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 ofSandy 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 CreekEnergy 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). AfterconsideringtheALJs' proposal for decision andthe evidence and arguments presented, the Commission makes the following Findings ofFact and Conclusions ofLaw: 

### I. FINDINGS OF FACT General Facts andProceduralHistory 1. The proposed Sandy Creek Energy Station (the Station) will be anew 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 ofproducing approximately 800 net megawatts of electricity, with a maximum heat input of8,185 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 Creekpublished "Notice ofReceipt ofApplication and Intent to Obtain Air Permit" in the Riesel Rustler on February 20,2004. 7. Sandy Creek published ''Notice ofApplication, Preliminary Decision and Public Meeting for Air Quality Permits" in the Riesel Rustler on March 

### 11, 2005 8. Sandy Creek'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.

2l'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 acceptedjurisdiction over TCEQ's referral ofSandy Creek's application and designated the following as parties: Sandy CreekEnergyAssociates, L.P.; the Commission's Public Interest Counsel; Environmental Defense, Inc.; Public Citizen of Texas, Inc.; TPOWER; SEED Coalition Sustainable Energy; Blue Skies Alliance; Ricky Bates; 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 thatincludes aprevention ofsignificantdeterioration (PSD) review, must an applicant that proposes to construct a pulverized coal boiler power plant include otherelectric generationtechnologies, such as IGCC (integrated gasification/combinedcycle) 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 of Application 17. Sandy Creek applied to the Commission for an air quality flexible permit that would also satisfy the federal Prevention ofSignificant 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. Sandy Creek's permit applicationaddressed all sources ofair emissions from the Stationthat 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 of Public Welfare Sandy Creek's AirDispersion 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 andthe modelingprotocol cooperatively developed forthis 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 overwhich 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 ofemissions 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.



### 532. 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 ofunpaved road segments. 33. SandyCreek's airdispersionmodeling was conservative, thatis, ittendedto over-predictoffproperty 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. SandyCreekcoupledworst-case dispersion conditions withthe worst-case emissions scenario to calculate maximum off-property impacts. d. SandyCreekused conservativebackground 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). 

### NAAQSAnalysis 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 ofa designated pollutant, that is, nuisance impacts. 38. EPA has establishedprimary 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 (PM IO), particulate matter consisting ofparticles 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 PM lOfor the purpose ofdemonstrating 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 thebackground 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 thebackground 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, 

### whichis below the NAAQS/PSD deminimis 

### 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 of80 ugjm3•



### 8t,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. Theproposed Station's N02 emissions, when addedto thebackground level ofambientNOx, 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 of2000 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 ofI-hour CO NAAQS· of40000 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** of500 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 of8-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 of0.2 ug/m3• 61. The impact ofthe 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. PM lO NAAQS exist for two averaging periods: 24-hour (150 ug/m3 ) and annual (50 ug/m3) 63. The maximum modeled 24-hour average PM lO 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 PM lO, 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 PM lO, will not cause or contribute to an exceedance ofthe annual PMlO NAAQS of50 ug/m3• 10I' \ I ) ,



### 67. Both EPA and TCEQ accept demonstration of compliance with the PM lO 

### NAAQS as a surrogate for demonstration ofcompliance with the PM2.5

### NAAQS. 68. The Station's emissions ofPM 10 

### would not cause orcontribute to an exceedance ofthe PMlO 

### NAAQS. 69. The Station's emissions ofPM2.5

### wouldnot 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 ofa 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 ofdetectability ofmodem 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. SandyCreekwill not measurably influence ambient ozone concentrations inthe DFW ozone nonattainment area. 

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

### PSD IncrementAnalysis 80. PSD increments are allowable incremental changes in off-propertyconcentrations 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 andPM 10' 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 ofany PSD increments for the averaging periods. 1284. 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 PM IO (for the 24-hour and annual averaging periods). 85. Forthe 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 IncrementAnalysis: 

### 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 IncrementAnalysis: 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 of25 ugjm3• 

### PSD IncrementAnalysis: PM 10 

### 93. The maximum modeled 24-hour average PM 10 

### concentration resulting from the combined effect ofthe 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 PM lO

### ,PSD increment of30 ugjm3• 

### 95. The maximum modeled a1l1!ual average PM lO 

### 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 PM lO 

### emissions will,not cause or contribute to an exceedance ofthe annual average PM IO 

### PSD increment of 17 ugjm3• 

### PSD IncrementAnalysis: Summary 97. Emissions from the Station will not cause or contribute to exceedances of any PSD increments.

14I' " .PSD MonitoringAnalysis

98. Ofthe air contaminants thatwill 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 (calendarquarter averagingperiod), PM lO (24-hour averagingperiod) 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. NGLCAnalysis 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, H2 S04, and S02 for purposes of comparison to applicable NGLC standards. 103. Sandy Creek's maximum modeled concentrations were below the applicable NGLC standards. NGLC: TotalParticulate 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 of400 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 ofthe 3-hour average total PM NGLC of200 ug/m3 • 

### NGLC:**H~04** 

### 108. The maximum modeled I-hour average H2

### S04 

### concentration resulting from the Station's emissions at any location is 21.4 ug/m3• 

### 109. The proposed Station's H

### 2 S04 

### emissions will not cause an exceedance ofthe I-hour average H2 S04 

### NGLC of50 ug/m3• 

### 110. The maximum modeled 24-hour average H 2

### S04 

### concentration resulting from the Station's emissions at any location is 2.64 ug/m3 • 

### 111. Theproposed Station's H Z

S0 4

### emissions will notcause an exceedance of the 24-houraverage H

Z

S04NGLC 

### 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 • 

### 16I ) , , I I NGLCSummary 114. The proposed Station's air emissions will not cause exceedances ofany applicable NGLC standards. ESL Analysis 115. TCEQ developed the ESL system to review ground level concentrations ofconstituents 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 ofa constituent at which no adverse effects are observed (No Observed Adverse EffectLevel-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. ,

17I, ' ) 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 ofair 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. Forammonia (NH3)' the maximum modeled I-houraverage concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions is 7.22 ug/m3, which is below the I-hourESL for ammoniaof170 ug/m3 • 125. The maximum modeled annual average concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions ofammonia is 0.064 ug/m3, which is below the annual ESL for ammonia of 17 ug/m3• 126. Forhydrochloric acid (HCI), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentrationresulting from the Station',s emissions is 72.9 ug/m3, which is below the I-hour ESL for hydrochloric acid of75 ug/m3

. 127. The maximummodeled annual average concentrationresulting 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 of25 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 maximummodeled 30-dayaverage concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions ofhydrogen fluoride is 0.048 ug/m3, which is below the 30-day ESL for hydrogen fluoride of0.5 ug/m3• 131. Themaximummodeled annual average concentrationresulting 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 concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions ofcoal dust is 0.033 ug/m3, which is below the annual ESL for coal dust of0.9 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 maximummodeled annual average concentrationresulting 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 emissions is 0.00093 ug/m3, which is below the I-hourESL for silver of0.1 ug/m3 • 19I i' 

## '. 137. Themaximummodeled annual average concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions ofsilver is 0.00001 ug/m3, 

### which is below the annual ESL for silver of0.01 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 of20 ug/m3• 

### 139. Themaximummodeled annual average concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions ofaluminum 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. Themaximummodeled annual average concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions ofarsenic is 0.0009 ug/m3 , 

### which is below the annual ESL for arsenic of0.01 ugjm 3• 

### 142. For boron (B), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions is 0.00193 ug/m3 , 

### which is below the I-hourESLforboronofl00ug/m3 • 

### 143. Themaximummodeled 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 of5 ug/m3

. 

### 145. Themaximummodeled annual average concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions ofbarium is 0.022 ug/m3 , 

### which is below the annual ESL for barium of0.5 ugjm3 • 

### 146. Forberyllium (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 of0.02 ug/m3

. 

### 20147. 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 of0..1 ug/m3 • 149. The maximummodeled annual average concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions ofcadmium is 0.00002 ug/m3, which is below the annual ESL for cadmium of0.01 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 of0.1 ug/m3

. 153. Themaximummodeled annual average concentrationresulting 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 concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions ofcopper 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 maximummodeled annual average concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions ofiron is 0.0014 ug/m3, which is below the annual ESL for iron of 1ug/m 3 • 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 concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions ofmercury is 0.00084 ug/m3, which is below the annual ESL for mercury of0.025 ugjm3• 160. Forpotassium (K), the maximum modeled I-hour average concentration resulting from the Station's emissions is 1.87 ug/m3, which is below the I-hourESL forpotassium of20 ug/m3• 161. The maximummodeled annual average concentrationresulting 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 emissions is 0.488 ug/m3, which is below the I-hourESL for magnesium of100 ug/m3• 163. Themaximummodeled annual average concentrationresulting 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 concentrationresulting 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 concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions ofnickel is 0.00059 ug/m3 , which is below the annual ESL for nickel of0.015 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 maximummodeled annual average concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions ofantimony is 0.00009 ug/m3, which is below the annual ESL for antimony of0.5 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 maximummodeled annual average concentrationresulting 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 concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions ofvanadium is 0.00152 ug/m3, which is below the annual ESL for vanadium of0.05 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 of50 ug/m3 •

23

### " 175. The maximum modeled annual average concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions ofzinc is 0.00127 ug/m3, 

### which is below the annual ESL" for zinc of0.5 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 of0.5 ug/m3• 

### 177. The maximum modeled I-hour average concentration is predicted to exceed the I-hourESL 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 ofthe amorphous fused variety and comparingmodeled concentrations tothe 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 11100 th 

### 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 ofconcern from exposure to silica occurs after long-term exposure. 184. The short-term ESL for silica is conservative.

24

### · '

### 185. Themaximummodeled annual average concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions ofsilica is 0.016 ug/m3, 

### which is below the annual ESL for silica of0.05 ug/m3• 

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

### ESLAnalysis: 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 of20 ug/m3• 

### 188. The maximum modeled I-hour average concentration is predictedto exceed the I-hourESL for only 10 hours in a year. 189. Themaximummodeled annual average concentrationresulting from the Station's emissions oflime is 0.86 ug/m3, 

### which is below the annual ESL for lime of2

### ug/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 ofGovemmental 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.

25I ' 

### 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 exceedthe one-hourESLs 7 and 10 times peryear, 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 ConcerningAirEmissions 196. Emissions ofparticulate 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 ofparticulate 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 of20 percent. 198. Emissions ofparticulate matter from the stationaryvents at the Station will not exceed a sixminute average opacity of20 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. Sandy Creek's application does not involve any air contaminants for which a disasterreview is required.

26\' 

### Summary of Protection of Public 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 of Emissions: 30 TAC 

### § 116.711(2) 203. Sandy Cre'ek will install, operate, and maintain continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) to provide a continuous demonstration ofcompliance for emissions ofS02' 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. 

### BestAvailable Control Technology: 30 TAC 

### § 116.711(3) 208. Sandy Creek's BACT analysis was perfonned in accordance with TCEQ guidance.

27rr 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 ofPM, PM IO, HF, H2 S04, HCI, Hg, and non-mercury metals; good combustion practices to control emissions of CO and VOCs; best management practices to control emissions ofammonia; 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 ofenclosures, 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. PCBoilerBACT 213. Application ofcombustion controls with an emission rate of0.15 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 emissionrate ofO.07lb/MMBtu on a 30-dayrolling averagebasis and 0.05 IblMMBtu on an annual basis is BACT for NOx emissions from the PC boiler. 215. Application ofa 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 of0.0 15 Ib/MMBtu and a total emission rate ofO.04Ib/MMBtu is BACT for PM and PM 10 emissions from the PC boiler. 217. Application ofcombustion controls with an emission rate of3.6 x 10-3 Ib/MMBtu is BACT for VOC emissions from the PC boiler. 218. Application ofadry scrubber system with an emissionrate 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 (H2

### S04) 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 ofnon-mercury metals from the PC boiler. 222. Application ofa dry scrubber system with an emission rate of 1.3 x 10-3 lbIMMBtu is BACT for emissions ofhydrogen chlorine (HCI) from the PC boiler. 223. Application ofbest management practices with an emission rate of 5 ppmw on a 30-day rolling average and 3ppmw on an annual basis is BACT for emissions ofammonia from the PC boiler.

29

### Auxiliary Boiler BA CT 224. Application ofcombustion controls with an emission rate of0.035 Ib/MMBtu is BACT for emissions ofCO 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 ofS02 from the auxiliary boiler. 227. Use oflow ash fuel with an emissionrate ofO.005lbfMMBtu is BACT for emissions ofPM and PMlO from the auxiliary boiler. 228. Application ofcombustion controls with an emission rate ofO.004lbfMMBtu is BACT for emissions ofVOCs from the auxiliary boiler. 229. Use ofpipeline 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. 

### EnclosedStructures BA CT 230. Use ofa fabric filter for the enclosed andpartiallyenclosed structures is BACT for emissions ofPM and PM lO from enclosed structures. 

### Conveyor Systems 231. ·Use ofhooding with control devices at transfer points is BACT for emissions ofPM and PMlO from conveyors.

30, ,**~,** r 

### Transfer Points BA CT 232. Use ofpartial enclosures (where possible) and increased moisture content is BACT for emissions ofPM and PM lO from transfer points. 233. Use ofwater sprays designed to provide complete coverage ofthe active pile area is BACT for emissions ofPM and PM lO from active piles. 234. Use ofsurface crusting agents is BACT for emissions ofPM and PM lO from inactive piles. 235. Use ofdrift eliminators is BACT for emissions ofPM and PM lO from the cooling tower. 

### Emergency Diesel Engines BACT 236. Application ofcombustion controls with an-emissionrate of0.17 and 0.95Ib/MMBtu for the diesel fuel-fired generator and diesel fuel-fired firewaterpump is BACT for emissions ofCO from these two emission points. 237. Application ofcombustion controls with an emissionrate 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 of0.015 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 emissionrate 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 ofbest management practices is BACT for emissions ofVOCs from the petroleum storage tanks. 

### Ammonia Storage Tanks BACT 243 . Use ofbest management practices and rupture discs with an emission rate of0.16Ib/hr is BACT for emissions ofammonia from the ammonia storage tanks. 

### BACTSummary 244. Sandy Creek prepared a complete and appropriate BACT analysis that satisfied all requirements for eachpollutant emitted from each emissionpoint forwhich such an analysis was required. 245. The controls and associated emissionrates proposedbySandyCreekfor the Stationrepresent 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 ofthe NSPS to which it would be subject, which are less stringent than the emission limitations identified as achievable through application ofBACT. 

### National Emission StandardsforHazardous AirPollutants (NESHAPS): 30 TAC § 116. 711(5) 248. There are no NESHAPS applicable to facilities ofa 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, Sandy Creek's permit contains provisions for demonstrating achievement of the performance specified in the application, such as conducting performance testing ofemissions 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

### NonattainmentReview: 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 ofTexas' 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 ofany 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 ofany 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 areato significantly increase air contaminants from secondary sources. 258. Modeling ofthe Station's emissions shows concentrations that would be protective ofsoils and vegetation.



### 34I, ' 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. AirDispersion Modeling orAmbientMonitoring: 30 TAC 

### § 116.711(10) 261. Sandy Creekperfonned computerized air dispersion modeling in order to detennine the air impacts ofthe Station. FederalStandards of Review for ConstructedorReconstructedMajorSources of Hazardous 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 powerplants 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 ofthe 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 PMlPM lO 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).

36272. Excluding startup, shutdown, maintenance ormalfunction, worst-case emissionrates 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 H2 SO4 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 abase 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/PM lO (total) 327lb/hr VOC 43lb/hr Pb 0.55lb/hr HF 39lb/hr H2 SO4 111lb/hr Mercury 0.90lb/hr Ammonia 4Ilb/hr HCl 434lb/hr

37274. 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 ofemissions 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, Sandy Creek's applicationidentifies all associatedEPNs andprovides emission rate calculations based onthe expectedmaximum 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. Sandy Creek'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 ofair 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. SOAHhasjurisdictionto conduct ahearing and to prepare aPFD in this matter. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. (Gov't Code) § 2003.047 (West 2005).

394. 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. Pursuantto 30 TAC § 116.711, Sandy Creekdemonstratedthatthe emissions from the Station will complywith all Commissionrules 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 of Public Health and Welfare 8. A demonstration ofcompliance with the PM lO NAAQS suffices to demonstrate compliance with the PM2.

### 5NAAQS. 9. When the maximum modeled concentration ofa 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 ofthe 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 PM lO, preconstruction monitoring is not required because the use ofpredefined screening background concentrations satisfy the PSD monitoring requirements for S02 and PM lO• 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 ofair 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 ofairpollution 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 ofair pollution from sulfur compounds. 

### 17. The proposed Station is not subject to any ofthe standards adopted by reference in 30 TAC ch. 113. 18. Theproposed Station's diesel fuel tanks will only store diesel fuels thatmeetthe 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.

41I , \ I 20. The proposed Station is not subject to the rules set forth in 30 TAC ch. 117 regarding the control ofNOx 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 of30 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 of Emissions: 30 TAe § 116. 711(2) 24. In accordance with 30 TAC 

### § 116.711 (2), the Station will have provisions for measuring the emission ofair contaminants as determined by the Commission's Executive Director. 

### BestAvailable Control Technology: 30 TAe § 116. 711 (3) 25. An applicant that is proposing to construct a PC boiler powerplant is not required to include other electric generationtechnologies, such as integratedgasification/combinedcycle (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 ofequipment 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 StandardsforHazardous AirPollutants (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 meetthe 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. 

### AirDispersion Modeling orAmbientMonitoring: 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 of Review for Constructed orReconstructedMajorSources of Hazardous 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 Sandy Creek 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. 4440. 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 ofemissions, 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 andprovided emissionrate 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.

4547. Based on the above Findings ofFact and Conclusions ofLaw, 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 offeredby the Applicant which include: 1) Finding ofFact 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. 463. 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 ofLaw 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. Sandy Creek shall complywith all Findings of Fact 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, ifnot expressly granted herein, are hereby denied. 5. The effective date ofthis Order is the date the Orderis final, as providedby 30 TAC § 80.273 and Gov't Code § 2001.144. 476. The Commission's ChiefClerk shall forward a copy ofthis Order to all parties. 7. Ifany provision, sentence, clause, or phrase ofthis Order is for any reason held to be invalid, the invalidity ofany 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