ATTACHMENT C

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT

FOR EPA SIP ACTIONS

ON REVISIONS TO

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

30 TAC CHAPTER 116

CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION BY PERMITS

FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION

GRANDFATHERED ELECTRIC

GENERATING FACILITIES

Prepared by:

Richard A. Barrett, Air Permits Section, 6PD-R

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Telephone: (214) 665-7227TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT



### One of the provisions of the Federal 2002 NSR Re form rule is the use of pollution control

projects (PCPs). The use of PCPs is EPA policy dating back to 1994, and allows use of PCPs in

lieu of Major NSR requirements (PSD review) for cer tain projects at facilitie s if they meet very

specific requirements.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a court decision, New York v. EPA , No. 02-1387 (June 24,

2005) that addressed the use of PCPs and disapproved their use for Major NSR requirements. In that

decision, the court vacated the provisions of the Federal 2002 NSR Reform rule that specifically related to

Clean Units and PCPs.

In response to the court’s decision, EPA filed a Petiti on for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc and Request

for Clarification on August 8, 2005. In that Petition, EPA requested clarification that the court's ruling on

PCP's applies only prospectively. On December 9, 2005, the D.C. Circuit ordered that "EPA's request for

clarification as to any retroactive effect of the ruling on Pollution Control Projects be denied.” The court

also stated that because there was no specific retroactiv e application of this provision before the court, it

was premature to rule on this request.



### Following the above court decisions regarding PC Ps, EPA determined that additional technical

information from the Texas Commission on E nvironmental Quality (TCEQ) would now be

required in order to properly evaluate and process the SIP submittal dated June 3, 2000,

regarding the mandate in sect ion 116.911(a)(2) to obtain a PCP Standard Permit (SP) if new

control methods are proposed to obtain the required emissions re ductions. Over a period of time

following the court decisions, EPA requested supp lemental technical information regarding any

collateral increases in emissions resulting from the use of new control methods in order to

achieve the mandated emission reductions under SB7.

Based on TCEQ’s Technical Supplement (August 5, 2 009, below), EPA believes that any collateral

emissions increases in carbon monoxide (CO) or other pollutants due to controls installed to limit NOx,

SO2 or PM under the submitted 30 TAC 116.911(a)(2) are above the significance level for Prevention of

Significant Deterioration (PSD) review for CO co llateral emissions increases only, and that these

collateral CO increases are located at two PCP SP permitted facilities only. Th erefore, in only twoinstances were there collateral CO emissions increases that obtained a Texas PCP SP rather than a Major

NSR SIP permit. They obtained their PCP SP before the court decision was issued but they are in

violation retroactively of the court decision. Furthermore, based upon the Technical Supplement, EPA

believes that all of the resultant collateral CO incr eases across the State of Texas do not interfere with

attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS for CO, et al, nor cause or contribute to increase in PSD

increments, much less a violation. Nevertheless, based on the above court decision and the PCP SP not

being part of the Texas NSR SIP, the submitted subsection 116.911(a)(2) is not approvable, and therefore

we are proposing to disapprove this submitted subsecti on for collateral increases of emissions. Note that

the entire State of Texas is currently in attainment for CO.

Technical Supplement

1. From the TCEQ response of April 13, 2009: "Four of the PCP standard permits would have resulted in

increases above the PSD significance levels".

Which companies received these permits?

The four PCP standard permits that the TCEQ previously identified as ha ving re sulted in significant

increases above the PSD significance levels in the April 13, 2009 response are identified below. The

TCEQ has taken a closer look at these four files and found that only two of the PCP standard permit

applications claim to have resulted in increases above the PSD si gnificance leve ls. The two Extex

Laport applications state, “The project will not result in a significant net increase in emissions of any

criteria pollutant.”

Standard Permit No. 70573 was issued 2/20/2004 to Extex Laport Limited Partnership to add induced

flue gas recirculation on Unit No. 6 at Mountain Creek Steam Electric Station.

Standard Permit No. 74594 was issued 1/14/2005 to Extex Laport Limited Par tnership to add in duced

flue gas recirculation on Unit No. 7 at Mountain Creek Steam Electric Station.

Standard Permit No. 54810 was issued 5/14/2003 to TXU Generation Company (now Luminant) to

install low NO

x burners and over fired air on Units 1 and 2 at Big Brown Steam Electric Station.

Standard Permit No. 43599 was issued 9/13/2002 to TXU Generation Company (now Luminant) to

install low NO

x burners and separated over fired air on Units 2 at Stryker Creek Steam Electric Station.2. Where are these four permits (at three sites) located?

Mountain Creek is located in Dallas County, near the City of Dallas.

Big Brown is located in Freestone County, near the City of Fairfield.

Stryker Creek is located in Cherokee County, near the City of Jacksonville.

3. Any O3 precursor pollu tants involve d?

Yes. The pollutant targeted for reduction in all four PCP standard permits identified above was NOx,

which is an ozone precursor. Carbon monoxide (CO) was the only pollutant identified that would

result in collateral emission increases.

4. Would any one of these undermine the EAC for any areas?

No. None of the po w er plants are located in areas with an EAC. Mountain Creek is located an existing

non

‐ attainment area (DFW). Big Brown and Stryker Creek are located in attainment areas. The only

pollutant identified that would result in collateral emission increases was CO and there are no EAC

area s fo r CO.

5. Did the applicant and/or TCEQ do a demonstration of "no impact" for the collateral increases? Was

an analysis done for increment consumption? If so, can these records or determinations be sent to EPA

Region 6.

The PCP standard permit in effect at the time r equired, th at if there was a significant net increase of

any criteria pollutant, the net increase may not; cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS,

cause or contribute to a violation of any PSD increment, or cause or contribute to a violation of any

PSD visibility limitation. Before a PC P st andard permit can be issued, the applicant and/or the TCEQ

ensure that all conditions of the standard permit have been satisfied, including the demonstrations

relating to impacts that are identified above.

Carbon monoxide emissions were the only anticipated collateral emission increases associated with

combustion controls added through the four PCP sta ndard pe rmits identified above. An increment

analysis was not performed, since there is no increment for CO. A demonstration that the NAAQSwould not be exceed was often performed with screen modeling either by the applicant or the TCEQ.

Screen modeling runs are generally not retained for the record, since they are very easy to replicate

by simply re

‐ running the screen model. The PCP standard permit tech

‐ reviews addressed compliance

with the NAAQS, if the applicant i ndic ated that there would be a significant net increase in CO

emissions.

6. Was minor NSR BACT performed?

No. Neither the PCP standard permit nor the SB7 permit required a BACT analysis. The PCP standard

permit is a mechanism that authorizes changes to facilities that result in decreases in emis si on for

which there will be an environmental benefit. The sources required to obtain SB7 permits were

sources that were “grandfathered”, which means that they pre

‐ dated state law requiring sources to

obtain a state NSR permit and the application of BACT. The SB7 program did not require a BACT

review, bu t i nstead required previously “grandfathered” sources to participate in a cap and trade

program that resulted in a 50 percent reduction in NO

x from “grandfathered” utility boilers state

‐

wide. Coal

‐ fired units that were “grandfathered” were not only required to reduce NO

x , but they

were also required to reduce SO 2 emission by 25 percent state

‐ wide.