but small business stationary sources, will onlypartially offset the costforthe commissionto process the said permits. This relates back directly to Chapter39, page 12, paragraph 3, relating to the commissions estimationthatthe actual numberofaffected largebusinesses will be higherthan the figures providedin the 1997 emissions inventory. Downwinders atRisk andBlue Skies Alliance would liketo know why large businesses are onlybeing charged $450 for apermit? These polluting facilities have run for 30 years without apennit (DraftRegulatory Language, page 19. paragraph 1, relating to permitting fees). Downwinders atRisk and Blue Skies Alliancebelieve there areproblems with the use ofthe

.terminology "emissionrate reduction" instead ofreal emissions tonnage reductions, as was the.

legislative intent ofHB2912. This translates into onpaper emissions rate reductions versus real reductions in actual total emissions. That is not the intent ofthe Legislature. Downwinders atRisk and Blue Skies Alliance are pleasedto seethatthe commissionhas stated onpage 23, paragraph 1 that: " theremaybe additional special conditions attached to an existing facility flexible permitupon issuance or amendmentofthe permitthatmaybemore restrictive than the requirements of the sectionll • Downwinders at Risk and Blue Skies Alliance is pleased to seethatthe commissionhas stated onpage 24, paragraph 1 that: lithe commission does notbelieve that an insignificantemission factorwouldbenecessary or appropriate for grandfathered facilities, since use ofthe ten yearoldBACT methodwill provide sufficientflexibilityfor these facilities". Downwinders atRisk and Blue Skies
. Alliancerecognize this as limiting "wiggling" room for applicants. COMMENTS REGARDING CHAPTER 39 PUBLIC NOTICE Downwinders atRisk and Blue Skies Alliance are concerned about who 

### will compile an accurate listing ofthe additional large business grandfathered facilities thatwere not included in the 1997 emissions inventory. How will the agency find them and add them to the listoflarge business grandfathered facilities? How will the identification and addition ofthese facilities affectthe SIP's? (DraftRegulatory Language, page 12, lastparagraph, last sentence) Relating to pipeline facilities thatmay apply for a small business stationary source pennitratherthan a**pip~~i~e facili~y**  permit, Downwinders atRisk andBlue Skies 

### Alliance are concernedthatthe pipeline faclhtles may mdeedbe above the 50 tpy threshold ofanyregulated airpollutantormay emitmorethan 7S tpy ofall regulated airpollutants sincethe pipeline industryitselftestified atHouse and Senate ;-**Hearing.~** thatthey did nothave 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 havingto obtain 

### an existing sourcepermit. (Draft

### Regulatory Language, page 14

### paragraphone) Relatingto the statementthattheremaybe additionalgrandfathered small andmicro-businesses that havenot shownup onthe 1997 emissions inventory, Downwinders atRiskandBlue Skies Alliance are concerned aboutwho will 

### compile

### an accurate listing ofthe additional small 

### andmicro-business grandfatheredfacilities thatwere notincluded in 

### the 1997 emissions inventory. How will the agency find them and addthemto the list ofsmall andmicro-business grandfathered facilities? How will 

### the identification and addition ofthese facilities affectthe SIP's? (Draft

### Regulatory Language, page 14 paragraphone) Downwinders atRisk and 

### Blue Skies Alliance 

### are concernedthatthe Commissiondidnotinclude mercury and lead

### inthis role-making. This is agood opportunityto obtain lower emissions ofthese harmfulpollutants. 

### Thankyou {or allowing ourconunents on this critical issue. 

### We are looking forward to yourpositive actiontowardclosing the loophole onthese outdated facilities. Sincerely,

# t!::::zo~- Co-Chair, Downwinders atRisk

### EducationFund 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 Number2001-076-116-AI**1)ear~s.Spcnce~** 

### Environment31 Defense submits the following COInments on the proposed rules for the 

### permitting of 

### gnl.ndfllthercd faciliries. EnvironmentalDefense represents approximately 15,000 

### members inTexas. Gencnll S\lpportfor the

### way HE 2914 

### funds are 

### used We 

### support the 

### proposedrequirementin 

### §116.776(a)(1) that actual emissionreductions of50% occur in order to qualifyfor incentive funds. We 

### also support the criteriaproposed for distribution offunds for pipeline £l.ciliries in §

### 116.776(c), with one exception. The funds shouldnotbe used for reductions alrccl.dyrequired in a

### SIP; facilities in nonartainment**arc~s** 

### should thus be ineligible forincentives. ClarifY. when New SI)UrCe 

### Review 

### applies TheTNRCC 

### should ensure thatpipeline open\tors do notuse permits establishedin HB 2912, 77'b Texas Legislature, as a

### way to make operational orphysical changes such as increasingthe utilization, capacity, orthroughputofexisting

### unies withoutgoing through the 

### normal new source review permittingprocess. The commission should clarifythat aconventional new source reviewpermit wouldbe required if

### an applicant, as part ofpermitting agrandfatheredfacility, wishes to make a physical oroperationalmodificationthathas the potential to significantlyincrease emissions. For example, the size ofthe emissions cap under an e.'<istingfaciUtyflexible permit, as proposedin §116.800, 

### is based on "expectedmaximum capacity.n Similarconcerns apply to pipeline facilities permits. The commission should addarequirementthat the expectedma..'lCimum capacityunder any grandfathered permitmay not significantlyexceedhistorica11evcls. Establish acap on**cmi$~ioo~** from 

### pipeline faciliries The

### TNRCC shoulduse its existinggeneralauthorityto protectpublic healthand adopt strongerrules
. ;- that ensure predictable and significantemissions reductions occurfrom 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 pipelinefacilities. TheTNRCC relied on this generalauthority to require a50% reductionin the emissions ofallpowerplants inEastand CentralTexas (even though legislation only called for500/0 

### reductions 

### from grandfatheredplants), alongwith a 

### number

### ofother strategies that

### have been included

### in the 

### SIPs for

### DFWand 

### HGA. To the extentthatTNRCC is going to 

### claim credit for the permittingofgrandfathercd pipeline**faciliti~s** 

### in the SIP, 

### itmustprovide reasonable assurance thatthe projected emissionreductions 

### willbe achievedinpractice. The September2001 

### HGASIP 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 a50% reduction in emissionrates from**pipelin~** 

### facilities in orderfor this meaSure to be creditableundertho 

### SIP, We urge the commission to est.\blish acap on emissions from pi}1eline facilities, modelcd after the 

### emission reductionprogr-c\m established

### in SB7. DefiQc aden.T**m~rhorlology** 

### to determine the haseline from 

### which pipeline facilities' emissions reductionsJll"e measured §

### 116.779 does; not

### specifyhow baseline emissions oremissions ratcs 

### ofpipeline facilities willbe determined. We anticipate that the data on the operation ofaffected pipelincfacilities will be sparse and oflimitedreliability. We 

### fear that affected pipeline operators 

### wilt artificiallyinflate the 

### baseline emission rates in order to qualifyfor ahigheremissionrate in its 

### permit. (This would norbe apfohlem under an emissions cap, as established

### in SB7j all facilities wouldbe allocated alimited number of emission allowances equal to 

### 50% ofthe total tons ofemissions ill the baselineyear).
. IfthcTNRCC does not establish an SB7 type ofcap on pipeline facilities, then in esmblishing the baselinefrom which reductions will be measured, the 

### commission should either:

• require certified monitoring data that 

### establishes the 

### baseline emissionrate for each affected facility; 

### or

• establish defaultbaselinerates forvarious engine types, on the basis ofpublished emissions data or certified**~missions** 

### tesring ofarepresentative sample ofaffected units inTexas. Variables to considerinclude size, 

### age, loadfactor, 

### fuel type, operating char.lctenst'ks (lean-burn, 

### e.g.); f\.leI type, and control devices, if

### any. .& across-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 notdescribe how an average emissions rate from multiple pipeline f.'lcilities is calculated. The commission should define how such acalculation should 1?e performed. This calculation mustweightindividual units by

### theircapacityandhours ofoperation to ensure that the averagingprocess docs notdecrease the actual amountofemissions reduction that would havebeen achieved through the permittingprocess ifthe units had beenpermittedindividually. 

# I I I

## JAN-29-2002 rUE 10:29 AM

Ccrtific:ation o(grandf.\thered.stlltus attime ofpermitting 

### FAX NO. 

## P. 04

The legislature intended for theprovisions ofHB 2912 to apply onlyto facilities thatwere legally grandfathcrcd, namely theypredate the CleanAirAct

### and had notbeenmodified since 1971. We urge the commission to add

### a. requirementthatin qrderfor agrandfarheredfacility tobe issued a permit; the applicantmustprovide acertification, signed

### byaresponsible official, thatthe facility has notbeen modified since 1971. Sucha certificationshouldbeincluded as an additionalpiece of information to beprovidedunder §1l6.779(a) and §116.794. We appreciate the 

### opportunity to provide these comments.

# ~~PhJ).**~!J** ScientistJAN-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 InternetAddress (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 PermitH 

### 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 air2146657263 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 GrandfafheredAir Pollution: The DirtySecrefofTexas 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 ofviolation 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.orgFrom: 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 lowerfee 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 underwhich 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. Underthe 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 P.O. Box 3021 

# 8
Houston, Texas 77253-3021 W-15 713/895-9309

Ms. Joyce Spencer TNRCC Office Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment MC205 P. O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 DearMs. Spencer, Enclosed are the comments ofthe 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 ofthe criteria From the perspective ofthe HSC ifa 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 ortake 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, "highestpercentage 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 ofcontinuing to allow a company to pollute the air and shorten the life ofpeople in the community and affect theirhealth, 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 bumfuel oil ratherthan 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 ofpublic 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 airemissions. 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

....,__ 0Historic Park, and many other important ecological areas (for example: properties owned by The Natural Conservancy ofTexas). TNRCC has been negligent in protecting these important natural areas. Nowis thetime torequiremaximmnreductions. 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 ofprocessing 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, andresources ofTNRCC employees andthe agency are certainlyworth much morethan a $450permit fee. Itis time thatindustry is chargedwhatitreallycosts to process apermit 7) In 30 TAC 116.7%(d)(l), the HSC opposes the TNRCC mandate that requires that statements mustbe submittedin writing at apublic 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 sitdown andwrite a statement TNRCC should always record public statements so it canusethemlaterinthecomment consideration process. 8) In 30 TAC 116.802, theHSC opposes the avoidance ofnew source review permittingfor 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 commentonthis 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 operatinghours (whichamount to almost 900 hours or 37 days in ayear) without applyingfor apermit. Thisis a significantamountoftime. Emissions couldbe generatedduringpeak ozone season whenthey would have the most impacton citizens' healthand welfare. We appreciate the opportunityto comment Thankyou. Sincerely, BrandtMannchen 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 JlobertL Austill I'IIi5nl5NI" WI1Ii.un L Ennil,AuItIn YlCl!-H1'SIllOlt 10&t4Wla """D IolED&4lli1.Al1ON$ Cindy L. Morphew.Austin**~fOll ~~**  BenJulinW.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 CanAI1aI 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 ofEnvironmentalPolicy, 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 opportunityto 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofmore than one grandfathered reciprocating internal combustion engines may average the reductions achieved among more than more than one reciprocating internal combustion engine connectedto or partof a 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 LogNo. 2001-076-116-AI January28.2002 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 ofExecutive Director Jeffrepeated 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 wherereductions cannotbe economically achieved. Specific to pipeline facilities, TxOGA makes the followingrequest. Theproposed 30 TAC 116.779 would require owners/operators to obtain existing facilitypermits on a site-by-site basis. At 

### this time, there are three alternatives to obtaining a permit under 30 TAC 116.779:
. • Claimpermit-by-rule 

### ifthe site qualifies. However. pennit-by-rule can 

### likewise only be claimedona site-by.sitebasis.
• Obtain an existing facility flexible pennit in accordance with 30 TAe 116.795. This alternative does not 

### allow the use ofa 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 multipleplantpermit.
. A fourth alternative is requested for grandfathered tank or pipeline facilities. This would allow these sources to obtain aregionalpermit for aggregated facilities, with allowable emissions that meet the equivalent overall emission limit ofcurrentBACT. 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. smallheaters. 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 ofthe 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 ofa 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

January28, 2002 

### Page.three
orbetterthan those 

### achieved under the proposed rule, since the permittees would be required to 

### demonstrate that 

### an emissionreduction equivalentto current 

### BACT is achieved. 

### Please feel free 

### to call me ifI can 

### answer any questions regarding our comments. I can bereached at 

### 5121478-6631.

Cindy 

### w Vice- 

### President for 

### EnvironmentalAffairs 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 ofEnvironmental 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 behalfof 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 ofTXU is the production ofelectricity and the transmission ofnatural**ga~** in north. central. east and west Texas. TXU 

### is also a member ofthe Association ofElectric 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 ofnormal annual operating schedule, the distribution offunds for internal combustion engines, and demonstrations for nonEGF generators and auxiliary bollers. General Comments on the Permitting ofExisting Facilities Although 30 TAC Chapter 116 is entitled "Control ofAirPollution 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 ofexisting 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 76

### m 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 anew 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 permittingprocedures. Definition ofNatural Gas·fired EGF HB 2912 directs the TNRCC to adopt rules regarding acceptable fuel oil grades for natural gas-firedEGFs 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 ofconcern. TXU has 20 natural gas-fired EGFs that can combustNo.5 fuel

# oil as a secondary fuel. The approximate cost to convert 14 ofthese units to No.2 oil would be $30 mimon [0 $40 million with the majority ofthe cost being the removal ofNo.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 ofoil, 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 ofthe impacts indicates that only a few plants may have a problem» then the rule should not**penali~e** all the otherplants 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 offuel oil should be an open process that includes a review by the owners ofthe 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. Ifresidual 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 greaterpotential for impacting the public because ofthe location and height ofthe emissions. A prohibition on burning No. S oil could also impact winterreliability ifnatural gas is curtailed before a conversion to No.2 oil canbe accomplished.

Definition ofNormal Operating Schedule HB 2912 allows an owner or operator ofa 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 ofthe electric grid 

### is 8760 hours (8784 in leap year), the 10% operation should be 876 hours. 

### The Distribution ofFunds 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 ofa portion ofthe costs ofcontrols. 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 ofa 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 clearwhen this demonstration is required.

## JAN-29-2002 TUE 04:40 PM TXU**nl~INESS** 

## SERVICE

Page4 - 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 

### auxiliaryboilers, the onlyrequirement

### is to include theiremissions in the emission allowance tradingprogram, butnot 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 importantissues. 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 NetworkTRANSCRIPT 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: 

# arecordof excellence
1801 Lavaca • Suite 115 • Austin, Texas 78701 • 512-474-22332 

### 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 First of all, I would MR. HAGLE:

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)474-22333


### 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 We also have copies of the registration table. 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)474-22334



### 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)474-22335



### 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 And I said, "Well, this explains that news. 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)474-22336



### 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)474-22337

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)474-22338



### 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)474-22339



### 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)



# - 'f= b 

### R

# ~-:.- sT 

# Dt«J}s- 

# IlJe"t

# VJ f(

## f\

## ~NO L . .j

.. }f-{

# (=- 

# ""DAV I'D 

# '7

# -0 UN cit

## tV 

# l5<u Yes 

# @

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes NoINDEX 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\"·** 

### ---~-~---



# arecordof excellence
1801 Lavaca • Suite 115 • Austin, Texas 78701 • 512-474-22331 

### 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)474-22333


### 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 I1 

### 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)474-22335


### 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)474-22331 

### 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)474-22339


### 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)474-223310


### 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)474-22331 

### 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)474-223312


### 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)474-2233JAN-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 116 1 

### Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification; and 30 TAC Chapter 39 1 

### 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 

# C I 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'**.~** 

## A 

# tt LS 6

# N I...Atv'b.-· 

# iA-ffl-l II CI2En1/**~OI\S (t.sSW!)P1A~**  fA.

# 5h~//1**-r</c.'Jo...!..~** 

# B No <./

) 

# ® frev\;-.I

## ~rf~J: Yes C.rr.1/A.\JCvv/,-,,..., 

## .£A..,,-,ft

..**j(<;.~** '\

.

# ~cJ.~fuv rituA('f1

# f!w,v([

# C!bc1JJ~ 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.r

# u+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 

# @



# - eJ2.,v-1r ( 1PLJLC't fJ

### I~· 

## J--rr fA I:::' S**~l\,~** -I

# I\\-\~ \- , -S-I\M. 

# fj 

# "**~.."** Yes 

# ® '..IV 

## IC\**fl.....~\-\:.....** tV' 

### Leu b 

# L

# 1

# d I 

## 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 On

# npc Representing Name
.Ill /**,p~lease** .,erint)

. 

## ;1/ 

# Iv 01./ I 

## Dr

Yes

Yes

## ~-**r;1j~**

### 5'~ Yes 

# §) Cr Yes

Yes 

# (ff;)

, 

# 5 Lz'tV (.s e" 

## 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 

# --:J cJ 

# 7V

# £ 

# 5 (' 0 

# G

# E (2 " V ( 

## <? Yes

Yes 

# Q
Ij Yes 

# VINDEX 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
.... / 

# 69**~h'~~L:-** Yes

# ~.:::;-.:).·c __

# ~c_~o- 

# ///;r/ /£ Yes 

# V L-L. ,

# d~JL~~ Yes 

# ® J) f/\ 

## k'r: r 

## r, . IJ 

### S"., -rv " t, "C', "'> .T,: ,1 c' v''..**~..** 

### r" (> 

### Ir.( 

### , 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 - 

# @**1::-'~J1** Yes

# r,(.~ L
- f Yes No

Yes NoINDEX 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 DallasTRANSCRIPT 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'~~"**

### ._~~~-**~~-----**



# arecordof excellence
1801 Lavaca
. Suite 115
. Austin, Texas 78701 • 512-474-22332



### so now. PRO C E E DIN G S

Permits Division of the TNRCC.

Chapter 39 Public Notice, and the State Good All right. MR. HAGLE: 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)474-22333



### 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)474-22334 

### 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 what 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 cement plant that 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)474-22335



### 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)474-22337 

### 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

# • R I'ra- 

# e::> 

# ,L eu..C;i,{'" ,<1

### .r-W~ N1(.Jh... 

### c.-c2 

### 5' 6JJ"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\f

# Cre 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