Re: Ozone comments on Texas 1997 Ozone infrastructure SIP

Daniel Menendez to: Erik Snyder 11/18/2011 02:35 PM

From: "Daniel Menendez" <Daniel.Menendez@tceq.texas.gov>

To: Erik Snyder/R6/USEPA/US@EPA

History: This message has been replied to.

1 attachment

Hi Erik,

Sorry I haven't returned your call. I've been out sick this week. 

Attached is a Commission Order with information on where the 5 ppb reference originates. 

Finding of fact 76 discusses 5 ppb not as a de minimis value, but as the lower detectable level of 

monitors at the time. We are still looking to see if we can find any recent uses of 5 ppb.

Hope this helps,

Daniel 

>>> <Snyder.Erik@epamail.epa.gov> 11/10/2011 3:29 PM >>>

Hi,

It was good talking today. Here are the comments that we received from Sierra Club on our recent 

proposed approval of Texas infrastructure SIP for the 1997 Ozone standard.

Appreciate any insights or information that you would have on the comments as we work to do our 

response to comments.

Thanks and have a good weekend.

-Erik

Lead Regional Air Quality Modeler

EPA Region 6

Phone: 214-665-7305

Fax: 214-665-7263

email: snyder.erik@epa.gov
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

AN ORDER granting the application of Sandy Creek Energy Associates,

L.P., for Air Quality Flexible PennitNo. 70861; PSD Pennit

No. PSD-TX-I039; TCEQ Docket No. 2005-0781-AIR;

SOAR Docket No. 582-05-5612.

OnMay 17,2006, the Texas Commission onEnvironmental Quality (Commission orTCEQ)

considered the application ofSandy Creek Energy Associates, L.P., (Applicant or Sandy Creek) for

Air Quality Flexible Pennit No. 70861, PSD Permit No. PSD-TX-1039. The application was

presented to the Commission with a proposal for decision by the Honorable Lilo D. Pomerleau and

Carol ,Wood, Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) with the State Office ofAdministrative Hearings

(SOAH).

After considering the ALJs' proposal for decision and the evidence and arguments presented,

the Commission makes the following Findings ofFact and Conclusions ofLaw:

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

General Facts and Procedural History

1. The proposed Sandy Creek Energy Station (the Station) will be a new pulverized coal (PC)-

fired electricity generating station constructed on an approximately 700-acre undeveloped

site, about one mile west of Riesel, Texas, and 15 miles southeast of Waco, Texas, in

McLennan County.
2. The owner ofthe Station will be Sandy Creek. LS Power Development, LLC, is the general

partner ofthe company that owns 100 percent of Sandy Creek, directly and indirectly.

3. The proposed Station will be capable of producing approximately 800 net megawatts of

electricity, with a maximum heat input of 8,185 million Btu per hour. The fuel that will be

fired in the PC boiler will below-sulfur sub-bituminous Powder River Basin coal.

4. Sandy Creek originally submitted its application for a flexible permit to TCEQ on

January 9, 2004. On March 10, 2005, Sandy Creek submitted revised pages to the initial

application, reflecting changes that had occurred during the technical review phase.

5. Sandy Creek posted public notice signs along the perimeter ofthe proposed site, declaring

the filing of its air permit application and stating the manner in which TCEQ could be

contacted for further information.

6; Sandy Creek published "Notice ofReceipt ofApplication and Intent to Obtain Air Permit"

in the Riesel Rustler on February 20,2004.

7. Sandy Creek published ''Notice of Application, Preliminary Decision and Public Meeting

for Air Quality Permits" in the Riesel Rustler on March 11, 2005

8. SandyCreek's application was made available for public inspection during the entire public

notice period.

9. Sandy Creek provided notification ofits application to all agencies, regulatory bodies, and

other entities to which notification is required.

2
l'Jt \

,

10. At the request of Sandy Creek, the Commission's Chief Clerk directly referred Sandy

Creek's application to SOAR for a hearing on whether the application complies with all .

applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.

11. Sandy Creek published notice ofthe preliminary hearing at SOAR in the Riesel Rustler on

May 20, 2005.

12. At the preliminary hearing conducted on June 27,2005, in Austin, Texas, ALJ Pomerleau

accepted jurisdiction over TCEQ's referral ofSandy Creek's application and designated the

following as parties: SandyCreekEnergyAssociates, L.P.; the Commission's Public Interest

Counsel; Environmental Defense, Inc.; Public Citizen of Texas, Inc.; TPOWER; SEED

Coalition Sustainable Energy; Blue Skies Alliance; RickyBates; Justin Lauderdale; Wayne

Evans; Darrell A. Cervenka; and Randall W. Cervenka.

13. Prior to the hearing on the merits, Justin Lauderdale and Wayne Evans withdrew from the

case.

14. ALJs Lilo D. Pomerleau and Carol Wood conducted the hearing on the merits at SOAR's

offices in Austin, Texas, from November 14 through November 16,2005.

15. On November 18,2005, the ALJs certified the following question to the Commission: [I]n

an airpermit application that includes a prevention ofsignificant deterioration (PSD) review,

must an applicant that proposes to construct a pulverized coal boiler power plant include

other electric generation technologies, such asIGCC (integrated gasification/combined cycle)

technology, in its best available control technology (BACT) analysis?

16. The Commission considered the question listed in the above finding of fact during its

December 14, 2005 open meeting and found that an applicant that proposes to construct a

pulverized coal boiler power plant is not required to include other electric generation

technologies, such as IGCC (integrated gasification/combined cycle) technology, in its

BACT analysis.

3
,\", ) ,

Completeness ofApplication

17. Sandy Creek applied to the Commission for an air quality flexible permit that would also

satisfy the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements.

18. Sandy Creek submitted a complete Fonn PI-l General Application signed by Michael P.

Witzing, an authorized representative ofSandy Creek. Sandy Creek's application was also

signed and sealed by David Cabe, a Texas registered professional engineer. Sandy Creek

paid the $75,000 permit fee.

19. Sandy Creek provided all supplemental information required by TCEQ's PI-l Fonn.

20. SandyCreek's permit applicationaddressed all sources ofair emissions from the Station that

are subject to permitting under TCEQ rules.

21. TCEQ staffreviewed Sandy Creek's application to detennine whether it complied with all

applicable rules and policies and documented the conclusions ofthat review in an internal

report called the "Source Analysis & Technical Review."

Demonstrations Under 30 TAC § 116.711: Protection ofPublic Welfare

Sandy Creek's Air Dispersion Modeling

22. Sandy Creek performed an atmospheric dispersion modeling study, which was summarized

in its February 22,2005 "Air QualityAnalysis Report for Flexible Air QualityPennit for the

Sandy Creek Energy Station," and its March 7, 2005 supplement to that report.

23. To perfonn the modeling, Sandy Creek used the "Industrial Source Complex Short-Tenn

Model, Version 3 (ISC 3)," which is the model recommended by both TCEQ and the

4
" I

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for modeling complex industrial sources such as

the Station.

24. Sandy Creek performed its air modeling in accordance with guidance published by both

TCEQ andEPA and the modeling protocol cooperatively developed for this projectby Sandy

Creek and TCEQ's air dispersion modeling team.

25. The receptor grid used by Sandy Creek in its air dispersion modeling was sufficient to

include the entire maximum impact area for all air contaminants as well as areas over which

concentrations resulting from Sandy Creek's emissions were modeled to exceed de minimis

levels.

26. There are no schools located within 3,000 feet ofthe Station's site.

,,' :<':'1. ...,.~

27. In performing the air dispersion modeling, Sandy Creek modeled every source of emissions

at the site except for fuel storage tanks and roads.

28. Sandy Creek accounted for dust emissions from vehicles traveling in the ash disposal area.

29. Modeling offuel storage tanks was appropriately excluded because their emissions are so

low and the chemicals emitted are not particularly toxic.

30. Under TCEQ's modeling guidance, modeling ofroad dust emissions is explicitly excluded

for short-term averaging periods.

31. Under TCEQ's modeling guidance, modeling ofroad dust emissions is excluded for longterm averaging periods if the following apply: the emissions will not be generated in

association with the tr':lnsport, storage, or transfer ofroad-base aggregate materials, or the

applicant plans to use best management practices to control them.

5
32. Sandy Creek will be transporting no road-base aggregate materials at the Station and will

employ best management practices for minimizing dust, such as paving ofmost roads and

watering of unpaved road segments.

33. SandyCreek's air dispersionmodeling was conservative, that is, it tended to over-predict offproperty ambient concentrations.

a. Sandy Creek used worst-case emission rates, including start-up emission rates that,

in reality, would occur infrequently.

b. Sandy Creek assumed that all sources at the Station would be operating

simultaneously and emitting at their maximum rates at the same time, which would

not always be the case.

c. SandyCreek coupledworst-case dispersion conditions with the worst-case emissions

scenario to calculate maximum off-property impacts.

d. SandyCreek used conservative background concentrationsinthe modeling analyses.

34. TCEQ's modeling staff performed an audit of Sa;ndy Creek's modeling and found it

acceptable..

35. The following standards or guidelines apply to this permit application's maximum modeled

pollutant concentrations: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); PSD

increments; Net GroundLevel Concentration (NGLC), or "stateproperty-line" standards; and

Effects Screening Levels (ESLs).

NAAQS Analysis

36. NAAQS are federal standards representing concentrations at which no adverse health or

welfare impacts are expected to occur.

37. EPA has established both primary and secondary NAAQS.

6
,

,

a. Primary NAAQS are designed to protect public health with an adequate margin of

safety.

b. Secondary NAAQS are designed to protect the public welfare from any known or

anticipated adverse effects of a designated pollutant, that is, nuisance impacts.

38. EPA has established primary and secondaryNAAQS for seven air contaminants, referred to

as the "criteria" pollutants: sulfur dioxide (S02)' particulate matter consisting ofparticles

with diameters less than 10 microns (PMIO), particulate matter consisting of particles with

diameters less than 2.5 microns (PM2.

5), ozone, nitrogen dioxide (N02)' carbon monoxide

(CO) and lead. The NAAQS are expressed as ambient concentrations in units ofparts per

million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter averaged over a specific time period, such as

24 hours or a calendar quarter.

39. Sandy Creek directlymodeled its emissions of SO~, N02, CO, lead and PMlO for the purpose

of demonstrating compliance with the NAAQS. "'""<l;"""

40. For the pollutants and averaging periods for which maximum modeled concentrations

resulting from emissions at the Station were above de minimis levels, Sandy Creek added a

screening background concentration to consider the influence ofother sources affecting the

Station impact areas.

41. The screening background concentrations used by Sandy Creek are conservative and

appropriate for the area ofthe proposed site

42. S02 NAAQS exist for three averaging periods: three-hour (1300 ug/m3

) , 24-hour (365

ugim3), and annual (80 ug/m3).

7
'l'{ \ f

\,

'43. The maximum modeled 3-hour average S02 concentration resulting from the Station's

emissions at any off-site location is 265 ug/m3 and the screening background concentration

for McLennan County is 260 ug/m3

•

44. The proposed Station's S02 emissions, when added to the background level ofambient S02'

will not cause or contribute to an exceedance ofthe 3-hour S02 NAAQS of 1,300 ug/m3 in

McLennan County.

45. The maximum modeled 3-hour average S02 concentration resulting from the Station's

emissions at any location in Limestone;Robertson, or Milam Counties is 74 ug/m3

; and the

screening background concentration for these counties is 1040 ug/m3

.

46. The proposed Station's S02 emissions, when added to the background level ofambient S02'

will 'not cause or contribute to an exceedance ofthe 3-hour S02 NAAQS of 1300 ug/m3 in

Limestone, Robertson, or Milam Counties.

47. The maximum modeled 24-hour average S02 concentration resulting from the Station's

emissions at any off-site location is 35.5 ug/m3 and the maximum screening background

concentration is 275 ug/m3

•

48. The proposed Station's S02 emissions, when added to the background level ofambient S02'

will not cause or contribute to an exceedance ofthe 24-hour S02 NAAQS of365 ug/m3

•

49. The maximum modeled annual average S02 concentration resulting from the Station's

emissions at any off-site location is 0.82 ugjm3

, which is below the NAAQS/PSD de minimis

level for annual average S02 concentrations of 1 ug/m3

•

50. The impact ofthe Station's S02 emissions on annual average concentrations is insignificant

and will not cause or contribute to an exceedance ofthe annual S02 NAAQS of 80 ugjm3

•

8
t,t \

",.1 '

51. N02 NAAQS existfor one averaging period: annual (100 ug/m3).

52. The maximum modeled annual average N02 concentration resulting from the Station's

emissions at any off-site location is 2.04 ug/m3

; and the maximum screening background

concentration is 30 ug/m3

•

53. The proposed Station'sN02 emissions, when added to the background level ofambient NOx,

will not cause or contribute to an exceedance ofthe annual N02 NAAQS of 100 ug/m3

•

co

54. CO NAAQS exist for two averagIng periods: I-hour (40000 ug/m3

) andB-hour

(10000 ug/m3).

55. The maximum modeled I-hour average CO concentration resulting from the Station's

emissions at any off-site location is 235 ug/m3

, which is below the de minimis level for 1-

hour average CO concentrations of 2000 ug/m3

•

56. The impact ofthe Station's CO emissions on I-hour average concentrations is insignificant

and will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of I-hour CO NAAQS· of 40000 ug/m3

•

57. The maxim~m modeled 8-hour average CO concentration resulting from the Station's

emissions at any off-site location is 57.7 ug/m3

, which is below the de minimis level for 8-

hour average CO concentr~tions of 500 ug/m3

•

58. The impact ofthe Station's CO emissions on 8-hour average concentrations is insignificant

and will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of 8-hour CO NAAQS of 10000 ug/m3

•

9
'Lead

59. Lead NAAQS exist for one averaging period: calendar quarter (1.5 ug/m3).

60. The maximum modeled calendar quarter average lead concentration resulting from the

Station's emissions at any off-site location is 0.00014 ug/m3

, which is below the de minimis

level for calendar quarter lead concentrations of 0.2 ug/m3

•

61. The impact of the Station's lead emissions on calendar quarter average concentrations is

insignificant and will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of calendar quarter lead

NAAQS of 1.5 ug/m3

•

62. PMlO NAAQS exist for two averaging periods: 24-hour (150 ug/m3

) and annual (50 ug/m3

)

63. The maximum modeled 24-hour average PMlO concentration resulting from the Station's

emissions at any off-site location is 17.6 ug/m3

; and the maximum screening background

concentration is 75 ug/m3

•

64. The proposed Station's PMIO emissions, when added to the background level of ambient

PMlO, will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the 24-hour PMlO NAAQS of

150 ug/m3

•

65. The maximum modeled annual average PMlO concentration resulting from the Station's

emissions at any off-site location is 4.49 ug/m3

; and the maximum screening background

concentration is 25 ug/m3

•

66. The proposed Station's PMlO emissions, when added to the background level of ambient

PMlO, will not cause or contribute to an exceedance ofthe annual PMlO NAAQS of50 ug/m3

•

10
I' \

I

) ,

67. Both EPA and TCEQ accept demonstration of compliance with the PMlO NAAQS as a

surrogate for demonstration of compliance with the PM2.

5NAAQS.

68. The Station's emissions ofPM10 would not cause orcontribute to an exceedance ofthe PMlO

NAAQS.

69. The Station's emissions ofPM2.

5would not cause or contribute to an exceedance ofthe PM2.

5

NAAQS.

Ozone

70. Sandy Creek's proposed plant would emit nitrogen oxides (N0x) and volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), which, in the presence ofsunlight, can form ozone in the atmosphere.

71. TCEQ staff (Staff) requires use of a screening technique to determine whether a proposed

source will cause ozone exceedances in the local attainment area.

72. Ifa source is NOx-dominated, then local ozone impacts will be insignificant and the analysis

is deemed complete.

73. Sandy Creek properly applied the screening technique to determine that the Station would

be NOx-dominated.

74. Sandy Creek demonstrated there would not be a significant change to the current ozone

levels in the local attainment area due to the Station's emissions.

75. The Station will not cause any ozone NAAQS exceedances in the local attainment area.

11
(

"J

76. The Station's incremental effect on DFW ozone levels would be less than 0.03 ppb, which

is significantly below 5 ppb, the lower required range of detectability of modem ambient

ozone monitors.

77. The Station's incremental effect on DFW ozone levels would be approximately 0.04 percent

ofthe 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which is two orders ofmagnitude b~low the fraction ofthe

applicable NAAQS that is defined as insignificant for other criteria pollutants.

78. SandyCreek will not measurably influence ambient ozone concentrations in the DFW ozone

nonattainment area.

NAAQS Summary

79. Emissions from the Station will not cause or measurably contribute to an exceedance ofany

NAAQS.

PSD Increment Analysis

80. PSD increments are allowable incremental changes in off-property concentrations ofcertain

pollutants for which PSD review has been triggered. Concentration increases in excess of

these levels are considered by EPA as significantly deteriorating air quality.

81. Sandy Creek perfonned a PSD increment analysis for its emissions ofSOz, N02, CO, lead

andPM10'

82. Maximum modeled concentrations resulting from emissions at the Station were below

de minimis levels for S02 (annual averaging period), CO (I-hour and 8-hour averaging

periods), and lead (calendar quarter averaging period).

83. The impacts ofthe Station's emissions of SOz,CO, and lead are insignificant and will not

cause or contribute to an exceedance of any PSD increments for the averaging periods.

12
84. Maximum modeled concentrations resulting from emissions at the Station were above

de minimis levels for S02 (3-hour and 24-hour averaging periods), N02 (for the annual

averaging period) and PMIO (for the 24-hour and annual averaging periods).

85. For the above pollutants and averaging times, Sandy Creek incorporated data on other PSD

increment-consuming sources from TCEQ's Point Source Database into the model.

86. For each ofthe above pollutants and averaging periods, the combined impacts from Sandy

Creek's maximum modeled concentrations and the PSD increment-consuming sources are

less than their PSD increments.

PSD Increment Analysis: S02

87. The maximum modeled 3-hour average S02 concentration resulting from the combined

effect of the Station's emissions and the emissions of other PSD increment-consuming

sources in the area is 380 ug/m3

•

88. The proposed Station's S02 emissions will not cause or contribute to an exceedance ofthe

3-hour average S02 PSD increment of512 ug/m3

•

89. The maximum modeled 24-hour average S02 concentration resulting from the combined

effect of the Station's emissions and the emissions of other PSD increment-consuming

sources in the area is 35.8 ug/m3

•

90. The proposed Station's S02 emissions will not cause or contribute to an exceedance ofthe

24-hour average S02 PSD increment of91. ug/m3

•

13
"r'

PSD Increment Analysis: N02

91. The maximum modeled annual average N02 concentration resulting from the combined

effect of the Station's emissions and the emissions of other PSD increment-consuming

sources in the area is 12.2 ug/m3

•

92. The proposed Station's N02 emissions will not cause or contribute to an exceedance ofthe

annual average N02 PSD increment of 25 ugjm3

•

PSD Increment Analysis: PM10

93. The maximum modeled 24-hour average PM10 concentration resulting from the combined

effect of the Station's emissions and the emissions of other PSD increment-consuming

sources in the area is 17.6 ug/m3

•

94. The proposed Station's PMIQ emissions will not ~ause or contribute to an exceedance ofthe

24-hour average PMlO,PSD increment of30 ugjm3

•

95. The maximum modeled a1l1!ual average PMlO concentration resulting from the combined

effect of the Station's emissions and the emissions of other PSD increment-consuming

sources in the area is 4.68 ugjm3

•

96. The proposed Station's PMlO emissions will,not cause or contribute to an exceedance ofthe

annual average PMIO PSD increment of 17 ugjm3

•

PSD Increment Analysis: Summary

97. Emissions from the Station will not cause or contribute to exceedances of any PSD

increments.

14
I'

"

.PSD Monitoring Analysis

98. Ofthe air contaminants that will be emitted bythe Station, PSD monitoring de minimis levels

exist for S02 (24-hour averaging period), N02 (annual averaging period), CO (8-hour

averagingperiod), lead (calendar quarter averaging period), PMlO (24-hour averaging period)

and fluorides (24-hour averaging period).

99. Maximum modeled concentrations resulting from the Station's emissions are below all

applicable PSD monitoring de minimis levels except for 24-hour S02 and 24-hour PMio, for

which Sandy Creek has used predefined screening background concentrations.

NGLC Analysis

100. NGLC standards are maximum air concentrations that are allowed to result from all sources

on a contiguous property.

101. NGLC standards exist for total particulate matter (I-hour and 3-hour averaging periods),

H2S04 (I-hour and 24-hour averaging periods), and S02 (3D-minute averaging period).

102. Sandy Creek modeled emissions oftotal particulate matter, H2S04, and S02 for purposes of

comparison to applicable NGLC standards.

103. Sandy Creek's maximum modeled concentrations were below the applicable NGLC

standards.

NGLC: Total Particulate Matter (PM)

104. The maximum modeled I-hour average total PM concentration resulting from the Station's

emissions at any location is 59.4 ug/m3

•

15
, '

"

105. The proposed Station's total PM emissions will not cause an exceedance of the I-hour

average total PM NGLC of 400 ug/m3

•

106. The maximum modeled 3-hour average total PM concentration resulting from the Station's

emissions at any location is 33.6 ug/m3

•

107. The proposed Station's total PM emissions will not cause an exceedance of the 3-hour

average total PM NGLC of 200 ug/m3

•

NGLC: H~04

108. The maximum modeled I-hour average H2S04 concentration resulting from the Station's

emissions at any location is 21.4 ug/m3

•

109. The proposed Station's H2S04 emissions will not cause an exceedance ofthe I-hour average

H2S04 NGLC of 50 ug/m3

•

110. The maximum modeled 24-hour average H2S04 concentration resulting from the Station's

emissions at any location is 2.64 ug/m3

•

111. The proposed Station's HZS04emissions will not cause an exceedance ofthe 24-hour average

HZS04NGLC of15 ug/m3

.

NGLC: S02

112. The maximum modeled 3D-minute average S02 concentration resulting from the Station's

emissions at any location is 486 ug/m3

•

113. The proposed Station's 802 emissions will not cause an exceedance ofthe S02 NGLC of

1048 ug/m3

•

16
I

) , ,

I I

NGLC Summary

114. The proposed Station's air emissions will not cause exceedances of any applicable NGLC

standards.

ESL Analysis

115. TCEQ developed the ESL system to review ground level concentrations of constituents for

which there are no established state or federal standards. ESLs serve as conservative

guideline comparison concentrations for use in effects evaluation to protect against adverse

health effects to both humans and animals, vegetation effects, material damage (e.g.,

corrosion) and nuisance conditions (e.g., odor).

116. ESLs incorporate very generous margins of safety to take into account even the most

sensitive individual, typically using 1/100th oflevels of a constituent at which no adverse

effects are observed (No Observed Adverse Effect Level-NOAEL) for short-term ESLs and

1/1000th ofthe NOAEL for long-term ESLs.

117. Maximum modeled air concentrations resulting from a source's emissions that are below

the ESL will not cause adverse health or welfare effects, and concentrations above the ESL

will not necessarily cause adverse health or welfare effects, but may require further study if

they exceed the ESL to a significant degree in an area populated or frequented by people.

118. It is common for an applicant's maximum modeled concentrations to exceed some ESLs and

nevertheless receive authorization from TCEQ, as long as the steps outlined in TCEQ's

Effects Evaluation Procedure are followed and the ground level concentrations are deemed

to be acceptable.

119. An ESL analysis is conducted only for sources on the applicant's property. ,

17
I, '

) I

" t I

'120. ESLs are set sufficiently conservatively such that if a source's maximum predicted offproperty concentration is below the ESL, there will be no adverse health or welfare effects

from exposure to that concentration even ifthere are also naturally occurring background

concentrations or contributions from nearby sources.

121. TCEQ and its predecessor agencies have been using the ESL system to evaluate the health

effects of air contaminants for at least 20 years.

122. The ESL system currently used by TCEQ adequately protects the health and welfare ofthe

public.

123. Sandy Creek modeled the Station's emissions of the following non-criteria pollutants:

ammonia, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen fluoride, coal dust, lime dust, urea, silica, and the

following trace metallic constituents of the coal: aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium,

beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, mercury,

nickel, potassium, selenium, silver, vanadium, and zinc.

124. For ammonia (NH3)' the maximum modeled I-hour average concentrationresulting from the

Station's emissions is 7.22 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for ammonia of170 ug/m3•

125. The maximum modeled annual average concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions

of ammonia is 0.064 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for ammonia of 17 ug/m3•

126. For hydrochloric acid (HCI), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting

from the Station',s emissions is 72.9 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for hydrochloric

acid of 75 ug/m3

.

127. The maximum modeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

ofhydrochloric acid is 0.01 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for hydrochloric acid of

0.1 ug;m3

•

18
'\ ' ! '

128. For hydrogen fluoride (HF), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting

from the Station's emissions is 2.19 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for hydrogen

fluoride of 25 ug/m3

•

129. The maximummodeled 24-hour average concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions

ofhydrogen fluoride is 0.135 ug/m3

, which is below the 24-hour ESL for hydrogen fluoride

of3-12 ug/m3

•

130. The maximum modeled 30-dayaverage concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

ofhydrogen fluoride is 0.048 ug/m3

, which is below the 30-day ESL for hydrogen fluoride

of 0.5 ug/m3

•

131. Themaximummodeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

ofhydrogen fluoride is' 0.005 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for hydrogen41uoride

of2.5 ug/m3

•

132. For coal dust, the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissions is 0.87 uglm3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for coal dust of9 ug/m3•

133. The maximummodeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

of coal dust is 0.033 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for coal dust of 0.9 ug/m3

•

134. For urea, the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the Station's

emissions is 0.023 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for urea of 100 ug/m3•

135. 'The maximum modeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

ofurea is 0.00009 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for urea of 10 ug/m3

.

136. For silver (Ag), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissionsis 0.00093 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hourESL for silver of0.1 ug/m3

•

19
I

i' '.

137. Themaximum modeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

ofsilver is 0.00001 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for silver of 0.01 ug/m3

•

138. For aluminum (AI), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissions is 0.011 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for aluminum of 20

ug/m3

•

139. The maximum modeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

of aluminum is 0.0009 ugjm3

, which is below the annual ESL for aluminum of2 ug/m3

•

140. For arsenic (As), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissions is 0.095 ugjm3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for arsenic of0.1 ug/m3

•

141. The maximum modeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

of arsenic is 0.0009 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for arsenic of0.01 ugjm3

•

142. For boron (B), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissionsis 0.00193 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hourESLforboronofl00ug/m3

•

143. Themaximum modeled annual average concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions

ofboron is 0.02818 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for boron of 10 ug/m3

•

144. For barium (Ba), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissions is 2.37 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for barium of 5 ug/m3

.

145. The maximum modeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

ofbarium is 0.022 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for barium of 0.5 ugjm3•

146. For beryllium (Be), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting fr~m the

Station's emissions is 0.012 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for beryllium of 0.02

ug/m3

.

20
147. The maximum modeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

ofberyllium is 0.00012 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for beryllium of0.002 ug/m3

•

148. For cadmium (Cd), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissions is 0.0018 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for cadmium of 0..1

ug/m3

•

149. The maximum modeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

of cadmium is 0.00002 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for cadmium of 0.01 ug/m3

•

150. [DELETED]

151. [DELETED]

152. For chromium (Cr), themaximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissions is 0.048 ug/m3, which is below the I-hour ESL for chromium of 0.1

ug/m3

.

153. Themaximum modeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

ofchromium is 0.00046 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for chromium of0.01 ug/m3

.

154. For copper (Cu), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissionsis 0.068 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for copper of 10 ug/m3

•

155. The maximum modeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

of copper is 0.00065 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for copper of 1 ug/m3.

156. For iron (Fe), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissions is 0.020 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for iron of 10 ug/m3 •

21
, '

'157. The maximum modeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

ofiron is 0.0014 ug/m3, which is below the annual ESL for iron of 1ug/m3 •

158. For mercury (Rg), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissions is 0.089 ug/m3, which is below the I-hour ESL for mercury of 0.25

ug/m3

•

159. The maximummodeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

ofmercury is 0.00084 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for mercury of 0.025 ugjm3

•

160. For potassium (K), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissionsis 1.87 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for potassium of20 ug/m3

•

161. The maximum modeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

ofpotassium is 0.128 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for potassium of2 ug/m3.

162. For magnesium (Mg), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from

the Station's emissionsis 0.488 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for magnesium of100

ug/m3

•

163. Themaximummodeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

ofmagnesium is 0.033 ugjm3

, which is below the annual ESL for magnesium of 10 ug/m3

•

164. For manganese (Mn), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from

the Station's emissions is 0.617 ug/m3, which is below the I-hour ESL for manganese of2

ugjm3

•

165. Themaximummodeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

ofmanganese is 0.0058 ugjm3

, which is below the annual ESL for manganese of0.2 ugjm3

•

22
(~ ('

, '

"

166. For nickel (Ni), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissions is 0.0618 ug/m3

, which is below the 1-hourESLfornickel of0.15 ug/m3•

167. The maximum modeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

of nickel is 0.00059 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for nickel of 0.015 ug/m3

168. For antimony (Sb), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissions is 0.00866 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for antimony of

5 ug/m3

.

169. The maximum modeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

of antimony is 0.00009 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for antimony of 0.5 ug/m3

•

170. For selenium (Se), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting"fromthe

Station's emissions is 0.00637 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for selenium of

2 ug/m3

•

171. The maximum modeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

ofselenium is 0.00006 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for selenium of0.2ug/m3

•

172. For vanadium (V), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissions is 0.161 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for vanadium of

0.5 ug/m3

•

173. The maximum modeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

ofvanadium is 0.00152 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for vanadium of 0.05 ug/m3

.

174. For zinc (Zn), th~ maximum modeled I-holir average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissions is 0.133 ug/m3

, which is below the I-hour ESL for zinc of 50 ug/m3

•

23
" 175. The maximum modeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

of zinc is 0.00127 ug/m3, which is below the annual ESL" for zinc of 0.5 ug/m3

•

ESL Analysis: Silica

176. For silica (Si), the maximum modeled l-hour average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissions is 0.66 ug/m3

, which is approximately 1.3 times higher than the I-hour

ESL for silica of 0.5 ug/m3

•

177. The maximum modeled I-hour average concentration is predicted to exceed the I-hour ESL

for only 7 hours in a year.

178. Silica is silicon dioxide, the most abundant rock-forming compound on earth.

179. "Fused silica" is silicon dioxide in its amorphous ("glassy") state.

180. The ESL for amorphous fused silica is more restrictive than that for any other type ofsilica.

181. By assuming that all silica in the ash generated at the Station is of the amorphous fused

variety and comparingmodeled concentrationstothe ESLfor amorphous fused silica, Sandy

Creek took a conservative approach to modeling its silica emissions.

182. The short-term ESL for silica is set at 11100th of the National Institute for Occupational

Safetyand Health's recommended exposure limit for an 8 or 1O-hourtime-weighted average

exposure and is set to protect against the potential oflong-term effects.

183. The health effect of concern from exposure to silica occurs after long-term exposure.

184. The short-term ESL for silica is conservative.

24
· '

185. The maximummodeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

ofsilica is 0.016 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for silica of 0.05 ug/m3

•

186. No adverse health or welfare effects will result from the public's exposure to the Station's

silica emissions.

ESL Analysis: Lime

187. For lime (CaO), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the

Station's emissions is 31 ug/m3

, which is approximately 1.6 times higher than the I-hour

ESL for lime of 20 ug/m3

•

188. The maximum modeled I-hour average concentration is predicted to exceed the I-hour ESL

for only 10 hours in a year.

189. The maximummodeled annual average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions

oflime is 0.86 ug/m3

, which is below the annual ESL for lime of2ug/m3

•

190. Lime, or calcium oxide, can be an irritant to the nose and respiratory tract if inhaled at

sufficiently high concentrations.

191. The short-term ESL for lime is set at 1I100th ofthe American Conference of Govemmental

Industrial Hygienists' time-weighted average threshold limit value.

192. The maximum modeled lime concentration resulting from the Station's emissions is more

than 300 times lower than the levels that have been shown to cause no adverse health effects

in humans.

193. No adverse health or welfare effects will result from the public's exposure to the Station's

lime emissions.

25
I '

ESLSummary

194. Maximum modeled concentrations resulting from Sandy Creek's emissions ofnon-criteria

pollutants are below all applicable one-hour and annual ESLs, except for silica and lime, for

which maxim,um modeled concentrations exceed the one-hour ESLs 7 and 10 times per year,

for silica and lime, respectively.

195. No adverse health or welfare effects will result from the Station's emissions of non-criteria

pollutants.

Additional Findings Concerning Air Emissions

196. Emissions of particulate matter from the PC boiler at the Station will not be greater than

0.31b/MMBtu on a two-hour average basis and will not exceed a six-minute average opacity

of20 percent.

197. Emissions of particulate matter from the auxiliary boiler at the Station will not be greater

than 48.4 lb/hr and will not exceed a sIx-minute average opacity of 20 percent.

198. Emissions ofparticulate matter from the stationary vents at the Station will not exceed a sixminute average opacity of 20 percent.

199. Emissions ofparticulate matter from all buildings, enclosed facilities, structures, and other

sources at the Station will not exceed a six-minute average opacity of30 percent.

200. Emissions ofS02 from the PC boiler at the Station will not exceed 3.0 IblMMBtu on a threehour average basis.

201. SandyCreek's application does not involve any air contaminants for which a disasterreview

is required.

26
\'

Summary ofProtection ofPublic Health and Welfare

202. The Station's proposed emissions will comply with all criteria and non-criteria ambient air

contaminant standards and guidelines at all off-property locations

Measurement ofEmissions: 30 TAC § 116.711(2)

203. Sandy Cre'ek will install, operate, and maintain continuous emissions monitoring systems

(CEMS) to provide a continuous demonstration of compliance for emissions of S02' NOx,

CO, ammonia, and mercury from the PC-boiler stack.

204. Sandy Creek will install, operate, and maintain a continuous opacity monitoring system

(COMS) to provide a continuous demonstration ofcompliance with the limitation on opacity

ofthe PC-boiler stack exhaust. 'i'f ,\: ,

205. Sandy Creek will perfonn initial emission testing; quarterly test coal for concentrations of

non-mercury metals; annually stack test for fluorides and chlorides; keep records of fuel

analyses; conduct weekly op.acity inspections; and undertake other actions at various

emission points throughout the site to ensure that emissions are within permit limits.

206. Sandy Creek's proposed methods for measuring emissions from the Station are adequate.

207. Sandy Creek'spennit contains appropriate emissions-measuring provisions for each type of

emission from each emission point, with consideration given to the relative significance of

each and to any emissions measurement requirements offederal programs such as the New

Source Perfonnance Standards.

Best Available Control Technology: 30 TAC § 116.711(3)

208. Sandy Creek's BACT analysis was perfonned in accordance with TCEQ guidance.

27
rr l

209. For the PC boiler, Sandy Creek will use a spray dryer absorber (dry scrubber) to control

emissions of S02' HF, H2S04, HCI and Hg; 10w-NOx burners, overfire air and selective

catalytic reduction (SCR) to control emissions ofNOx; a fabric filter baghouse to control

emissions of PM, PMIO, HF, H2S04, HCI, Hg, and non-mercury metals; good combustion

practices to control emissions of CO and VOCs; best management practices to control

emissions of ammonia; and halogenated activated carbon injection to control emissions of

mercury.

210. For the auxiliary boiler, natural gas will be used to minimize emissions.ofS02and H2S04;

the use oflow-NOx burners and flue gas recirculation (FOR) will minimize NOxemissions;

and optimized combustion will minimize the emissions ofCO and VOCs.

211. For the material handling sources, a combination of enclosures, fabric filters, and water or

chemical sprays will be used to control fugitive dust.

212. Best management practices will be used throughout the Station to minimize fugitive

emISSIons.

PCBoiler BACT

213. Application of combustion controls with an emission rate of 0.15 IblMMBtu on a 3D-day

rolling average basis is BACT for CO emissions from the PC boiler.

214. Application oflow NOx burners, over-fire air, and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) with

an emission rate ofO.07lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average basis and 0.05 IblMMBtu on

an annual basis is BACT for NOx emissions from the PC boiler.

215. Application of a dry scrubber system with an emission rate ofO.12lblMMBtu on a 30-day

rolling average basis and 0.10 IblMMBtu on an annual basis is BACT for S02 emissions

from the PC boiler.

28
'. , " ,

I t

216. Application ofa fabric filter baghouse with a filterable emission rate of0.015 Ib/MMBtu and

a total emission rate ofO.04Ib/MMBtu is BACT for PM and PM10 emissions from the PC

boiler.

217. Application of combustion controls with an emission rate of 3.6 x 10-3 Ib/MMBtu is BACT

for VOC emissions from the PC boiler.

218. Application ofadry scrubber system with an emission rate of6.7 x 10-4lbIMMBtu is BACT

for fluorine emissions (emitted primarily in the form ofhydrogen fluoride, or HF) from the

PC boiler.

219. Application of a dry scrubber system and fabric filter with an emission rate of

O.007Ib/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average and 0.0037lb/MMBtu on an annual average

is BACT for sulfuric acid (H2S04) emissions from the PC boiler.

220. Application of a dry scrubber, fabric filter baghouse, and halogenated activated carbon

injection system with an emission rate of20 x 10-6 lb/MW-hr gross on an annual average is

BACT for mercury (Hg) emissions from the PC boiler.

221. Application of a fabric filter baghouse with art emission rate of 1.1 x 10-3 lb/MMBtu is

BACT for emissions of non-mercury metals from the PC boiler.

222. Application ofa dry scrubbersystem with an emission rate of 1.3 x 10-3 lbIMMBtu is BACT

for emissions ofhydrogen chlorine (HCI) from the PC boiler.

223. Application of best management practices with an emission rate of 5 ppmw on a 30-day

rolling average and 3 ppmw on an annual basis is BACT for emissions ofammonia from the

PC boiler.

29
Auxiliary Boiler BACT

224. Application of combustion controls with an emission rate of 0.035 Ib/MMBtu is BACT for

emissions of CO from the auxiliary boiler.

225. Application oflow NOx burners (LNB) and flue gas recirculation (FGR) with an emission

rate ofO.01Ib/MMBtu is BACT for emissions ofNOx from the auxiliary boiler.

226. Use of pipeline natural gas with an emission rate of 0.0006 Ib/MMBtu is BACT for

emissions of S02 from the auxiliary boiler.

227. Use oflow ash fuel with an emission rate ofO.005lbfMMBtu is BACT for emissions ofPM

and PMlO from the auxiliary boiler.

228. Application of combustion controls with an emission rate ofO.004lbfMMBtu is BACT for

emissions ofVOCs from the auxiliary boiler.

229. Use of pipeline natural gas with an emission rate of 2.3 x 10-5 IbfMMBtu is BACT for

emissions ofsulfuric acid mist (H2S04) from the auxiliary boiler.

Enclosed Structures BACT

230. Use ofa fabric filter for the enclosed and partially enclosed structuresis BACT for emissions

ofPM and PMlO from enclosed structures.

Conveyor Systems

231. ·Use of hooding with control devices at transfer points is BACT for emissions of PM and

PMlO from conveyors.

30
, , ~, r

Transfer Points BACT

232. Use of partial enclosures (where possible) and increased moisture content is BACT for

emissions ofPM and PMlO from transfer points.

233. Use ofwater sprays designed to provide complete coverage ofthe active pile area is BACT

for emissions ofPM and PMlO from active piles.

234. Use ofsurface crusting agents is BACT for emissions ofPM and PMlO from inactive piles.

235. Use of drift eliminators is BACT for emissions ofPM and PMlO from the cooling tower.

Emergency Diesel Engines BACT

236. Application ofcombustion controls with an-emission rate of0.17 and 0.95Ib/MMBtu for the

diesel fuel-fired generator and diesel fuel-fired firewater pump isBACT for emissions ofCO

from these two emission points.

237. Application ofcombustion controls with an emission rate of2.34 and 4.41lblMMBtu for the

diesel fuel-fired generator and diesel fuel-fired firewater pump is BACT for emissions of

NOx from these two emission points.

238. Use of low sulfur (0.05 percent by weight) fuel with an emission rate of 0.046 and

0.052 IblMMBtu for the diesel fuel-fired generator and diesel fuel-fired firewater pump is

BACT for emissions of 802 from these two emission points.

239. Use oflow ash fuels with an emission rate of 0.015 and 0.311b1MMBtu for the diesel fuelfired generator and diesel fuel-fired firewater pump is BACT for emissions ofPM and PMIO

from these two emission points.

31
, '

240. Applicationofcombustion controls with an emission rate of0.1 0 and 0.35lb/MMBtu for the

diesel fuel-fired generator and diesel fuel-fired firewater pump is BACT for emissions of

VOCs from these two emission points.

241. Use oflow sulfur (0.05 percent by weight) fuel with an emission rate of 1.7 x 10-3 and 2.0

x 10-3 Ib/MMBtu for the diesel fuel-fired generator and diesel fuel-fired firewater pump is

BACT for emissions ofsulfuric acid mist from these two emission points.

Petroleum Storage Tanks BACT

242. Use of best management practices is BACT for emissions of VOCs from the petroleum

storage tanks.

Ammonia Storage Tanks BACT

243. Use of best management practices and rupture discs with an emission rate of 0.16Ib/hr is

BACT for emissions of ammonia from the ammonia storage tanks.

BACTSummary

244. Sandy Creek prepared a complete and appropriate BACT analysis that satisfied all

requirements for each pollutant emitted from each emission point for which such an analysis

was required.

245. The controls and associated emission rates proposed bySandyCreek for the Station represent

BACT.

32
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): 30 T.A.C. § 116.711(4)

246. Sandy Creek's application accurately and completely delineates the requirements of all

applicable NSPS as they apply to the PC boiler, auxiliary boiler, and the coal processing,

storage, and conveyor equipment.

247. The proposed Station is expected to meet all of the NSPS to which it would be subject,

which are less stringent than the emission limitations identified as achievable through

application ofBACT.

National Emission Standardsfor Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS): 30 TAC § 116. 711(5)

248. There are no NESHAPS applicable to facilities of a type that comprise the Station.

NESHAPSfor Source Categories: 30 TAC § 116.711(6)

249. The Station is expected to comply with the requirements of the NESHAPS for source

categories, or maximum available control technology (MACT) standards, for stationary

reciprocating internal combustion engines.

Performance Demonstration: 30 TAC § 116.711(7)

250. Once the Station is constructed and operating, SandyCreek's permit contains provisions for

demonstrating achievement of the performance specified in the application, such as

conducting performance testing of emissions from the PC boiler and auxiliary boiler stacks.

251. The provisions for demonstrating achievement of the performance specified In the

application will adequately demonstrate the performance ofthe Station.

33
Nonattainment Review: 30 TAC § 116.711(8)

252. McLennan County has never been classified as nonattainment for any criteria pollutant.

PSD Review: 30 TAe § 116.711(9)

253. As part of Texas' SIP, EPA has approved TCEQ's program for using Chapter 116 NSR

pennits as the vehicle for undertaking the demonstrations required by the federal PSD

program.

254. The Station will emit more than 100 tons of any single regulated air contaminant and the

following pollutants in "significant" quantities as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(23): NOx,

S02' VOCs, PMlPMlO,CO, H2S04, and fluorides.

255. Sandy Creek conducted a source impact analysis showing that allowable emissions from the

Station will not cause or measurably contribute to air pollution in violation of any NAAQS

or PSD increment.

256. Sandy Creek conducted an appropriate additional impacts analysis that assessed the

impairment to visibility, soils, and vegetation as a result of the Station and associated

commercial, residential, and industrial growth and assessed air quality impact as a result of

such growth.

257. The proposed Station will not generate sufficient growth in the area to significantly increase

air contaminants from secondary sources.

258. Modeling ofthe Station's emissions shows concentrations that would be protective ofsoils

and vegetation.

34
I, ' I

r

259. The proposed Station will not have adverse impacts on visibility since the nearest Class I

area is approximately 390 kilometers away and there are no Class II areas in the vicinity of

the proj ect for which visibility impacts analyses would be warranted.

260. Modeling ofthe Station's impact on visibility in a Class I area is not required because the

nearest Class I area is located more than 100 Ian from the site ofthe Station.

Air Dispersion Modeling or Ambient Monitoring: 30 TAC § 116.711(10)

261. Sandy Creek perfonned computerized air dispersion modeling in order to detennine the air

impacts ofthe Station.

Federal Standards ofReviewfor Constructed orReconstructedMajor Sources ofHazardous Air

Pollutants: 30 TAC § 116.711(11)

262. The MACT standard for stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines will apply to

the emergency diesel engines at the Station. There are no other sources at the Station for

which a MACT currently applies.

263. On March 29,2005, EPA revised an earlier finding that it was necessary and appropriate to

regulate coal-fired power plants such as the Station under Section 112 ofthe Clean Air Act,

and announced in the Federal Register that it would in fact not adopt any MACT standard

for facilities such as the Station.

Mass Cap and Trade Allocations: 30 TAC § 116.711(12)

264. The proposed Station will not be located in the Houston/Galveston area.

35
.Application Content: 30 TAC § 116. 711(13)

265. The proposed Station will consist of the pulverized coal boiler itself, as well as ancillary

equipment and activities, including: coal receipt, handling, preparation, transport, and

storage; lime receipt, handling and storage; a mechanical draft cooling tower; an auxiliary

boiler; emergency diesel engines; diesel storage tanks; ammonia fugitives; and on-site ash

disposal.

266. Emission sources at the Station include: coal receipt, handling, preparation, transport and

storage; lime receipt, handling and storage; urea unloading, handling and storage; the PC

boiler; mechanical draft cooling tower; auxiliary boiler; emergency diesel engines; diesel

storage tanks; ammonia fugitives; and on-site ash disposal.

267. The following regulated air contaminants could be emitted from the Station: VOCs, PM,

PMlO,PM2.

S' NOx, S02' NH3, CO, H2S04, Pb, HCI, fluorides, and Hg.

268. Under the VOC category, the Station could emit a variety of individual volatile organic

compound species in trace quantities.

269. Under the PMlPMlO category, the Station could emit a variety of metals and inorganic

compounds in trace quantities.

270. The proposed Station will emit some substances that are not regulated under the Texas or

Federal Clean Air Acts, such as water vapor, nitrogen, methane, ethane and carbon dioxide.

271. Sandy Creek calculated maximum emission rates at each emission source for all regulated

pollutants that could be emitted from the Station using methods and assumptions consistent

with good air-q~ality engineering practice, and applicable roles, guidelines and policies.

These maximum emission rates are expressed in both pounds per hour (lb/hr) and tons per

year (tpy).

36
272. Excluding startup, shutdown, maintenance or malfunction, worst-case emission rates for the

PC boiler will be as follows:

CO 2,456Ib/hr 5,378 tpy

NOx 1,637Ib/hr 1,793 tpy

S02 2,4561b/hr 3,585 tpy

PMlPMlO (total) 3271b/hr 1,434 tpy

VOC 291b/hr 129 tpy

Pb 0.55 lb/hr 0.41 tpy

HF 23 lb/hr 24tpy

H2SO4 1271b/hr 133 tpy

Mercury 0.941b/hr 0.075 tpy

Ammonia 41" lb/hr 55 tpy

HCI 72lb/hr 47 tpy

273.' The proposed Station is expected to be a base load power generation facility, with occasional

startups and shutdowns. The startup process may take up to 16 hours to reach maximum load

conditions. Maximum emission rates for the PC boiler during startup conditions are as

follows:

CO 1,228lb/hr

NOx 964lb/hr

S02 2,892lb/hr

PM/PMlO (total) 327lb/hr

VOC 43lb/hr

Pb 0.55lb/hr

HF 39lb/hr

H2SO4 111lb/hr

Mercury 0.90lb/hr

Ammonia 4Ilb/hr

HCl 434lb/hr

37
274. Sandy Creek's application identifies each air contaminant for which an emission cap is

desired.

275. Sandy Creek's application identifies each facility to be included in the flexible petmit.

276. Sandy Creek's application identifies each source of emissions to be included in the flexible

permit and, for each source ofemissions, identifies the emission point number (EPN) and the

air contaminants emitted.

277. For each emission cap, SandyCreek's application identifies all associated EPNs and provides

emission rate calculations based on the expected maximum capacity and the proposed control

technology.

278. For each individual emission limitation, Sandy Creek's application identifies the EPN and

provides emission rate calculations based on the expected maximum capacity and the

proposed control technology.

Proposed Control Technology and Compliance Demonstration: 30 TAC § 116. 711(14)

279. SandyCreek's application specifies the control tecbnologyproposed for each unit to meet the

emission cap and demonstrates compliance with all emission caps at expected maximum

production capacity.

Compliance History

280. Sandy Creek's compliance history score is zero because it is a new entity with no existing

facilities.

38-
I ,

" r

Permit

281. The maximum allowable emission rate table (MAERT) in the permit lists all sources of air

contaminants regulated under the permit.

282. The proposed Station has been planned to comply with the emission limits specified in the

permit's MAERT.

283. The proposed Station can be operated to meet the requirements ofthe permit.

284. Sandy Creek's permit is written in enforceable terms.

285. Sandy Creek's permit prescribes requirements for demonstrating initial and ongOIng

compliance with all applicable requirements ofthe permit and the Texas Clean Alr'Act.

Transcription Costs

286. Sandy Creek has agreed to pay all transcription and reporting costs.

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.· The Commission hasjurisdiction over Sandy Creek's application pursuant to TEX. HEALTH

AND SAFETY CODE ANN. (Health & Safety Code) Chapter 382 (West 2005) and TEX. WATER

CODE (Water Code) Chapter 5 (West 2005).

2. Sandy Creek's application was directly referred to SOAR pursuant to WATER CODE § 5.557.

3. SOAHhasjurisdiction to conduct a hearing and to prepare aPFD in this matter. TEX. GOV'T

CODE ANN. (Gov't Code) § 2003.047 (West 2005).

39
4. Notice was provided pursuant to 30 TAC § 39.601, et seq. (2005), and Gov't Code

§§ 2001.051 and 2001.052.

5. Sandy Creek submitted its application in compliance with 30 TAC §§ 116.710(c) and

116.750.

6. In a contested case hearing involving an air quality permit application, the burden ofproofis

on the applicant to demonstrate that it met all statutory requirements by a preponderance of

the evidence. 30 TAC § 80.17(a).

7. Pursuant to 30 TAC § 116.711, SandyCreek demonstrated that the emissions from the Station

will complywith all Commission rules and regulations and with the intentofthe Texas Clean

Air Act, including the protection ofthe health and physical property ofthe people, consistent

with the long-standing interpretation ofthe Commission's rules, regulations, and guidance.

Protection ofPublic Health and Welfare

8. A demonstration of compliance with the PMlO NAAQS suffices to demonstrate compliance

with the PM2.

5NAAQS.

9. When the maximum modeled concentration of a pollutant is less than a NAAQS de minimis

level, it is unnecessary to incorporate background levels or emissions from other sources in

the area in the analysis ofthat pollutant because the maximum predicted concentration level

is insignificant.

10. Pre-construction monitoring data is not required to evaluate the cumulative impact of the

Station's emissions because the screening background concentrations used by Sandy Creek

are conservative and appropriate for the area ofthe proposed site.

11. No preconstruction monitoring is required for any ofthe air contaminants for which Sandy

Creek's maximum modeled concentrations were below PSD monitoring de minimis levels.

40
, , \

12. For S02 and PMlO, preconstruction monitoring is not required because the use ofpredefined

screening background concentrations satisfy the PSD monitoring requirements for S02 and

PMlO•

13. Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the proposed Station's

emissions will not cause or contribute to a condition of air pollution.

14. Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the proposed Station's

emissions will not cause adverse health or welfare effects, including nuisance conditions.

15. Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the proposed Station's

emissions will comply with the opacity limits and particulate matter emission rates set forth

in 30 TAC ch. 111, concerning control ofair pollution from visible emissions and p"artlculate

matter.

16. Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the proposed Station's

emissions will complywith the sulfur compound emission requirements set forth in 30 TAC

ch. 112, concerning control of air pollution from sulfur compounds.

17. The proposed Station is not subject to any ofthe standards adopted by reference in 30 TAC

ch. 113.

18. The proposed Station's diesel fuel tanks will only store diesel fuels that meet the specifications

set forth in 30 TAC ch. 114.

19. The proposed Station is not subject to the rules set forth in 30 TAC ch. 115 regarding the

control ofVOCs because it will be located in McLennan County.

41
I ,

\ I

20. The proposed Station is not subject to the rules set forth in 30 TAC ch. 117 regarding the

control of NOx because it will not be located in an ozone nonattainment area and will be

placed into service after December 31, 1995.

21. The proposed Station is required to operate in compliance with any orders ofthe Commission

relating to generalized and localized air pollution episodes under 30 TAC ch. 118.

22. The proposed Station is not subject to the emission reduction plan requirements of 30 TAC

ch. 118.

23. In accordance with 30 TAC § 116.711(1), emissions from the Station will comply with all

Commission rules and regulations and the intent of the Texas Clean Air Act, including

protection of the health and property of the public, consistent with the long-standing

interpretation ofthe Commission's rules, regulations, and guidance.

Measurement ofEmissions: 30 TAe § 116. 711(2)

24. In accordance with 30 TAC § 116.711(2), the Station will have provisions for measuring the

emission of air contaminants as determined by the Commission's Executive Director.

Best Available Control Technology: 30 TAe § 116. 711(3)

25. An applicant that is proposing to construct a PC boiler power plant is not required to include

other electric generation technologies, such as integrated gasification/combined cycle (IGCC)

technology, in its BACT analysis.

26. In accordance with 30 TAC § 116.711(3), the Station will utilize BACT, with consideration

given to the technical practicability and economic reasonableness ofreducing or eliminating

its emissions from the facilities ofwhich it will be comprised.

42
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): 30 TA C § 116. 711(4)

27. There will be three types of equipment at the Station that will be subj ect to three different

NSPS: the PC boiler; the auxiliary boiler; and the coal processing, storage, and conveying

equipment. In accordance with 30 TAC § 116.711(4), the emissions from the Station will

meet the requirements of any applicable NSPS as listed under Title 40 CFR Part 60,

promulgated by the EPA under authority granted under the FCAA, § 111, as amended.

National Emission Standardsfor Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS): 30 TAC § 166.711(5)

28. No requirement set forth at 30 TAC § 116.711(5) regarding compliance with NESHAPS is

applicable to the Station.

NESHAPSfor Source Categories: 30 TAC § 116. 711(6)

29. In accordance with 30 TAC § 116.711(6), the enlissions from the emergency diesel engines

at the Station will meet the requirements ofany applicable MACT standard as listed under 40

CFR Part 63, promulgated by the EPA unde! FCAA, § 1.12, or as listed under 30 TAC

ch. 113, subchapter C.

Performance Demonstration: 30 TAC § 116.711(7)

30. In accordance with 30 TAC § 116.711(7), the Station will achieve the performance specified

in the flexible permit application.

Nonattainment Review: 30 TAC § 116. 711(8)

31. Nonattainment review requirements are not applicable to the Station.

43
\ ,

PSD Review: 30 TAC § 116.711(9)

32. The proposed Station constitutes a major new source because it emits more than 100 tpyof

any single criteria pollutant; therefore, PSD review is triggered.

33. In accorda:nce with 30 TAC § 116.711(9), the Station complies with all applicable

requirements ofChapter 116 regarding PSD review.

Air Dispersion Modeling or Ambient Monitoring: 30 TAC § 116.711(10)

34. In accordance with 30 TAC § 116.711(10), computerized air dispersion modeling was

perfonned as required to determine the air impacts ofthe Station.

Federal Standards ofReviewfor Constructed or ReconstructedMajor Sources ofHazardous Air

Pollutants: 30 TAC. § 116. 711(11)

35. The proposed Station will be a major source ofhazardous air pollutants.

36. No case-by-case MACT determination for the PC boiler is needed because the type ofsteam

generating unit (PC boiler) that SandyCreek is proposing is not subject to MACT regulation.

Mass Cap and Trade Allocations: 30 TAC § 116. 711(12)

37. The requirement set forth at 30 TAC § 116.711(12) is not applicable to the Station.

Application Content: 30 TAC § 116.711(13)

38. Sandy Creek's application contained all information required by 30 TAC § 116.711(13) of

flexible permit applications.

39. In accordance with 30 TAC §116.711(13)(A), Sandy Creek identified each air contaminant

for which an emission cap is desired.

44
40. In accordance with 30 TAC §116.711(13)(B), Sandy Creek identified each facility to be

included in the flexible pennit.

41. In accordance with 30 TAe §116.711(13)(C), Sandy Creek identified each source of

emissions to be included in the flexible pennit and, for each source of emissions, identified

the emission point number (EPN) and the air contaminants emitted.

42. In accordance with 30 TAC §116.711(13)(D), Sandy Creek for each emission cap identified

all associated EPNs and provided emission rate calculations based on the expectedmaximum

capacity and proposed control technology. .

43. In accordance with 30 TAC §116.711(13)(E), Sandy Creek for each individual emission

limitation identified the EPN and provided emission rate calculations based on the expected

maximum capacity and proposed control technology.

Proposed Control Technology and Compliance Demonstration: 30 TAC § 116.711(14)

44. In accordance with 30 TAC § 116.711(14), Sandy Creek's application specified the control

technology proposed for each unit to meet the emission cap and demonstrated compliance

with all emission caps at expected maximum production capacity.

Sandy Creek's Permit

45. The special conditions in the permit are appropriately added under 30 TAC §116.715(d) and

are consistent with the Texas Clean Air Act.

46. No changes to the pennit should be made in consideration of compliance history in

accordance with 30 TAC § 116.730, because Sandy Creek has no compliance history as

determined in accordance with 30 TAC ch. 60.

45
47. Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Sandy Creek has made all

demonstrations required under applicable federal and state laws and regulations, including

30 TAC § 116.711 regarding flexible permit applications, to be issued a flexible permit with

PSD review.

48. In accordance with Health & Safety Code § 382.0518(b)(1), the Station will use at least the

BACT, considering the technical practicability and economic reasonableness ofreducing or

eliminating its emissions.

49. In accordance with Health & Safety Code § 382.0518(b)(2), emissions from the Station will

not contravene the intent ofthe Texas Clean Air Act and will be protective ofthe public's

health and physical property, consistent with the long-standing interpretation of the

Commission's rules, regulations, and guidance.

50. In accordance with He.alth & Safety Code § 382.0518(b), the application for Air Quality

Flexible Permit No. 70861, PSD Pennit No. PSD-TX-I039, should be approved and Air

Quality Flexible Permit No. 70861, PSD Permit No. PSD-TX-I039, should be issued.

III. EXPLANATION OF CHANGES

1. The Commission adopted the ALJs' PFD and Order as modified by the Applicant's

Exceptions (limited to Applicant Exception Nos. 11-19) to the Proposal For Decision, filestamped in the Commission's ChiefClerks Office on March 28,2006. By letter dated May

3,2006, the ALJ agreed to these specific exceptions offered by the Applicant which include:

1) Finding of Fact Nos.l8, 25, 38, 39, 40, 81, 84, 111, 114, 150, 151, and 214; and 2)

Conclusions ofLaw Nos. 20 and 45. The Commission agreed with the ALJs and Applicant

regarding the necessity to modify these Findings ofFact and Conclusions ofLaw.

2. The Commission determined to add the phrase, "in the local attainment area" to the end of

Finding of Fact No. 75 to more accurately reflect the evidence presented in the record

developed at SOAR. The Applicant agreed to this modification.

46
3. The Commission determined to insert the word "measurably" before the word "contribute"

in Finding ofFact No. 79 to more accurately reflect the evidence consistent with Findings of

Fact Nos. 76, 77, and 78. This modification reflects the evidence presented in the record

developed at SOAR. The Applicant agreed to this modification.

4. The Commission determined to insert the word "measurably" before the word "contribute"

in Finding ofFact No. 255 to more accurately reflect the evidence presented in the record

developed at SOAR. The Applicant agreed to this modification.

5. The Commission determined to modify Conclusion of Law Nos. 7, 23, and 49 by adding

clarification language concerning conclusions that emissions from the Station will comply

with the intent ofthe Texas Clean Air Act. Specifically, the Commission added the phrase,

"consistent with the long-standing interpretation ofthe Commission's rules, regulations, and

guidance." The Applicant agreed to this modification.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED BY THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON

ENVIRONMENT QUALITY THAT:

1. The application of Sandy Creek Energy Associates, L.P., for Air Quality Flexible Permit

No. 70861, PSD Permit No. PSD-TX-I039, is approved and the attached draft permit is

issued.

2. SandyCreek shall complywith all Findings ofFact and Conclusions ofLaw contained herein.

3. Sandy Creek shall pay all transcription and reporting costs.

4. All other motions, requests for entry ofspecific Findings ofFact or Conclusions ofLaw, and

any other requests for general or specific relief, if not expressly granted herein, are hereby

denied.

5. The effective date ofthis Order is the date the Order is final, as provided by 30 TAC § 80.273

and Gov't Code § 2001.144.

47
6. The Commission's ChiefClerk shall forward a copy ofthis Order to all parties.

7. If any provision, sentence, clause, or phrase ofthis Order is for any reason held to be invalid,

the invalidity of any provision shall not affect the validity ofthe remaining portions ofthis

Order.

8. The Executive Director's Response to Public Comment and the Executive Director's

Amendments to Response to Public Comment Pennit concerning Sandy Creek's Air Quality

Flexible Permit No. 70861 and PSD Permit No. PSD-TX-1039 are adopted and approved.

If there is any conflict between the Commission's Order and the Executive Director's

Response to Comments, the Commission's Order prevails.

ISSUED: MAY 252006

TEXAS COMMISSION ON

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

48