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 about this

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 of consultation with EPA Region 6 and the lack

of a proper 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 of a 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 of wet 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

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations require that PSD permit applicants show that the

emissions from construction and operation of any 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, 20 IO.

Neither EPA nor the public have had the opportunity to exercise their rights under the CAA to

review the proposed source's demonstrations of compliance for these new standards and

applicability requirements.

The TCEQ should transmit for review to EPA a copy of an 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 of my staff at (214) 665-7200, if

you should have any questions concerning this matter.

Sincerely yours, '"

f;. H3-J

awrence E. Starfield

Deputy Regional Administrator

Enclosures
cc: 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 3
ENCLOSURE 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 that photochemical 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 of Texas 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 of proposed 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 of concern, not on the ratio ofthe source's emissions.

If the 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 of Texas 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 a proposed 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 criteria pollutant 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 that the 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

impact threshold as an "insignificant" impact for ozone when permitting this source.

We acknowledge TCEQ's reference in the RTC to a photochemical modeling study conducted

by Texas A & M University - Kingsville: Analysis ofthe Impact ofa 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 a part ofthe permit package that was

subject to public review and comment. We note that this analysis is limited to only 3 days for

evaluation of ozone 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 of operating history, a potential source like Las Brisas

Energy Center has not established actual emissions to facilitate development of a 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 of methods used to assess the impact of an 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 of PMIO as a surrogate

for PM2.5, and the applicant should submit a revised application or demonstration addressing

PM25 emissions.3 The additional information should either address PM2.5 emissions 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. If the applicant chooses to model for PM2.5 impacts directly, please contact

us to develop a methodology 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 or pulverized 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 adequate justification for excluding IGCC from the BACT analysis

for a coal fired power EGU. See Desert Rock Energy 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 adequate justification 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 Power Service CO/poration, Southwest Electric Power

Company, John W. Turk Plant, 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 (PM2.

5

); Notice ofProposed Rulemaking to Repeal Orandfathering Provision and End the PM]o Surrogate Policy" (75 FR

6827 at 6831-32), and the Louisville Gas and Electric, Petition No. IV-2008-3 (Order on Petition, pages 42-46).
analysis for each pollutant must consider "application of production 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

"applicant proposes the facility to accomplish its objective based upon its business

decisions. Those decisions include the applicant's choice of fuels. TCEQ does not specifY

the type of fuel to use in a fossil fuel electric generation plant because the cost of fuel is a

primary business decision consideration that is up to the applicant to determine."

We believe the TCEQ should analyze the possibility of cleaner fuels as an alternative primary

fuel source in the RTC. The Clean Air Act includes the term "clean fuels" in the definition of

BACT after the term "fuel cleaning." 42 U.S.C. § 7479(3). Thus, when a potential 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 a particular instance. EPA has

recognized that "available" options for a particular 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 Rock Energy 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 reasoned justification,

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." Desert Rock, 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 of using cleaner burning fuels is not "available" for this facility.

We believe TCEQ must clearly provide a rationale to explain why you conclude that utilizing

fuels other than 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 of Powder River Basin coals (or lower sulfur petroleum

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 conduct
a 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 of whether 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 of Appeals, we

recommend that SIP-approved States follow the framework articulated by the EAB. We are not

concluding that the present permit 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 a policy preference for

utilization of a particular coal type, or coal from a particular coal basin. EPA SUppOitS the

development and use of a broad range offuels and technologies across the energy sector,

including those that will enable the sustainable use of coal. 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, 20 I0). 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 of GHG'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 NSR pollutants, 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 of GHG 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, 20 IO. In addition, the I-hour primary NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (S02) became

effective on August 23, 2010. We are not aware of Las Brisas or TCEQ assessing the impact this

source may have on these standards. Since TCEQ did not issue this permit before the effective

date of either ofthe two new standards, we believe it is necessary for Las Brisas to supplement

its permit application to address I-hour N02and I-hour S02 emissions, and the applicable

analyses should go through public participation prior to the permit being issued. We believe
TCEQ has the authority to implement these new standards without fUlther rulemaking. TCEQ

regulations at 30 Tex. Admin.Code sec. 116.160(c)(2) incorporate by reference the requirement

of 40 CFR 52.21 (k) related to a required demonstration of a 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-hour N02 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-hour N02 standard and the I-hour S02 standard.

4 TCEQ's "Interim I-Hour Nitrogen Dioxide (N02) NAAQS Implementation Guidance"

(July 22,20 I0), and "Interim I-Hour Sulfur Dioxide (S02) NAAQS Implementation Guidance"

(August 1,20 I0).
.. " ...:...... "'

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 • <.'

Office ofthe ChiefClerk

Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality (MC-l05)

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, TX 78711-3087

RE: Prevention of Significaot Deterioration (PSD) Draft Penuit, Las Brisas Energy Center,

PSD-TX-1138, HAP48, aod PAL4l, Nueces County, Texas

To Whom It May Concern:

We have reviewed the draft PSD permit for the Las Brisas Energy Center located in

Nueces County, Texas. We received it in our office on Jaouary 7, 2009. The draft penuit was

evaluated to ensure consistency with the Texas PSD State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Federal

Cleao Air Act requirements. Our comments on the penuit are enclosed.

We look fOlward to working with TCEQ to address the issues identitled in our conunents

and to ensure that the final penuit is-consistent with the requirements ofthe Texas PSD SIP. •

Tllis letter is not a final position by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning

the disposition ofthe application and draft pernlit. Please contact me at 214-665-7250, or

Stepharlie Kordzi ofmy staff at 214-665-7520, if your have questions. Thank you for your

cooperation.

p:--

JeffRobinson

Chief

Air Pennits Section

Enclosures

cc: Ms. Toni Oyler

Texas Conuuission on EnvirOlIDlental Quality

Mr. Steve Hagle

Texas Commission on EnvirOlunental Quality

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

RecycledlAecyclable • Pmled wlh Vegetable 01 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Mlnlmum 25% P08tconsumer)

. ""'--"

.' .:.,.:
ENCLOSURE

Pemlit Condition 36- We.recommend that TCEQ considerrequiring PM Continuous

EmissiQn Monitoring Systems (CEMS) to monitor filterable particulate matter. PM

CEMS was mentioned in the Preliminary Detelmination Summary (See Comment No.4

below). PM CEMS measures the pollutant ofinterest, which periodic perfomlance

testing itlso measures, but it provides a greater degree of confidence that the PM control

device is operating as intended. We believe PM CEMS for filterable particulate matter

have been adequately demonstrated, and we are aware of a number ofsuccessful

applications in industries such as pulp and paper, hazardous waste incineration, copper

smelting, and no fewer than six electric generating units. We are aware of additional

plans for installation ofPM CEMS on electrical generating units. The capital and

operating costs ofPM CEMS are comparable to those ofContinuous Opacity Monitoring

Systems (COMS).. Also, we note that revisions to the New Source Performance

Standards for electric utility. boilers allow PM CEMS to be used in lieu of opacity limits

and COMS.. Direct, continuous measurement ofthe pollutant ofconcem, as can be

provided only by PM CEMS, will help enSlU'e proper monitoring ofthe PM control

equipment to the source, the environmental agency, and the public.

:Je,

'':'

I

"'1

i

·1

.I

j

. , Pemlit .,

it;

I 1.

I

I

\

!

.,

!

2. . Permit Condition I I.A. - The pemlit condition does not contain an arrnuitl emissions rate

for NOx although onc has been included in other pemlits recently issued to power plants

in Region 6. The CalholUl COlUlty Navigation District permit contained an llIIDual 12-

. month rolling average NOx emissions rate of 0.07 Ib IMMBtu that applies when the

source is burning' pet coke. Please explain for the public record why the subject permit

does not contain llIIDUitl average emissions rate for NOx..

3. Page 24, Pemlit Condition 24.C. - The pelmit condition states that compliance with the

Pllllltwide Applicability Limit (PAL) will be demonstrated by using CEMS. However,

CEMS are not required for PM monitoring. Please reconcile these two statements.

.

4. Page 24, Pemlit Condition2!1.D. - The pelmit states that the PAL is subject to the

requirements 000 TAC Chapter 116, SubchapterC. However; EPA is currently

reviewing these state regulations and has not yet taken action to approve or disapprove

these regulations into the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP).. Accordingly, Texas

must demonstrate that all emissions units at this source continue to.meet all requirements

ofthe currently approved SIP, including the requirements ofllI1Y existing pennits issued

under the approved SIP. If any requirement of an existing pennit is changed, tlle record

for this pemlit action must demonstrate that such change meets the applicable SIP .

approved requirements in 30 TAC section 116.116. In addition, we strongly encourage.

TCEQ to ensure that all facets of EPA's PAL provisions are adequately addressed by this

pelmit. (Please see Federitl Register, 67 FR 80186, December 31, 2002.)
I,

PreliminarY Detennination Summary

5. Page 7, PM/PMlO - The PDS states that the permit requires PM CEMS and specifies a

PM limit of 0.009 Ib /MMBtu, 30-day rolling average, with compliance based on CEMS.

However, EPA was: unable to locate this emissionrate calTied over to the pennit. See

Comment No. I above. '

8.

I , i

'I

"·i

I

1

I

i

'6. Page 8, BACT for Emissions during'Startup/Shutdbwn Please have the permittee

forward a fmal copy ofthe final Startup/Shutdown written plan, whenprepared.

Modeling'

7. Page 5-2, Section 5.2, OffProperty SOlu'Ces EPA is concerned about the statement that

Point Source Database (PSDB) sources are being eliminated from the modeling analysis'

ifthey do not have a significant impact on the project sources' area. The specific

statementof concem is that "the PSDBretrievals did not include facilities that are located

adjacent to the site ofthe Port ofCorpus Christi property and are sources ofPMIO".

Please clarify for EPA before issuing the pennit and for the public record which sources

were eliminated, why they were notconsidered in the modeling prepared by the company,

and how the source has complied with EPA modeling requirements.

Page 7-5, Section 7.6, Ozone Analysis - EPA is concerned abo)lt the TCEQ guidance

referenced by the applicant when assessing the ozone impacts from the proposed unit in

its PSD pernlit application. SpeCifically, it was detennined that the location is ozone

neutral. Ifthe TCEQ guidance that was used is based on the Scheffe PointSource

Screening Tables, then EPA has commented and provided infonnationto TCEQ on the

inaccuracy ofusing Scheffe Point Source Screening Tables for detennining ozone

ambient impacts in previous pennit comment letters. Use ofthe Scheffe Point Source

'Screening Tables or similar screening processes are not EPA-approved methods. TCEQ

Air Quality Modeling Guidelines establish a process by which the permit applicant

'communicates with the TCEQ staff and develops a modeling protocol that will be

followed. We couldnot see where a modeling protocol was developed or submitted by

Las Brisas Energy. We have attached the Richard Scheffe letter on the Schefie Point

Source Screening Tables for TCEQ and the 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

Dear Ms. 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 a screening test to 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 associated with EPA guideline models and

ccnsequently were not endorsed by the Agency. After publication (non peer reviewed

literature) ofthe tables in1989, the American Petroleum 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,that the 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 of emissions, meteorological, and atmospheric chemistry .

processes, paralleling an equivalent improvement in Computational processing capability, ,

all of which 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.t Add",.. (VRL) • hl1p:llwww,.p•.gov

ReoyclCK1JRQcyolabll • PI1n19o' with V~elable on Based InKs on 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 2 2009

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 your efforts to

establish a case-by-case maximum achievable control technology (MACT) determination for

the proposed construction ofthe LBEC, 1200 megawatt (MW) power plant, Nueces County,

Texas. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is the permitting

authority required to make the section 112(g) MACT determination for the construction of

the LBEC. However, consistent with EPA's regulations implementing section 112(g), EPA

can provide information to permitting authorities ifthat "information can be expeditiously

provided by the Administrator." See 40 C.F.R. §63.43(d) (requiring, among other things,

that the 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 consider as you develop the case-by-case section 112(g) MACT

standard for the LBEC.

'1,

1

!

,'.

Item I

Item 2

With respect to the proposed MACT 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 a January 2008

permitting action for a petroleum coke, coal, and biomass fired, 230

MW, CFB boiler unit by the State ofLouisiana at Louisiana

Generating LLC's, Big Cajun I Power Plant (Unit I) which will utilize

dry FGD and FF technology to control emissions ofHCL to notably

less permitted rates.

With respect to the proposed MACT to control emissions ofHydrogen

Fluoride (HP) from the four circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers, in

the Preliminary Determination Summary we received on January 9,

2009, LBEC proposes dry FGD and FF. One example we have

identified is a January 2008 permitting action for a petroleum coke,

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

. ":,
-.

-iI

Item 3

Item 4

- 2.-

coal, and biomass fired, 230 MW, CFB boiler unit by the State of

Louisiana at Louisiana Generating LLC's, Big CajunI Power Plant

(Unit I) which will utilize dry FGD and FF technology to control

emissions ofHF to notably less pennitted rates.

In addition, with respect to the proposed best available 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 on January 9, 2009,

LBEC proposes dry FGD and FF. One example we have identified is

a January 2008 perinitting action for a petroleum coke, coal, and

biomass fired, 230 MW, CFB boiler unit by the State ofLouisiima at

Louisiana Generating LLC's, Big Cajun I Power Plant (Unit I) which

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

to notably less permitted rates. ..

In addition, with respect to the proposed emission limits table located

in the PDS, the tablerepresents the averaging time for each pollutant

shown. Tb.e majority ofthe pollutant emission averaging times are

represented on an annual average basis only. In order to also insure

short term compliance and practical enforceability, the averaging time

for each pollutant should also include a shorter averaging time; e.g., at

least a 30-day rolling average.

The TCEQ may obtain additional information concerning the above-referenced permitting

actions to assist it in the MACT deterinination for the proposed LBEC plant. See 40 CFR

63.41. Should TCEQ have any questions about the requirements ofSection lI2(g) ofthe

Clean Air Act, please cOIitact me or Rick Barrett ofmy staff at (214) 665-7227.

Sincerely yours,

~~f;,A8t?- JeffRobinson

Chief

Air Permits Section

cc: Ms. Toni Oyler

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

.Mr. Steve Hagle

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality·