U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

May 2012 

Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed PSD Permit Minor 

Modifications for the Rio Bravo Poso and Rio Bravo Jasmin 

Cogeneration Facilities 
 2

Contents

I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 3

II. EPA’S RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS........................................................................... 4

Comments Submitted by Janet M. Laurain of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo............................ 4 

Comments Submitted by Harold M. Thomas, Special Deputy District Attorney on behalf of the 

Butte County California District Attorney, Michael L. Ramsey ........................................... 4 

Comments Submitted by Tom Frantz, President of the Association of Irritated Residents.................. 5 

Comments Submitted Ara Marderosian, Conservation Chair of Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra 

Club..................................................................................................................................... 7 

Comments Submitted by Chad Hanson, Ph.D., Director of the John Muir Project ............................... 8 
 3

I. Introduction 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (EPA) proposed to issue minor 

modifications of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits to Rio Bravo Poso 

and Rio Bravo Jasmin for the Rio Bravo Poso and Jasmin Cogeneration facilities on March 2, 

2012. The public comment period for both proposals (Proposed Permit)1 began on March 2, 2012 

and closed on April 3, 2012. During the public comment period EPA took comments on the 

proposed permit modifications. All comments received referenced both projects, so the enclosed 

response to comments references both proposals. 

The purpose of this document is to respond to every significant issue raised in the public 

comments received during the public comment period and explain what changes have been made 

in the final permit (Final Permit) as a result of those comments. 

EPA announced the public comment period through public notices published in the Hanford 

Sentinel, The Bakersfield Californian (in English only) and El Popular (in Spanish only) on 

March 2, 2012 and on Region 9’s website (in English and Spanish) on March 2, 2012. EPA also 

distributed the English and Spanish public notices to the necessary parties in accordance with 40 

CFR Part 124, including notices sent by mail and email on March 2, 2012. Parties notified by 

EPA included agencies, organizations, and public members for whom contact information was 

obtained through a number of different methods, including requests made directly to EPA 

through Region 9’s website (or through other means) from parties seeking notification regarding 

permit actions in California, within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

(District), within Kern County; and other parties known to EPA that may have an interest in this 

action. EPA provided notice to numerous government agencies in accordance with 40 CFR Part 

124, including, but not limited to, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the District, and 

other local neighboring air districts. 

The Administrative Record for the Proposed Permit modifications was made available at EPA 

Region 9’s office. EPA also made the Proposed Permits, the Fact Sheets and Ambient Air 

Quality Impact Reports (AAQIR) and other supporting documents available on Region 9’s 

website. 

During the public comment period, EPA received five comment letters by email and all 

comments received equal weight. Responses to the public comments received are available in the 

following section of this document. 

 

1 We note that EPA’s permitting regulations at 40 CFR Part 124 refer to proposed permits as “draft permits.” See 40 

CFR 124.6. 
 4

II. EPA’s Responses to the Public Comments 

This section summarizes all significant public comments received by EPA and provides our 

responses to the comments. The full text of all public comments and many other documents 

relevant to the permit can be accessed online through EPA’s website at 

http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/permit/r9-permits-issued.html. 

Comments Submitted by Janet M. Laurain of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo 

1. Comment: Will there be any construction or physical modifications at the plants to allow 

for processing of the new biomass fuel source? If so, what are they? 

Response: The applicant has stated in email communications available in the public record 

that no new emission units will be required for this modification. Moreover, biomass will 

not be stored on site except through use of the existing silos currently used to hold coal/ 

petroleum coke fuel. In addition, no new construction activities outside the boundary of the 

facility will be required. 

Comments Submitted by Harold M. Thomas, Special Deputy District Attorney on behalf of the 

Butte County California District Attorney, Michael L. Ramsey 

2. Comment: The proposed allowed fuel standards are subjective and not readily subject to 

reasonable enforcement.

 

The term "clean biomass" cannot be readily defined without numeric and objectively 

enforceable standards. Evidence collected in connection with illegal disposal of ash in the 

Oroville area from the POPI biomass power generator has shown that "clean construction 

and demolition wood" is not a standard that can be measured without a known objective 

numerical standards and prescribed sampling and testing procedures. Testing of POPI 

Covanta fuel supplies in 2009 showed ash from fuel sample exceeded hazardous waste 

levels of key metals such as lead yet the fuel was accepted as clean under the regulatory 

practices of the local air districts. Ash disposal to land consisting of the same fuel whose 

ash characterized as hazardous waste was authorized by the Regional Water Quality 

Control Board for land application as not having adverse water quality impacts. California 

solid waste disposal guidelines permitted this same waste ash material to be applied to land 

under the theory that it was a beneficial use and not a disposal. 

 

The Butte County District Attorney recommends that the California Human Health 

Screening levels be used to limit ash disposal to agricultural lands. The Butte County 

District Attorney recommends that any fuel, a representative sample whose level of 

contaminants, when reduce to ash, exceed hazardous waste levels be prohibited from use as 

fuel. Any fuel, from which an initial sample, tests higher in metals or toxic constituents 

than California Human Health Screening Levels, shall be embargoed and segregated until 

representative sampling is completed to assure that hazardous or toxic substances are not 

combusted and disposed of to land or in agricultural operations including dairies and hog 

farms. 

 
 5

Response: The permit issued as part of this action concerns the air emissions resulting 

from the proposed modifications. In particular, we evaluated the change in emissions of 

criteria pollutants, including lead, as part of our basis for authorizing these permit 

modifications. We concluded that lead emissions resulting from the projects would be 

below significant emissions thresholds. 

Independent of our action on these permits, each source must comply with all applicable 

standards within 40 CFR Part 61– National Emission Standards of Hazardous Air 

Pollutants and 40 CFR Part 63– National Emission Standards of Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Source Categories. 

These permit modifications allow each facility to only burn fuels consistent with the permit 

conditions. Although each permit includes certain ash handling conditions, it does not 

require that ash from either facility meet California requirements for disposal to land or in 

agricultural operations including dairies and hog farms because such requirements would 

exceed EPA’s authority under the CAA. 

3. Comment: Key regulatory terms are vague and unenforceable. 

 

An excerpt from the proposed rule is below: 

"...trees and clean wood found in disaster debris, clean biomass from land clearing 

operations, and clean construction and demolition wood. Clean biomass is biomass that 

does not contain contaminants at concentrations not normally associated with virgin 

biomass materials. " 

 

We object to the proposed rule because, clean is not defined objectively, contaminants are 

not defined under any existing regulatory regime, and the term "normally associated" is 

vague and not objective. These terms need to be properly defined with a mind toward 

application and enforcement. 

Response: Condition IX.K.5. of the permit defines clean cellulosic biomass by referring to 

40 CFR § 241.2, which was published as a final rule on March 21, 2011, as part of EPA’s 

regulation, Solid Wastes used as Fuels or Ingredients in Combustion Units. 76 FR 15550. 

In addition, we note that 40 CFR § 241.2 defines contaminants as any constituent in nonhazardous secondary materials that will result in emissions of the air pollutants identified in 

Clean Air Act section 112(b) or the nine pollutants listed under Clean Air Act section 

129(a)(4)) when such non-hazardous secondary materials are burned as a fuel or used as an 

ingredient, including those constituents that could generate products of incomplete 

combustion.. 

Comments Submitted by Tom Frantz, President of the Association of Irritated Residents 

4. Comment: Because of the identical nature of the [Rio Bravo Poso and Rio Bravo Jasmin] 

applications and the closeness geographically of the two plants plus the common 

ownership, there must be some consideration about the cumulative effects that would arise 

from both of these plants converting to 100% biomass fuel. ...[T]hese plants are 

geographically related to each other, to surrounding communities such as McFarland, and 
 6

to other polluting power plants in the area. Within an 8 mile radius, these two biomass 

incinerators will be added to two others which are the Covanta Delano facility and the Mt. 

Poso Cogeneration facility. The relevant emissions, including the trucking, from all four of 

these plants burning 100% biomass must be taken cumulatively and their effects on 

residents of Delano, McFarland, and the Bakersfield community of Oildale must be 

considered. Mt. Poso Cogeneration, like Rio Bravo Jasmin and Rio Bravo Poso, was also 

burning coal until recently and claims to have now converted to 100% biomass while 

retaining their permit to burn coal. A biomass fuel supply for these four plants is 

problematic in terms of where it comes from and must be considered in this PSD. The 

addition of biomass fuel to these plants may not increase criteria air pollutants significantly 

at the plant but it greatly changes the way fuel is delivered. A massive increase in the 

trucking of fuel to these plants is the obvious result of this change in type of fuel. These 

added trucking emissions and subsequent increased emissions of NOx, CO2, and 

particulates are missing in this PSD. 

Response: EPA’s regulations require additional impacts analyses for major modifications. 

40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(ii), 52.21(k). EPA did not conduct additional impacts analyses for 

these permit modifications because they will not result in a significant net emissions 

increase of any PSD pollutant and therefore do not constitute major modifications. We note 

that emissions of some PSD pollutants (i.e., NOx and SOx) are expected to decrease (see 

Table IV-3). In addition, we note that the total increase for PSD criteria pollutants 

projected to increase (i.e., CO, PM, PM10, Pb) is still below the significance level that 

would trigger the requirement for an additional impacts analysis under 52.21(k)2. In 

addition, EPA’s regulations exclude emissions from mobile sources from the definition of 

“secondary emissions.” Moreover, these minor permit modifications will allow 

combustion of clean cellulosic biomass, but do not alter current permit conditions allowing 

combustion of other fuels – coal, petroleum coke and tire-derived fuel. 

5. Comment: There is a limited supply of biomass produced and available for incineration in 

the San Joaquin Valley air basin. Any proposal to directly grow biomass fuel in the valley 

also needs to be analyzed for emissions from associated activities. Urban derived biomass 

from local landfills does not begin to make up the shortfall from available agricultural 

derived biomass fuel. Obviously, the shortfall is far greater as there are many other biomass 

incinerators in the valley looking at the same sources of biomass fuel. 

The only valid conclusion concerning biomass fuel availability and location is that these 

new biomass facilities must obtain their fuel from urban sources outside the valley and Los 

Angeles County is the closest and most logical source. If these two plants claim to receive 

biomass fuel from closer sources than Los Angeles they are simply diverting fuel from 

other valley based biomass incinerators and causing those facilities to go outside the valley 

for more of their fuel supply. 

 

2 The total increase for GHG emissions from combining the modifications would result in a significant; however, the 

Deferral for CO2 emissions from Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration and Title V Programs (76 FR 43490 July 20, 2011) would apply to these projects. 
 7

Biomass fuel, which may be up to double in weight for the same energy production, will be 

coming from Los Angeles. The emissions related to the San Joaquin Valley will start in the 

Lebec Area, approximately 70 miles one-way from these two plants. Additional trucking 

emissions in the South Coast air basin must also be included because of the severe air 

quality problems in that region. The only conservative conclusion is that this probable 

100% conversion to biomass fuel by these two coal burning facilities will add to our San 

Joaquin Valley air basin and the South Coast air basin many additional criteria air 

pollutants and green house gas emissions from this additional trucking. These added 

emissions will produce significant deterioration in the areas of NOx emissions and CO2

emissions. This is true for these plants individually and especially true if they are looked at 

together, as one project. 

Response: EPA’s regulations require additional impacts analyses for major modifications. 

40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(ii), 52.21(k). EPA did not conduct additional impacts analyses for 

these permit modifications because they will not result in a significant net emissions 

increase of any PSD pollutant and therefore do not constitute major modifications. We note 

that emissions of some PSD pollutants (i.e., NOx and SOx) are expected to decrease (see 

Table IV-3). In addition, we note that the total increase for PSD criteria pollutants 

projected to increase (i.e., CO, PM, PM10, Pb) is still below the significance level that 

would trigger the requirement for an additional impacts analysis under 52.21(k). In 

addition, EPA’s regulations exclude emissions from mobile sources from the definition of 

“secondary emissions.” Moreover, these minor permit modifications will allow 

combustion of clean cellulosic biomass, but do not alter current permit conditions allowing 

combustion of other fuels – coal, petroleum coke and tire-derived fuel. 

6. Comment: EPA is allowing the project proponent, North American Power Group, to 

piecemeal two separate applications. Without this separation, but instead combining the 

two projects into one, and including the additional trucking because of the fuel change, the 

increases in emissions will likely exceed the significant thresholds in several categories. 

Response: EPA Region 9 issued separate initial PSD permits for Rio Bravo Poso and Rio 

Bravo Jasmin on October 22, 1986 and on August 19, 1986 respectively. Although the 

facilities are owned and operated by the same entity, the facilities are located 

approximately six miles apart from one another and are operated independently. The 

function, operation and demand of one facility does not depend on the operations of the 

other. Given their independent operations, we believe it is appropriate to treat the facilities 

as separate stationary sources. 

Comments Submitted Ara Marderosian, Conservation Chair of Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the 

Sierra Club 

7. Comment: The subject permit application would promote removal and/or incineration of 

forest biomass as part of that “clean cellulosic biomass” for the purposes of energy 

production. We believe that such forest biomass removal is not sustainable and will result 

in degradation of watershed quality and of wildlife habitats. We believe that burning “clean 

cellulosic biomass” will result in an increase in criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. 

We also believe that, as forest biomass is removed to the Rio Bravo Poso facility, available 
 8

forest biomass will be farther and farther from the facility and the distance required to 

transport that biomass to the facility will increase over time and, therefore, produce 

increasingly more greenhouse gasses. We believe that the impacts to air pollution and 

climate change must be considered with each proposal. For those reasons we request that 

you deny the subject permit application. 

...in northern California where biomass power plants routinely consume large logs and 

trees, and, as your Public Notice for the subject permit application indicates, even “wood 

collected from forest fire clearance activities” would be subject to removal for incineration 

in this facility. Forest structures needed for wildlife habitat include standing snags (even in 

fire areas) and large logs. Removal of such forest structures from the forest promotes loss 

of nutrients and loss of food and shelter needed by wildlife of various species and indeed 

by vegetation as well. 

Response: EPA’s regulations require additional impacts analyses for major modifications. 

40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(ii), 52.21(k). EPA did not conduct additional impacts analyses for 

these permit modifications because they will not result in a significant net emissions 

increase of any PSD pollutant and therefore do not constitute major modifications. We note 

that emissions of some PSD pollutants (i.e., NOx and SOx) are expected to decrease (see 

Table IV-3). In addition, we note that the total increase for PSD criteria pollutants 

projected to increase (i.e., CO, PM, PM10, Pb) is still below the significance level that 

would trigger the requirement for an additional impacts analysis under 52.21(k). In 

addition, EPA’s regulations exclude emissions from mobile sources from the definition of 

“secondary emissions.” Moreover, these minor permit modifications will allow 

combustion of clean cellulosic biomass, but do not alter current permit conditions allowing 

combustion of other fuels – coal, petroleum coke and tire-derived fuel. 

Also, EPA determined in the AAQIR that this PSD permitting action is subject to 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 requirements. EPA coordinated with the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) which did not have any comments or raise any 

concerns with regard to the proposed project. EPA concluded that the project would have 

no effect on any Federally-listed endangered or threatened species or designated critical 

habitat. 

Comments Submitted by Chad Hanson, Ph.D., Director of the John Muir Project 

7. Comment: The public notice states that the plants would consume "green wood", "forest 

thinnings", and "wood collected from forest fire clearance activities". In other words, the 

plants would burn trees (with no specified size limit) cut from forests of the Sierra Nevada, 

including National Forest lands. Moreover, the reference to "forest fire clearance activities" 

indicates that the plants would also consume snags (again, of any size) from post-fire clear 

cutting on National Forests, which is one of the most destructive and ecologically 

damaging of all logging activities. 

Currently, the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit national forest is clearcutting 62% of 

the suitable habitat for the Black-backed Woodpecker on the entire LTBMU national forest 

within the Angora fire area for biomass. The Black-backed Woodpecker depends upon 
 9

mature forest that has recently experienced moderate- to high-intensity fire, and has not 

been subjected to post-fire logging. The State of California, in December of 2011, 

designated this species as a Candidate under the state Endangered Species Act due to its 

rarity and due to the threats to its populations--not just from traditional saw timber logging 

but also from biomass logging. 

Response: EPA’s regulations require additional impacts analyses for major modifications. 

40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(ii), 52.21(k). EPA did not conduct additional impacts analyses for 

these permit modifications because they will not result in a significant net emissions 

increase of any PSD pollutant and therefore do not constitute major modifications. We note 

that emissions of some PSD pollutants (i.e., NOx and SOx) are expected to decrease (see 

Table IV-3). In addition, we note that the total increase for PSD criteria pollutants 

projected to increase (i.e., CO, PM, PM10, Pb) is still below the significance level that 

would trigger the requirement for an additional impacts analysis under 52.21(k). In 

addition, EPA’s regulations exclude emissions from mobile sources from the definition of 

“secondary emissions.” Moreover, these minor permit modifications will allow 

combustion of clean cellulosic biomass, but do not alter current permit conditions allowing 

combustion of other fuels – coal, petroleum coke and tire-derived fuel. 

Potential impacts to the Black-backed woodpecker associated with logging in the Lake 

Tahoe Basin Management Unit national forest, including issues relating to designation of 

the species as a candidate species under the State of California's Endangered Species Act, 

appear to be outside the scope of PSD review. The commenter has not indicated how this 

issue relates to PSD requirements. EPA determined in the AAQIR that this PSD permitting 

action is potentially subject to the consultation requirements of Section 7 of the Federal 

ESA. EPA coordinated with the Service regarding potential effects of EPA's proposed 

permitting action on species protected under the Federal ESA, and the Service did not have 

any comments or raise any concerns with regard to the proposed project. EPA concluded 

that the project would have no effect on any Federally-listed endangered or threatened 

species or designated critical habitat.