UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 6 1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 DALLAS, TX 75202-2733

Mr. Mark Vickery, P.G. Executive Director Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 

### JAN ? 

### I 2011

Re: Las Brisas Energy Center, PSD Permit Nos. PSDTXI138, PAL 41, and HAP 48, Nueces County, Texas Dear Mr. Vickery, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the permit for the planned Las Brisas Energy Center and we are providing comments to help the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) assure that the permit is in full compliance with federal requirements and provides an appropriate record to support it. We continue to have strong concerns about the public health and environmental impacts ofthis project based on our review. Our comments are included in Enclosure I. The EPA previously wrote to TCEQ aboutthis matter on February 12,2009, and we are including these letters as Enclosures 2 and 3. Some of the specific concerns that EPA identified are summarized as follows:

• EPA expressed concerns about the lack ofconsultation with EPA Region 6 and the lack ofaproper demonstration that the proposed facility will not cause or contribute to violations ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, and requested that the applicant generate a modeling protocol and provide a copy to EPA for review. (February 12, 2009

- Item #8).

• EPA indicated that there were problems associated with the issuance ofa federal plantwide applicability limit (PAL) to the facility. The Texas PAL provisions were formally disapproved on September 15,2010. (February 12,2009

- Item #4).

• EPA provided information for case-by-case Maximum Achievable Control Technology determinations regarding the use ofwet flue gas desulfurization and fabric filters to control certain hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions at a similar facility. (HAP Letter February 12,2009

- Items I & 2). In addition, EPA has promulgated new I-hour nitrogen dioxide (N02) and sulfur dioxide (S02) NAAQS's that are now in effect, and for which the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) regulations require that PSD permit applicants show that the emissions from construction and operation ofany proposed new or modified major stationary source will not cause or contribute to a violation of"any" NAAQS, and EPA interprets this to include any NAAQS that is in effect at the time a PSD permit is issued.

Internet Address (URL)
. http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/ Recycled/Recyclable - Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)Letter to M. Vickery Re: Las Brisas Energy Page 2

• EPA proposed a revision to the NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (N02) on July 15,2009 (74 FR 34404), published the new hourly standard on February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), and the standard became effective on April 12,2010.

• EPA proposed a revision to the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (S02) on December 8, 2009 (74 FR 64810), published the new hourly standard on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), and the standard became effective on August 23, 20IO. Neither EPA nor the public have had the opportunity to exercise their rights under the CAA to review the proposed source's demonstrations ofcompliance for these new standards and applicability requirements. The TCEQ should transmit for review to EPA a copy ofan amended permit application or other records which contain demonstrations that the proposed Las Brisas Energy Center will not cause or contribute to any violation ofthe new hourly standards for N02and S02. In addition, the applicant will need to work with EPA to determine whether the proposed Las Brisas Energy Center is subject to the new Greenhouse Gas (GHG) PSD permitting requirements. As you are aware, the EPA is the permitting authority in Texas for GHG regulatory actions at this time. Accordingly, Las Brisas Energy Center should not commence construction ofthe facility until evaluating the proposed project for PSD applicability ofGHG emissions and, ifrequired, receiving a PSD permit for GHG emissions issued by EPA. Ifthe applicant needs a PSD permit for GHG emissions, it will be important for EPA to fully understand TCEQ's permitting record. EPA is requesting that TCEQ not issue this permit until TCEQ and EPA can resolve the issues with the permit. In addition, I would propose that we have TCEQ and applicant representatives communicate closely with their EPA counterparts on the technical demonstrations needed to show that the proposed facility will not adversely impact public health and will in fact protect all applicable NAAQS's. Please contact me at (214) 665-2100, or Carl Edlund ofmy staffat (214) 665-7200, if you should have any questions concerning this matter. Sincerely yours, '" 

# f;. 

# H3-J

awrence E. Starfield Deputy Regional Administrator Enclosurescc: TCEQ Commissioners Mark Vickery, TCEQ Executive Director Stephanie Bergeron-Perdue, TCEQ Richard Hyde, TCEQ Steve Hagle, TCEQ Letter to M. Vickery Re: Las Brisas Energy Page 3ENCLOSURE 1

I. Air Quality Impacts Analysis In the Executive Director's response to comments (RTC) No. 12, the TCEQ stated that the permit applicant performed an ozone analysis consistent with TCEQ modeling guidance and that their guidance does not require permit applicants to conduct formal photochemical modeling. Fmther, TCEQ stated thatphotochemical modeling for ozone was not required for NSR permitting purposes. As you are aware, 40 CFR § 51.165 and 51.166 require sources to demonstrate that the proposed permitting action will not cause or contribute to a violation ofthe ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS's) per 40 CFR 51.166(k)-(0) and 40 CFR 52.21 (k). The current demonstration by TCEQ does not meet this requirement. Specifically, EPA is concerned about the TCEQ guidance used by the applicant to assess the ozone impacts from the proposed unit. As an example, the applicant determined that, based on the lack ofsubstantial VOC emissions from the source, and given the relatively low quantity of NOx emissions, the project would not cause a significant increase in ozone formation at or near the site that could result in an exceedance ofthe NAAQS for ozone. However, TCEQ's Draft ozone procedures/modeling guidance for ozone impacts is not consistent with the scientific principles that Texas's ozone attainment SIPs utilize to lower ozone levels in DFW, Houston, Beaumont and other areas. 1 Based on TCEQ's own photochemical modeling, most ofthe urban and rural areas ofTexas are NOx-limited, not VOC-limited. TCEQ should evaluate their photochemical modeling databases from recent SIPs for each source ozone impact analysis and determine ifthe area in which a source is proposing to locate is NOx- or VOC-limited. Depending on the level ofproposed emissions from a source, different techniques are available for estimating ozone impacts. TCEQ and the source should consult with EPA on a case-by-case basis to determine the appropriate technique for conducting an ozone impact analysis in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Part 51 Appendix W 5.2.1.c and Texas Administrative Code Title 30 Part 1 §116.I60. The TCEQ also stated in its RTC that EPA has no preferred model to determine impacts from a single source; no requirement for photochemical modeling; and no requirement for applicant to

I TCEQ guidance that was used is based either on early RPM modeling, EKMA tables used in the Scheffe Point Source Screening Tables or other EKMA tables liom the 1980s or early 1990s. EKMA information and other photochemical modeling from this time period did not include the emissions from biogenic sources which have been included in photochemical modeling since the mid-1990s. The information that does not include biogenic emissions is scientifically flawed and not valid to be used in current day analyses for ozone impact analysis. Determination of whether a souree is either VOC-limited or NOx-limited should be based on local VOCfNOx ratios from a local monitor or from photochemical modeling that covers the area ofconcern, not on the ratio ofthe source's emissions. Ifthe surrounding atmosphere is NOx-limited but a source is VOC-limited based on TCEQ's guidance, the proposed source's NOx emissions would react with the VOCs present in the atmosphere to generate ozone, whereas TCEQ's guidance would conelude that the source impact on ozone levels was 'neutral'. TCEQ's conclusion that the source is ozone neutral based on the ratio ofthe source's emissions being VOC limited is an erroneous conclusion, Most areas ofTexas are actually NOx-limited based on TCEQ's recent photochemical modeling that has been submitted in State Implementation Plan revisions to EPA.conduct regional ozone analysis. Our PSD regulations at 40 CFR § 51 Appendix W 5.2.1 recommend models for evaluating ozone impacts. Appendix W 5.2.1.c also indicates that permitting authorities should consult with EPA on estimating the impacts ofindividual sources to determine the most suitable approach for estimating ozone impacts on a case-by-case basis. 2 Other permit applicants and permitting authorities in Region 6 (including TCEQ) have worked with us to conduct photochemical modeling to demonstrate that aproposed source would not cause or contribute to a violation ofthe ozone NAAQS. These projects have typically only taken a few months to conduct and the cost, when a contractor has been used, is minimal with most analyses costing less than the other criteriapollutant modeling. A conservative analysis based on the NOx modeling could be done to estimate the potential impacts on ozone levels, ifthe evaluation ofthe area determines thatthe local atmosphere's ozone formation is NOx limited. A more detailed analysis would significantly lower the potential impact that has been estimated based on experiences ofmore detailed photochemical modeling sensitivities that have been done in other areas. The EPA does not have an established significant impact level for ozone and TCEQ should not assume that EPA recognizes a 2.0 ppb impactthreshold as an "insignificant" impact for ozone when permitting this source. We acknowledge TCEQ's reference in the RTC to aphotochemical modeling study conducted by Texas A & M University

- Kingsville: Analysis of the Impact of a New Emission Source on Air Quality in the Corpus Christi Urban Airshed. The study indicated Las Brisas' impact on regional ozone attainment. However, this study was not apart ofthe permitpackage that was subject to public review and comment. We note thatthis analysis is limited to only 3 days for evaluation ofozone impacts, but even this very limited analysis indicated a maximum increase in 8-hour ozone levels of 1.1 ppb in the greater Corpus Christi Area.



### II. Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAU Since EPA disapproved the TCEQ's PAL provisions on September 15, 2010 (75 FR 546424), any PAL permit issued by TCEQ to a new major stationary source may be considered a non-SIPapproved permit by EPA. In addition, we identified in our Federal Register notice that PAL permits can only be issued to existing major stationary sources, which precludes applicability of a PAL to a new major stationary source, as required under 40 CFR §§ 51.165(f)(1 )(i) and 51.166(w)(1)(i). Without at least 2 years ofoperating history, apotential source like Las Brisas Energy Center has not established actual emissions to facilitate development ofa PAL.

2 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W, Guideline on Ail' Quality Models 5.2. I.e states: "Estimating the Impact**~r** Individual Sources. Choice ofmethods used to assess the impact ofan individual source depends on the nature of the source and its emissions. Thus, model users should consult with the Regional Office to determine the most suitable approach on a case-by-case basis (subsection 3.2.2)."III. Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 We reviewed the TCEQ's Response No. II in the RTC, regarding PM2
.5

. We have concerns regarding TCEQ's reliance on the 1997 PMIO Surrogate Policy absent a case specific demonstration that PMIO is a reasonable surrogate for PM25 for meeting the requirement for BACT and for demonstrating source compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS. Relevant surrogacy case law provides that such a demonstration is needed to support the use ofPMIO as a surrogate for PM2
.5

, and the applicant should submit arevised application or demonstration addressing PM25 emissions.3 The additional information should either address PM2
.5emissions directly or show how compliance with the PSD requirements for PMIO will serve as an adequate surrogate for meeting the PSD requirements for PM2 .5 in this specific permit, after considering and identifying any remaining technical difficulties with conducting an analysis ofPM2.5 directly. The permit record should include a case-specific demonstration to support the use ofPM1oas a surrogate for PM25 for both Las Brisas modeling and the BACT demonstrations. We have worked with other permitting authorities and permit applicants to establish an appropriate PM25 modeling protocol. Ifthe applicant chooses to model for PM2.5 impacts directly, please contact us to develop amethodology that will ensure that an appropriate analysis is performed.

IV. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Consideration The TCEQ indicated in Response No. 22 that neither the applicant nor TCEQ evaluated any other electrical generation methods such as IGCC orpulverized coal boilers. TCEQ indicated that inclusion ofIGCC in the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) evaluation would require substantial redesign ofthe applicant's proposed facility. Later in the same response, TCEQ indicates that it does not require a review ofIGCC as part ofthe BACT review for electric generating units (EGUs). In a recent decision, the EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) remanded the permit because it did not contain an adequatejustification for excluding IGCC from the BACT analysis for a coal fired power EGU. See 

### Desert RockEnergy Company, LLC, PSD Appeal Nos. 08-03 et.al. slip. op, at 76-77 (EAB Sept. 24, 2009). This EAB decision was followed by the Title V order for the petition on the American Electric Power Service Corporation, Southwestern Public Service Company John W. Turk order responding to a Title V petition (Petition Number VI-2008-1); there, the EPA Administrator found that the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality failed to provide an adequatejustification to support its conclusion in the PSD BACT analysis that IGCC technology should be eliminated from consideration on the grounds that it would "redefine" the proposed source. 

### See In the Matter oj' American Electric PowerService CO/poration, Southwest Electric Power Company, John W. 

### TurkPlant, Petition No. VI-2008-01 (Order on Petition) (December 15, 2009), To meet the applicable legal criteria under the PSD program, a BACT
3 For a discussion ofthe surrogacy case law, sec the February 11,2010, proposed rulemaking entitled "Implementation afthe New Source Review (NSR) Prograrnfor Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometer (PM 2 .5 ); Notice of ProposedRulemaking to Repeal Orandfathering Provision andEndthe PM]o Surrogate Policy" (75 FR 6827 at 6831-32), and the Louisville Gas andElectric, Petition No. IV-2008-3 (Order on Petition, pages 42-46).

### analysis for each pollutant must consider "application ofproduction processes or available methods, systems, and techniques

... for control ofsuch pollutant." See 40 C.F.R. §§ 

### 51.166(b)(12) and 40 C.F.R. § 

### 52.21(b)(12). When a potential pollution control strategy is not considered in a BACT analysis, the record should provide a reasoned basis to show why that option is not available in a particular instance. Therefore, the TCEQ and the permit applicant should specifically address any IaCC technology considerations as a part oftheir BACT analysis and provide a more detailed explanation consistent with the EAB's position to support any decision to eliminate such an option or to exclude it altogether from a BACT analysis for this proposed source.
V. BACT Limits Based on Clean Fuels It 

### is unclear ifthe TCEQ or the applicant considered "clean fuels" in its BACT analysis. Comment 23 in the RTC indicates that commenters stated that the applicant and TCEQ failed to consider alternative fuels to reduce emissions. TCEQ stated in its response that the "applicantproposes the facility to accomplish its objective based upon its business decisions. Those decisions include the applicant's choice offuels. TCEQ does not specifY the type offuel to use in a fossil fuel electric generation plant because the cost offuel is a primary business decision consideration that is up to the applicant to determine." We believe the TCEQ should analyze the possibility ofcleaner fuels as an alternative primary fuel source in the RTC. The Clean Air Act includes the term "clean fuels" in the definition of BACT afterthe term "fuel cleaning." 42 U.S.C. § 7479(3). Thus, when apotential pollution control strategy is not evaluated in detail in a BACT analysis, the record should provide a reasoned basis to show why that option is not "available" in aparticularinstance. EPA has recognized that "available" options for aparticular facility do not necessarily have to include options that would fundamentally "redefine" the source proposed by the permit applicant. See, e.g., In re: Desert RockEnergy Company, LLC, 

### PSD Appeal No. 08-03 et ai, slip op. at 59-65 (EAB Sept 24, 2009). However, EPA interprets the Act to require a reasonedjustification, based on an analysis ofthe underlying administrative record for each permit, to support a conclusion that an option is not "available" in a given case on the grounds that it would fundamentally "redefine the source." DesertRock, 

### slip op. at 63-72, 76. Based on the record here, it does not appear that TCEQ has provided a reasoned explanation demonstrating why the option ofusing cleanerburning fuels is not "available" for this facility. We believe TCEQ must clearly provide a rationale to explain why you conclude that utilizing fuels otherthan petroleum coke constitutes "redefining the source". FUither, to the extent this showing cannot be made, the rationale should identify any economic, environmental, or energy impacts that would result from the use ofPowder River Basin coals (or lower sulfurpetroleum coke) and that would weigh against its selection as BACT. We acknowledge that States with SIP-approved PSD programs have independent discretion and are not necessarily required to follow all EPA policies or interpretations. See, e.g., 

### 57 FR 28093, 28095 (June 24, 1992). However, States that issue PSD permits under SIP-approved regulations are required to conducta BACT analysis that is reasoned and faithful to the statutory framework. See Alaska Dept of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 484-91 (2004). On the question ofwhether an option may be excluded because it redefines the proposed source, the EAB has developed an analytical framework that EPA uses to assess this issue in its own permitting decisions. See, e.g., Desert Rock, slip op. at 59-65. Since the EAB has articulated a foundation for its approach that has been upheld by one U.S. Court ofAppeals, we recommend that SIP-approved States follow the framework articulated by the EAB. We are not concluding that the presentpermit limits do not represent BACT

- only that we cannot find in the present permit record a sufficient rationale to demonstrate the adequacy ofthe BACT determinations for this facility. In addition, we are not expressing apolicy preference for utilization ofaparticularcoal type, or coal from aparticular coal basin. EPA SUppOitS the development and use ofa broad range offuels and technologies across the energy sector, including those that will enable the sustainable use ofcoal. Our primary concern is the adequacy ofTCEQ's response and rationale for excluding Powder River Basin coal or the possibility of utilizing lower sulfur coal or lower sulfur petroleum coke as fucl options.



### VI. Greenhouse Gas Emissions On January 2, 2011, greenhouse gases (GHG's) became pollutants subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. See, 75 Fed. Reg. 17004 (April 2, 20I0). In accordance with section 165 of the Clean Air Act, a source cannot begin construction until certain Clean Air Act requirements are met. PSD permits issued on or after January 2, 20II must generally include conditions addressing GHG emissions unless the source has emissions ofGHG's below particular levels established in the PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. 75 Fed. Reg. 31514 (June 3, 2010). Since TCEQ did not issue this permit before January 2, 2011, then Las Brisas should consider whether it needs to supplement its PSD permit application to address its GHG emissions. See, 75 Fed. Reg. at 31592-93. Since this source is otherwise subject to PSD for other regulated NSRpollutants, the PSD permitting requirements for GHG emissions will apply ifthe GHG emissions are equal to or greater than 75,000 tons per year (TPY) carbon dioxide equivalent basis (C02e) Las Brisas Energy Center should not commence construction ofthe facility until evaluating the proposed project for PSD applicability ofGHG emissions and, if required, receiving a PSD permit for GHG emissions issued by EPA.



### VII. Compliance With N021-Hr. Standard and S02 I-Hr. Standard The I-hour primary NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (N02) became effective on April 12, 20I

### O. In addition, the I-hourprimary NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (S02) became effective on August 23, 2010. We are not aware ofLas Brisas or TCEQ assessing the impact this source may have on these standards. Since TCEQ did not issue this permit before the effective date ofeither ofthe two new standards, we believe it is necessary for Las Brisas to supplement its permit application to address I-hourN02and I-hour S02 emissions, and the applicable analyses should go through public participation prior to the permit being issued. We believeTCEQ has the authority to implementthese new standards without fUlther rulemaking. TCEQ regulations at 30 Tex. Admin.Code sec. 116.160(c)(2) incorporate by reference the requirement of40 CFR 52.21 (k) related to a required demonstration ofa source impact analysis for any NAAQS standard in any air quality region. Those State regulations were incorporated into the State Implementation Plan and approved by EPA after public notice at both the state and federal level. Further, TCEQ has issued modeling guidance regarding the new I-hourN02 and S02 standards (see http://www.tceq.texas.gov/permitting/air/memos/interim_guidance_naaqs.html).4 In addition, TCEQ has issued permits, such as the permit for Summit Power's Texas Clean Energy Project, that include an analysis ofthe proposed facilities' I-hour N02 impacts. Accordingly, EPA believes that the Las Brisas permit is required to include a demonstration of compliance with both the I-hourN02 standard and the I-hour S02 standard.

4 TCEQ's "Interim I-HourNitrogen Dioxide (N02) NAAQS Implementation Guidance" (July 22,20I0), and "Interim I-Hour Sulfur Dioxide (S02) NAAQS Implementation Guidance" (August 1,20I0).

## .. " ...:...... "' 

### e:,NCL.O$VR...... 

## 2.. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 6 1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 DALLAS, TX 75202-2733



# FEB 1 2 2009

• <.' 

### Officeofthe ChiefClerk Texas Commissionon

Environmental Quality (MC-l05) P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 RE: PreventionofSignificaotDeterioration (PSD) Draft Penuit, Las Brisas Energy Center, PSD-TX-1138, HAP48, aodPAL4l, Nueces County, Texas To WhomItMay Concern: We have reviewedthe draftPSD permitforthe Las Brisas Energy Centerlocated in Nueces County, Texas. Wereceived itin ouroffice onJaouary 7, 2009. The draft penuit was evaluatedto ensure consistency with the Texas PSD State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Federal CleaoAirActrequirements. Ourcomments onthe penuit are enclosed. We look fOlward to working withTCEQ to address the issues identitled in our conunents andto ensure that the final penuitis-consistent with therequirements ofthe Texas PSD SIP. • Tllis letteris not afinal position bythe U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency(EPA) concerning the disposition ofthe application and draftpernlit. Please contactme at 214-665-7250, or Stepharlie Kordzi ofmy staffat 214-665-7520, ifyourhave questions. Thank youfor your cooperation. 

# p:--

JeffRobinson Chief AirPennits Section Enclosures

cc: Ms. Toni Oyler Texas Conuuission on EnvirOlIDlental Quality Mr. SteveHagle Texas CommissiononEnvirOlunental Quality

_ InternetAddress (URL) • hltp:h'www.epa.gov

_ RecycledlAecyclable •Pmledwlh Vegetable 01 BasedInkson RecycledPaper(Mlnlmum 25% P08tconsumer)

. ""'--" .' .:.,.:

### ENCLOSURE

Pemlit Condition 36

- We.recommend thatTCEQ considerrequiringPM Continuous EmissiQnMonitoring Systems (CEMS) to monitorfilterable particulate matter. PM CEMS was mentionedinthe PreliminaryDetelmination Summary (See CommentNo.4 below). PM CEMS measures the pollutant ofinterest, which periodic perfomlance testing itlso measures, but itprovides agreaterdegree ofconfidence thatthe PM control device is operating as intended. WebelievePM CEMS for filterable particulatematter have been adequately demonstrated, and we areaware ofanumberofsuccessful applications inindustries such as pulp andpaper, hazardous waste incineration, copper smelting, andno fewer than six electric generating units. We are aware ofadditional plans for installation ofPM CEMS on electrical generating units. Thecapital and operating costs ofPM CEMS are comparableto those ofContinuous Opacity Monitoring Systems (COMS)

..Also, we note thatrevisions to the New Source Performance Standards for electric utility. boilers allow PMCEMS to be used in lieu ofopacity limits and COMS

.. Direct, continuous measurement ofthe pollutant ofconcem, as canbe providedonlyby PM CEMS, will help enSlU'epropermonitoring ofthe PM control equipmentto the source, the environmental agency, andthe public. :Je,

'':'

## I " '1i ·1 .I 

## j Pemlit

. , 

### ., it;

### I 1.



# I
I \

## !



## ., ! 

### 2.

. Permit Condition I I.A.

- 

### Thepemlitconditiondoes not contain an arrnuitl emissions rate forNOx although onc has been included in otherpemlits recently issued to powerplants in Region 6. The CalholUl COlUlty NavigationDistrictpermitcontained an llIIDual 12-

. monthrolling average NOx emissions rate of0.07 Ib IMMBtu that applies when the

source is burning'pet coke. Please explainforthe public record why the subjectpermit does not contain llIIDUitl average emissions rate forNOx

.. 3. Page 24, Pemlit Condition 24.C.

- Thepelmitcondition states that compliance with the Pllllltwide ApplicabilityLimit (PAL) will be demonstratedby using CEMS. However, CEMS are notrequired for PMmonitoring. Pleasereconcile these two statements.



## . 4. Page 24, Pemlit Condition2!1.D.

- The pelmit states that the PAL is subjectto the requirements 000 TAC Chapter 116, SubchapterC. However; EPA is currently reviewingthese state regulations and has not yettaken actionto approve ordisapprove these regulations into the Texas State ImplementationPlan (SIP)

.. Accordingly, Texas mustdemonstrate that all emissions units atthis source continue to.meet all requirements ofthe currently approved SIP, including the requirements ofllI1Y existing pennits issued underthe approved SIP. Ifany requirementofan existing pennit is changed, tlle record forthis pemlit action mustdemonstratethat such change meets the applicable SIP

. approved requirements in 30 TAC section 116.116. In addition, we strongly encourage. TCEQto ensure that all facets ofEPA's PALprovisions are adequately addressedby this pelmit. (Please see Federitl Register, 67 FR 80186, December 31, 2002.)

# I

, 

### PreliminarYDetennination Summary 

### 5. Page 7, PM/PMlO

- The PDS states thatthepermitrequires PM CEMS and specifies a PM limit of0.009 Ib/MMBtu, 30-dayrolling average, withcompliancebased on CEMS. However, EPA was:unable to locate this emissionrate calTied overto the pennit. See CommentNo. I above. '



### 8.

I , i 'I "·iI 1 I i 

### '6. Page 8, BACT for Emissions during'Startup/Shutdbwn Pleasehave the permittee forward afmal copy ofthe final Startup/Shutdown written plan, whenprepared. Modeling' 7. Page 5-2, Section 5.2, OffProperty SOlu'Ces EPA is concerned about the statementthat PointSource Database (PSDB) sources are being eliminatedfrom the modeling analysis' ifthey do nothave asignificantimpact ontheproject sources' area. The specific statementofconcem is that "thePSDBretrievals didnotinclude facilities that are located adjacentto the site ofthe Port ofCorpus Christiproperty and are sources ofPMIO". 

### Please clarifyfor EPA before issuing thepennitandfor thepublic record which sources were eliminated, why they were notconsideredinthe modeling prepared by the company, and how the sourcehas compliedwith EPA modelingrequirements. Page 7-5, Section 7.6, Ozone Analysis

- EPA is concerned abo)ltthe TCEQ guidance referenced bythe applicantwhen assessing the ozone impacts from the proposed unit in its PSD pernlit application. SpeCifically, itwas detenninedthatthe location is ozone neutral. Ifthe TCEQ guidance that was used is based onthe ScheffePointSource Screening Tables, then EPA has commented and provided infonnationto TCEQ onthe inaccuracy ofusing Scheffe Point Source Screening Tables for detennining ozone ambient impacts inprevious pennitcommentletters. Use ofthe Scheffe Point Source 'ScreeningTables or similarscreening processes are notEPA-approvedmethods. TCEQ Air Quality Modeling Guidelines establish aprocess by whichthe permitapplicant 'communicates withthe TCEQ staffand develops amodeling protocol that will be followed. We couldnot see where amodeling protocol was developed or submitted by 

### Las Brisas Energy. We have attached the Richard Scheffe letteronthe Schefie Point Source Screening Tables for TCEQ andthe source's reference.•
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711 JVL t.O (,JOG 

# t.e c

# 'J**IP~AR** 

## AUG 3 2006 

## lJlCt't---

# ~------- Ms. Abigail Dillen 209 South Willson Avenue Bozeman, Montana 59715 DearMs. Dillen: OFFiCE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS

This letter is in response to your inquiry regarding applicabili1Y ofthe Scheffe Point Source Screening Tables, I developed the screeni,ng tablesin 1988 as ascreening testto estimate the contribution to ambient ozone associated with increased non-methane organic carbon (NMOC) emissions arising from new or modified point sources. The tables never achieved a level ofEPA certification associatedwith EPA guideline models and ccnsequently were not endorsed by the Agency. Afterpublication (nonpeer reviewed literature) ofthe tables in1989, the AmericanPetroleum Institute enlisted renO\vned atmospheric modeling experts, Drs. John Seinfeld and Panos Georgopoulous ofthe , , California Institute ofTechnology, to review the technique. Based oil their input and our' own analysis, the EPA decided at'that time,thatthe tables did not adhere to

# an adequ,ate level ofscientific credibility to be recommended for their intended purpose. Ozone science has advanced markedly since 1988 with substantial improvements in the characterization ofemissions, meteorological, and atmospheric chemistry

. processes, paralleling an equivalent improvement in Computational processing capability, , all ofwhich constitute the principal features of,a modeling framework. As a result, the Scheffe method, which was deemed "notadequate" in 1989; would be even less adequate today. ' Please do not hesitate to contact me(919-477-7955) regarding any further questions.

# Sinc,er91~O 

# ,/1**1J~r-.-.** Richard D. Scheffe, PhD Senior Science Advisor OAQPS,EPA

cc: Richard Long, Region 8 Tom Curran

, Valerie Broadwell

Intam.tAdd",

.. (VRL) • hl1p:llwww,.p•.gov ReoyclCK1JRQcyolabll • PI1n19o'with**V~elable** on Based InKson Aecycl9d PapElr (M.fntmum 25% Postconstlroor)**~i** 

# ., .-i**~":"** 

# .'I !

"

.. 

### ., ;

### I 

# I



# I

:1**e.NCl.-05uR..~** 

# 3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 6 1445 ROSS AVENUE. SUITE 1200 DALLAS. TX 75202·2733 

# .F£! 1 22009

Office ofthe ChiefClerk Texas Commission on Environmental Quality P.O. Box 13087 (MC-lOS) Austin, TX 78711-3087 RE: Las Brisas Energy Center (LBEC), Preliminary Determination Summary (PDS), Permits 85013, HAP48, PArAI and PSD-TX-I 138, Nueces County, Texas To Whom It May Concern: We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with information in yourefforts to establish a case-by-case maximum achievable control technology (MACT) determination for the proposedconstruction ofthe LBEC, 1200 megawatt (MW) powerplant, Nueces County, Texas. The Texas Commission onEnvironmental Quality (TCEQ) is the permitting authority required to make the section 112(g) MACT determination forthe construction of the LBEC. However, consistent with EPA's regulations implementing section 112(g), EPA can provide informationto permitting authorities ifthat "information canbe expeditiously providedby the Administrator." See 40 C.F.R. §63.43(d) (requiring, among otherthings, thatthe 112(g) limit be based on "available information)' 40 C.F.R. § 63.41 (defining "available information"). Consistent with these provisions, we are providing the foUowing information for you to consideras you develop the case-by-case section 112(g) MACT standard forthe LBEC.

'1

### , 

# 1 ! 

### ,'. Item I

Item 2 With respectto the proposedMACT to control emissions ofHydrogen CWoride (HCI) from the four circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers, in the Preliminary Determination Summary we received on January 9, 2009, LBEC proposes dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and fabric filter (FF). One example we have identified is aJanuary 2008 permitting action for apetroleumcoke, coal, and biomass fired, 230 MW, CFB boilerunitby the State ofLouisiana atLouisiana Generating LLC's, Big Cajun IPowerPlant (UnitI) which will utilize dry FGD and FF technology to control emissions ofHCLto notably less permittedrates. With respectto the proposed MACT to control emissions ofHydrogen Fluoride (HP) from the four circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers, in the Preliminary Determination Summary we received onJanuary 9, 2009, LBEC proposes dry FGD and FF. One example we have identified is a January 2008 permitting action for apetroleum coke,

nloycfodlRocyclabll.Printed withVego!llbIo 01 BasedInk:9 on·100% Re<;yclod Paper(4ll% Po&tconsUf1lllr)

. ":,

## -. 

# -i

I

Item 3

Item4 - 2.- coal, andbiomass fired, 230 MW, CFB boilerunitby the State of Louisiana atLouisianaGenerating LLC's, Big CajunI PowerPlant (UnitI) which will utilize dry FGDandFF technology to control emissions ofHF to notably less pennitted rates. In addition, with respectto the proposedbestavailable control technology (BACT) to control emissions of Sulfuric Acid (H2S04) from the four circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers, in the Preliminary Determination Summary we received onJanuary 9, 2009, LBEC proposes dry FGD and FF. One example we have identified is aJanuary 2008 perinitting action for apetroleumcoke, coal, and biomass fired, 230 MW, CFB boilerunit by the State ofLouisiima at Louisiana Generating LLC's, Big CajunIPowerPlant (UnitI) which

. will utilize dry FGD and FF technology to control emissions ofH2S04

to notably less permittedrates.
.. In addition, with respectto the proposedemission limits table located in the PDS, the tablerepresents the averaging time for eachpollutant shown. Tb.e majority ofthepollutantemission averaging times are represented on an annual average basis only. In order to also insure shortterm compliance and practical enforceability, the averaging time foreachpollutant shouldalso include a shorteraveraging time; e.g., at least a 30-day rolling average.
The TCEQ may obtain additionalinformation concerning the above-referencedpermitting actions to assistit in the MACT deterinination forthe proposed LBEC plant. See40 CFR 63.41. ShouldTCEQ have any questions aboutthe requirements ofSection lI2(g) ofthe Clean AirAct, please cOIitact me orRickBarrett ofmy staffat (214) 665-7227. Sincerely yours,

# ~~f;,A8t?- JeffRobinson Chief AirPermits Section

cc: Ms. Toni Oyler Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

.Mr. Steve Hagle Texas Commission onEnvironmental Quality·