Texas Bond Review Board
Biweekly Report of the 2001 Private Activity Bond Allocation Program
The information that follows is a report of the 2001 Private Activity Bond
Allocation Program for the period of April 28, 2001 through May 11, 2001.
Total amount of state ceiling remaining unreserved for the $325,809,688
subceiling for qualified mortgage bonds under the Act as of May 11, 2001:
$112,841,994.50
Total amount of state ceiling remaining unreserved for the $143,356,262
subceiling for state-voted issue bonds under the Act as of May 11, 2001: $143,356,262
Total amount of state ceiling remaining unreserved for the $97,742,906
subceiling for qualified small issue bonds under the Act as of May 11, 2001:
$94,742,906
Total amount of state ceiling remaining unreserved for the $215,034,394
subceiling for residential rental project bonds under the Act as of May 11,
2001: $17,239,394
Total amount of state ceiling remaining unreserved for the $136,840,069
subceiling for student loans bonds under the Act as of May 11, 2001: $31,840,069
Total amount of state ceiling remaining unreserved for the $384,455,431
subceiling for all other issue bonds under the Act as of May 11, 2001: $23,855,431
Total amount of the $1,303,238,750 state ceiling remaining unreserved under
the Act as of May 11, 2001: $421,849,056.50
Following is a comprehensive listing of applications, which have received
a Certificate of Reservation pursuant to the Act from April 28, 2001 through
May 11, 2001:
1) Issuer: Austin HFC
User: TWC Housing, LLC
Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Blunn Creek Apts.
Amount: $15,000,000
2) Issuer: TDHCA
User: Quebec One Apartments LP
Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Quebec One Apts.
Amount: $11,500,000
3) Issuer: Houston HFC
User: MV2000, Ltd
Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Maxey Village Apts.
Amount: $8,800,000
4) Issuer: Hillsboro IDC
User: L. B. Foster Co.
Description: Small Issue IDB
Amount: $2,000,000
5) Issuer: Harris County IDC
User: Deer Park Refining LP
Description: All Other Issue--Deer Park, Texas
Amount: $25,000,000
Following is a comprehensive listing of applications, which have issued
and delivered the bonds and received a Certificate of Allocation pursuant
to the Act from April 28, 2001 through May 11, 2001:
1) Issuer: Housing Option, Inc.
User: Roseland Fellowship, LP
Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Roseland Gardens
Amount: $6,425,000
2) Issuer: Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority
User: Republic Waste Services of Texas Ltd
Description: All Other Issue--League City, Texas
Amount: $3,500,000
3) Issuer: Colorado River Municipal Water District
User: Republic Waste Services of Texas Ltd
Description: All Other Issue--Odessa, Texas
Amount: $4,000,000
4) Issuer: Trinity River Authority
User: Community Waste Disposal, Inc.
Description: All Other Issue--Dallas, Texas
Amount: $20,000,000
5) Issuer: Port Arthur Navigation District IDC
User: Air Products and Chemical, Inc.
Description: All Other Issue--Port Arthur, Texas
Amount: $25,000,000
6) Issuer: Calhoun County Navigation District
User: Formosa Plastics Corp.
Description: All Other Issue--Point Comfort, Texas
Amount: $25,000,000
7) Issuer: Houston HFC
User: Houston Bellfort Pines Apts.
Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Bellfort Pines Apts.
Amount: $10,000,000
8) Issuer: Panhandle-Plains Higher Education Authority, Inc.
User: Eligible Borrowers
Description: Student Loan Bonds
Amount: $35,000,000
9) Issuer: Montgomery County HFC
User: Montgomery Trace Apts.
Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Montgomery Trace Apts.
Amount: $7,500,000
10) Issuer: TDHCA
User: Knollwood Villas
Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Knollwood Villas
Amount: $13,750,000
11) Issuer: TDHCA
User: Texas Bluffview Housing
Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Bluffview Senior Apts.
Amount: $10,700,000
12) Issuer: Brazos River Harbor Navigation District of Brazoria County,
Texas
User: The Dow Chemical Co.
Description: All Other Issue--Freeport, Texas
Amount: $25,000,000
13) Issuer: North Central Texas HFC
User: One Bent Tree Ltd
Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Bent Tree Town Homes
Amount: $12,400,000
14) Issuer: North Central Texas HFC
User: Ranch View Ltd
Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Ranch View Town Homes
Amount: $12,000,000
15) Issuer: North Central Texas HFC
User: Silverton Ltd
Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Silverton Town Homes
Amount: $12,400,000
16) Issuer: Harris County IDC
User: L. Bentley Sanford Investments
Description: Small Issue IDB
Amount: $3,000,000
17) Issuer: South Texas Higher Education Authority, Inc.
User: Eligible Borrowers
Description: Student Loan Bonds
Amount: $35,000,000
18) Issuer: Brazos River Harbor Navigation District of Brazoria County,
Texas
User: BASF Corp.
Description: All Other Issue--Freeport, Texas
Amount: $25,000,000
Following is a comprehensive listing of applications, which were either
withdrawn or cancelled pursuant to the Act from April 28, 2001 through May
11, 2001:
1) Issuer: TDHCA
User: Texas Bluffview Villas
Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Bluffview Villas
Amount: $14,100,000
2) Issuer: TDHCA
User: Mesquite Affordable Housing
Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Oakwood Village
Amount: $10,600,000
3) Issuer: Bexar County HFC
User: MAGI Management
Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Swan's Landing
Amount: $8,700,000
4) Issuer: Port Arthur Navigation District IDC
User: The Premcor Refining Group Inc.
Description: All Other Issue--Port Arthur, Texas
Amount: $25,000,000
5) Issuer: Travis County HFC
User: Stonebridge Park
Description: Multifamily Residential Rental Project--Stonebridge Apts.
Amount: $15,000,000
For a more comprehensive and up-to-date summary of the 2001 Private Activity
Bond Allocation Program, please visit the website (www.brb.state.tx.us). If
you have any questions or comments, please contact Steve Alvarez, Program
Administrator, at (512) 475-4803 or via email at alvarez@brb.state.tx.us.
TRD-200103007
Steve Alvarez
Program Administrator
Texas Bond Review Board
Filed: May 29, 2001
Notice and Opportunity to Comment on Requests for Consistency Agreement/Concurrence Under the Texas Coastal Management Program
On January 10, 1997, the State of Texas received federal approval of the
Coastal Management Program (CMP) (62 Federal Register pp. 1439-1440). Under
federal law, federal agency activities and actions affecting the Texas coastal
zone must be consistent with the CMP goals and policies identified in 31 TAC
Chapter 501. As required by federal law, the public is given an opportunity
to comment on the consistency of proposed activities in the coastal zone undertaken
or authorized by federal agencies. Pursuant to 31 TAC §§506.25,
506.32, and 506.41, the public comment period for these activities extends
30 days from the date published on the Coastal Coordination Council web site.
Requests for federal consistency review were received for the following project(s)
during the period of May 3, 2001, through May 25, 2001. The public comment
period for these projects will close at 5:00 p.m. on June 11, 2001.
FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS
Applicant: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; Location: The project is
located in Dana Cove, West Galveston Bay, near Pirates Cove, Galveston County,
Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled
Lake Como, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 309169; Northing:
323339. CCC Project No.: 01-0135-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant
proposes to create a continuous marsh island directly behind the easternmost
geotube (Geotube E) using material that was to be deposited to create 20,
130-foot diameter marsh islands under the original permit. Type of Application:
This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Applicant: Vopak Terminal Deer Park, Inc.; Location: The project is located
on the Houston Ship Channel at 2759 Battleground Road, Deer Park, Harris County,
Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled
La Porte, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 297266; Northing:
329475. CCC Project No.: 01-0148-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant
proposes to increase the current dredge depth of -43 feet MLT to -46 feet
MLT to allow access of deep-draft vessels. The proposed work will be done
via hydraulic dredge and will yield approximately 104,000 cubic yards of material.
The dredged material will be placed in San Jacinto Marsh, Lost Lake, Peggy
Lake or Alexander Island, as ordered by the Port of Houston Authority. Type
of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Applicant: Terramar Beach Community Improvement Association, Inc.; Location:
The project is located on the Gulf of Mexico shoreline at the southeast end
of Terramar Road, approximately 14 miles southwest of the southern end of
the Galveston Seawall on Galveston Island in Galveston County, Texas. The
project extends in both directions from the beach access road. The project
can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Sea Isle, Texas. Approximate
UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting 299923; Northing: 3223890. CCC Project No.:
01-0155-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to place
26,000 cubic yards of beach-quality sand seaward of the established vegetation
to restore shoreline eroded by a tropical storm. The beach placement area
(PA) would be approximately 2,850 feet long by 40 feet to 80 feet wide (5.23
acres) with a landward height limit of 4 feet. The sand source for this proposal
will be obtained by maintenance dredging within existing bayside channels
located pursuant to Department of the Army (DOA) determinations and permits:
Spanish Grant (D-11062), Sea Isle (application D-12158, under evaluation),
Isla del Sol (D-11223), and Terramar (DOA Permit 11899(05)) subdivisions on
Galveston Island, in Galveston County, Texas. Sand would be placed in an upland
dredged material placement area, dewatered, and then trucked to the proposed
beach PA. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act.
Applicant: Mr. M. J. Braxton; Location: The project site is located approximately
15 miles west of Port Arthur and 1 mile north of State Highway 73, between
the entrance road to the Port Arthur Country Club and Taylors Bayou, in Jefferson
County, Texas. The Neches River Cypress Swamp Preserve is located east of
State Highway 69 and west of the Neches River, in north Beaumont, Jefferson
County, Texas. CCC Project No.: 01-0162-F1; Description of Proposed Action:
The applicant wishes to amend a previously authorized canal 75 feet to the
west; to fill wetlands for homes instead of excavating for a canal; and to
relocate a proposed wastewater treatment plant. This will cause an increase
of 0.97 acres of impact. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated
under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act.
Applicant: Glynn D. Morgan; Location: The project is located adjacent to
Sabine Lake, at Lot Number 11 of the Lafitte's Landing Subdivision, Phase
II, on Pleasure Island, in Jefferson County, Texas. The site can be located
on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Port Arthur South, Texas-Louisiana.
Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 409000; Northing 329600. CCC
Project No.: 01-0163-F1; Description of Proposed Action: This is a revision
to #00-086-F1. The applicant wishes to modify the original permit to retain
0.11 acres of fill instead of the original 0.31 acres of fill placed in wetlands
without a permit. The applicant also wishes to modify the original request
to delete the 2,381-square-foot concrete walkway and pull the fill material
back 20 feet. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Applicant: Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd.; Location: The project is located
at the junction of the La Quinta Channel and Jewel Fulton Canal in Ingleside,
San Patricio County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle
map entitled Port Ingleside, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 14,
Easting: 674000; Northing 3082000. CCC Project No.: 01-0165-F1; Description
of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to construct a marine fabrication
yard used to build large offshore drilling rigs. The project includes dredging,
bulkheading, and filling of the project site to allow deep-draft vessel access
to the site and a lay-down or work area on the applicant's property. The project
includes 54.4 acres of dredging of a combination of shallow and deep water
areas, filling of approximately 9.3 acres of jurisdictional areas (including
wetlands, shallow and deep water habitats), and constructing approximately
3,600 feet of bulkhead along the La Quinta channel shoreline, and 1,600 feet
of bulkhead along the Fulton Canal shoreline. The project also includes a
trestle, or dock facility, used to load and unload equipment at the site.
Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Applicant: Cowboy Pipeline Service Company; Location: The project is located
in the western portion of Galveston Bay, Galveston County, Texas. The project
originates in the Upper San Jacinto Bay, Texas, and Bayport, Texas, areas
and terminates in Texas City, Texas, and traverses Harris, Chambers, and Galveston
counties, Texas. The site can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled
La Porte, Bacliff, League City, Texas City, and Virginia Point, Texas. Approximate
center of pipeline UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 311953; Northing 3271195.
CCC Project No.: 01-0166-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant
proposes to install two 10.75-inch pipelines. The first pipeline would originate
from Millenium Petro Chemicals in La Porte, Texas, and terminate at Sterling
Chemicals. The second pipeline would originate at Celanese Chemical Bayport
Terminal in Houston, Texas, join the first pipeline in Galveston Bay near
a point due east of Seabrook, and share the same trench until terminating
at Valero Refining Company.
Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act.
Applicant: Bermuda Beach Improvement Committee; Location: The project is
located on the Gulf of Mexico shoreline at the southeast end of Bermuda Beach
Drive, approximately 4 miles southwest of the southwestern end of the Galveston
Seawall, on Galveston Island, in Galveston County, Texas. The project extends
in both directions from the beach access road. The site can be located on
the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Lake Como, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates:
Zone 15; Easting: 312908; Northing 3232485. CCC Project No.: 01-0168-F1; Description
of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to place 28,500 cubic yards of
beach-quality sand seaward of the established vegetation to restore erosion
resulting from a tropical storm. The beach placement area (PA) would be approximately
3,100 feet long by 40 feet to 80 feet wide (5.7 acres) with a landward height
limit of 4 feet. The sand for this proposal will be obtained by maintenance
dredging within existing bayside channels located pursuant to the following
Department of the Army (DOA) determinations and permits: Spanish Grant (D-11062),
Sea Isle (application D-12158, under evaluation), Isla del Sol (D-11223),
and Terramar (DOA Permit 11899(05)) subdivisions on Galveston Island, in Galveston
County, Texas. Sand would be placed in an upland dredged material placement
area, dewatered, and then trucked to the proposed beach PA. Type of Application:
This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Applicant: Spanish Grant Civic Association; Location: The project is located
on the Gulf of Mexico shoreline at the southeast end of Spanish Grant Boulevard
approximately 2 miles southwest of the southern end of the Galveston Seawall,
on Galveston Island, in Galveston County, Texas. The project can be located
on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Lake Como, Texas. Approximate UTM
Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 314289; Northing: 3233339. CCC Project No.:
01-0169-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to place
16,000 cubic yards of beach-quality sand seaward of the established vegetation
to restore erosion resulting from a tropical storm. The beach placement area
(PA) would be approximately 1,720 feet long by 40 feet to 80 feet wide (3.1
acres) with a landward height limit of 4 feet. Type of Application: This application
is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Applicant: Trans Texas Gas Corporation; Location: The project is located
in wetlands in the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), approximately 4
to 4.5 miles south of the intersection of the refuge road and FM 1985, in
Anahuac, Chambers County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S.
quadrangle map entitled High Island, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone
15; Easting: 360800; Northing: 3277400. CCC Project No.: 01-0173-F1; Description
of Proposed Action: The applicant is proposing to fill approximately 2.6 acres
of wetlands to construct two well pads, each 300 by 300 feet, for the purpose
of exploration and development of oil and gas. Existing roads will be used
to access both pads. Well pad 8/9 will require filling approximately 1.2 acres
of wetlands, and well pad 10 will require filling of approximately 1.4 acres
of wetlands, for a total of 2.6 acres of wetlands. To compensate for unavoidable
impacts, the applicant proposes to restore 15.5 acres of wetland by removing
an abandoned canal system and enhancing freshwater conditions in an a additional
500 acres located adjacent and north of two large reservoirs of the East Unit
of Anahuac NWR west of Onion Bayou. Type of Application: This application
is being evaluated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Applicant: Vintage Petroleum; Location: The project site is located in
Trinity Bay, Chambers County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S.
quadrangle map entitled Umbrella Point, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates:
Zone 15; Easting: 328611; Northing: 3279549. CCC Project No.: 01-0174-F1;
Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to install a drilling
barge, a 270-foot-long by 100-foot-wide shell pad, a 4.5-inch diameter flowline,
and appurtenant structures in State Tract 57 under Oil Field Development Permit
09161(16). The proposed shell pad will be installed in State Tract 57 for
the purpose of drilling and producing Well No. 1. The proposed 4.5-inch diameter
flowline will be 150 feet long, originating from Well No. 1 in State Tract
57, and terminating at the proposed 50-foot platform in State Tract 57. Type
of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Applicant: Matagorda County Palacios Seawall Commission; Location: The
project site is located in Tres Palacios Bay on South Bay Boulevard, Matagorda
County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled
Palacios, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 14; Easting: 772120; Northing:
3177440. CCC Project No.: 01-0175-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The
applicant proposes to reconstruct a public access fishing pier called "Pavilion
Pier" and to reconfigure the T-head on the pier. The purpose of the project
is to rebuild the end of the pier, which is in disrepair, and to accommodate
patrons in wheelchairs. The existing pier is 26,085 square feet, and the reconstructed
pier would be 27,130 square feet, for an increase of 1,045 square feet. Type
of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Applicant: Pirates Landing Fishing Pier; Location: The project is located
at 202 North Garcia Street in Port Isabel, Cameron County, Texas. The site
can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Port Isabel, Texas.
Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 14; Easting: 679500; Northing: 28855. CCC
Project No.: 01-0176-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes
to amend permit 19334(02) to add dock and mooring structures to an existing
fishing pier in the Laguna Madre. The purpose of the dock is to provide an
area for boaters to tie up small boats while they purchase bait or visit the
restaurant. The proposed wooden dock would be 4 feet wide by 60 feet long
and would be located perpendicular to the south side of the existing pier.
The applicant also proposes to construct three mooring structures to the west
of the proposed dock. The structures would be located approximately 24 feet
from the proposed dock and consist of one single-pile and two 3-pile clusters.
The water depth at the proposed dock would be -9.5 feet mean high tide. Type
of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
Applicant: Department of the Navy; Location: The project site is located
within a 10-mile (16-km) commute of the Corpus Christi Naval Airstation in
Ingleside, Texas. CCC Project No.: 01-0177-F2; Description of Proposed Action:
The applicant proposes to build military housing for trainees and their families.
It will be compliant with local, state and federal environmental laws, codes
and regulations. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated
under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act.
Applicant: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Location: The project
is located in the Gulf of Mexico. CCC Project No.: 01-0180-F2; Description
of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to institute a 31-year rebuilding
plan for red snapper with 5-year interim management goals. Type of Application:
This application is being evaluated under Section 307 of the Coastal Management
Act of 1972, as amended.
Applicant: DSND-Horizon, LLC; Location: The project is located on the right
descending bank of the Sabine-Neches Waterway, above Sabine Lake. The site
is approximately one-half mile downstream of the intersection of the Neches
River, Sabine-Neches Waterway, and Intracostal Canal (USACE Station 540 +
00), at 8200 Yacht Club Road, Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas. The project
can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled West of Greens Bayou,
Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 416844; Northing: 3314111.
CCC Project No.: 01-0184-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant
proposes to revise their proposed Amendment (01) to Department of the Army
(DA) Permit 21750. DA Permit 21750 authorized the construction of a 428-foot
finger dock and mooring area, including breasting structures, mooring structures,
and associated access structures. It also authorized the initial dredging
of a 145,000-square foot area (approximately 115,00 cubic yards), and maintenance
dredging after the facility was constructed, with dredged materials to be
placed on an upland portion of the permittee's property or in Corps of Engineers
Disposal Areas 13, 14, 15, or 16. Type of Application: This application is
being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Applicant: Port of Corpus Christi; Location: The project is located near
the Corpus Christi Ship Channel on the south shoreline of Harbor Island, approximately
0.4 miles west of State Highway 361 Ferry Landing, in Port Aransas, Nueces
County, Texas. The site can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled
Port Aransas, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 14; Easting: 689500;
Northing: 3081200. CCC Project No.: 01-0185-F1; Description of Proposed Action:
The applicant proposes to hydraulically and/or mechanically maintenance dredge
up to 4,000 cubic yards of sand from a boat basin authorized by Department
of the Army Permit 16344, and to use the sand as fill for shoreline protection
activities. Two options are being proposed to protect an 800-foot-long section
of shoreline south of an existing, leveed, dredged material placement area
(PA), and west of an industrial harbor. The first proposed option is placement
of a 12-foot-wide by 5-foot-high geotube, which would be filled and backfilled
with sand dredged from the boat basin. The second proposed option is construction
of a rock revetment over sand dredged from the boat basin. Approximately 0.2
acre of shallow, unvegetated waters would be filled. Additionally, the applicant
proposes to construct a 500-foot-long by 68 (maximum)-foot-wide groin extending
from an existing bulkhead to within approximately 500 feet of the edge of
the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. The project purpose is to stabilize the high-energy
shoreline to protect harbor facilities and the PA levee. The project is targeted
by the Texas General Land Office for funding under the recently passed Coastal
Erosion Planning and Response Act (CEPRA). Type of Application: This application
is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Applicant: Orange County Airport
Location: The project is located at 2520 South Highway 87, two miles southeast
of Orange, in Orange County County, Texas. The project can be located on the
U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Beaumont East, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates:
Zone 15; Easting: 422000; Northing: 3327000. CCC Project No.: 01-0186-F1 Description
of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to fill and/or grade approximately
6 acres of wetland habitat for the purpose of extending an existing runway
and parallel taxiway. A total of 4.2 acres of wetlands will be filled to provide
surface for the runway. The remaining 1.8 acres will be cleared of all vegetation
as per Federal Aviation guidelines. The applicant proposes to construct lateral
drainage ditches and a 300-foot-long runway safety area at the end of the
proposed runway. Approximately 2,248 cubic yards of material will be placed
into 4.2 acres of wetlands for the proposed runway construction. Dominant
vegetation within the project area consists primarily of soft rush (Juncus
effusus), vasey grass (Paspalum urvillei), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
St. Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), Bahia grass (Paspalum notatum),
Souther carpet grass (Axonopus affinis), erect coinleaf (Centella erecta),
and Southern dewberry (Rubus trivalis). To compensate for direct impacts to
4.2 acres of wetland habitat, and indirect impacts to an addition 1.8 acres
of wetlands, the applicant proposes to purchase 18 acre-credits from the Texas
Department of Transportation Blue Elbow Swamp Mitigation Bank. Type of Application:
This application is being evaluated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Applicant: Main Energy, Inc.; Location: The project is located in the Matagorda
Bay in State Tract 194 and State Tract 199, approximately 10.5 miles southwest
of Palacios, Matagorda County, Texas. The project can be located on the U.S.G.S.
quadrangle map entitled Carancahua Pass, Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates:
Zone 14; Easting: 765861.61; Northing: 3162794.93 at the beginning point and
Zone 14; Easting: 764701.20; Northing: 3162619.71 at the end point. CCC Project
No.: 01-0187-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to
lay, bury and maintain a 2-1/2 inch flowline from the existing producing well
#1 in State Tract 199 to the existing production facilities in State Tract
194. The total length of the flowline will be 3,848.30 feet. The flowline
will be buried a minimum of 3 feet deep. Approximately 900 cubic yards of
mud and silt will be displaced in the process. The purpose of the project
is to transfer production of oil and or gas from the producing well to the
production facilities. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated
under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act.
Applicant: Main Energy, Inc.; Location: The project is located in Matagorda
Bay in State Tract 295, State Tract 304 N/2 and State Tract 303 S/2, approximately
8 miles southwest of Palacios, Matagorda County, Texas. The project can be
located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Carancahua, Texas. Approximate
UTM Coordinates: Zone 14; Easting: 766517.16; Northing: 31666786.04 at the
beginning point and Zone 14; Easting: 768085.16; Northing: 3168540.55 at the
end point. CCC Project No.: 01-0188-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The
applicant proposes to lay, bury and maintain a 2-1/2 inch flowline from the
existing producing well in State Tract 295 to the existing production facilities
in State Tract 303. The total length of the flowline will be 3,245.49 feet.
The flowline will be buried a minimum of 3 feet deep. Approximately 1,810
cubic yards of mud and silt will be displaced in the process. The purpose
of the project is to transfer production of oil and/or gas from the producing
well to the production facilities. Type of Application: This application is
being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Applicant: Davis Petroleum Corporation; Location: The project is located
in the Gulf of Mexico, near Padre Island, south of Corpus Christi, Texas.
The project area includes State Tract 922S-925S, and 928S. The project can
be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Crane Island, S.W., Texas.
Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 14; Easting: 67600; Northing: 3047000. CCC
Project No.: 01-0189-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes
to install, operate, and maintain structures and equipment necessary for oil
and gas drilling, production, and transportation activities within the state
tracts listed above. Such activities include installation of typical marine
barges and keyways, production structures with attendant facilities, and flowlines.
Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Applicant: Orange County Water Control and Improvement District, #1; Location:
The project is located approximately 1.5 miles north of Interstate 10, from
Ten Mile Bayou, crossing Ross Ridge, to an existing ditch ending at the Sewage
Disposal Plant, in Vidor, Orange County, Texas. The project can be located
on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Pine Forest, Texas. Approximate UTM
Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 398516; Northing: 3340689. CCC Project No.:
01-0190-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to excavate
a channel approximately 5,300 linear feet in length to 15 feet deep with a
30-foot bottom width, and a 75-foot top width. The excavation will impact
an area of 397,500 square feet. A volume of 29.2 cubic yards per linear foot
will be cast on the south side of the ditch creating a 13-foot-high levee
with a roadway. The excavation of the ditch will require the use of a dragline,
clamshell and bulldozer. The levee base will measure approximately 89 feet
wide by 5,300 linear feet long. An area of 471,000 square feet will be impacted
by the levee. The proposed project will impact an estimated 20 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands. The purpose of the proposed project is to construct an outfall ditch
from Ten Mile Bayou east to an existing drainage ditch to provide an effluent
canal for the local drainage in Vidor and to provide the wastewater treatment
plant effluent through the adjacent marsh area to an outlet into Ten Mile
Bayou. Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act.
Applicant: Charles Gremminger; Location: The project is located on San
Antonio Bay at Lots 38 and 39, Block B of the Swanpoint Subdivision. The project
can be located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Seadrift, Texas. Approximate
UTM Coordinates: Zone 14; Easting: 725079; Northing: 3141899. CCC Project
No.: 01-0191-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to
construct a 325-foot-long by 4-foot-wide pier with a 10-foot-long by 30-foot-wide
L-head and a 25-foot-long by 4-foot-wide wing pier. Type of Application: This
application is being evaluated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899.
Applicant: Vintage Petroleum, Inc.; Location: The project is located in
State Tract 64, in Trinity Bay, Chambers County, Texas. The project can be
located on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Umbrella Point, Texas. Approximate
UTM Coordinates: Zone 15; Easting: 327500; Northing: 3278700. CCC Project
No.: 01-0193-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to
drill their No. 1 well in State Tract 64. A total of ten 10-pile clusters,
80 feet in diameter, would be installed to support a 230-foot-long by 60-foot-wide
drilling barge. If fill material is necessary, the pad size and height would
depend on bottom conditions. To accommodate the drilling barge, approximately
4,800 cubic yards of shell, crushed rock, or washed gravel would be needed.
Water depth at the proposed fill site is approximately -16 feet mean low water.
These activities would be performed under Oilfield Development Permit 90161(16).
Type of Application: This application is being evaluated under Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Applicant: St. Mary Energy Company; Location: The project is located southeast
of the town of Seadrift, Calhoun County, Texas. The project can be located
on the U.S.G.S. quadrangle map entitled Seadrift, Texas and Mosquito Point,
Texas. Approximate UTM Coordinates: Zone 14; Easting: 728167; Northing: 3141045.
CCC Project No.: 01-0196-F1; Description of Proposed Action: The applicant
proposes to install, operate, and maintain two well pads and attendant structures
and equipment necessary for oil and gas drilling, production, and transportation
activities, with attendant facilities and flowlines. The project would result
in the temporary impact of 5.315 acres of wetlands, and the permanent impact
of 2.6 acres of wetlands. The applicant will use board roads as temporary
access roads, and replace these roads with permanent roads if the exploration
operations are successful. The applicant would remove the temporary drilling
structures and reduce the footprint of the wells. The applicant proposes to
restore and revegetate these areas of temporary impact. In addition, the applicant
proposes to compensate for the permanent loss of wetlands by in-lieu fee mitigation.
The applicant would supply funds to the Nature Conservancy to purchase 26
acres of salt marsh wetlands near the project area. This property has been
identified a potential critical habitat for whooping cranes. Type of Application:
This application is being evaluated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Pursuant to §306(d)(14) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(16 U.S.C.A. §§1451-1464), as amended, interested parties are invited
to submit comments on whether a proposed action is or is not consistent with
the Texas Coastal Management Program goals and policies and whether the action
should be referred to the Coastal Coordination Council for review.
Further information for the applications listed above may be obtained from
Ms. Diane P. Garcia, Council Secretary, Coastal Coordination Council, 1700
North Congress Avenue, Room 617, Austin, Texas 78701-1495, or diane.garcia@glo.state.tx.us.
Comments should be sent to Ms. Garcia at the above address or by fax at (512)
475-0680.
TRD-200103033
Larry R. Soward
Chief Clerk, General Land Office
Coastal Coordination Council
Filed: May 30, 2001
Notice of Award
Notice of Award: Pursuant to Chapters 403, 2305 and 2156, and Sections
2156.121 and 2156.122, Texas Government Code, the Comptroller of Public Accounts
(Comptroller) announces this notice of contract award.
The notice of request for proposals (RFP #116b) was published in the November
17, 2000, issue of the
Texas Register
(25
TexReg 11556).
The contractor will assist Comptroller in designing and installing small
scale (2kW) solar energy systems in selected Texas Independent School Districts.
The contract was awarded to: CSGServices, Inc., 1515 S. Capital of Texas
Highway, Suite 210, Austin, Texas 78746. The total amount is not to exceed
$200,000.00. The term of the contract is May 15, 2001 through May 15, 2002.
TRD-200102981
Pamela Ponder
Deputy General Counsel for Contracts
Comptroller of Public Accounts
Filed: May 25, 2001
Notice of Rate Ceilings
The Consumer Credit Commissioner of Texas has ascertained the following
rate ceilings by use of the formulas and methods described in Sections 303.003,
303.005, 303.008, 303.009, 304.003, and 346.101. Tex. Fin. Code.
The weekly ceiling as prescribed by Sec. 303.003 and 303.009 for the period
of 06/04/01 - 06/10/01 is 18% for Consumer
1
/Agricultural/Commercial
The weekly ceiling as prescribed by Sec. 303.003 and 303.009 for the period
of 06/04/01 - 06/10/01 is 18% for Commercial over $250,000.
The monthly ceiling as prescribed by Sec. 303.005 and 303.009
3
for the period of 06/01/01 - 06/30/01 is 18% for Consumer/Agricultural/Commercial/credit
thru $250,000.
The monthly ceiling as prescribed by Sec. 303.005 and 303.009 for the period
of 06/01/01 - 06/30/01 is 18% for Commercial over $250,000.
The standard quarterly rate as prescribed by Sec. 303.008 and 303.009 for
the period of 07/01/01 - 09/30/01 is 18% for Consumer/Agricultural/Commercial/credit
thru $250,000.
The standard quarterly rate as prescribed by Sec. 303.008 and 303.009 for
the period of 07/01/01 - 09/30/01 is 18% for Commercial over $250,000.
The retail credit card quarterly rate as prescribed by Sec. 303.009
The lender credit card quarterly rate as prescribed by Sec. 346.101 Tex.
Fin. Code
1
for the period of 07/01/01 - 09/30/01
is 18% for Consumer/Agricultural/Commercial/credit thru $250,000.
The standard annual rate as prescribed by Sec. 303.008 and 303.009
The standard annual rate as prescribed by Sec. 303.008 and 303.009 for
the period of 07/01/01 - 09/30/01 is 18% for Commercial over $250,000.
The retail credit card annual rate as prescribed by Sec. 303.009
1
for the period of 07/01/01 - 09/30/01 is 18% for Consumer/Agricultural/Commercial/credit
thru $250,000.
The judgment ceiling as prescribed by Sec. 304.003 for the period of 06/01/01
- 06/30/01 is 10% for Consumer/Agricultural/Commercial/credit thru $250,000.
The judgment ceiling as prescribed Sec. 304.003 for the period of 06/01/01
- 06/30/01 is 10% for Commercial over $250,000.
1
Credit for personal, family or household
use.
2
Credit for business, commercial, investment
or other similar purpose.
3
For variable rate commercial transactions
only.
4
Only for open-end credit as defined in Sec.
301.002(14), Tex. Fin. Code.
TRD-200103028
Leslie L. Pettijohn
Commissioner
Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner
Filed: May 30, 2001
Notice to Bidders
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice invites bids for a project which
consists of the removal of the existing roof system, insulation and, membrane,
and installation of new insulation, and 4-ply asphalt and gravel roof systems.
Include all labor and materials, services, equipment, and appliances required
in conjunction with the re-roofing of the ER & Chapel Buildings at the
Gatesville unit, Riverside location, 1401 States School Rd, Gatesville, Texas
76599. The work includes roofing construction as further shown in the Contract
Documents prepared by Amtech Roofing Consultants Inc.
The successful bidder will be required to meet the following requirements
and submit evidence within five days after receiving notice of intent to award
from the Owner:
A. Contractor must have a minimum of five years consecutive years of experience
as a Roofing Contractor and provide references for at least three projects
that have been completed of a dollar value and complexity equal to or greater
than the proposed project.
B. Contractor must be bondable and insurable at the levels required.
All Bid Proposals must be accompanied by a Bid Bond in the amount of 5.0%
of greatest amount bid. Performance and Payment Bonds in the amount of 100%
of the contract amount will be required upon award of a contract. The Owner
reserves the right to reject any or all bids, and to waive any informality
or irregularity.
Bid Documents can be purchased from the Architect/Engineer at a cost of
$30 (non-refundable) per set, inclusive of mailing/delivery costs, or they
may be viewed at various plan rooms. Payment checks for documents should be
made payable to the Architect/Engineer : Bob Alford, R. A., Amtech Roofing
Consultants, Inc. ,3300 South Gessner, Suite 245, Houston, Texas 77063; Phone:
(713) 266-4829; Fax: (713) 266-4977.
A Pre-Bid conference will be held at 2 PM on June 6, 2001, at the Gatesville
Unit, Gatesville Unit Conference Center, Gatesville Texas, followed by a site-visit.
ATTENDANCE IS MANDATORY.
Bids will be publicly opened and read at 2 PM on June 13, 2001, in the
Purchases and Leases Conference Room, located at, Two Financial Plaza, Suite
525, Huntsville, Texas 77340.
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice requires the Contractor to make
a good faith effort to include Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUB's)
in at least 57.2% of the total value of this construction contract award.
Attention is called to the fact that not less than the minimum wage rates
prescribed in the Special Conditions must be paid on these projects.
TRD-200102976
Carl Reynolds
General Counsel
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Filed: May 25, 2001
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice invites bids for the construction
of Visitation Canopy (Awning) at Houston, Texas. The project consists of a
custom built steel canopy (awning) of approximately 3000 square feet with
a minimum height of 14 feet. Roof material specified is MBCI or equal 26 gauge
steel M-panel, white in color, and trim material is 26 gauge steel angle trim,
white in color. Structural components include 10" galvanized steel C-channel
x 2-1/2" x 14 gauge galvanized steel and 12" C-channel x 12 gauge galvanized
with columns of 5" x 5" x .188 galvanized steel . Columns must go through
concrete floor and are to be set in concrete base at the existing Kegans State
Jail Unit, 707 Top Street, Houston, Texas 77210. The work includes structural
and concrete as further shown in the Contract Documents.
The successful bidder will be required to meet the following requirements
and submit evidence within five days after receiving notice of intent to award
from the Owner:
A. Contractor must have worked in his trade for five consecutive years
and have completed at least three projects of a dollar value and complexity
equal to or greater than the proposed project.
B. Contractor must be bondable and insurable at the levels required.
C. Must provide references from at least three similar projects.
All Bid Proposals must be accompanied by a Bid Bond in the amount of 5.0%
of greatest amount bid. Performance and Payment Bonds in the amount of 100%
of the contract amount will be required upon award of a contract. The Owner
reserves the right to reject any or all bids, and to waive any informality
or irregularity.
Bid Documents can be obtained from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
at no charge from: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Purchasing &
Leases Department Contracts Branch, Two Financial Plaza, Suite 525, Huntsville
Texas 77340; (936) 437-7136; (936) 437-7009 FAX, Attn: Gene Warzecha, Contract
Administrator.
A Site Visit will be held at 10:30 AM on May 30, 2001, at the Kegans State
Jail, 707 Top Street, Houston, Texas.
Bids will be publicly opened and read at 2 PM on June 13, 2001, in the
Contracts Branch Conference Room at Two Financial Plaza, Suite 525, Huntsville,
Texas 77340.
TRD-200102977
Carl Reynolds
General Counsel
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Filed: May 25, 2001
Request for Proposals to Provide Training to Currently Employed Workers
This Request for Proposals to interested vendors is filed under the provisions
of Government Code 2254.
Notice is given that the East Texas Council of Governments (ETCOG) as the
administrative entity for the local Workforce Development Board is soliciting
proposals for current worker training. The Achieving Performance Excellence
(APEX) Grant seeks to provide resources to businesses and educators in order
to develop current worker training for the purpose of allowing workers to:
obtain skills certification, enhance earnings potential, and secure career
advancement opportunities.
Interested parties should contact: Daniel Pippin, Regional Planner, ETCOG
(903) 984-8641. If Mr. Pippin is unavailable, you may speak with Gary Allen,
Section Chief-Planning and Board Support. Requests for the Request for Proposals
should be sent to: East Texas Council of Governments, 3800 Stone Road, Kilgore,
Texas, 75662, Attention: Wendell Holcombe, Fax: (903) 983-1440
Proposals will not be released prior to May 30, 2001. The closing date
for the receipt of responses to the Request for Proposals is 5:00 p.m. Central
Daylight Time, July 6, 2001.
The ETCOG Executive Committee, who will be responsible for the contract
award, will review the responses.
TRD-200103036
Glynn Knight
Executive Director
East Texas Council of Governments
Filed: May 30, 2001
Notice of Contract Airline Fares Request for Proposal
The General Services Commission (GSC) announces Amendment #1 to Request
for Proposal (RFP) for Contract Airline Fares (RFP #11-0501AF) to be provided
to the State of Texas pursuant to the Texas Government Code, §2171.052.
Any contract which results from this RFP shall be for the term of September
1, 2001 through August 31, 2002.
Pre-proposal Conference:
Amendment #1 reflects
needed revisions that were identified at the pre-proposal conference held
May 14, 2001, and written questions received by May 16, 2001. A summary of
the questions and clarification requests is also available.
Submission of Response to the RFP:
Responses
to the RFP shall be submitted to and received by the GSC Bid Services Department
on or before 3:00 p.m., Central Daylight Time, on June 7, 2001, and shall
be delivered or sent to: The General Services Commission, Attention: Bid Services,
RFP #11-0501AF, 1711 San Jacinto Boulevard, Room 180, Austin, Texas 78701,
or P.O. Box 13047, Austin, Texas 78711-3047.
Copies of RFP:
If you are interested in receiving
a copy of the RFP and Amendment #1, contact Ms. Gerry Pavelka, Program Director,
at (512) 463-3435 to request a copy.
TRD-200102884
Cynthia J. Hill
General Counsel
General Services Commission
Filed: May 23, 2001
Designation of El Centro del Barrio Children's Shelter as a Site Serving Medically Underserved Populations
The Texas Department of Health (department) is required under the Occupations
Code §157.052 to designate sites serving medically underserved populations.
In addition, the department is required to publish notice of such designations
in the
Texas Register
and to provide an opportunity
for public comment on the designations.
Accordingly, the department has designated the following as a site serving
medically underserved populations: EL Centro del Barrio Children's Shelter
of San Antonio (Infants Shelter), 2219 Babcock, San Antonio, Texas 78229.
The designation is based on proven eligibility as a site serving a disproportionate
number of clients eligible for federal, state, or locally funded health care
programs.
Oral and written comments on this designation may be directed to Bruce
Gunn, Ph.D., Director, Health Professions Resource Center, Office of Policy
and Planning, Texas Department of Health, 1100 West 49th Street, Austin, Texas
78756; telephone (512) 458-7261. Comments will be accepted for 30 days from
the publication date of this notice.
TRD-200103025
Susan K. Steeg
General Counsel
Texas Department of Health
Filed: May 30, 2001
The Texas Department of Health (department) is required under the Occupations
Code §157.052 to designate sites serving medically underserved populations.
In addition, the department is required to publish notice of such designations
in the
Texas Register
and to provide an opportunity
for public comment on the designations.
Accordingly, the department has designated the following as a site serving
medically underserved populations: Oak Tree Family Clinic (Substance Abuse
Testing, LLP), 3512 Texas Boulevard, Texarkana, Texas 75503. The designation
is based on proven eligibility as a site serving a disproportionate number
of clients eligible for federal, state, or locally funded health care programs.
Oral and written comments on this designation may be directed to Bruce
Gunn, Ph.D., Director, Health Professions Resource Center, Office of Policy
and Planning, Texas Department of Health, 1100 West 49th Street, Austin, Texas
78756; telephone (512) 458-7261. Comments will be accepted for 30 days from
the publication date of this notice.
TRD-200103026
Susan K. Steeg
General Counsel
Texas Department of Health
Filed: May 30, 2001
Notice is hereby given by the Texas Department of Health (department),
Bureau of Radiation Control that it has amended Radioactive Material License
Number L01811 issued to Nuclear Sources & Services, Inc., doing business
as NSSI/Sources & Services, Inc., located at 5711 Etheridge in Houston,
Texas. Amendment number 44 removes the authorization for sealed sources from
the license.
The department has determined that the amendment of the license, 25 Texas
Administrative Code (TAC), Chapter 289, and the documentation submitted by
the licensee provide reasonable assurance that the licensee's radioactive
waste facility is sited, designed, operated, and will be decommissioned and
closed in accordance with the requirements of 25 TAC, Chapter 289; the amendment
of the license will not be inimical to the health and safety of the public
or the environment; and the activity represented by the amendment of the license
will not have a significant effect on the human environment.
This notice affords the opportunity for a public hearing upon written request
within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice by a person affected
as required by Texas Health and Safety Code, §401.116 and as set out
in 25 TAC, §289.205(f). A "person affected" is defined as a person who
demonstrates that the person has suffered or will suffer actual injury or
economic damage and, if the person is not a local government, is (a) a resident
of a county, or a county adjacent to a county, in which the radioactive material
is or will be located; or (b) doing business or has a legal interest in land
in the county or adjacent county.
A person affected may request a hearing by writing Mr. Richard A. Ratliff,
P.E., Chief, Bureau of Radiation Control, 1100 West 49th Street, Austin, Texas
78756-3189. Any request for a hearing must contain the name and address of
the person who considers himself affected by this action, identify the subject
license, specify the reasons why the person considers himself affected, and
state the relief sought. If the person is represented by an agent, the name
and address of the agent must be stated. Should no request for a public hearing
be timely filed, the agency action will be final.
A public hearing, if requested, shall be conducted in accordance with the
provisions of Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 401, the Administrative
Procedure Act (Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001), the formal hearing procedures
of the department (25 Texas Administrative Code (TAC), §1.21 et seq.)
and the procedures of the State Office of Administrative Hearings (1 TAC,
Chapter 155).
A copy of the license amendment and supporting materials are available
for public inspection and copying at the office of the Bureau of Radiation
Control, Texas Department of Health, Exchange Building, 8407 Wall Street,
Austin, Texas, telephone (512) 834-6688, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday-Friday
(except holidays). Information relative to inspection and copying the documents
may be obtained by contacting Chrissie Toungate, Custodian of Records, Bureau
of Radiation Control.
TRD-200103027
Susan K. Steeg
General Counsel
Texas Department of Health
Filed: May 30, 2001
Cancellation of Public Hearing
The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and the Texas Department
of Human Services (DHS) are canceling the joint public hearing on proposed
payment rates for the following programs operated by DHS: nursing facilities,
swing beds, and hospice-nursing facilities. The hearing was scheduled for
8:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 14, 2001, in conference room 5501 of the Brown-Heatly
Building. Notice of the hearing appeared in the June 1, 2001, issue of the
Only the public hearing on proposed payment rates for nursing facilities,
swing beds, and hospice-nursing facilities is being canceled. The other three
public hearings included in the original notice in the June 1, 2001, issue
of the
Texas Register
(26 TexReg 3968) will
be conducted as originally scheduled.
If there are any questions concerning this cancellation, contact Tony Arreola,
DHS, MC W-425, P.O. Box 149030, Austin, Texas 78714-9030, (512) 438-4817.
TRD-200103023
Marina Henderson
Executive Deputy Commissioner
Texas Health and Human Services Commission
Filed: May 30, 2001
The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), in collaboration
with the Health and Human Services agencies and the East Texas Council of
Governments, will conduct one of a series of statewide public hearings to
receive public comment on the development of the Health and Human Services
Coordinated Strategic Plan and to fulfill statutory local planning requirements.
The public hearing is required under §531.022(d)(4), Government Code,
and §531.036, Government Code, and is intended to produce the following
outcomes:
(1) Increase local involvement and participation in the planning process.
(2) Provide feedback to local communities on statewide and regional progress
made on health and human services goals and strategic priorities since the
community forums in 1999.
(3) Solicit input from the communities on the effectiveness of current
health and human services efforts.
(4) Update regional demographic information and needs profiles.
(5) Assess local capacity to address the strategic priorities.
(6) Foster grass roots support for/build community coalitions to improve
health and human service delivery in the area.
A public hearing and community planning forum will be conducted in Tyler,
Texas, at the Marvin United Methodist Church, 300 West Erwin Street, Tyler,
Texas, on June 26 and 27, 2001. The planning forum is intended to provide
the opportunity for public input and participation. Agency clients and consumers
of health and human services, advocates, consumer advisors, local state agency
representatives, local governmental and non-governmental representatives,
service providers and other interested parties are encouraged to participate.
The Health and Human Services Agencies will conduct a public hearing to
receive public comment on June 26, 2001, beginning at 6:30 p.m., with registration
beginning at 6:00 p.m. Testimony and comments should focus on regional needs
and suggestions for the most effective ways to deliver and coordinate services
funded by the state. Written comments may be submitted to the Texas Health
and Human Services Commission until 5:00 p.m., Central Time, on July 3, 2001.
Please address written comments to the attention of Colleen Edwards at HHSC,
4900 North Lamar Boulevard, 4th Floor, Austin, Texas 78751, fax (512) 424-6590
or email: colleen.edwards@hhsc.state.tx.us.
The planning forum will be held on June 27, 2001, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00
p.m., Central Time, with registration beginning at 9:30 a.m. The morning session
will provide break-out group activities for members of the community to discuss
specific strategic priorities that significantly impact the Tyler area, such
as children's medical and insurance needs, access to long-term care services
and "successful aging", health and human services transportation issues, access
to service information and referral, issues related to children and adolescents,
and any major issue arising out of the June 26, 2001, public hearing.
AGENDA
Public Hearing--June 26, 2001
I. Registration for public testimony (6:00 p.m.)
II. Welcome and demographic presentation (6:30 p.m.)
III. Public Comment (7:00 p.m. - 8:20 p.m.)
Community Planning Forum--June 27, 2001
Morning Session
I. Registration (9:30 a.m.)
II. Welcome and overview (10:00 a.m.)
III. Breakout Groups (10:30)
Lunch--not provided (11:45 - 1:00)
Afternoon Session
I. Reports from Breakout Groups (1:00 p.m.)
II. Closing (1:45 p.m.)
Persons with disabilities who wish to attend the hearing and require auxiliary
aids or services should contact Patti Hinds at (903) 533-5365 or email: patti.hinds@tdh.state.tx.us,
by June 20, 2001, so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
TRD-200103038
Marina S. Henderson
Executive Deputy Commissioner
Texas Health and Human Services Commission
Filed: May 30, 2001
The Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), in collaboration with
the Health and Human Services agencies and the North Central Texas Area Agency
on Aging, will conduct one of a series of statewide public hearings to receive
public comment on the development of the Health and Human Services Coordinated
Strategic Plan and to fulfill statutory local planning requirements. The public
hearing is required under §531.022(d)(4), Government Code, and §531.036,
Government Code, and is intended to produce the following outcomes: (1) Increase
local involvement and participation in the planning process. (2) Provide feedback
to local communities on statewide and regional progress made on health and
human services goals and strategic priorities since the community forums in
1999. (3) Solicit input from the communities on the effectiveness of current
health and human services efforts. (4) Update regional demographic information
and needs profiles. (5) Assess local capacity to address the strategic priorities.
(6) Foster grass roots support for/build community coalitions to improve health
and human service delivery in the area.
A community planning forum and public hearing will be conducted in Arlington,
Texas on June 26, 2001 at the First Methodist Church of Arlington, 313 North
Center, Arlington, Texas. Agency clients and consumers of health and human
services, advocates, consumer advisors, local state agency representatives,
local governmental and non-governmental representatives, service providers
and other interested parties are encouraged to participate.
The planning forum will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Central Time.
The morning session will provide state and regional progress reports, local
needs assessments and demographic information. Break-out group activities
will be conducted for members of the community to discuss specific strategic
priorities that significantly impact the Metroplex region, such as children's
medical and insurance needs, long-term care access, information and referral,
diabetes, business process improvements, supported employment, successful
aging, mental health services and involvement of faith-based community in
service delivery.
A public hearing to receive public comment will begin at 2:00 p.m. Testimony
and comments should focus on regional needs and suggestions for the most effective
ways to deliver and coordinate services funded by the state. Written comments
may be submitted to the Health and Human Services Commission until 5:00 p.m.,
Central Time, on July 5, 2001. Please address written comments to the attention
of Colleen Edwards at HHSC, 4900 North Lamar Blvd., 4th Floor, Austin, Texas
78751, Fax (512) 424-6590 or Email: colleen.edwards@hhsc.state.tx.us.
AGENDA
Morning Session (8:30 - 12:30)
I. Welcome and hearing overview (8:30)
II. Presentation by HHSC state representative (9:00)
III. Local presentations on local progress, needs assessments and demographics
(9:15)
IV. Breakout Groups (10:45)
Afternoon Session (2:00 - 3:35 p.m.)
I. Public Comment (2:00)
II. Final thoughts (3:30)
Persons with disabilities who wish to attend the hearing and require auxiliary
aids or services should contact Doni Van Ryswyk at 817-695-9193, by June 18,
2001 so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
TRD-200103039
Marina S. Henderson
Executive Deputy Commissioner
Health and Human Services Commission
Filed: May 30, 2001
Request for Proposals for Bond Counsel
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (the "Board") solicits responses
to this Request for Proposal ("RFP") from law firms interested in providing
bond counsel services to the Board for the period September 1, 2001 to August
31, 2003.
Proposals from HUB certified firms are encouraged. State agencies are required
to make a good faith effort to assist Historically Underutilized Businesses
(HUBs) in receiving contract awards issued by the State of Texas. The goal
of this program is to promote fair and competitive business opportunities
for all businesses contracting with the state. HUB certified firms are defined
as for-profit business entities that are certified by the Texas General Services
Commission.
Non-HUB firms are encouraged, in the event they are selected as bond counsel,
to consider entering into a partnership arrangement with a HUB firm. If the
selected firm chooses to enter into such an arrangement, both the selected
firm and the HUB firm would be parties to the contract as Co-Counsel. The
selected firm would function as the managing partner making all decisions
on division of work between the two firms and would be the contact to the
Board on all matters.
FORM OF RESPONSE
A. Scope of Services
Responses to this RFP should be based upon performance of the following
tasks:
(1) Regarding bond issues, the firm will:
(a) assist the Board in obtaining approval of the issue by the Bond Review
Board and represent the Board at hearings of the Bond Review Board;
(b) prepare all legal documents required by the Board, Comptroller, Treasurer,
Attorney General or outside parties;
(c) request and obtain approval of the Bond issue from the Attorney General,
Governor and other required parties; and
(d) review all financial models and render opinions on the legality and
relevant tax position of the proposed scenario.
(2) Regarding state and federal laws, the firm will:
(a) review issues and, in concert with the financial services firm and
Board staff, recommend alternative legislative action where appropriate;
(b) if requested by the Board or staff, draft desired legislation at the
federal or state level, and assist as necessary in informing state and federal
officeholders of salient issues; and
(c) in response to real or anticipated changes in state and federal law,
regulation or public policy, the firm will be expected to advise the Board
and staff of potential or real impact on existing or anticipated:
(i) bond issues,
(ii) investment policy, and
(iii) loan policy.
(3) The firm will advise the Board and staff on the legality of new loan
policy proposals and legal aspects of anticipated impacts on investment and
loan policy.
(4) The firm will advise the Board and staff on the legality of proposed
debt restructuring techniques.
(5) The firm will advise the Board on all other matters necessary or incidental
to the issuance of the bonds.
B. Qualifications
Responses to this request for proposals should include at least the following
information in the order requested:
(1) a description of the firm's qualifications for performing the legal
services requested, including the firm's prior experience in bond issuance
matters;
(2) the names, experience, and qualifications for performing the requested
legal services of the individual attorneys who would be assigned to perform
services under the contract;
(3) efforts made by the firm to encourage and develop the participation
of minorities and women in the provision of the firm's legal services and
proposed use of women and minorities in regard to the services required under
this contract, if any, and previous experience and involvement working with
HUB certified firms (if your firm is not HUB certified) or as a HUB certified
firm in a co-counsel relationship;
(4) disclosures of conflicts of interest, identifying each and every matter
in which the firm has, within the past calendar year, represented any entity
or individual with an interest adverse to the Board or to the State of Texas,
or any of its boards, agencies, commissions, universities or elected or appointed
officials;
(5) confirmation of willingness to comply with policies, directives and
guidelines of the Board and the Attorney General of the State of Texas; and
(6) contact information for the proposer, including address, telephone,
E-mail address, and fax number, and the name of the individual who will be
the Board's primary contact on the contract.
C. Compensation
For the scope of services defined in this RFP, the proposal must specify:
(1) the firm's proposed hourly billing rates for attorneys and other staff
who would be assigned to perform services under the contract; flat fees or
other fee arrangements; and billable expenses; and
(2) how fees may differ in the cases of a competitive versus a negotiated
sale.
SELECTION CRITERIA
(1) The Board will make its selection based on demonstrated knowledge and
experiences, quality of staff assigned to perform services under the contract,
compatibility with the goals and objectives of the Board and the state, and
reasonableness of proposed fees.
(2) The Board has the sole discretion and reserves the right to reject
any and all responses to this RFP and to cancel the RFP if it is deemed in
the best interest of the Board to do so. Issuance of this RFP in no way constitutes
a commitment by the Board to award a contract or to pay for any expenses incurred
either in the preparation of a response to this RFP or in the production of
a contract for legal services. The successful firm will be required to sign
the Texas Attorney General's Outside Counsel Agreement.
(3) The Board previously contracted with the law firm of McCall, Parkhurst &
Horton, LLP for these services and intends to award the contract to McCall,
Parkhurst & Horton, LLP unless a better offer is received.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
(1) The Board reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or to award
the contract to the next most qualified firm if the successful firm does not
execute a contract within thirty (30) days after the award of the proposal.
(2) The Board reserves the right to request clarification of information
submitted and to request additional information of one or more applicants.
(3) The Board and staff will perform an evaluation of the selected firm's
performance as necessary, and the Board shall have the right to terminate
its contract by specifying the date of termination in a written notice to
the firm at least thirty (30) working days before the termination date. In
this event, the firm shall be entitled to just and equitable compensation
for any satisfactory work completed.
(4) Any agreement or contract resulting from the acceptance of a proposal
shall be on forms either supplied by or approved by the Board and shall contain,
as a minimum, applicable provisions of the request for proposals. The Board
reserves the right to reject any agreement that does not conform to the request
for proposals and any Board requirements for agreements and contracts.
(5) The selected firm shall not assign any interest in the contract and
shall not transfer any interest in the same without prior written consent
of the Board.
(6) No reports, information or data given to or prepared by the firm under
the contract shall be made available by the firm to any individual or organization
without the prior written approval of the Board.
(7) Any and all data provided by the Board during the request for proposals
process or under a contract for bond counsel services is the property of the
Board and shall be returned to the Board upon request.
(8) Specific analytical software developed at the request and expense of
the Board is the property of the Board and, upon request, shall be returned
to the Board.
RELEASE OF INFORMATION AND OPEN RECORDS
Information submitted in response to this RFP shall not be released by
the Board during the proposal evaluation process. After the evaluation process
is completed as determined by the Board, all proposals and information contained
therein may be subject to public disclosure under Chapter 552 of the Texas
Government Code.
INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS
(1) All proposals must be in a sealed envelope and clearly marked: "Sealed
Proposal C Bond Counsel Services." All proposals must be received by 11:00
a.m. (Central Time) on July 9, 2001.
(2) Seven (7) copies of the proposal are required and may be mailed to:
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Attention: Kenneth Vickers, Assistant
Commissioner for Administrative Services, P.O. Box 12788, Austin, Texas 78711;
or hand delivered to Room 3.110, 1200 East Anderson Lane, Austin, Texas, by
11:00 a.m. (Central Time) on July 9, 2001. Each proposal should indicate the
name, E-mail address, and phone number of the principal contact for the firm.
(3) Questions or comments concerning this request for proposals should
be submitted in writing to: Kenneth Vickers, Assistant Commissioner for Administrative
Services, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, P.O. Box 12788, Austin,
Texas 78711, (512) 427-6160.
TRD-200103002
Gary Prevost
Director of Business Services
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Filed: May 29, 2001
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (the "Board") solicits responses
to this Request for Proposal ("RFP") from firms interested in providing financial
services to the Board on all items of financing necessary for the Board's
issuance of student loans under its $400 million bonding authority approved
by the Legislature and the voters in November of 1999.
Proposals from HUB certified firms are encouraged. State agencies are required
to make a good faith effort to assist Historically Underutilized Businesses
(HUBs) in receiving contract awards issued by the State of Texas. The goal
of this program is to promote fair and competitive business opportunities
for all businesses contracting with the state. HUB certified firms are defined
as for-profit business entities that are certified by the Texas General Services
Commission.
Non-HUB firms are encouraged, in the event they are selected, to consider
entering into a partnership arrangement with a HUB firm. The selected firm
would function as the managing partner making all decisions on division of
work between the two firms and would be the contact to the Board on all matters.
FORM OF RESPONSE
A. Scope of Services
The selected firm will provide the following services:
(1) Regarding bond issues, the firm will:
(a) Determine the timing and structure of any negotiated and/or competitive
issues in concert with the bond counsel and Board staff, including:
(i) General Obligation Bonds,
(ii) Defeasance,
(iii) Refunding, and
(iv) Others.
(b) Assist the Board in obtaining approval of the issue by the Bond Review
Board and represent the Board at hearings of the Bond Review Board.
(c) Develop a draft of the official statement in concert with the bond
counsel and Board staff.
(d) Determine the structure of the escrow and paying/receiving agent bid
packages.
(e) Make recommendations on the underwriting team and coordinate the efforts
of the underwriting team.
(f) Prepare, in concert with bond counsel and Board staff, all necessary
financial models and develop written criteria for evaluation of same.
(g) Assist with the bond closing and final document preparation.
(h) Conduct (with Board staff) a post-sale analysis documenting results
of the bond issue.
(i) Advise the Board and staff of any new techniques in debt restructuring
which may be beneficial to the loan programs, with specific recommendations
for implementation.
(2) Regarding state and federal laws, the firm will:
(a) Review issues and, in concert with the bond counsel and Board staff,
recommend legislative action where appropriate.
(b) In response to real or anticipated changes in state and federal law,
regulation or public policy, advise the Board and staff of potential or real
impact on existing or anticipated:
(i) Bond issues,
(ii) Investment policy, and
(iii) Loan policy.
B. Qualifications
(1) Describe how the firm is organized and how its resources will be put
to work for the Board.
(2) List the firm's most recent three (3) years of experience in financial
services relationships. State the term of the relationship and include the
names, addresses and phone numbers of contact persons. Briefly describe the
work performed, including the dollar amount and type of the issues or other
financings and associated ratings achieved.
(3) Outline the firm's entire experience during the past three (3) years
with the major rating agencies. Discuss this experience and its potential
applicability to the Board.
(4) Attach a recent representative example of an official statement for
a General Obligation Bond issue for which the firm provided financial services.
(5) Describe the three (3) most common uses of the firm's computer and
computer-based analysis as it relates to financial services relationships
specified in subsection 2 above.
(6) Describe the efforts made by the firm to encourage and develop the
participation of minorities and women in the provision of the firm's financial
services and proposed use of women and minorities in regard to the services
required under this contract, if any, and previous experience and involvement
working with HUB certified firms (if your firm is not HUB certified) or as
a HUB certified firm in a financial relationship.
C. Personnel
(1) Indicate which individuals in the firm would be assigned in a direct,
on-going working relationship with the Board and staff and include their resumes.
Indicate the role these individuals assumed in the three-year history of financial
services relationships as described in subsection 2 of the Qualifications
section.
(2) Indicate the availability of the individuals described in subsection
1 of this section.
(3) Identify other individuals who would be available as analytical or
tax counsel resources to the Board.
D. Compensation
For the scope of services defined in this RFP, the proposal must specify:
(1) the firm's proposed hourly billing rates for staff who would be assigned
to perform services under the contract; flat fees or other fee arrangements;
and billable expenses; and
(2) how fees may differ in the cases of a competitive versus a negotiated
sale.
SELECTION CRITERIA
(1) The Board will make its selection based on demonstrated knowledge and
experiences, quality of staff assigned to perform services under the contract,
compatibility with the goals and objectives of the Board and the state, and
reasonableness of proposed fees.
(2) The Board has the sole discretion and reserves the right to reject
any and all responses to this RFP and to cancel the RFP if it is deemed in
the best interest of the Board to do so. Issuance of this RFP in no way constitutes
a commitment by the Board to award a contract or to pay for any expenses incurred
either in the preparation of a response to this RFP or in the production of
a contract for financial services.
(3) The Board previously contracted with First Southwest Company for these
services and intends to award the contract to First Southwest Company unless
a better offer is received.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
(1) The Board reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or to award
the contract to the next most qualified firm if the successful firm does not
execute a contract within thirty (30) days after the award of the proposal.
(2) The Board reserves the right to request clarification of information
submitted and to request additional information of one or more applicants.
(3) The Board and staff will perform an evaluation of the selected firm's
performance as necessary, and the Board shall have the right to terminate
its contract by specifying the date of termination in a written notice to
the firm at least thirty (30) working days before the termination date. In
this event, the firm shall be entitled to just and equitable compensation
for any satisfactory work completed.
(4) Any agreement or contract resulting from the acceptance of a proposal
shall be on forms either supplied by or approved by the Board and shall contain,
as a minimum, applicable provisions of the request for proposals. The Board
reserves the right to reject any agreement that does not conform to the request
for proposals and any Board requirements for agreements and contracts.
(5) The selected firm shall not assign any interest in the contract and
shall not transfer any interest in the same without prior written consent
of the Board.
(6) No reports, information or data given to or prepared by the firm under
the contract shall be made available by the firm to any individual or organization
without the prior written approval of the Board.
(7) Any and all data provided by the Board during the request for proposals
process or under a contract for financial services is the property of the
Board and shall be returned to the Board upon request.
(8) Specific analytical software developed at the request and expense of
the Board is the property of the Board and, upon request, shall be returned
to the Board.
(9) The selected firm will not be permitted to underwrite debt of the Board.
RELEASE OF INFORMATION AND OPEN RECORDS
Information submitted in response to this RFP shall not be released by
the Board during the proposal evaluation process. After the evaluation process
is completed as determined by the Board, all proposals and information contained
therein may be subject to public disclosure under Chapter 552 of the Texas
Government Code.
INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS
(1) All proposals must be in a sealed envelope and clearly marked: "Sealed
Proposal C Financial Services." All proposals must be received by 11:00 a.m.
(Central Time) on July 9, 2001.
(2) Seven (7) copies of the proposal are required and may be mailed to:
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Attention: Kenneth Vickers, Assistant
Commissioner for Administrative Services, P.O. Box 12788, Austin, Texas 78711;
or hand delivered to Room 3.110, 1200 East Anderson Lane, Austin, Texas, by
11:00 a.m. (Central Time) on July 9, 2001. Each proposal should indicate the
name, E-mail address, and phone number of the principal contact for the firm.
(3) Questions or comments concerning this request for proposals should
be submitted in writing to: Kenneth Vickers, Assistant Commissioner for Administrative
Services, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, P.O. Box 12788, Austin,
Texas 78711, (512) 427-6160.
TRD-200103003
Gary Prevost
Director of Business Services
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Filed: May 29, 2001
Notice of 2001 Texas Community Development Program Grant Awards
The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs announces that the
units of general local government listed as follows have been selected as
contract recipients for 2001 program year Community Development Funds under
the Texas Community Development Program established pursuant to Texas Government
Code, Chapter 2306, §2306.096.
A contract is not effective until executed by the unit of general local
government and the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Housing and
Community Affairs.
Agua Dulce - $300,000, Alto - $245,000, Alvarado - $250,000, Amherst -
$250,000, Anderson County - $250,000, Anson - $250,000, Atlanta - $250,000,
Austwell - $300,000, Balmorhea - $350,000, Barry - $250,000, Bastrop - $250,000,
Bay City - $350,000, Bertram - $250,000, Blackwell - $250,000, Blum - $250,000,
Bowie - $125,000, Brady - $174,900, Brewster County - $300,000, Bryson - $125,000,
Calvert - $250,000, Cameron County - $318,447, Carmine - $250,000, Carthage
- $250,000, Chandler - $250,000, Chico - $250,000, China - $250,000, Coahoma
- $350,000, Coleman - $250,000, Colorado County - $350,000, Combes - $318,447,
Cotulla - $75,000, Crockett County - $174,999, Crystal City - $334,793, Cumby
- $250,000, Cuney - $250,000, Daingerfield - $250,000, DeKalb - $250,000,
Detroit - $250,000, Devers - $350,000, Eagle Pass - $762,826, East Mountain
- $250,000, Eden - $174,900, Edgewood - $250,000, Edna - $250,000, El Paso
County $300,000, Electra - $125,000, Elkhart - $250,000, Evant - $250,000,
Falls City - $250,000, Falls County - $250,000, Fannin County - $250,000,
Farwell - $250,000, Fayette County - $250,000, Flatonia - $250,000, Floresville
- $250,000, Foard County - $125,000, George West - $300,000, Glasscock County
- $350,000, Goliad County - $250,000, Grandfalls - $350,000, Granger - $250,000,
Granite Shoals - $250,000, Greenville - $250,000, Gregory - $300,000, Groveton
- $250,000, Gunter - $250,000, Hackberry - $250,000, Hardin - $350,000, Hart
- $250,000, Higgins - $250,000, Holland - $250,000, Holliday - $135,000, Hudspeth
County - $300,000, Huntington - $250,000, Huntsville - $350,000, Iowa Park
- $107,050, Jasper - $250,000, Karnes City - $250,000, Karnes County - $250,000,
Kaufman County - $250,000, Kemp - $250,000, Kendall County - $250,000, Kenedy
- $228,695, Kirbyville - $250,000, Kountze - $250,000, Kyle - $250,000, La
Feria - $318,447, Linden - $250,000, Liverpool - $350,000, Lometa - $350,000,
Los Fresnos - $314,479, Lott - $250,000, Lyford - $315,240, Lytle - $250,000,
Madisonville - $250,000, Malakoff - $250,000, Marfa - $300,000, Marlin - $250,000,
Marquez - $250,000, Matagorda County - $350,000, Maverick County - $762,826,
Maypearl - $250,000, McMullen County - $300,000, Meadow - $250,000, Menard
- $174,999, Milam County - $250,000, Miles - $250,000, Milford - $250,000,
Morton - $250,000, Mount Calm - $247,169, Mount Pleasant - $250,000, Munday
- $250,000, Mustang - $150,450, Natalia - $250,000, Navarro County - $250,000,
Newton - $250,000, Nome - $250,000, O'Brien - $250,000, Oakwood - $250,000,
Olton - $250,000, Orange County - $250,000, Overton - $250,000, Palacios -
$350,000, Palmer - $250,000, Pearsall - $250,000, Perryton - $233,658, Petrolia
- $125,000, Pine Forest - $249,975, Pineland - $250,000, Polk County - $250,000,
Port Lavaca - $250,000, Queen City - $243,500, Quinlan - $250,000, Raymondville
- $318,447, Refugio - $300,000, Richland - $250,000, Rio Vista - $250,000,
Rockport - $300,000, Roma - $800,000, Ropesville - $250,000, Sabinal - $262,592,
Saint Jo - $125,000, San Saba County - $250,000, Sanford - $250,000, Seadrift
- $250,000, Seymour - $125,000, Shepherd - $250,000, Smiley - $250,000, Smith
County - $250,000, Smyer - $250,000, Socorro - $300,000, Somerville - $250,000,
Sonora - $174,999, Sour Lake - $250,000, Stamford - $250,000, Sweetwater -
$225,210, Teague - $250,000, Tenaha - $250,000, Texline - $250,000, Three
Rivers - $300,000, Timpson - $250,000, Tioga - $250,000, Toyah - $350,000,
Travis County - $189,820, Trinidad - $250,000, Troup - $250,000, Turkey -
$250,000, Val Verde County - $404,765, Van Horn - $300,000, Venus - $250,000,
Vinton - $300,000, Webb County - $800,000, Wellman - $250,000, West Tawakoni
- $250,000, Willacy County - $318,447, Windom - $250,000, Wink - $350,000,
Woodsboro - $300,000, Zapata County - $800,000, Zavalla - $250,000.
TRD-200103010
Daisy A. Stiner
Executive Director
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs
Filed: May 29, 2001
The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs announces that the
units of general local government listed as follows have been selected as
contract recipients for 2001 program year Planning and Capacity Building Funds
under the Texas Community Development Program established pursuant to Texas
Government Code, Chapter 2306, §2306.096.
A contract is not effective until executed by the unit of general local
government and the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Housing and
Community Affairs.
Anahuac - $34,900, Cleveland - $50,000, Coleman - $50,000, Crosbyton -
$32,750, Dublin - $40,347, Eagle Pass - $36,500, Floydada - $50,000, Hamilton
- $38,800, Jefferson - $47,200, Junction - $50,000, Liberty - $48,800, Los
Fresnos - $33,800, Marion - $26,800, Mart - $44,800, Mathis - $50,000, Pecos
City - $50,000, Seadrift - $33,800, Socorro - $40,000, Van Alstyne - $38,200.
TRD-200103011
Daisy A. Stiner
Executive Director
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs
Filed: May 29, 2001
The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs announces that the
units of general local government listed as follows have been selected as
contract recipients for 2001 program year Housing Rehabilitation Funds under
the Texas Community Development Program established pursuant to Texas Government
Code, Chapter 2306, §2306.096.
A contract is not effective until executed by the unit of general local
government and the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Housing and
Community Affairs.
Brookshire - $250,000, Mason County - $250,000, Milano - $250,000, Mingus
- $250,000, Paris - $250,000, Robstown - $250,000.
TRD-200103012
Daisy A. Stiner
Executive Director
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs
Filed: May 29, 2001
The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs announces that the
units of general local government listed as follows have been selected as
contract recipients for 2001 program year Colonia Construction Funds under
the Texas Community Development Program established pursuant to Texas Government
Code, Chapter 2306, §2306.096.
A contract is not effective until executed by the unit of general local
government and the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Housing and
Community Affairs.
Bandera County - $500,000, Brooks County - $500,000, Cameron County - $500,000,
Dimmit County - $475,000, Hidalgo County - $500,000, Karnes County - $500,000,
Kenedy County - $500,000, Kerr County - $500,000, Kleberg County - $500,000,
Maverick County - $500,000, Webb County - $500,000, Willacy County - $469,543,
Zapata County - $500,000.
TRD-200103013
Daisy A. Stiner
Executive Director
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs
Filed: May 29, 2001
The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs announces that the
units of general local government listed as follows have been selected as
contract recipients for 2001 program year Colonia Planning Funds under the
Texas Community Development Program established pursuant to Texas Government
Code, Chapter 2306, §2306.096.
A contract is not effective until executed by the unit of general local
government and the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Housing and
Community Affairs.
Hidalgo County - $200,000, Kendall County - $49,500, Kenedy County - $25,000,
Live Oak County - $28,000.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
Jeff Vistein at (512) 475-3855 or by e-mail at the following address jvistein@tdhca.state.tx.us..
TRD-200103014
Daisy A. Stiner
Executive Director
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs
Filed: May 29, 2001
Cancellation of Public Hearing
The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and the Texas Department
of Human Services (DHS) are canceling the joint public hearing on proposed
payment rates for the following programs operated by DHS: nursing facilities,
swing beds, and hospice-nursing facilities. The hearing was scheduled for
8:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 14, 2001, in conference room 5501 of the Brown-Heatly
Building. Notice of the hearing appeared in the June 1, 2001, issue of the
Only the public hearing on proposed payment rates for nursing facilities,
swing beds, and hospice-nursing facilities is being canceled. The other three
public hearings included in the original notice in the June 1, 2001 issue
of the
Texas Register
(26 TexReg 3970) will
be conducted as originally scheduled.
If there are any questions concerning this cancellation, contact Tony Arreola,
DHS, MC W-425, P.O. Box 149030, Austin, Texas 78714-9030, (512) 438-4817.
TRD-200103022
Paul Leche
General Counsel
Texas Department of Human Services
Filed: May 30, 2001
Instant Game Number 230 "Money Machine"
1.0. Name and Style of Game.
A. The name of Instant Game Number 230 is "MONEY MACHINE". The play style
is a match three of nine with key number match and bonus".
1.1. Price of Instant Ticket.
A. Tickets for Instant Game Number 230 shall be $2.00 per ticket.
1.2. Definitions in Instant Game Number 230.
A. Display Printing--That area of the instant game ticket outside of the
area where the Overprint and Play Symbols appear.
B. Latex Overprint--The removable scratch-off covering over the Play Symbols
on the front of the ticket.
C. Play Symbol--One of the symbols which appears under the Latex Overprint
on the front of the ticket. Each Play Symbol is printed in Symbol font in
black ink in positive. The possible play symbols are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, $1.00, $2.00,
$3.00, $5.00, $10.00, $20.00, $40.00, $100, $1,000, $25,000, GOLD SYMBOL,
COIN SYMBOL, MONEY BAG SYMBOL, STACK OF BILLS SYMBOL, and MONEY SYMBOL.
D. Play Symbol Caption--the small printed material appearing below each
Play Symbol which explains the Play Symbol. One and only one of these Play
Symbol Captions appears under each Play Symbol and each is printed in caption
font in black ink in positive. The Play Symbol Caption which corresponds with
and verifies each Play Symbol is as follows:
Table 1
[graphic]
[graphic]
E. Retailer Validation Code--Three small letters found under the removable
scratch-off covering in the play area, which retailers use to verify and validate
instant winners. The possible validation codes are:
Table 2
[graphic]
Low-tier winning tickets use the required codes listed in Table 2. Non-winning
tickets and high-tier tickets use a non-required combination of the required
codes listed in Table 2 with the exception of ∅, which will only appear
on low-tier winners and will always have a slash through it.
F. Serial Number--A unique 13 digit number appearing under the latex scratch-off
covering on the front of the ticket. There is a four digit security number
which will be boxed and placed randomly within the Serial Number. The remaining
nine digits of the Serial Number are the Validation Number. The Serial Number
is positioned beneath the bottom row of play data in the scratched-off play
area. The format will be: 0000000000000.
G. Low-Tier Prize--A prize of $2.00, $3.00, $5.00, $10.00, $15.00, or $20.00.
H. Mid-Tier Prize--A prize of $40.00, or $100.
I. High-Tier Prize--A prize of $1,000 or $25,000.
J. Bar Code--A 22 character interleaved two of five bar code which will
include a three digit game ID, the seven digit pack number, the three digit
ticket number and the nine digit Validation Number. The bar code appears on
the back of the ticket.
K. Pack-Ticket Number--A 13 digit number consisting of the three digit
game number (230), a seven digit pack number, and a three digit ticket number.
Ticket numbers start with 000 and end with 249 within each pack. The format
will be: 230-0000001-000.
L. Pack--A pack of "MONEY MACHINE" Instant Game tickets contain 125 tickets,
which are packed in plastic shrink-wrapping and fanfolded in pages of one.
There will be two fanfolded configurations for this game. Configuration A
will show the front of ticket 000 and the back of ticket 124. Configuration
B will show the back of ticket 000 and the front of ticket 124.
M. Non-Winning Ticket--A ticket which is not programmed to be a winning
ticket or a ticket that does not meet all of the requirements of these Game
Procedures, the State Lottery Act (Texas Government Code, Chapter 466), and
applicable rules adopted by the Texas Lottery pursuant to the State Lottery
Act and referenced in 16 TAC, Chapter 401.
N. Ticket or Instant Game Ticket, or Instant Ticket--A Texas Lottery "MONEY
MACHINE" Instant Game Number 230 ticket.
2.0. Determination of Prize Winners. The determination of prize winners
is subject to the general ticket validation requirements set forth in Texas
Lottery Rule §401.302, Instant Game Rules, these Game Procedures, and
the requirements set out on the back of each instant ticket. In the Match
3 Game, a prize winner in the "MONEY MACHINE" Instant Game is determined once
the latex on the ticket is scratched off to expose nine play symbols. If the
player matches three like amounts, the player wins that prize. In the Bonus
Keypad Game, a prize winner in the "MONEY MACHINE" Instant Game is determined
once the latex on the ticket is scratched off to expose one play symbol. If
the player reveals a Stack of Bills, the player will win $40 automatically.
In the Key Number Match game, a prize winner in the "MONEY MACHINE" Instant
Game is determined once the latex on the ticket is scratched off to expose
22 play symbols. If the player's Your Numbers match either Winning Numbers
the player will win the prize shown for that number. No portion of the display
printing nor any extraneous matter whatsoever shall be usable or playable
as a part of the Instant Game.
2.1. Instant Ticket Validation Requirements.
A. To be a valid Instant Game ticket, all of the following requirements
must be met:
1. Exactly 32 Play Symbols must appear under the latex overprint on the
front portion of the ticket;
2. Each of the Play Symbols must have a Play Symbol Caption underneath,
and each Play Symbol must agree with its Play Symbol Caption;
3. Each of the Play Symbols must be present in its entirety and be fully
legible;
4. Each of the Play Symbols must be printed in black ink;
5. The ticket shall be intact;
6. The Serial Number, Retailer Validation Code and Pack-Ticket Number must
be present in their entirety and be fully legible;
7. The Serial Number must correspond, using the Texas Lottery's codes,
to the Play Symbols on the ticket;
8. The ticket must not have a hole punched through it, be mutilated, altered,
unreadable, reconstituted or tampered with in any manner;
9. The ticket must not be counterfeit in whole or in part;
10. The ticket must have been issued by the Texas Lottery in an authorized
manner;
11. The ticket must not have been stolen, nor appear on any list of omitted
tickets or non-activated tickets on file at the Texas Lottery;
12. The Play Symbols, Serial Number, Retailer Validation Code and Pack-Ticket
Number must be right side up and not reversed in any manner;
13. The ticket must be complete and not miscut, and have exactly 32 Play
Symbols under the latex overprint on the front portion of the ticket, exactly
one Serial Number, exactly one Retailer Validation Code, and exactly one Pack-Ticket
Number on the ticket;
14. The Serial Number of an apparent winning ticket shall correspond with
the Texas Lottery's Serial Numbers for winning tickets, and a ticket with
that Serial Number shall not have been paid previously;
15. The ticket must not be blank or partially blank, misregistered, defective
or printed or produced in error;
16. Each of the 32 Play Symbols must be exactly one of those described
in Section 1.2.C of these Game Procedures.
17. Each of the 32 Play Symbols on the ticket must be printed in the Symbol
font and must correspond precisely to the artwork on file at the Texas Lottery;
the ticket Serial Numbers must be printed in the Serial font and must correspond
precisely to the artwork on file at the Texas Lottery; and the Pack-Ticket
Number must be printed in the Pack-Ticket Number font and must correspond
precisely to the artwork on file at the Texas Lottery;
18. The display printing on the ticket must be regular in every respect
and correspond precisely to the artwork on file at the Texas Lottery; and
19. The ticket must have been received by the Texas Lottery by applicable
deadlines.
B. The ticket must pass all additional validation tests provided for in
these Game Procedures, the Texas Lottery's Rules governing the award of prizes
of the amount to be validated, and any confidential validation and security
tests of the Texas Lottery.
C. Any Instant Game ticket not passing all of the validation requirements
is void and ineligible for any prize and shall not be paid. However, the Executive
Director may, solely at the Executive Director's discretion, refund the retail
sales price of the ticket. In the event a defective ticket is purchased, the
only responsibility or liability of the Texas Lottery shall be to replace
the defective ticket with another unplayed ticket in that Instant Game (or
a ticket of equivalent sales price from any other current Instant Lottery
game) or refund the retail sales price of the ticket, solely at the Executive
Director's discretion.
2.2. Programmed Game Parameters.
A. Consecutive non-winning tickets will not have identical play data, spot
for spot.
B. In the Match 3 Game, no four or more like play symbols will appear in
a game.
C. In the Match 3 Game, no more than two pairs of like play symbols will
appear in a game.
D. In the Bonus Game, the Stack of Bills symbol will only appear as dictated
by the prize structure.
E. In the Key Number Match Game, duplicate non-winning Your Number symbols
will not appear on a ticket.
F. In the Key Number Match Game, duplicate non-winning prize symbols will
not appear in a game.
G. In the Key Number Match Game, duplicate Winning Number symbols will
not appear on a ticket.
H. No correlation between a prize symbol and a play symbol on a ticket.
2.3. Procedure for Claiming Prizes.
A. To claim a "MONEY MACHINE" Instant Game prize of $2.00, $3.00, $5.00,
$10.00, $15.00, $20.00, $40.00, or $100, a claimant shall sign the back of
the ticket in the space designated on the ticket and present the winning ticket
to any Texas Lottery Retailer. The Texas Lottery Retailer shall verify the
claim and, if valid, and upon presentation of proper identification, make
payment of the amount due the claimant and physically void the ticket; provided
that the Texas Lottery Retailer may, but is not, in some cases, required to
pay a $40.00 or $100 ticket. In the event the Texas Lottery Retailer cannot
verify the claim, the Texas Lottery Retailer shall provide the claimant with
a claim form and instruct the claimant on how to file a claim with the Texas
Lottery. If the claim is validated by the Texas Lottery, a check shall be
forwarded to the claimant in the amount due. In the event the claim is not
validated, the claim shall be denied and the claimant shall be notified promptly.
A claimant may also claim any of the above prizes under the procedure described
in Section 2.3.B and 2.3.C of these Game Procedures.
B. To claim a "MONEY MACHINE" Instant Game prize of $1,000 or $25,000,
the claimant must sign the winning ticket and present it at one of the Texas
Lottery's Claim Centers. If the claim is validated by the Texas Lottery, payment
will be made to the bearer of the validated winning ticket for that prize
upon presentation of proper identification. When paying a prize of $600 or
more, the Texas Lottery shall file the appropriate income reporting form with
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and shall withhold federal income tax at
a rate set by the IRS if required. In the event that the claim is not validated
by the Texas Lottery, the claim shall be denied and the claimant shall be
notified promptly.
C. As an alternative method of claiming a "MONEY MACHINE" Instant Game
prize, the claimant must sign the winning ticket, thoroughly complete a claim
form, and mail both to: Texas Lottery Commission, Post Office Box 16600, Austin,
Texas 78761-6600. The risk of sending a ticket remains with the claimant.
In the event that the claim is not validated by the Texas Lottery, the claim
shall be denied and the claimant shall be notified promptly.
D. Prior to payment by the Texas Lottery of any prize, the Texas Lottery
shall deduct a sufficient amount from the winnings of a person who has been
finally determined to be:
1. delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the Comptroller,
the Texas Workforce Commission, or Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission;
2. delinquent in making child support payments administered or collected
by the Attorney General; or
3. delinquent in reimbursing the Texas Department of Human Services for
a benefit granted in error under the food stamp program or the program of
financial assistance under Chapter 31, Human Resource Code;
4. in default on a loan made under Chapter 52, Education Code; or
5. in default on a loan guaranteed under Chapter 57, Education Code
F. If a person is indebted or owes delinquent taxes to the State, other
than those specified in the preceding paragraph, the winnings of a person
shall be withheld until the debt or taxes are paid.
2.4. Allowance for Delay of Payment. The Texas Lottery may delay payment
of the prize pending a final determination by the Executive Director, under
any of the following circumstances:
A. if a dispute occurs, or it appears likely that a dispute may occur,
regarding the prize;
B. if there is any question regarding the identity of the claimant;
C. if there is any question regarding the validity of the ticket presented
for payment; or
D. if the claim is subject to any deduction from the payment otherwise
due, as described in Section 2.3.D of these Game Procedures. No liability
for interest for any delay shall accrue to the benefit of the claimant pending
payment of the claim.
2.5. Payment of Prizes to Persons Under 18. If a person under the age of
18 years is entitled to a cash prize of less than $600 from the "MONEY MACHINE"
Instant Game, the Texas Lottery shall deliver to an adult member of the minor's
family or the minor's guardian a check or warrant in the amount of the prize
payable to the order of the minor.
2.6. If a person under the age of 18 years is entitled to a cash prize
of more than $600 from the "MONEY MACHINE" Instant Game, the Texas Lottery
shall deposit the amount of the prize in a custodial bank account, with an
adult member of the minor's family or the minor's guardian serving as custodian
for the minor.
2.7. Instant Ticket Claim Period. All Instant Game prizes must be claimed
within 180 days following the end of the Instant Game. Any prize not claimed
within that period, and in the manner specified in these Game Procedures and
on the back of each ticket, shall be forfeited.
3.0. Instant Ticket Ownership.
A. Until such time as a signature is placed upon the back portion of an
Instant Game ticket in the space designated therefor, a ticket shall be owned
by the physical possessor of said ticket. When a signature is placed on the
back of the ticket in the space designated therefor, the player whose signature
appears in that area shall be the owner of the ticket and shall be entitled
to any prize attributable thereto. Notwithstanding any name or names submitted
on a claim form, the Executive Director shall make payment to the player whose
signature appears on the back of the ticket in the space designated therefor.
If more than one name appears on the back of the ticket, the Executive Director
will require that one of those players whose name appears thereon be designated
by such players to receive payment.
B. The Texas Lottery shall not be responsible for lost or stolen Instant
Game tickets and shall not be required to pay on a lost or stolen Instant
Game ticket.
4.0. Number and Value of Instant Prizes. There will be approximately 20,554,250
tickets in the Instant Game Number 230. The approximate number and value of
prizes in the game are as follows:
Table 3
[graphic]
A. The actual number of tickets in the game may be increased or decreased
at the sole discretion of the Texas Lottery.
5.0. End of the Instant Game. The Executive Director may, at any time,
announce a closing date (end date) for the Instant Game Number 230 without
advance notice, at which point no further tickets in that game may be sold.
6.0. Governing Law. In purchasing an Instant Game ticket, the player agrees
to comply with, and abide by, these Game Procedures for Instant Game Number
230, the State Lottery Act (Texas Government Code, Chapter 466), applicable
rules adopted by the Texas Lottery pursuant to the State Lottery Act and referenced
in 16 TAC, Chapter 401, and all final decisions of the Executive Director.
TRD-200102882
Kimberly L. Kiplin
General Counsel
Texas Lottery Commission
Filed: May 23, 2001
1.0. Name and Style of Game.
A. The name of Instant Game Number 238 is "HIGH ROLLER". The play style
in Game 1 is a "key number match with tripler". The play style in Game 2 is
"add up". The play style in Game 3 is "beat score". The play style in the
Bonus Box is "key symbol match".
1.1. Price of Instant Ticket.
A. Tickets for Instant Game Number 238 shall be $5.00 per ticket.
1.2. Definitions in Instant Game Number 238.
A. Display Printing--That area of the instant game ticket outside of the
area where the Overprint and Play Symbols appear.
B. Latex Overprint--The removable scratch-off covering over the Play Symbols
on the front of the ticket.
C. Play Symbol--One of the symbols which appears under the Latex Overprint
on the front of the ticket. Each Play Symbol is printed in Symbol font in
black ink in positive. The possible play symbols are: $1.00, $2.00, $4.00,
$5.00, $10.00, $50.00, $100, $500, $1,000, $50,000, STAR SYMBOL, GOLD SYMBOL,
STACK OF BILLS SYMBOLS, MONEY SYMBOL, WHEEL SYMBOL, CHIP SYMBOL, ACE CARD
SYMBOL, 1 SYMBOL, 2 SYMBOL, 3 SYMBOL, 4 SYMBOL, 5 SYMBOL, 6 SYMBOL, KING CARD
SYMBOL, QUEEN CARD SYMBOL, JACK CARD SYMBOL, TEN CARD SYMBOL, NINE CARD SYMBOL,
EIGHT CARD SYMBOL, SEVEN CARD SYMBOL, SIX CARD SYMBOL, FIVE CARD SYMBOL, FOUR
CARD SYMBOL, THREE CARD SYMBOL, and TWO CARD SYMBOL.
D. Play Symbol Caption--the small printed material appearing below each
Play Symbol which explains the Play Symbol. One and only one of these Play
Symbol Captions appears under each Play Symbol and each is printed in caption
font in black ink in positive. The Play Symbol Caption which corresponds with
and verifies each Play Symbol is as follows:
Table 1
[graphic]
[graphic]
E. Retailer Validation Code--Three small letters found under the removable
scratch-off covering in the play area, which retailers use to verify and validate
instant winners. The possible validation codes are:
Table 2
[graphic]
Low-tier winning tickets use the required codes listed in Table 2. Non-winning
tickets and high-tier tickets use a non-required combination of the required
codes listed in Table 2 with the exception of ∅, which will only appear
on low-tier winners and will always have a slash through it.
F. Serial Number--A unique 13 digit number appearing under the latex scratch-off
covering on the front of the ticket. There is a four digit security number
which will be boxed and placed randomly within the Serial Number. The remaining
nine digits of the Serial Number are the Validation Number. The Serial Number
is positioned beneath the bottom row of play data in the scratched-off play
area. The format will be : 0000000000000.
G. Low-Tier Prize--A prize of $5.00, $8.00, $10.00, or $20.00.
H. Mid-Tier Prize--A prize of $50.00, $100, or $500.
I. High-Tier Prize--A prize of $1,000, $5,000, and $50,000.
J. Bar Code--A 22 character interleaved two of five bar code which will
include a three digit game ID, the seven digit pack number, the three digit
ticket number and the nine digit Validation Number. The bar code appears on
the back of the ticket.
K. Pack-Ticket Number--A 13 digit number consisting of the three digit
game number (238), a seven digit pack number, and a three digit ticket number.
Ticket numbers start with 000 and end with 249 within each pack. The format
will be : 238-0000001-000.
L. Pack--A pack of "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game tickets contain 75 tickets,
which are packed in plastic shrink-wrapping and fanfolded in pages of one.
The packs will alternate. One pack will show the front of ticket 000 and the
back of 074, while the other fold will show the back of ticket 000 and front
of 074.
M. Non-Winning Ticket--A ticket which is not programmed to be a winning
ticket or a ticket that does not meet all of the requirements of these Game
Procedures, the State Lottery Act (Texas Government Code, Chapter 466), and
applicable rules adopted by the Texas Lottery pursuant to the State Lottery
Act and referenced in 16 TAC, Chapter 401.
N. Ticket or Instant Game Ticket, or Instant Ticket--A Texas Lottery "HIGH
ROLLER" Instant Game Number 238 ticket.
2.0. Determination of Prize Winners. The determination of prize winners
is subject to the general ticket validation requirements set forth in Texas
Lottery Rule §401.302, Instant Game Rules, these Game Procedures, and
the requirements set out on the back of each instant ticket. A prize winner
in Game 1 of the "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game is determined once the latex on
the ticket is scratched off to expose seven play symbols. If the player matches
their Lucky Dollar Amounts to the Prize Amount in the center the player will
win that prize. If the player gets a star symbol the player will win triple
the Prize Amount in the center. A prize winner in Game 2 of the "HIGH ROLLER"
Instant Game is determined once the latex on the ticket is scratched off to
expose 12 play symbols. If the total of the player's YOUR ROLL equals seven
or 11 for each roll, the player will win the prize shown for that roll. A
prize winner in Game 3 of the "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game is determined once
the latex on the ticket is scratched off to expose 12 play symbols. If the
player's YOUR CARD beats the DEALER'S CARD within a hand the player will win
the prize shown. A prize winner in the bonus game of the "HIGH ROLLER" Instant
Game is determined once the latex on the ticket is scratched off to expose
one play symbol. The player wins $10 instantly if the player gets a chip symbol.
No portion of the display printing nor any extraneous matter whatsoever shall
be usable or playable as a part of the Instant Game.
2.1. Instant Ticket Validation Requirements.
A. To be a valid Instant Game ticket, all of the following requirements
must be met:
1. Exactly 32 Play Symbols must appear under the latex overprint on the
front portion of the ticket;
2. Each of the Play Symbols must have a Play Symbol Caption underneath,
and each Play Symbol must agree with its Play Symbol Caption;
3. Each of the Play Symbols must be present in its entirety and be fully
legible;
4. Each of the Play Symbols must be printed in black ink;
5. The ticket shall be intact;
6. The Serial Number, Retailer Validation Code and Pack-Ticket Number must
be present in their entirety and be fully legible;
7. The Serial Number must correspond, using the Texas Lottery's codes,
to the Play Symbols on the ticket;
8. The ticket must not have a hole punched through it, be mutilated, altered,
unreadable, reconstituted or tampered with in any manner;
9. The ticket must not be counterfeit in whole or in part;
10. The ticket must have been issued by the Texas Lottery in an authorized
manner;
11. The ticket must not have been stolen, nor appear on any list of omitted
tickets or non-activated tickets on file at the Texas Lottery;
12. The Play Symbols, Serial Number, Retailer Validation Code and Pack-Ticket
Number must be right side up and not reversed in any manner;
13. The ticket must be complete and not miscut, and have exactly 32 Play
Symbols under the latex overprint on the front portion of the ticket, exactly
one Serial Number, exactly one Retailer Validation Code, and exactly one Pack-Ticket
Number on the ticket;
14. The Serial Number of an apparent winning ticket shall correspond with
the Texas Lottery's Serial Numbers for winning tickets, and a ticket with
that Serial Number shall not have been paid previously;
15. The ticket must not be blank or partially blank, misregistered, defective
or printed or produced in error;
16. Each of the 32 Play Symbols must be exactly one of those described
in Section 1.2.C of these Game Procedures.
17. Each of the 32 Play Symbols on the ticket must be printed in the Symbol
font and must correspond precisely to the artwork on file at the Texas Lottery;
the ticket Serial Numbers must be printed in the Serial font and must correspond
precisely to the artwork on file at the Texas Lottery; and the Pack-Ticket
Number must be printed in the Pack-Ticket Number font and must correspond
precisely to the artwork on file at the Texas Lottery;
18. The display printing on the ticket must be regular in every respect
and correspond precisely to the artwork on file at the Texas Lottery; and
19. The ticket must have been received by the Texas Lottery by applicable
deadlines.
B. The ticket must pass all additional validation tests provided for in
these Game Procedures, the Texas Lottery's Rules governing the award of prizes
of the amount to be validated, and any confidential validation and security
tests of the Texas Lottery.
C. Any Instant Game ticket not passing all of the validation requirements
is void and ineligible for any prize and shall not be paid. However, the Executive
Director may, solely at the Executive Director's discretion, refund the retail
sales price of the ticket. In the event a defective ticket is purchased, the
only responsibility or liability of the Texas Lottery shall be to replace
the defective ticket with another unplayed ticket in that Instant Game (or
a ticket of equivalent sales price from any other current Instant Lottery
game) or refund the retail sales price of the ticket, solely at the Executive
Director's discretion.
2.2. Programmed Game Parameters.
A. Consecutive non-winning tickets will not have identical play data, spot
for spot.
B. There will be no correlation between a prize symbol and the play symbol
it appears with.
C. There will be no duplicate non-winning play symbols in Games 1, 2, and
3.
D. No duplicate non-winning rolls in any order will appear in Game 2.
E. No duplicate YOUR CARD play symbols will appear in Game 3.
F. No duplicate DEALER'S CARD play symbols will appear in Game 3.
G. No ties between YOUR CARD and the DEALER'S CARD within a hand in Game
3.
2.3. Procedure for Claiming Prizes.
A. To claim a "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game prize of $5.00, $8.00, $10.00,
$20.00, $50.00, $100, or $500, a claimant shall sign the back of the ticket
in the space designated on the ticket and present the winning ticket to any
Texas Lottery Retailer. The Texas Lottery Retailer shall verify the claim
and, if valid, and upon presentation of proper identification, make payment
of the amount due the claimant and physically void the ticket; provided that
the Texas Lottery Retailer may, but is not, in some cases, required to pay
a $50.00, $100 or $500 ticket. In the event the Texas Lottery Retailer cannot
verify the claim, the Texas Lottery Retailer shall provide the claimant with
a claim form and instruct the claimant on how to file a claim with the Texas
Lottery. If the claim is validated by the Texas Lottery, a check shall be
forwarded to the claimant in the amount due. In the event the claim is not
validated, the claim shall be denied and the claimant shall be notified promptly.
A claimant may also claim any of the above prizes under the procedure described
in Section 2.3.B and 2.3.C of these Game Procedures.
B. To claim a "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game prize of $1,000, $5,000 or $50,000
the claimant must sign the winning ticket and present it at one of the Texas
Lottery's Claim Centers. If the claim is validated by the Texas Lottery, payment
will be made to the bearer of the validated winning ticket for that prize
upon presentation of proper identification. When paying a prize of $600 or
more, the Texas Lottery shall file the appropriate income reporting form with
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and shall withhold federal income tax at
a rate set by the IRS if required. In the event that the claim is not validated
by the Texas Lottery, the claim shall be denied and the claimant shall be
notified promptly.
C. As an alternative method of claiming a "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game prize,
the claimant must sign the winning ticket, thoroughly complete a claim form,
and mail both to: Texas Lottery Commission, Post Office Box 16600, Austin,
Texas 78761-6600. The risk of sending a ticket remains with the claimant.
In the event that the claim is not validated by the Texas Lottery, the claim
shall be denied and the claimant shall be notified promptly.
D. Prior to payment by the Texas Lottery of any prize, the Texas Lottery
shall deduct a sufficient amount from the winnings of a person who has been
finally determined to be:
1. delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the Comptroller,
the Texas Workforce Commission, or Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission;
2. delinquent in making child support payments administered or collected
by the Attorney General; or
3. delinquent in reimbursing the Texas Department of Human Services for
a benefit granted in error under the food stamp program or the program of
financial assistance under Chapter 31, Human Resource Code;
4. in default on a loan made under Chapter 52, Education Code; or
5. in default on a loan guaranteed under Chapter 57, Education Code
F. If a person is indebted or owes delinquent taxes to the State, other
than those specified in the preceding paragraph, the winnings of a person
shall be withheld until the debt or taxes are paid.
2.4. Allowance for Delay of Payment. The Texas Lottery may delay payment
of the prize pending a final determination by the Executive Director, under
any of the following circumstances:
A. if a dispute occurs, or it appears likely that a dispute may occur,
regarding the prize;
B. if there is any question regarding the identity of the claimant;
C. if there is any question regarding the validity of the ticket presented
for payment; or
D. if the claim is subject to any deduction from the payment otherwise
due, as described in Section 2.3.D of these Game Procedures. No liability
for interest for any delay shall accrue to the benefit of the claimant pending
payment of the claim.
2.5. Payment of Prizes to Persons Under 18. If a person under the age of
18 years is entitled to a cash prize of less than $600 from the "HIGH ROLLER"
Instant Game, the Texas Lottery shall deliver to an adult member of the minor's
family or the minor's guardian a check or warrant in the amount of the prize
payable to the order of the minor.
2.6. If a person under the age of 18 years is entitled to a cash prize
of more than $600 from the "HIGH ROLLER" Instant Game, the Texas Lottery shall
deposit the amount of the prize in a custodial bank account, with an adult
member of the minor's family or the minor's guardian serving as custodian
for the minor.
2.7. Instant Ticket Claim Period. All Instant Game prizes must be claimed
within 180 days following the end of the Instant Game. Any prize not claimed
within that period, and in the manner specified in these Game Procedures and
on the back of each ticket, shall be forfeited.
3.0. Instant Ticket Ownership.
A. Until such time as a signature is placed upon the back portion of an
Instant Game ticket in the space designated therefor, a ticket shall be owned
by the physical possessor of said ticket. When a signature is placed on the
back of the ticket in the space designated therefor, the player whose signature
appears in that area shall be the owner of the ticket and shall be entitled
to any prize attributable thereto. Notwithstanding any name or names submitted
on a claim form, the Executive Director shall make payment to the player whose
signature appears on the back of the ticket in the space designated therefor.
If more than one name appears on the back of the ticket, the Executive Director
will require that one of those players whose name appears thereon be designated
by such players to receive payment.
B. The Texas Lottery shall not be responsible for lost or stolen Instant
Game tickets and shall not be required to pay on a lost or stolen Instant
Game ticket.
4.0. Number and Value of Instant Prizes. There will be approximately 10,373,250
tickets in the Instant Game Number 238. The approximate number and value of
prizes in the game are as follows:
Table 3
[graphic]
A. The actual number of tickets in the game may be increased or decreased
at the sole discretion of the Texas Lottery.
5.0. End of the Instant Game. The Executive Director may, at any time,
announce a closing date (end date) for the Instant Game Number 238 without
advance notice, at which point no further tickets in that game may be sold.
6.0. Governing Law. In purchasing an Instant Game ticket, the player agrees
to comply with, and abide by, these Game Procedures for Instant Game Number
238, the State Lottery Act (Texas Government Code, Chapter 466), applicable
rules adopted by the Texas Lottery pursuant to the State Lottery Act and referenced
in 16 TAC, Chapter 401, and all final decisions of the Executive Director.
TRD-200102883
Kimberly L. Kiplin
General Counsel
Texas Lottery Commission
Filed: May 23, 2001
Air Quality Standard Permit for Electric Generating Units
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission)
is issuing a new standard permit for electric generating units. The new air
quality standard permit will be effective June 1, 2001, and authorizes certain
electric generating units installed or modified after June 1, 2001 that generate
electricity for use by the owner or operator and/or generate electricity to
be sold to the electric grid. The standard permit does not apply to electric
generating units permitted by rule under title 30 TAC §§106.101,
Domestic Use Facilities, 106.511, Portable and Emergency Engines and Turbines,
106.512, Stationary Engines and Turbines, or included on the list entitled
"De Minimis Facilities or Sources."
Copies of the standard permit for electric generating units may be obtained
from the commission web site at
http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/permitting/airperm
or by contacting the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission,
Office of Permitting, Remediation and Registration, Air Permits Division at
(512) 239-1240.
OVERVIEW OF STANDARD PERMIT
The commission is issuing an air quality standard permit authorizing certain
electric generating units under authority of the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), §382.05195
and 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter F, Standard Permits. The commission previously
authorized the majority of the electric generating units under the conditions
of a permit by rule, 30 TAC §106.512, or under Chapter 116, Subchapter
B. This standard permit provides a streamlined preconstruction authorization
mechanism that may be used by any electric generating unit complying with
its requirements and not prohibited by some other state or federal permitting
statute or regulation. The issuance of this standard permit is consistent
with the desire of the commission to simplify its regulatory structure and
recognize the potential significance of some sources by developing standard
permits to replace existing permits by rule that provide qualification criteria
that are lengthy and complex.
In addition, the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas anticipates that
small electric generating units (EGUs) may become an attractive option for
electric customers as an alternative to central station generating units as
a primary source of electricity due to electric restructuring and electric
reliability concerns. These EGUs, sited at or near a load that will use all
or most of the electricity generated, may be equipped to export electricity
to the electrical grid. Until now, many EGUs have been eligible for authorization
under §106.512. However, a number of EGU technologies exist which can
meet and exceed the emission limits in §106.512. Thus, it would be inappropriate
to allow new or modified engines or turbines to operate under the §106.512
emission standards. Therefore, this standard permit contains emission limits
more stringent than the emission limits in §106.512. The standard permit
is designed to provide a streamlined permitting method to encourage the use
of "clean" EGU technologies.
The standard permit is designed to allow for authorization of an electric
generating unit. However, it is not intended to provide an authorization mechanism
for all possible unit configurations or for unusual operating scenarios. Those
facilities which cannot meet the standard permit conditions may apply for
a case-by-case review of an air quality permit under 30 TAC §116.111.
PUBLIC MEETING AND COMMENTERS
In accordance with §116.603, the commission published notice of the
proposed standard permit in the
Texas Register
and in daily newspapers of the largest general circulation in the following
metropolitan areas: Austin, Corpus Christi, Dallas, El Paso, Houston, the
Lower Rio Grande Valley, Lubbock, the Permian Basin, San Antonio, and Tyler.
The notice was published on November 17, 2000. The initial comment period
ran from November 17, 2000 to December 19, 2000. However, in response to comment,
the comment period was extended to February 5, 2001.
STAKEHOLDERS MEETING
At the request of several commenters, staff hosted a stakeholders meeting
on January 23, 2001 in Room 212W of the TNRCC, Building C, located at 12100
Park 35 Circle, Austin. Notice of the meeting was posted on the agency's web
site on January 12, 2001. At that meeting, staff provided stakeholders with
an update on the development of the standard permit based on the comments
received to that date. Stakeholders were also provided an opportunity to make
presentations to the group and to participate in a "roundtable" discussion
with staff and with each other on the issue of the standard permit.
COMMENTS
A public meeting on the proposal was held December 19, 2000 in Room 2210
of the TNRCC Building F, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin. Oral comments
were made by the following: Capstone Turbine Corporation (Capstone); Catalytica
Energy Systems (Catalytica); Energy Developments Incorporated (EDI); the Engine
Manufacturer's Association (EMA); Good Company Associates (Good Company);
Honeywell Power Systems (Honeywell Power); and Public Citizen, Texas office
(Public Citizen).
The period for written comments on the proposed standard permit closed
at 5:00 p.m., February 5, 2001. Written comments were submitted by the following:
the American Council for an Energy- Efficient Economy (ACEEE); the American
Gas Cooling Center, Inc. (AGCC); ALSTOM Power Inc. (ALSTOM); American Electric
Power (AEP); Atmos Energy Corporation (Atmos); Austin Energy; Calpine Corporation
(Calpine); Capstone; Catalytica; Cotton, Bledsoe, Tighe & Dawson, P.C.
(Cotton Bledsoe); Cummins, Inc., Cummins Inc./Onan (Cummins); Dresser-Waukesha,
Waukesha Engine Division (Waukesha Engine); DTE Energy Technologies (DTE);
Deutz Corporation (Deutz); EDI; the EMA on behalf of Caterpillar Inc., Cummins
Inc./Onan, Deere & Company, Detroit Diesel Corporation, Deutz Corporation,
General Motors Corporation, and Waukesha Engine Division; Encorp; Energy Transfer
Group, L.L.C. (ETG); Environmental Defense; Global Power Corporation (Global
Power); Good Company; Holt Companies (Holt); Holt Power Systems (Holt Power);
Honeywell Power; Hunt Power, L.P. (Hunt Power); International Fuel Cells;
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); the Office of the Attorney General
of Texas, Consumer Protection Division, Public Agency Representation Section
(OAG - Public Agency Representation Section); Plug Power Fuel Cell Systems
(Plug Power); Public Citizen, Texas office (Public Citizen); the Railroad
Commission of Texas, Alternative Fuels Research and Education Division (AFRED);
Reliant Energy, Inc. (REI); Solar Turbines Incorporated (Solar); Southern
Union Gas Company (Southern Union); Sure Power Corporation (Sure Power); the
United States of America Department of Energy (DOE); United States of America
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs (EPA); the
United States Combined Heat and Power Association (USCHPA); the Honorable
Leticia Van de Putte, R. Ph., the Senate of Texas (Senator Van de Putte);
and Waukesha-Pearce Industries, Inc. (Waukesha- Pearce).
ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS
Support for Standard Permit
Environmental Defense applauded the commission for the foresight it has
shown by proposing the standard permit for small electric generating units.
Environmental Defense stated that proliferation of small generation units,
lacking meaningful emission standards, could undermine measures adopted to
reduce nitrogen oxides (NO
x
) emissions in the
state implementation plans (SIPs). Public Citizen applauded the commission
for using output-based measures for regulating small electric generators and
assuring that efficiency is considered. Good Company supported the output-based
measure. Capstone supported the intent and objective of the proposed standard
permit, the tapered- down NO
x
emission requirements
over time, and the 9 parts per million (ppm), 5 ppm, 3 ppm profile of the
taper down.
The commission appreciates the support expressed by these commenters.
Commitment to Solve Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) Nonattainment Issue
Calpine stated its willingness and intent to play an integral role in solving
the DFW nonattainment issue by putting state-of-the-art combined cycle generation
to work in the DFW area.
The commission appreciates Calpine's commitment to help solve the DFW nonattainment
issue.
Request for Extension of Original Comment Period
Good Company, DOE, Encorp, and Cummins requested an extension of the original
comment period.
The original comment period was extended from December 19, 2000 to February
5, 2001.
Combining Gas Turbines and Duct Burners
Catalytica commented that if the best available emission rate for duct
burners is currently 0.1 pounds per million British thermal unit (lb/MMBtu),
then the standard permit should require the appropriate emission level from
the turbine and limit the duct burner to 0.1 lb/MMBtu.
The standard permit has output-based standards (pounds of NO
x
per megawatt-hour) and does not regulate based upon the use of specific
technologies, such as duct burners. Therefore, no changes were made to the
standard permit in response to this comment.
Statewide Applicability of Proposed Standard
ACEEE, AEP, ALSTOM, Cotton Bledsoe, Encorp, Environmental Defense, Good
Company, Honeywell Power, NRDC, Public Citizen, Solar, Southern Union, USCHPA,
and Waukesha Engine commented on the statewide applicability of the proposed
standards. ACEEE and USCHPA commented that areas that maintain environmental
attainment should be given a greater technology choice than the nonattainment
areas of downtown Houston and Dallas based on the theory that state- wide
emissions can be decreased by allowing the implementation of distributed technologies
throughout Texas, and since transmission and distribution losses in rural
parts of the state may be more than in urban areas. AEP commented that the
emission limitations should be based on siting the plant in an attainment
area with special provisions being added for equipment being installed in
nonattainment areas. ALSTOM stated that statewide applicability of the standard
permit could be catastrophic for the implementation of distributed generation
(DG) in NO
x
attainment areas and increase demand
for existing, higher polluting plants. Cotton Bledsoe questioned the appropriateness
of applying the same emission standard to East and West Texas since West Texas
has the potential to become a major power generating and exporting region
but has not "used up" its portion of the NO
x
increment as has East and Central Texas. Encorp recommended that two permits,
each with different standards, be developed, one for attainment areas and
the second for nonattainment areas. Encorp explained that adoption of a single
statewide standard is arbitrary and capricious and penalizes areas which have
maintained good air quality by eliminating the possibility of cheaper DG power.
Environmental Defense commented that it may be appropriate in the first years
of the revised standard permit to apply a different set of standards for East
and West Texas. However, Environmental Defense commented that all sources
in East Texas subject to the standard permit need to achieve the same standard
set out for nonattainment areas. Good Company recommended that the commission
establish "attainment area" and "nonattainment area" limits. Honeywell Power
recommended that different emission standards be developed for attainment
and nonattainment areas of the state. Honeywell Power stated that such an
approach would match appropriate technology with each area at minimal cost
to the ratepayer. NRDC commented that applying different standards to an East
Texas and West Texas region may be useful for some interim period but that
the ultimate goal should be a strong, statewide final emission standard. Public
Citizen supported the commission proposal to divide the state into East and
West Texas for emission limits. Solar proposed that the standard permit set
different standards for attainment and nonattainment areas. Southern Union
recommended that the proposed standard permit apply only to sources located
in ozone nonattainment areas that do not have a Federal Clean Air Act, §182(f)
waiver for nitrogen oxides. Southern Union recommended that sources in areas
designated as attainment or unclassified, or in areas with a §182(f)
waiver, continue to be permitted by rule under §106.512. Waukesha Engine
recommended limiting applicability of additionally restrictive NO
x
standards for DG units to nonattainment areas only.
The commission agrees that in the case of an ozone precursor, such as NO
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Good Company commented that the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
are burdensome for residential and small business uses. NRDC recommended that
units between 10 kilowatts (kW) and 50 kW be subject to reduced recordkeeping
requirements.
Electric generating units used exclusively for domestic purposes are permitted
by rule under §106.101 which has no recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
The commission believes that requiring records of the hours of operation and
maintenance schedule is reasonable for all units, including those between
10 kW and 50 kW. The standard permit has no reporting requirements per se.
Instead, records required by the standard permit must be provided upon request
to the commission.
Registration Fee
Good Company commented that the $450 registration fee is burdensome for
residential and small business uses. Hunt Power commented that smaller scale
DG technologies could be unfairly penalized with a flat fee of $450. Hunt
Power recommended that the permit fee should be applied as a dollar per kW
amount. NRDC recommended that units between 10 kW and 50 kW pay a registration
fee of 0.15% of the capital cost of the project regardless if that amount
is less than $450. Plug Power recommended that the registration fee be a factor
of "x" dollars and the power output of the unit.
The commission has revised the fee schedule from a $450 registration fee
for all units to a fee scale based on generating capacity of a unit. Units
or multiple units with a generating capacity of 1 megawatt (MW) or greater
will be subject to a $450 fee; units or multiple units with a generating capacity
of less than 1 MW will be subject to a $100 fee; units or multiple units less
than 1 MW that have certified NO
x
emissions that
are less than 10% of the required standards will be granted a fee waiver.
The fee is intended to recover staff expenses in reviewing the registration.
The commission reduced the fee for smaller units because a $450 fee may be
a substantial percentage of the initial cost to operate some small units.
The commission has waived the fee for ultra-clean small units to encourage
their use. The commission notes that units used exclusively for domestic purposes
are permitted by rule under §106.101 which requires no fee.
Registration of Propane-fueled or Gaseous-fueled Units
AFRED recommended that propane-fueled or gaseous-fueled units of 30 kW
or less be permitted by rule. In the alternative, AFRED recommended a phased-in
implementation over a period of four years for propane-fueled or gaseous-fueled
units less than 30 kW and at a reduced permitting cost. AFRED commented that
these units will most likely be used by residential customers and small businesses
and sometimes in rural attainment areas.
Propane-fueled or gaseous-fueled units of 30 kW or less used exclusively
for domestic purposes are permitted by rule under §106.101 which requires
no fee. The commission has reduced the fee to $100 for units, like propane-fueled
or gaseous-fueled units, operating under 1 MW. Should these units emit less
than 10% of the standards, no fee is required. The intent of the standard
permit is to provide a streamlined preconstruction authorization mechanism
for all electric generating units.
Fee Exemption for State Agencies
The OAG - Public Agency Representation Section recommended that state taxpayer-supported
facilities, such as state agencies and institutions of higher learning, should
be exempt from paying the registration application fee. The OAG - Public Agency
Representation Section explained that state agencies operate on limited budgets
and that a fee requirement could have serious financial impacts on the larger
agencies.
No change has been made directly in response to this comment. State agencies
have historically paid all required fees required by the commission for various
permitting projects regardless of the media. The standard permit is consistent
with this process. It should be noted that the proposed registration fee has
been reduced for small units and waived for ultra-clean units.
Applicability of Standard Permit to Wind or Solar-Driven Generators
Cotton Bledsoe asked whether the standard permit requirements apply to
alternative energy DG projects, such as wind and solar power.
The standard permit requirements do not apply to wind and solar units.
Since they do not have air emissions, the commission does not regulate them
under the Texas Clean Air Act.
Applicability of Standard Permit to Emergency Engines or Turbines
NRDC commented that a benefit of the standard permit is that it clarifies
that the exemption for emergency generators applies only to generators that
run only when there is a loss of power on the electric grid. Waukesha Engine
endorsed the exclusion of emergency generators in paragraph (1)(C). EMA approved
of the exclusion of emergency EGUs from the scope of the standard permit's
applicability. EMA also supported a permitting exemption for DG units installed
for operation in the case of "Stage III" power shortages such as are occurring
in California.
The commission appreciates the support of the commenters. Emergency engines
and turbines will continue to be permitted by rule under §106.511, rather
than be authorized under this standard permit. However, the commission notes
that §106.511 applies only to units satisfying its requirements and that §106.511
does not use the term "Stage III."
ACEEE proposed that §106.511 be modified to tighten the regulations
on emergency backup generators. Good Company recommended that the commission
establish a new standard, to allow installation of standby generators, or
the retrofit of existing standby generators, in a way which meets certain
minimum emission levels in order that they might be interconnected to the
grid and provide power during an ERCOT/ISO stage three, or higher, emergency.
Good Company stated that the commission should work with the PUC to establish
similar protocols for localized situations that may occur in the future. Good
Company recommended that standby units and Stage II emergency units be exempt
from the standard permit. Public Citizen agreed with the commission that there
should be different limits for emergency generators but was concerned that
the language in the rules is not "tough enough" to assure that emergency plants
are required to apply for a permit if used more than a few hours each year.
Public Citizen recommended that the operations limit be decreased to no more
than 100 hours per year. Public Citizen recommended that the commission explicitly
require a change in use patterns to require registration and compliance with
emission limits and recommended that emergency generators be tested at night
or at hours that would minimally affect ozone formation. Public Citizen recommended
a requirement that all mechanics who work on emergency engines or turbines
undergo a training and certification process, and that they be prohibited
from modifying a backup unit to provide voltage stability or dispatchability
until permitted under the standard permit.
The commission did not propose amendments to §106.511 as part of this
action, and therefore, these comments are beyond the scope of this standard
permit action.
The OAG - Public Agency Representation Section commented that the exemption
for emergency units contained in paragraph (1)(C) would prohibit the use of
DG in times of high demand. The OAG - Public Agency Representation Section
recommended changing paragraph (1)(C) by deleting the word "exclusively" and
adding the following language after the word meter: "or when conditions on
the grid are such that the power source is unreliable or power quality is
questionable." The OAG - Public Agency Representation Section explained that
as the use of DG expands and the load on the grid increases, it will be desirable
to have large customers that are capable of producing their own electricity,
thereby reducing the demands on the utility.
The definition of emergency has been removed from the standard permit to
avoid confusion between the standard permit and §106.511 which permits
by rule emergency engines and turbines.
Applicability of Standard Permit to Non-road Engines and Portable Units
EMA commented that portable DG units are nonroad engines; therefore, the
standard permit should not apply to portable DG units because the commission
is "specifically and expressly preempted" from regulating nonroad engines
pursuant to Federal Clean Air Act, §209(e). EMA stated that the commission
should adopt the definition of "nonroad engine" contained in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations §89.2. Good Company recommended that the standard permit
not apply to portable units.
The commission agrees with this comment and does not consider portable
"nonroad engines" that are not on a site more than 12 months a stationary
source. Therefore, this standard permit does not apply to these units.
Applicability of Standard Permit to Units Generating More than 10 MW
ALSTOM recommended increasing the upper range of applicability to 15 MW
because there are a number of industrial gas turbines offered by major suppliers
in the 10 to 15 MW bracket which may benefit DG if the standard permit option
is available. Catalytica commented that a number of turbines operate in the
10 MW area and that setting the limit at 10 MW would give a competitive advantage
to some models just below the limit, while hindering competing models just
above the limit. Catalytica stated that there are almost no popular models
in the 15 to 25 MW range and, therefore, suggested that the standard permit
apply to units up to 20 MW. Sure Power commented that the proposed 10 MW size
limit will inhibit the use of DG systems in many data center applications.
Sure Power commented that if Texas is to set a size limitation, then 50 MW,
as is the case in California, should be considered and that Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) should be required.
The standard permit has been revised in response to these comments. The
commission has issued the standard permit with a provision for electric generating
units greater than 10 MW that has separate standards that represent BACT for
natural gas-fired turbines. The commission believes this change to the standard
permit is appropriate to provide these clean units greater than 10 MW the
opportunity to use a streamlined preconstruction authorization mechanism.
Affect of Standard Permit on Ability to Authorize Under Regular NSR Permitting
Global Power stated that issuance of the standard permit should not preclude
authorization of small electrical generating units under a regular new source
review (NSR) permit.
This standard permit does not preclude authorization by NSR. Any owner
or operator may request a NSR permit. This standard permit and the permit
by rule are provided as streamlined alternatives, if the unit meets the requirements
of the permit by rule or the standard permit.
Applicability of Standard Permit to Landfill to Gas Energy (LFGTE) Projects,
Stranded Gas to Energy Projects, and Units using Flare Gas
REI commented that the proposed standard permit should not apply to LFGTE
projects because the proposed emission limits cannot be met by internal combustion
engines fueled by landfill gas. REI commented that the proposed standard permit
will eliminate the development of LFGTE projects in Texas and that LFGTE projects
should continue to be permitted by rule under §106.512. Deutz commented
that DG engines fueled by landfill/digester gas require their own specific
NO
x
standard because the contents of the fuel
prohibit the application of standard aftertreatment technologies. Deutz recommended
a standard of 0.6 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhphr) which is the standard
adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for these units.
Deutz recommended a +/- 10% tolerance be added to the 0.6 g/bhphr standard
to take into account the variable nature of landfill/digester gas. Deutz commented
that a reasonable standard for landfill/digester gas projects is necessary
to realize the significant energy recovery and economic benefits of these
projects. Deutz commented that commission regulations need to address the
specific engine applications that make use of "stranded gas." Deutz stated
that stranded gas, often too far from pipelines to be affordable shipped to
market, can be used to generate electricity.
To encourage the use of some gases that would otherwise be flared or vented
to the atmosphere, the standard permit was revised to include an East Texas
NO
x
standard to be applied exclusively to units
that use as fuel landfill gas, digester gas, or some oil field gases (stranded
gas). The NO
x
standard of 1.77 pounds per megawatt-hour
(lb/MWh) is equivalent to 0.6 grams per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr) and was
established based upon a lean burn engine, since catalytic converters are
poisoned by contaminants found in landfill gas. Since this NO
x
standard can be met by existing technology, it would be inappropriate
to allow these units to continue to be permitted by rule under the less stringent
standards in §106.512. Units in the West Texas region using these fuels
may comply with the West Texas region standards contained in the standard
permit.
Public Citizen recommended a standard permit for landfill gas generators
since they have unique emissions profiles and control limits that may need
to be different from other generators. Good Company recommended that units
using flare gas should be exempt from the standard permit.
The separate NO
x
limit applicable only to
units that use landfill gas, digester gas, or some oil field gases takes into
account the unique emission profiles and control limits of these units. With
the changes discussed in the previous response to comment, the commission
finds no additional reason to develop a standard permit exclusively for these
units. Furthermore, it is these same emission profiles and control limits
of these units that require the commission to regulate these units and not
exempt from the standard permit.
Applicability of Standard Permit to Ultra-Clean Electric Generating Units
or Non-Combustion Generating Units
Plug Power recommended that the commission consider a "zero" or "de minimis"
threshold category below which registration for the standard permit is not
required or is otherwise provided, based upon ultra-clean technologies, such
as solar, wind, and fuel cells or based upon a generation process, such as
whether any fuel is combusted. As an alternative, Plug Power recommended that
the commission give consideration to a power output threshold approach below
which registration is not required or is granted pro forma. International
Fuel Cells commented that its PC25 fuel cell has NO
x
emissions of 0.0267 lb/MWh and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions of
0.0017 lb/MWh and that in cogeneration applications fuel cells typically approach
85% combined efficiency.
The commission intends the standard permit to apply to all electric generating
units that emit air contaminants. Thus, generating units driven by the sun
or by the wind are not subject to this standard permit. However, fuel cells
that use natural gas or a converter fuel are subject to the standard permit
because of their NO
x
emissions. Nevertheless,
in an effort to encourage the use of ultra-clean technology, such as fuel
cells, the commission has revised the standard permit. The registration fee
has been waived for units generating less than 1 MW that have NO
x
emissions that are less than 10% of the standards. Fuel cells should
be able to satisfy this requirement and thus qualify for the fee waiver. In
addition, the commission encourages ultra-clean distribution technology to
petition the commission for inclusion on the list entitled "De Minimis Facilities
or Sources" referenced under 30 TAC §116.119. Sources on this list require
no registration prior to construction.
Applicability of Standard Permit to EGUs less than 1.5 MW
NRDC commented that the standard permit should explicitly state that it
covers generators from 10 MW to either 10 kW or 0 kW. NRDC commented that
the lower end should be 0 kW if the commission reduces the fee and record-keeping
burden on very small generators. NRDC commented that in the alternative 10
kW could be used to ease the regulatory burden on the smallest generators
which will primarily be used by individuals and small commercial customers.
NRDC commented that the standard permit should be made mandatory for units
too small to be covered by existing minor NSR. NRDC commented that if this
step is not taken, small generators currently exempted from minor NSR permitting
will not opt into the standard permit.
The commission has revised the standard permit to apply to all electric
generating units regardless of size so that all of these units which meet
the standard permit may have a streamlined preconstruction authorization mechanism.
As previously discussed, the commission has reduced the registration fee for
very small and very clean units.
Good Company commented that generating units less than 100 kW should be
exempt from any standard for now and that a standard for those units could
be developed over the next few years.
No change was made in response to this comment. Units generating less than
100 kW used exclusively for domestic purposes are permitted by rule under §106.101
which requires no registration. The commission has reduced the fee to $100
for units operating under 1 MW. If these units emit less than 10% of the standards,
no fee is required. The intent of the standard permit is to provide a streamlined
preconstruction authorization mechanism for all electric generating units.
AEP commented that smaller DG systems of 1.5 MW and less should be kept
in a permit by rule registration system and DG systems and units between 1.5
MW and 10 MW should use the proposed standard permit. AEP commented that this
will allow the deployment of this technology with relative ease to that sector
of the regulated community (homeowners and small commercial) that would be
most adversely impacted by a permitting requirement. Waukesha Engine recommended
that smaller units be exempt from the CO and NO
x
emission limits.
The commission notes that units constructed and operated at a domestic
residence for domestic purposes are permitted by rule under §106.101.
As previously discussed, the fee has been reduced to $100 for units under
1 MW and eliminated for very clean units less than 1 MW. The commission anticipates
that most small commercial entities using the standard permit will register
units less than 1 MW.
Authorization Period under Standard Permit
Public Citizen recommended that the commission limit the life of the standard
permit and require generators subject to it to update their technologies to
BACT levels every ten years. Sure Power commented that license renewal in
ten years will create an uncertainty burden since "high availability power
supply" facilities normally have life cycles of 20 years or longer. Sure Power
commented that an uncertain renewal process could deter development of clean
DG in Texas.
Provisions for amending or revoking a standard permit are included in Chapter
116, Subchapter F. Those rules require that standard permits be renewed at
least every ten years. Those rules also provide a mechanism, as appropriate,
for updating technology. Comment on those rules is beyond the scope of this
commission action and, therefore, no change has been made to the standard
permit in response to these comments.
Definition of "Modified"
The OAG - Public Agency Representation Section and Waukesha Engine recommended
that Section (1)(A) include an appropriate definition of a "modified unit."
Global Power requested clarification of what is meant by the word "modified."
The term "modified" is defined in §116.10(9) "Modification of existing
facility." This definition applies to this standard permit.
Clarification of When Construction Begins
Cotton Bledsoe asked for clarification whether "dirt work" or setting of
a skid for a skid-mounted DG project could begin before commission approval
of the application.
To eliminate questions on start of construction and to eliminate the ability
to "start construction" on a unit prior to the implementation of a more strict
NO
x
standard, the standard permit was revised
to include a definition of "installed." The NO
x
standards are based upon an "installed" date.
Clarification of Term "Site"
Cotton Bledsoe recommended clarification of the word "site". Cotton Bledsoe
asked whether a manufacturing facility may put two separate DG skids, one
at each building in a manufacturing complex of up to 10 MW each, or whether
the facility is considered a single "site" and limited to 10 MW of DG projects
total.
For purposes of this standard permit, the term "site" is used as defined
in §122.10(29).
Clarification of Applicability of Standard Permit to a Site
Waukesha Engine recommended that paragraph (3)(A) clarify that the standards
apply to the DG site as a whole and not to each unit individually to provide
owners and operators flexibility in operation. Global Power also endorsed
this position.
The standard permit was not changed in response to this comment because
the commission is specifically regulating the NO
x
emissions from each electric generating unit registered under the standard
permit. Although the NO
x
standard in the standard
permit applies to each electric generating unit, the reference to multiple
units at an account only applies to the fee determination.
Stakeholder Involvement in Establishing Emission Limits
Honeywell Power recommended that the emission limits be qualitatively determined
using a consensus process that involves all stakeholders and that one aspect
of this process should be to broadly evaluate the consequences and value of
a variety of generation options. DOE, Cummins, EDI, Public Citizen and Good
Company supported a collaborative effort to set the emission limits. AGCC
requested that a workshop be held with stakeholders to derive a methodology
that appropriately calculates and compares emissions impacts of electrical
generation alternatives relative to the grid. Global Power recommended that
the commission work with EMA and its members to establish practical NO
In addition to the public meeting required by rule, staff hosted a stakeholders
meeting at the stakeholder's request on January 23, 2001. The commission thanks
all stakeholders who have participated in the standard permit development
process thus far. The public comment period for written comments was extended
until February 5, 2001 at the request of the stakeholders, and all submitted
written and oral comments have provided the basis for the revisions in the
issued standard permit. The commission intends to continue to involve stakeholders
in any further developments on this issue.
Study to Determine Potential Impact of DG on Texas
Good Company recommended that the commission consider entering into a study
of the technology and its potential applications, as well as, available emission
reduction technologies applicable to generation units of the size under consideration
prior to attempting to develop this standard permit. Good Company requested
that the commission adopt the standards Good Company submitted if the commission
decided to issue the standard permit before such a study was complete. DOE
suggested that the commission conduct a study to determine the potential DG
impact on Texas and offered to share the cost of such a study. DOE stated
that consideration of technology-specific goals may be necessary before development
of broad output-based standards. EMA and Cummins stated that the proposed
emission standards are not supported by any assessment of impacts on emissions
inventories.
The commission intends to participate in a study in conjunction with the
DOE and the PUC to determine the environmental impact and define the market
potential of DG (i.e., electric generating units of 10 MW or less). However,
the commission believes it is important to proceed with issuing this standard
permit prior to the completion of the study because of the very real potential
for increased preconstruction authorization applications for electric generating
units, especially small units. Upon completion of the study, the commission
plans to reevaluate the standard permit to ensure that the standards are set
at an appropriate level.
The Nitrogen Oxide Emission Limitations
Hunt Power commented that if the commission methodology of central station
unit comparisons is to be fairly applied, appropriate central station technology
should be used to make the comparison. Hunt Power used the duty cycle of a
power plant as an example of a factor that must be considered when determining
appropriate emission limitations. Hunt Power also commented that the standards
must recognize the short-run benefit of DG in reducing central station power
plant emissions. Hunt Power commented that if the commission deemed a specific
emission limit for a central station unit in a given duty cycle, the allowable
emission limit for DG in the same duty cycle should be 10% higher than the
central station technology based solely on line losses. Hunt Power commented
that the commission's standards must recognize the overall contribution that
DG technologies make to improve air quality by taking into account the physical
power system realities, which require re-dispatch of generating plants. Hunt
Power commented that to the extent that an end use customer or DG project
developer incorporates these technologies into a single site project, we believe
the customer or owner of the site should receive 100% credit for the energy
generated by these non-polluting technologies, applied against thermal generating
resources that are part of the overall site or project.
The NO
x
standards originally proposed were
based upon BACT for recently permitted combined cycle central power stations.
In response to these comments, the standards required in the standard permit
have been revised to reflect BACT for electric generating units in pounds
of NO
x
per MW hour adjusted to reflect a simple
cycle power plant. In addition, these output-based standards include an adjustment
to account for inefficiencies associated with conversion of mechanical to
electrical energy. While no specific credits were included for line losses
except in the conversion to lb/MWh, a 100% credit was allowed for any combined
heat and power added.
AEP commented that the current state of the technology on the DG systems
will not meet the stringent standards as outlined in the proposal and the
high cost and operational difficulties associated with post-combustion control
equipment will make it prohibitive to install DG equipment in the state. AEP
commented that the DG systems should be allowed to be permitted at a BACT
rate that was in effect 120 months prior to the submission of the application
with a reduction in the standard over the next five years. AEP commented that
this will allow DG technology to mature and catch up with the traditional
combined cycle type of equipment.
BACT is required by the TCAA and 30 TAC §116.602(c) for standard permits.
Therefore, the commission does not have the authority to make the suggested
change. However, as discussed previously, the standard permit was revised
to reflect BACT for simple cycle power plants, as well as the cleanest reciprocating
engines.
Austin Energy commented that since the Central Texas region is nearing
ozone nonattainment, the emission rates should be weighted toward the clean
end of the spectrum of possible emission rates, but that the emission rates
should not be so strict that no manufacturer will be able to meet them in
a cost-effective manner. Austin Energy commented that it is in the process
of building a new facility near Austin that consists of four large peaking-type
gas turbines that will have selective catalytic reduction (SCR) emissions
control devices added to the units. Austin Energy commented that the emissions
target for these units is below 5 ppm NO
x
. Austin
Energy commented that it has found that it can invest the added cost of the
SCR into its new power plant in an economically viable manner. Austin Energy
commented that this fact should be considered during the negotiations regarding
emission rates for the various forms of DG and cogeneration. Austin Energy
commented that the cost of all of the equipment that would nominally be utilized
for emergency backup generation only (i.e., the generator and the prime mover)
should not be included in the control cost-effectiveness determinations because
a facility would have to pay for these generators whether they are DG or not.
Austin Energy commented that only the incremental cost of adding the emissions
control devices should be used for determining the emission control cost-effectiveness.
The commission appreciates Austin Energy's concern about the air quality
of the Central Texas region and agrees that emission controls can be cost-effective
for electric generating units. By setting output-based standards and not distinguishing
between driver-types, more clean and more efficient units are rewarded and
recent gains in air quality from clean central power plants will not be negated.
This standard permit does not require emergency generators to use additional
controls unless they switch service from emergency-only to peaking applications.
Austin Energy commented that it is concerned that by allowing several small
but comparatively high-emitting sources into the air shed, any gains that
have been made recently to improving the air quality in Texas through NO
The commission is also concerned about the impact of small but comparatively
high-emitting sources on the gains made by recently permitted low emitting
centralized power plants. The standard permit as issued requires BACT in the
East Texas region to address the nonattainment problems in the area.
NRDC supports the proposed standard permit and the commission's efforts
to establish user- friendly emissions standards for small electric generators.
NRDC commented that the standard permit will close a gap in existing air pollution
regulations and encourage the development of small clean electricity generators
to address capacity concerns in Texas. NRDC endorsed the aggressive emission
limits in the standard permit because use of the standard permit is optional.
NRDC commented that the approach for setting standards endorsed in the Federal
Clean Air Act requires new units to perform at least as well as the best unit
in that technological family, and the result of that approach is to allow
the market place to set the rate of tightening in emissions standards. NRDC
commented that technological family being regulated here is the customer-owned
generation market. However, NRDC commented that no generation technology should
be allowed to profit by being dirtier than other technologies and for that
reason recommended that the commission explicitly link the standard permit
requirements starting in 2007 to the emission rates being achieved by combined
cycle natural gas turbines. Environmental Defense commented that it is irresponsible
to argue that engine manufacturers should be allowed to emit at rates that
are 40 to 70 times higher than existing fleet or new central station power
plants that must achieve 93% emission reductions (achieving an emissions rate
of approximately 0.1 lb/MWh) and when other much cleaner alternatives are
available. In addition, Environmental Defense commented that the commission
must consider the cumulative effects from rapid deployment of small generating
units in determining the appropriate emission standard under the standard
permit given the fact that rapid growth in DG is expected. Environmental Defense
commented that a strict emission standard is achievable. Environmental Defense
endorsed Capstone's recommended NO
x
emission
standard schedule of: 0.40 lb/MWh in 2001; 0.19 lb/MWh in 2003; and 0.08 lb/MWh
in 2005. Environmental Defense commented that DG should not be subsidized
by low-emitting large generators. Environmental Defense commented that it
small generators should not be allowed to emit at rates 40 to 70 times higher
than large generators when the large generators are spending millions of dollars
to reduce emissions and incur the additional cost of acquiring emission offsets.
Environmental Defense stated that it would understand the reasonableness of
"backing off" the emission standards if it were accompanied by a 1.3 to 1
emission offset requirement.
The commission appreciates NRDC's and Environmental Defense's comments.
The standards in the standard permit are based upon BACT for the cleanest
type of equipment available. Due to concerns about potential transmission
and distribution problems in remote areas of West Texas, the standard for
these peaking units operating less than 300 hours per year represents Tier
I non-road engine standards proposed by EPA. The East Texas standards reflect
BACT to account for the ozone nonattainment issues in this region, but also
provide for the use of clean peaking applications. The future year standard
will be reevaluated upon completion of the planned DG study. Additionally,
because the standard permit applies to units greater than 10 MW and the proposed
standards have been revised, the commission has proposed removal of the exemption
for electric generating units contained in Chapter 117. Thus, once this exemption
is removed from Chapter 117, electric generating units under 10 MW, operating
under the standard permit, will be subject to Chapter 117.
Good Company recommended a site-internal emissions trading system that
would allow sites to select the most appropriate and cost-effective technology
for each application. Good Company stated that sites should receive credits
based on the net emission reductions achieved at a site due to DG implementation.
Providing for emission trading at a site or at an account would unnecessarily
complicate the standard permit which was designed to be an expedited method
of authorizing clean electric generating units. Therefore, the standard permit
was not changed in response to this comment. A flexible permit under 30 TAC
Chapter 116, Subchapter G provides a mechanism for the flexibility described
in the comment.
Environmental Defense commented that the current DFW and Houston/Galveston
(HGA) SIP does not account for emissions increases brought about by increased
utilization of small generation that is exempt from major source permitting
and offset requirements. Environmental Defense commented that the only way
to remedy the failure to account for increased emissions from small generating
sources is to establish emission rates that ensure cumulative emissions from
these sources over the next seven years that will not have a measurable impact
on air quality in the affected regions.
As previously stated, the commission has proposed removal of the exemption
for small electric generating units registered under this standard permit
from Chapter 117 because of the potential impact upon the SIP from units operating
under the standard permit. In addition, the results of the planned DG study
will be used to evaluate the 2005 East Texas region standard. The standards
applicable to the East Texas region drastically cut the limits currently permitted
by rule under 30 TAC §106.512 and will require even cleaner technology
for future installations.
Environmental Defense commented that effect of the standard permits on
the availability of adequate power should not be a factor in deciding on the
appropriate emission standards since adequate power is already available.
In the alternative, Environmental Defense commented that deployment of energy
efficiency measures would solve most electricity sufficiency and reliability
problems.
Although adequate power is generally readily available throughout the state,
the commission believes this standard permit will be most useful in areas
of the state that either do not have adequate power available or inadequate
transmission and distribution systems for the power. The standard permit includes
strict emission standards to protect the environment, including the requirement
for future installations to meet increasingly stricter standards. The inclusion
of a credit for CHP use also benefits those who chose to install and operate
more efficient units and eliminate the need for additional fossil fueled heat
sources.
Public Citizen recommended more stringent standards for nonattainment areas
and commented that the state should be required to examine the cumulative
impact of these emissions in nonattainment areas. Public Citizen recommended
that the commission adopt a bifurcated rule that would allow EGUs to be permitted
as proposed under the standard permit but in nonattainment areas require individual
permits with offsets. Public Citizen commented that this would assure that
the addition of any new source must be aggregated into the SIP caps and that
they are "permittable" under the limits. Public Citizen commented that this
would assure that the technologies used meet the Lowest Achievable Emission
Rate (LAER) standard.
As discussed earlier, by establishing the standards for both the East Texas
region and the West Texas region in the standard permit, the commission is
able to ensure that BACT in the East Texas region addresses the unique nonattainment
issues in that area of the state. Individual New Source Review permits would
be required for any project that triggers nonattainment review which would
include LAER.
Public Citizen questioned the wisdom of placing diesel units in neighborhoods
or in office clusters where citizens would be continuously exposed to carcinogens
and encouraged the commission to keep in mind various air quality issues and
deadlines that must be met in upcoming years when choosing the standard permit's
emission standards. Public Citizen encouraged the commission to evaluate the
impact of other pollutants from DG because of the long useful life of some
DG units. Public Citizen also stated that pricing of electricity in the future
will likely encourage the use of DG and this fact should also be considered
when establishing emission limits.
The commission agrees with Public Citizen's concern about diesel units
because of the higher emissions of NO
x
and other
air pollutants. The only standard in the standard permit that would authorize
diesel engines which use current technology is the standard for peaking units
operating 300 hours or less in the West Texas region. Parts of the West Texas
region may have transmission and distribution limitations in a deregulated
market, but by limiting the hours of operation, the impact of all pollutants
are minimized.
Public Citizen recommended that the commission modify the standard permit
to assure that some or all of the emissions from EGUs are controlled under
its general authority to adopt regulations necessary to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality. Public Citizen recommended that the commission
establish a docket to develop appropriate emission levels for EGU pollutants
and incorporate the findings of that inquiry into a BACT review.
The standard permit requires BACT and replaces the use of permit by rule
30 TAC §106.512 that has less stringent standards for NO
x
. Any BACT determination for permits under review will look at all
technology available, not just recently permitted units. In addition, facilities
which trigger Prevention of Significant Deterioration permitting would not
be eligible to use the standard permit.
Plug Power supported the fact that the proposed standard permit treats
different electric generation technologies identically with respect to the
air emission standards.
The commission appreciates Plug Power supporting the position that the
standards should be the same for all units to encourage the use of the cleanest
and most efficient units.
Senator Van de Putte stated that the standard permit inappropriately applied
emission standards for one type of technology for the regulation of another
and encouraged the commission to apply a broader, integrated solution to the
regulation of emissions from the power generation sector. She also stated
the proposed standard permit must be revised to allow DG technologies to benefit
the Texas environment and economy. Honeywell Power stated that a direct application
of combined cycle plant emission standards to the DG industry does not necessarily
maintain the current level of air quality. Honeywell Power stated that many
factors, as they relate to the operation and use of combined cycle plants
and DG, affect air quality. Holt and Holt Power commented that the commission's
approach to setting the emission limits has no basis in United States environmental
law or regulatory practice. They stated that the commission has set an environmental
standard for several categories of equipment based on the peak performance
of a different technology in a completely different size category. They stated
that the commission should set challenging but attainable emission limits
based on the best performance of each DG technology with consideration given
to the technical capabilities and economic factors associated with each technology.
They requested that there be an opportunity for public review and comment
before this rule is finalized. Solar commented that comparing DG technologies
to large combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT) is inappropriate because of differences
in system efficiency, line losses, and air dispersion characteristics. Solar
commented that the standards for DG technologies should be based on technology-based
standards (New Source Performance Standards) or case-by-case assessment of
technical and economic feasibility (BACT/LAER). Solar commented that lack
of DG will harm markets that are not served adequately by central station
power plants. EMA and Cummins stated that the standards are not reflective
of sound public policy since they "will effect a
de facto
ban" on small electrical generating units powered by reciprocating
internal combustion engines (RICE). EMA and Cummins stated that the NO
The commission has revised the standard permit in response to these comments.
The standard permit contains different standards to account for different
technologies available and the mode of operation of the units. The original
draft used natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants as the basis for
the standards. However, in response to comments, the commission divided the
state into two regions and allowed different technologies to be used in each.
In the West Texas region, nonattainment is not a major concern so the standards
allow for the cleanest reciprocating engines as well as turbines, micro-turbines,
and fuel cells. These standards do not ban any clean equipment and even clean
diesels meeting the EPA Tier 1 non-road engine standards can be used for peaking
in West Texas. In the East Texas region, where concern for ozone formation
is greater, the standards should allow for authorization of fuel cells, micro-
turbines, clean turbines using catalytic combustors or flue gas cleanup, and
the very cleanest reciprocating engines using catalytic converters. The commission
also recognizes that the cleanest technology available will be needed to maintain
the current level of air quality and to improve it in nonattainment and near-nonattainment
areas. The revised standards are output-based to encourage the use of the
most efficient and cleanest technology available and to encourage smaller
units located at or near the user to avoid the line losses associated with
only a few central power plants. The less stringent standards should encourage
the use of small units where appropriate and do not represent a ban on any
technology that is clean. The TCAA authorizes the commission to control the
quality of the state's air, issuing permits that meet or exceed BACT. The
commission considered this standard permit in an open meeting at which time
the public had the opportunity to comment on the standard permit.
DOE also stated that consideration of technology-specific goals may be
necessary before development of broad output-based standards.
The standard permit contains emission limits that allow for authorization
of a variety of clean electric generating units. The commission plans to use
the results of a planned study with the DOE to determine the environmental
impact and market penetration of DG units in Texas to determine the appropriate
outlying standards for DG technology.
AGCC also commented on the importance of considering how reduction of one
pollutant may increase emissions of another pollutant.
Information reviewed on the engines that can meet the NO
x
standards in the standard permit indicates that these engines are
efficient combustion sources so that increases in pollutants due to the NO
ACEEE commented that comparing DG technologies to baseload generating technologies
such as CCGT is inappropriate. ACEEE proposed that the commission consider
using state-of-the-art peaking units as the comparison technology for DG systems.
Sure Power commented that the comparison of DG only to new combined cycle
generation neglects other emissions attributable to the system as a whole
(i.e., DG emissions should be compared to grid emissions plus the emissions
from use of uninterruptible power supplies plus the emissions from the use
of backup diesel units). Sure Power commented that in markets requiring high-availability
power, DG emissions should be compared against the grid plus diesel generators
used to assure reliability. Catalytica commented that the commission's decision
to set emission limits based on the best emission level achievable from large
combined cycle units does not take into account that most DG units will be
simple cycle nor that small units cannot achieve the efficiencies of large
combined cycle systems. Catalytica commented that no units in the size range
covered by the proposed permit will be able to achieve the levels required
after January 1, 2005. Catalytica commented that the commission could establish
emission limits based on the best performance available from a gas turbine
and allow credit for emission reductions resulting from heat recovery. Catalytica
commented that by its emission levels the standard permit seems to be mandating
heat recovery, and that if that is the case, the commission should develop
a standard permit for non-heat recovery applications. Catalytica commented
that it would like the proposed standard permit to give credit for use of
combustion control technology over NO
x
control
technology applied to a boiler because emissions at start-up from the former
are less than the latter. DTE commented that adoption of the standard permit
will prevent implementation of DG in Texas while suppressing total market
opportunities for DG. DTE commented that this result will harm end- users
requiring personalized solutions that the electric grid cannot provide, and
society in general. AGCC stated the proposed standard permit will result in
electricity capacity shortfalls and price increases, increased emissions of
global warming gases, and reduced competition in the electricity- generation
sector. Good Company requested that the commission examine the costs and benefits
of the proposed standard permit. Sure Power commented that the stringent emission
limitations will drive customers to use the traditional grid plus diesel backup,
since the diesels are permitted by rule.
As previously discussed in response to the standards proposed, the commission
has modified the standard permit to represent BACT for more than just combined
cycle central station plants. The standards in the issued standard permit
will allow for the cleanest reciprocating engines as well as turbines, micro-turbines
and fuel cells. This should allow the use of clean equipment, give an incentive
for using CHP without setting standards that would require it, and provide
economic incentive for reliability power to be generated at the point of use
as opposed to relying on central plant power with emergency backup.
USCHPA stated that DG units should be given credit for abated transmission
and distribution (T & D) line losses equal to the average T & D losses
in Texas because DG reduces the amount of electricity that central station
plants must transmit. ACEEE proposed that the commission develop a system
for providing small generators with credit for avoiding transmission losses.
ACEEE recommended that emission rates for on-site generation be at least 9.0%
higher than the emission rates of state-of-the-art central combined cycle
gas generators. Good Company commented that the commission should at a minimum
allow a fair credit for on-site generation to account for line losses and
enhanced power quality and ensure that emissions are measured as total power
avoided rather than net power produced on site. Good Company recommended that
peaking power applications be given higher line loss and power quality adjustments
because peaking power is used when line losses are greatest. Good Company
recommended a 30% credit. ALSTOM commented that no credit is given for avoided
transmission losses from central generation by using DG despite the fact that
in periods of high demand transmission losses may reach 30%. Good Company
requested that the commission recognize the variety of needs which DG meets
as it develops the standard permit. Good Company commented that the emissions
from DG applications should, at a minimum, be compared to the emissions of
either peaking units or the electrical generation system average, rather than
the baseload combined cycle gas turbine plant. Good Company commented that
the commission should determine a fair credit that will account for the avoided
line losses and enhanced power that DG affords since increased DG generation
means decreased central station emissions. Austin Energy estimated that typical
line losses within its service area (the Austin Metro area) are between 8.0%
and 10% on a hot day.
The revised standards in the standard permit issued are no longer exclusively
based on recently permitted combined cycle power plants. Dividing the state
into two regions and setting separate standards in each region allowed for
more technologies and eliminated the need to meet the efficiency of a combined
cycle unit. This relaxation of the standards to reflect simple cycle turbine
and even reciprocating engines provides enough flexibility to adequately account
for the 10% line losses avoided. The commission does not believe that it is
appropriate to credit the highest possible line losses of 30% to allow equipment
that cannot meet the BACT standards to be competitive.
USCHPA suggested that the allowable emission limits be adjusted to allow
for multiple DG technologies, including simple-cycle gas turbines and controlled
gas engines. USCHPA stated that the only available technology that meets the
requirements in the proposal is the fuel cell but that fuel cells, at a cost
of $1,500 to $3,000 per kilowatt-hour (KWh) installed, are cost-effective
only for a small number of "high-value industries." ALSTOM stated that DG
will only succeed as a "mix of technologies" so that consumers may have maximum
choice in how their power is generated. ALSTOM stated that the mix would include
reciprocating engines, micro-turbines, wind, solar, small to medium-sized
gas turbines, fuel cells, and other technologies as they become available.
ALSTOM commented that a standard for turbines and one for reciprocating engines
are necessary for DG to successfully grow in Texas. ALSTOM stated that it
seems impractical to compare emissions, on a lb/MWh basis, from a small DG
unit to that of a combined cycle gas turbine where efficiency is relatively
high and exhaust cleanup, though expensive, is a smaller proportion of total
cost. AGCC commented that "force-fitting" the state implementation plan for
Houston and Galveston on the remainder of Texas, the majority of which is
in attainment, is "counterproductive for the greater good of Texas" and consumers
from other states who rely on natural gas from Texas. AGCC commented that
mandating BACT would preclude more logical Reasonably Available Control Technologies
(RACT) which could undermine legitimate environmental objectives. AGCC commented
that mandating combined-cycle turbine "merchant plants" would decrease competition
and increase water and natural gas consumption (thereby increasing emissions).
AGCC commented that combined-cycle emission reductions may be significantly
overstated since emissions from those units may vary significantly as a function
of inlet air temperature.
As previously discussed in responses to other comments on the standards,
the commission has revised the standards based upon East and West Texas regions
and upon the operating schedule of the units. The original draft used natural
gas-fired combined cycle power plants as the basis for the standards, but
by dividing the state into two separate regions, the standard permit issued
allows different technologies to be used. In the West Texas region nonattainment
is not a major concern, so the standards allow for the cleanest reciprocating
engines as well as turbines, micro-turbines and fuel cells. Even clean diesels
meeting the EPA Tier 1 non-road engine standards can be used for peaking.
In the East Texas region, the standards should allow for authorization of
fuel cells, micro-turbines, clean turbines using catalytic combustors or flue
gas cleanup, and the very cleanest reciprocating engines using catalytic converters.
This mix of technologies should give the users the flexibility to choose the
most appropriate equipment for the location.
AGCC commented that an ideal credit formula should be based upon actual
overall emissions reduced since the emissions that accompany overall British
thermal unit (Btu) consumption are of primary importance. AGCC commented that
for DG, credit should be based upon a given DG system's emissions relative
to the grid, and for CHP, credit should also compensate for emission differences
between heat recovery and use of an on-site furnace or boiler. AGCC provided
an alternative formula.
The commission appreciates AGCC's comments on CHP credits, and tried to
give adequate credit for CHP installations without over complicating the calculations
required. To simplify the calculations and demonstrations required, the revisions
in the standard permit credit 100% of the useful heat recovered and no longer
require a standardized system.
Waukesha-Pearce urged the commission to carefully study the reduction systems
it is advocating with respect to initial cost, operational cost, and total
impact on air quality. Waukesha-Pearce expressed concern that the commission
is mandating large reductions too quickly with the proposed standard permit
and the proposed levels in §117.206(C)(9). Waukesha-Pearce stated that
the proposed emission limits create a situation where the cost of controls
equals or exceeds the cost of the engine. AGCC commented that the trade-offs
between minimizing criteria emissions, minimizing adverse economic impacts,
and maximizing conservation of finite resources must be comprehensively addressed
to minimize unintended consequences of the standard permit emission limits.
AGCC also commented that least-cost/integrated resource planning are being
ignored. AGCC explained that most commercially-available DG technologies are
less expensive than most combined-cycle power plants when the cost of transmission
and distribution infrastructure is included in the cost of combined-cycle
power plants. AGCC stated that ignoring such factors usually results in higher
costs to consumers, fewer consumer choices, and deterioration of the environment.
EMA and Cummins stated that the proposed emission standards are not cost-effective.
Cummins stated that the proposed standard permit is not reasonable. Global
Power commented that the decision to base the proposed emission limits on
emission limits achievable by recently permitted large combined-cycle power
plants is misguided and impractical and provided emission, cost, and anecdotal
evidence in support of its proposition. Global Power opposed emission limits
that would require widespread use of SCR technology to achieve them because
of the potential problems associated with SCR use. Global Power stated that
the proposed emission limits would create a severe economic hardship for businesses
in Texas because the standard permit, in effect, prohibits DG and, therefore,
DG cannot be used to supplement the inadequacies of the electric grid transmission
and distribution system. Global Power recommended that the standard permit
should reflect the emissions capabilities of small gas turbines and reciprocating
engines without post-combustion treatment except in nonattainment areas, where
non-selective catalytic reducers (NSCR) would be required in the exhausts
of natural gas-fueled rich burn engines and turbines that utilize non-dry
low NO
x
combustion systems. Global Power would
be in favor of emission limits for diesel engines in attainment areas that
require the use of commercially-viable SCR technology, while diesel engines
in nonattainment areas would be required to obtain a regular NSR permit.
As previously discussed in responses to comments about the standards, the
issued standard permit has been revised to include different standards based
upon the area of the state and operation of the unit. The commission believes
that these new standards reflect BACT for what is available for clean technology
today in most cases without additional expensive controls.
Good Company recommended credit for any emission reductions or increase
of on-site efficiencies attributed to DG units at a site. For example, an
owner or operator should be credited for replacement of two industrial boilers
by a lesser emitting DG unit. Encorp commented that permitting should be on
a "weighted environmental impact" basis and dependent on available options.
The commission believes these issues should be addressed in a case-by-case
review permit, such as a flexible permit, rather than the standard permit
issued. Therefore, no change to the standard permit was proposed.
AGCC commented that water usage issues have not been considered. AGCC stated
that combined-cycle power plant cooling water consumption equates to about
5.71 acre-feet per megawatt- year but that DG units do not. AGCC commented
that the standard permit encourages reliance on combined-cycle power plants
and that reliance on those units negatively impacts the agriculture industry,
especially in the panhandle of Texas, where combined-cycle plants and agriculture
sources compete for a limited amount of water. AGCC commented that insufficient
water for agriculture sources in the panhandle will result in detriment to
the state and the nation. DTE commented that DG benefits include reduced use
of land and water resources associated with construction of new central station
power plants and expansion of transmission and distribution facilities. DTE
also commented that since DG is located near the end-user, DG does not have
significant line losses resulting from transmission of electricity over long
distances. Solar commented that operation of a 25 ppm or 15 ppm gas turbine
during an emergency is better than operation of liquid fuel-based emergency
unit and that the emission standards should take this into account.
As revised, the standard permit should encourage the use of smaller, clean
generating units near the end-user where there is a limited power supply or
distribution system and would, therefore, reduce the need for additional central
power stations that require cooling towers that use large quantities of water
to condense the steam back into water. The NO
x
standards that were established based upon BACT will ensure that the cleanest
units are used.
Good Company encouraged the commission to recognize that small-scale generation,
when and if it becomes a significant economic alternative, will not be simply
an alternative for large-scale, centrally-generated electric power, but that
it holds promise for providing power quality and reliability characteristics
not available from the larger power grid. Good Company commented that the
commission should consider the impact of the standard permit on the economy.
Good Company recommended that the commission recognize three classes of on-site
applications (emergency, peaking, and primary power) and that standards be
set based upon the best available technology assessment of the applicable
technology for each. Good Company recommended that the commission recognize
the technical and economic feasibility of a variety of equipment in different
size ranges. Good Company commented that the standards should not be based
upon the assumption that fuel cells are the best available technology.
The standard permit, as revised, includes standards for large and small
units as well as incentives for the use of small units and units that operate
a limited number of hours. To encourage efficiency, standards were established
in pounds of emissions per unit output, but were not established separately
for different types of technology. The standards will allow for very clean
reciprocating engines as well as turbines, micro-turbines, and fuel cells.
Good Company commented that a separate standard permit that includes a
less stringent standard for units used less than 720 hours could reduce the
need for either the use of older, out-dated central station and "must run"
plants, or the need to start up diesel backup generator sets. Good Company
commented that the commission should consider the standard emission levels
in comparison to the most outmoded generation rather than the new utility-scale
generation. Good Company commented that by limiting the use of these machines
to after 10 a.m., the commission could limit the contribution of any NO
The standard permit has been revised to allow units in the West Texas region
to operate up to 300 hours per year at a higher standard which could reduce
the needs mentioned. This should allow diesel engines meeting EPA's Tier I
diesel off-road standards to be used for peaking. The standards in the East
Texas region are more stringent to recognize the nonattainment concerns for
this region. Since the commission is required to apply at least BACT, it is
difficult to set standards based on outmoded generation rather than current
technology.
Southern Union recommended that sites located in nonattainment areas, with
total DG capacity of less than 300 kW and emissions less than 5.912 lb/MWh,
continue to be permitted by rule under §106.512. Southern Union explained
that under this scenario, total NO
x
emissions
would be approximately 7.8 tons per year (assuming continuous operation).
Global Power suggested that units with a nameplate rating of 150 kW or less,
with a limit of three such units per site, have relaxed emission standards.
ACEEE recommended that the regulations for on-site generation set forth in
the standard permit be loosened.
No change has been made in response to this comment. Without proper controls,
a proliferation of small units could negatively impact the commission's obligation
to demonstrate attainment with ozone standards. As previously stated, the
standard permit was revised so that more types of facilities could meet it.
In addition, the commission wants to encourage the use of emerging ultra-clean
technologies, such as fuel cells, for small generation units. Finally, very
clean small units may petition the executive director to be listed on the
list entitled "De Minimis Facilities or Sources" and avoid the need to register
under this standard permit, if approved and added to the list.
Environmental Defense stated that the standard for West Texas should be
set in the first period to allow new units to utilize internal combustion
engine (ICE) technology but be fueled and operated in a manner that produces
lower emissions. Environmental Defense recommended a 2001 - 2002 NO
x
standard of 1 lb/MWh for those units since an ICE engine fueled by
natural gas can achieve a standard of 1 lb/MWh without SCR post-combustion
control. Environmental Defense recommended a 2003 - 2004 NO
x
standard of 0.3 lb/MWh since Caterpillar has publicly stated that
it expects to achieve a standard of 0.3 lb/MWh very soon with lean burn natural
gas ICEs.
The commission is issuing the standard permit which includes separate standards
applicable to an East Texas region and a West Texas region. The West Texas
standards represent BACT for natural gas-fired lean burn and rich burn internal
combustion engines. The standards recommended by Environmental Defense would
not allow lean burn engines to use the standard permit without adding SCR,
which the commission has not determined to be needed in the West Texas region.
The West Texas standards will be reevaluated at the completion of the planned
DG study and may be adjusted, if needed.
Environmental Defense commented that if the East Texas NO
x
standards of 0.19 pounds per megawatt-hour (lb/MWh) and 0.08 lb/MWh
for 2003 and 2005 are maintained then micro-turbine technology will benefit
from increased production and concomitant decreasing production costs. Environmental
Defense reasoned that micro-turbine technology will then be economic for use
in West Texas, as well as East Texas, by 2005. For that reason, Environmental
Defense recommended that for the time being, the West Texas target for 2005
should remain 0.08 lb/MWh.
The standard permit has an initial East Texas region standard for units
(10 MW or less) operating more than 300 hours per year of 0.47 lb/MWh to be
reduced to 0.14 lb/MWh in 2005. Units (10 MW or less) operating 300 hours
or less per year must comply with a standard of 1.65 lb/MWh to be reduced
to 0.47 lb/MWh in 2005. The commission will reevaluate the 2005 standard after
completion of the planned DG study. The standards in East Texas represent
BACT for the ozone nonattainment areas in East Texas. The commission agrees
that as clean technology, such as micro-turbines, becomes more commercially
available, there will be more options for the owners or operators of these
electric generating units. This can be considered when, and if, new standards
for West Texas are proposed.
NRDC commented that a number of commenters claim that because the proposed
emission rates cannot be achieved by all generation technologies that the
standards are too strict. NRDC commented that technology forcing regulations
by their very nature should only be achievable by the best technologies, and
that there is clearly a set of small generators that can meet the standards
proposed by the commission as long as the standards are adjusted for phased-in
efficiency. NRDC commented that Capstone, in their comments, suggested adjusting
the commission proposed standards to reflect gradual improvements in efficiency.
NRDC supported Capstone's suggested NO
x
emission
rates of 0.40 lb/MWh today, 0.19 lb/MWh in 2003, and 0.08 lb/MWh in 2005.
The commission appreciates NRDC's comments and support for the concept
that standards apply to all technologies so long as they are achievable. The
standard permit was revised to reflect this concept. The standard permit has
an initial East Texas region standard for units (10 MW or less) operating
more than 300 hours per year of 0.47 lb/MWh to be reduced to 0.14 lb/MWh in
2005. Units (10 MW or less) operating 300 hours or less per year must comply
with a standard of 1.65 lb/MWh to be reduced to 0.47 lb/MWh in 2005. The standard
permit contains standards that represent BACT for various electric generating
unit technologies. The East Texas region standards will be reevaluated upon
completion of the planned DG study.
Honeywell Power commented that practical emission limits should be set
that are within the DG industry's "reach" both technically and economically,
and that these limits will result in cleaner ambient air and economic benefits.
Honeywell Power recommended the following NO
x
emission limits: 2001, 2.0 lb/MWh; 2002, 1.0 lb/MWh; 2003, 1.0 lb/MWh; 2004,
0.3 lb/MWh; 2005, 0.3 lb/MWh. Honeywell Power stated that their recommended
emission limits are achievable by most manufacturers in the given time period
and are significantly lower than the aggregated existing fleet. Honeywell
Power stated that they have no technology that can meet the proposed emission
limitations. Capstone recommended the following NO
x
emission limits over time: 0.4 lb/MWh; 0.19 lb/MWh; 0.08 lb/MWh. Capstone
stated that commission assumed too high an efficiency for CCGT on which the
commission based its standards. Capstone's recommendation assumes a more realistic
efficiency (30% - 35%) for these units. Capstone commented that the emission
standards should be stepped down as the efficiency of CCGTs goes up. Capstone
commented that the standards should reflect that reduced line losses attributed
to DG. Solar recommended the following NO
x
emission
levels for natural gas-fueled gas turbines across all duty cycles: 1.06 lb/MWh
until 2004 and 0.68 lb/MWh from 2005 to 2010. Solar commented that the proposed
standards would require add-on controls to achieve and make such projects
too expensive to construct.
The standard permit was revised in response to these comments. The standards
were adjusted to represent BACT for more than just the most efficient combined-cycle
turbines and are similar to the standards proposed by the commenters. The
state was divided into two regions with different standards for units under
10 MW because of the nonattainment issues in the East Texas region. The West
Texas region standards for units less than or equal to 10 MW are 21 lb/MWh
for units operating less than or equal to 300 hours per year and 3.11 lb/MWh
for all other units. The standard permit has an initial East Texas region
standard for units (10 MW or less) operating more than 300 hours per year
of 0.47 lb/MWh to be reduced to 0.14 lb/MWh in 2005. Units (10 MW or less)
operating 300 hours or less per year must comply with a standard of 1.65 lb/MWh
to be reduced to 0.47 lb/MWh in 2005. The initial standards in the standard
permit are achievable by the cleanest reciprocating engines and turbines without
expensive controls as well as micro-turbines and fuel cells. The standard
permit now contains emission limits that do not require add-on controls.
EMA and Cummins stated that the proposed emission requirements are not
technologically feasible for RICE. EMA stated that the proposed interim standard
is an order of magnitude more stringent than what can be achieved by the most
advanced lean-burn spark-ignited (SI) RICE. EMA also stated that the proposed
standard is an order of magnitude more stringent than the expected federal
NO
x
limit for heavy-duty diesel on-highway engines
expected to become final in 2007.
The standard permit was revised in response to these comments. The proposed
standards were based upon what had been permitted for combined-cycle central
power plants and was not achievable by most of the smaller engines. However,
the initial standards in the standard permit, as revised, represent BACT that
the cleanest RICE and turbines can meet today, as well as micro- turbines
and fuel cells.
DOE suggested that the commission consider an interim ruling targeting
single digit NO
x
with future reductions that
match research and development goals for various DG technologies. DOE stated
that commercial offerings do not exist which will guarantee the proposed 2005
standard can be met. Encorp commented that a determination should be made
of the expected distribution and size of DG units in the state in an effort
to determine the impact of DG.
The commission plans to participate in a study with the DOE to determine
the environmental impact, market potential, and technology available for small
electric generating units. The results of this study will be used to reevaluate
the 2005 East Texas region standard.
Cummins stated that the standard permit should take into account that NO
The standards in the West Texas region allow for the use of diesel engines
meeting the Tier 1 non-road engine standards for 300 hours or less. If the
planned DG study demonstrates the market potential for additional diesel use
and that the technology will continue to improve, revisions to the West Texas
region standards may be considered. Please note that emergency backup generators
powered by diesel engines can still be authorized under §106.511, Portable
and Emergency Engines and Turbines.
Global Power stated that the proposed emission limits are not viable for
any small electric generating units using proven technology that is currently
available or under development. Global Power disagreed with the agency's intention,
presented at the January 23, 2001 stakeholder meeting, to retain the proposed
emission standards for years 2003 and 2005. Global Power said that to do so
will discourage, if not eliminate, the raising of capital to develop the DG
market since companies will not put resources into a market that has unattractive
economics and "impassable" environmental regulations.
As previously discussed, the standard permit was revised in response to
these comments with a single step-down for the East Texas region in 2005.
The initial standard reflects BACT for units available today. The East Texas
region 2005 standard will be reevaluated once the planned DG study is completed.
EMA endorsed the alternative permitting standards that Good Company submitted
during the January 23, 2001 stakeholder meeting. ALSTOM recommended a standard
of 0.4 lb/MWh for today's turbines (in simple, open cycle) and a standard
of 0.22 lb/MWh for 2005. ALSTOM commented that the standard permit's 2005
standard of 0.08 lb/MWh is cost prohibitive. ALSTOM commented that relaxing
the long-term proposed standards to 9 ppm may encourage the development of
small DG in all areas of the state. ALSTOM explained that a relaxed standard
should decrease demand for existing plant generation and accelerate the improvement
of air quality since modern gas turbines can meet 9 ppm which is an order
of magnitude more clean than existing plants in some areas of the state. AGCC
stated that the commission should not mandate unaffordable emission reduction
technologies since RACT for reciprocating engines can provide economically
manageable NO
x
emission of 0.5 to 1 lb/MWh, thereby
reducing NO
x
emissions somewhere between one-third
and one-sixth the emissions of the grid average. AGCC commented that overall
emission reductions from DG are further increased when rejected heat is recovered
to displace less clean combustion processes. Waukesha Engine recommended less
stringent CO and NO
x
emission standards in paragraph
(3)(C) and (D) according to the following: Rich-burn SI RICE: 1.86 lb/MWh
CO, 0.62 lb/MWh NO
x
; Lean-burn SI RICE: 0.93
lb/MWh CO, 0.93 lb/MWh NO
x
. Southern Union requested
that the commission reevaluate the proposed emission limits and provide justification
that existing, readily available combustion units can meet the limits without
an inordinate amount of post-combustion controls. Southern Union requested
that the proposed standard permit be revised to reflect the additional time
provided for in the version of the SIP rule adopted by the commission (i.e.,
the first step-down extends until December 31, 2006 rather than December 31,
2004).
The commission has made changes to the standard permit in response to these
comments. The state has been divided into two regions to address the need
for more stringent requirements in the East Texas region because of the ozone
nonattainment problem and inclusion of near nonattainment areas in much of
that region. The West Texas region standards for units less than or equal
to 10 MW are 21 lb/MWh for units operating less than or equal to 300 hours
per year and 3.11 lb/MWh for all other units. The standard permit has an initial
East Texas region standard for units (10 MW or less) operating more than 300
hours per year of 0.47 lb/MWh to be reduced to 0.14 lb/MWh in 2005. Units
(10 MW or less) operating 300 hours or less per year must comply with a standard
of 1.65 lb/MWh to be reduced to 0.47 lb/MWh in 2005. The commission decided
that a single-step down four years from now is more appropriate than the two
step-down approach over four years because the two step-down approach does
not provide manufacturers time to develop, test, and market products. The
East Texas region 2005 standard will be reevaluated upon completion of the
planned DG study. As discussed previously, different standards are based upon
region, date of installation, and hours of operation. Standards, based upon
hours of operation, have also been included for units greater than 10 MW.
Southern Union recommended NO
x
emission limits
of 2.0 g/hp-hr for internal combustion gas-fired engines and 3.0 g/hp-hr for
turbines rated at 500 horsepower (hp) or more for sources located in attainment
or unclassified areas, since the commission's March 2000 "Revised Draft of
BACT for Gas Turbines" states that sources meeting these limits could be permitted
by rule under 30 TAC §106.512. Encorp recommended that NO
x
and carbon dioxide (CO
2
) emission limits
should be based on specific information about current best available technology
for DG units. Encorp recommended that emission limits should be based on the
overall electrical and thermal efficiency of the unit. Encorp commented that
emission limits should be in units of tons per year. Encorp commented that
emission limits should be based on comparisons between the various commercially
available DG units and not between DG units and large combined- cycle turbine
central plants.
As discussed previously, the emission standards in the issued standard
permit have been revised, although not to the extent suggested by these comments.
Permits by Rule in Chapter 106 do not necessarily represent BACT. Permit by
rule, §106.512 has not been revised since 1992. This standard permit
represents BACT, as required by 30 TAC §116.602(c), with consideration
given to the region of the state and operating mode. Establishing the standard
in lb/MWh encourages the cleanest and most efficient units regardless of the
technology.
Catalytica suggested that paragraph (3)(C) and (D) include the averaging
period to be used to determine compliance. Catalytica suggested a three-hour
averaging period.
The standard permit has not been revised in response to this comment. The
commission believes that there is not enough data available to justify including
a three-hour averaging period. A one-hour standard is consistent with NSR
permitting on a pound per hour basis.
DTE commented that the proposed NO
x
emission
standards for DG can only be met with today's emerging fuel cell and renewable
energy (wind and solar) based DG technologies. DTE commented that even if
an end-use customer were to use an emerging micro- or mini- gas turbine technology
with waste heat recovery, the resulting NO
x
emissions,
when corrected for the waste heat recovered, would be too high to meet the
January 1, 2003 standard. DTE commented that the commission should consider
deploying the strict standard for DG NO
x
only
within ozone nonattainment areas.
The standard permit has been revised in response to these comments. As
discussed previously in response to other comments, the standard permit issued
has been revised to represent BACT that will include more technologies than
just fuel cells and micro-turbines, and to include different standards for
the West Texas and East Texas regions.
DTE commented that the time frame for deployment does not provide enough
time for technology development to meet the standard. Therefore, DTE recommended
modifying the time line for implementation to allow combustion-based technology
time to advance to a point where it can meet the outlying standards. Solar
commented that the timing proposed in the "stair-step" approach is inappropriate
because it does not allow time for technology development. Solar recommended
a five- year or ten-year window at each emission level. Solar also commented
that project delays may trigger a different emission level than that for which
the equipment was designed.
In response to this comment, the standard permit contains a single step-down
in 2005 for the East Texas region. The commission will reevaluate this standard
upon completion of the planned DG study.
Public Citizen supported the multi-stage process proposed by the commission
and supported establishing interim standards and providing for a later review
of technology. Public Citizen recommended conducting a reevaluation of the
technology in October 2002 after the implementation of the Tier 2 standards.
The commission appreciates the support of Public Citizen. As previously
discussed, the standard permit has been revised to retain the step-down feature
for the East Texas region, but extended to 2005 to have a single step-down.
Upon completion of the planned DG study, the commission will reevaluate this
standard, as well as whether the standards in East Texas require adjustment.
Public Citizen commented that the emission reductions and technologies
proposed by engine and turbine manufacturers are far too low given the federal
Tier 2 and Tier 3 emission levels that will soon be required.
The commission appreciates the effort of the engine and turbine manufacturers
in providing information about emissions from their products, but agrees with
Public Citizen that the emission standards provided by manufacturers do not
represent BACT for electric generators. However, the initial standard has
been revised to allow for use of the standard permit by clean RICE which represent
BACT.
Public Citizen recommended the following NO
x
standards for base-load applications in East Texas: under 560 kW: a 2001 standard
of 1.2 lb/MWh and a 2003 standard of 0.23 lb/MWh; between 560 kW and 2 MW:
a 2001 standard of 1.1 lb/MWh and a 2003 standard of 0.23 lb/MWh for; between
2 MW and 10 MW: a 2001 standard of 0.23 lb/MWh and a 2003 standard of 0.23
lb/MWh. Public Citizen recommended the following NO
x
standards for peaking applications in East Texas: under 560 kW: a
2001 standard of 2.3 lb/MWh and a 2003 standard of 2.3 lb/MWh; between 560
kW and 2 MW: a 2001 standard of 2.3 lb/MWh and a 2003 standard of 2.3 lb/MWh;
between 2 MW and 10 MW: a 2001 standard of 1.5 lb/MWh and a 2003 standard
of 1.5 lb/MWh. Public Citizen recommended a West Texas 2001 NO
x
standard equivalent to Tier 2 for units generating under 560 kW and
a 2003 standard equivalent to Tier 3; a 2001 West Texas NO
x
standard equivalent to Tier 2 for units generating between 560 kW
and 2 MW and a 2003 standard equivalent to Tier 3; and a 2001 West Texas standard
equivalent to low NO
x
for units generating between
2 MW and 10 MW and a 2003 standard equivalent to low NO
x
. Public Citizen commented that its 2001 standard represents best
practices today and that its 2003 standards are commercially achievable somewhere
in the nation. Public Citizen supported the position taken by Environmental
Defense and NRDC for 2006 but recommended that the commission review the technology
in October 2002. Public Citizen commented that its break point at 2 MW reflects
the fact that few diesel units are sold below 2 MW while turbines prevail
due to cost and efficiency factors. Finally, Public Citizen recommended that
the commission review emissions for generators under 37 kW because they are
unregulated for the most part and need to be studied for the 2002 review.
Good Company recommended the following NO
x
emission
standards for nonattainment areas: Good Company recommended a 2001 NO
The commission agrees that the emission standards originally proposed should
be revised but did not agree entirely with the standards proposed by Public
Citizen and Good Company because they were too complex and contained too many
options. Rather the commission has issued the standard permit to include definitions
from SB 7 for an East Texas region and a West Texas region, as requested.
The East Texas region includes all of the nonattainment areas, except the
El Paso area, and is the same area already identified as needing special consideration
due to the ozone "near-nonattainment" for several other major metropolitan
areas. Different standards have been included based upon the region, date
of installation, and hours of operation. There are no special standards for
very small units, but very clean small units may be listed as a de-minimis
source. Standards have also been added for units greater than 10 MW based
upon hours of operation to encourage streamlined permitting of clean units.
The standards in West Texas represent BACT for clean generators and allow
for relaxed standards for peaking unit operating 300 hours or less. The East
Texas standards for units operating more than 300 hours represent BACT which
is comparable to recently permitted central station power generation plants
to protect the ozone nonattainment areas of East Texas. The commission notes
that the standard permit represents a substantial reduction in emissions permitted
by rule under §106.512.
Carbon Monoxide Requirement and Other Pollutants
Capstone recommended that unburned hydrocarbons, rather than CO, be regulated
because the primary environmental concern is the unburned hydrocarbon emissions.
Cotton Bledsoe asked whether the waste gas credit applied to CO emissions.
EMA stated that the proposed CO standard would require engines to incorporate
catalytic oxidation aftertreatment. Solar recommended that the CO standard
be changed to 1.3 lb/MWh because it represents the upper limit of the range
for which manufacturers will guarantee CO but that actual emissions are often
much lower. Sure Power commented that the CO emission limit of 0.9 lb/MWh
seems very restrictive and could result in significant added cost of additional
catalytic reduction to both gas reciprocating engines and gas turbine systems.
Sure Power agreed that CO emissions should be as low as practicable and requested
that the commission reconsider where the CO number should be established.
The standard permit has been revised to remove the CO emission limit. The
commission evaluated the data available for CO and unburned hydrocarbons emissions
and determined that since output-based standards require high efficiency,
the CO standard was not necessary.
DOE encouraged discussion of emission trade-offs before setting an emission
limit. In support of this suggestion, DOE stated that often times regulation
of one pollutant increases the emission of non- regulated pollutants. DOE
implied that this phenomena should be accounted for in a cost/benefit calculation.
AGCC also commented on the importance of considering how reduction of one
pollutant may increase emissions of another pollutant.
No change has been made in response to this comment. The commission does
not believe that the NO
x
limits will contribute
to large increases in other air contaminants because the standards reward
efficient operation of a unit.
Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
NRDC supported the commission's treatment of CHP. USCHPA commended the
commission for recognizing the inherent efficiency improvements and emission
reductions that CHP systems afford. ACEEE supported the commission's efforts
to encourage the adoption of CHP systems. Solar supported the effort to encourage
the adoption of CHP systems and the decision to credit recovered heat equally
with useable electricity.
The commission appreciates the support for CHP. The CHP credit is designed
to encourage users to install and use CHP to improve the efficiency of these
generating units where there is a valid need for the recovered heat.
AGCC assumed that the intention of the heat recovery credit is to provide
0.23 pounds of NO
x
and/or 0.9 pounds of CO for
every 3.4 million Btu recovered and, therefore, suggested that the second
sentence in paragraph (3)(E) be revised to so reflect. However, AGCC commented
that the second sentence in paragraph (3)(E) and its suggested revision do
not address the variability and relationships between overall efficiency and
heat recovery of CHP. AGCC also commented that the credit for CHP should also
reflect that DG CHP will reduce NO
x
and CO emissions
from traditional commercial and industrial combustion processes (e.g., furnaces,
boilers, etc.). Sure Power commented that the proposed standard permit provides
inadequate credit for CHP applications. For example, in the case where waste
heat is used to drive an absorption chiller, this heat should be credited
with the average heat rate of the generators in the grid as a whole, rather
than just 3.4 million Btu per delivered MWh, as in the proposed standard permit.
By way of clarification, the commission intends the CHP credit to work
in the following manner. If, for example, an owner of a 10 MW unit in compliance
with the standard permit recovers and applies 3.4 million Btu of heat for
some useful purpose, the unit may emit NO
x
in
an hourly amount equal to that of an 11 MW unit. Thus, suppose that a 10 MW
unit is subject to a NO
x
emission standard of
0.47 lb/MWh. The hourly NO
x
rate for that unit
is 4.7 pounds of NO
x
per hour. If 3.4 million
Btu of heat is recovered from that unit, the permissible NO
x
rate for that unit is 5.17 pounds of NO
x
per hour.
However, the standard permit has been revised in response to this comment.
Since the CHP credit does not take into account the variability of the relationship
between overall efficiency and heat recovery of CHP, the commission removed
the requirement that the unit maintain a minimum efficiency of 55%. However,
the commission did not change the CHP credit itself. The commission believes
the credit is appropriate and that it clearly and simply acknowledges and
encourages reduced NO
x
emissions concomitant
with use of heat recovery. The straightforward credit also keeps the recordkeeping
requirements to a minimum. Attempting to assign a credit based on the NO
ACGG stated that the commission would better serve the public by awarding
tradable emissions reductions credits for promoting CHP systems.
The standard permit as a streamlined preconstruction authorization mechanism
is not an appropriate avenue for implementing a tradable emissions reduction
credit program, nor does it preclude participation in an existing emission
reduction credit trading program. Therefore, the standard permit was not changed
in response to this comment.
AGCC commented that the commission should mandate CHP as BACT rather than
combined- cycle turbines.
The standard permit has been changed since the commission agrees that applying
combined- cycle turbines standards to all electric generating units is not
appropriate. However, mandating CHP as BACT would be inappropriate since many
owners and operators have no practical use for recovered heat. Therefore,
the standard permit was not changed in response to this latter comment.
AGCC commented that paragraph (3)(E)(ii) and (iii) lacks a time parameter
and suggested the time parameter be yearly averages.
The standard permit has been revised to remove paragraph (3)(E)(ii) (i.e.,
55% minimum efficiency for units taking CHP credit) from the standard permit.
However, paragraph (3)(E)(iii) (i.e., 20% heat recovery of total energy output)
has been retained. The requirement that the heat recovered must equal at least
20% of the total energy output of the CHP is a requirement that must be satisfied
at any given time. Otherwise, the recordkeeping requirements of the standard
permit become unnecessarily complex.
Austin Energy commented that the efficiency requirements need to be increased
by 10% since central station power plants are approaching 50 - 55% efficiency
rates. Austin Energy commented that cogeneration should only receive credit
for heat recovered in excess of the efficiency goal (useful energy out/fuel
in).
The standard permit was not changed in response to this comment because
of the commission's decision not to apply central station power plant emission
limits to all electric generating units initially. In addition, the commission
believes that any application of heat recovery is beneficial because it represents
efficient unit operation and energy conservation.
ALSTOM stated that standard CHP packages do not exist because many factors,
such as size of the equipment, steam conditioning requirements, process requirements,
and existing plant requirements must be considered when designing such a package.
Catalytica commented that heat recovery systems do not lend themselves to
a standardized design. Catalytica requested that paragraph (3)(E)(i) be deleted
because systems in the 1 - 10 MW size range are not integrated with the heat
recovery system. AEP commented that paragraph (3)(E)(i) should be changed
to allow a project developer to design and integrate equipment from more than
one vendor. AEP commented that this will allow equipment to be used from manufacturers
that do not integrate their own DG systems with heat recovery equipment. Good
Company commented that the proposed requirement that CHP systems be sold as
a standard unit is not feasible and should not be a requirement of the standard
permit.
The commission agrees with these comments and has removed the requirement
that to obtain credit for CHP the unit must be sold as an integrated standardized
package.
Waste Gas Credit
AEP commented that the proposal to allow credits to be generated and used
for the use of gas that would otherwise be vented or flared is a very good
way to promote the use of waste gases. Environmental Defense supported giving
additional credit to generators that use waste gas or renewable fuels and
those that install their facilities in a CHP application. Public Citizen supported
giving credit for the reuse of waste heat. Solar supported the concept of
waste gas to energy projects and stated that these projects are size and technology
specific and do not belong in a permit-by-rule arena.
The commission appreciates the commenter's support for the waste gas credit.
Solar commented that for gas turbines, the proposed emission levels are
technically unachievable on landfill gas applications. Solar commented that
if the waste gas recovery language remains in the rule, the 25% increase in
allowable emissions when the standard is 0.08 lb/MWh will not encourage DG
implementation for this or any application. Hunt Power commented that the
25% credit for use of flare gas is insufficient and encouraged the commission
to develop a methodology which will encourage the beneficial use of what is
today a wasted energy resource, by fairly comparing the "before" and "after"
air emissions from the useful combustion of flare gas. DTE commented that
the waste gas provisions are overly restrictive and eliminate the use of waste
gas as a fuel for purposes of DG. Cotton Bledsoe asked for confirmation that
this provision is intended to utilize a 25% larger hypothetical unit in calculating
total allowable emissions. Honeywell Power recommended that the commission
provide a more generous incentive for the use of flare gas in DG sets, otherwise
manufacturers will not have the motivation to manufacture DG sets that use
flare gas as a fuel. In the alternative, Honeywell Power recommended that
the commission implement a plan that encourages the use of flare gas based
on a showing of the emission reductions that can be achieved using flare gas.
Capstone recommended that users of waste gas be provided a 100% credit for
their use. Capstone stated that the proposed 25% credit may discourage the
use of waste gases for power generation and result in continued flaring of
these gases. AGCC stated that a 25% credit for gas that would otherwise be
wasted seems restrictive to the point of being counterproductive. EMA supported
extending meaningful allowances (i.e., 400%) against the permitting standards
for DG units operating on landfill and waste gases. EPA commented that the
proposed standards cannot be achieved by LFGTE projects that use the latest
and lowest NO
x
engines, even if the credit for
the use of flared gas is applied to the project, because landfill gas poisons
the catalyst and has different flow, composition, and Btu characteristics
than natural gas. EPA stated that new LFGTE internal combustion engines in
common use by industry emit at or below 2.0 lb/MWh and reduce emissions of
methane, a greenhouse gas, and volatile organic compounds. Because of the
environmental benefits of LFGTE projects and the recent PUC mandate for renewable
energy technologies, EPA encouraged the commission to evaluate the impact
that the standard permit would have on the development of LFGTE projects,
notwithstanding that LFGTE projects may apply for a regular NSR permit. ALSTOM
recommended a 100% credit for the use of flare or waste gas to recognize that
any low emissions technology application using the gas is an acceptable improvement
over venting or flaring of the gas. Waukesha Engine recommended that paragraph
(3)(F) incorporate emission standards commensurate with the engine-out capability
of lean-burn SI RICE. Global Power commented that the "waste" gas credit is
insufficient. Global Power commented that DG units using "waste" gas should
be permitted based on the best available commercially viable technology that
does not use SCR-type post-combustion clean-up device. EDI commented that
an issued standard permit, rather than granting a 25% credit to units that
use "waste" gas as a fuel, should instead establish a different set of emission
limits for these units. EDI commented that the emission limits should be based
on current BACT emission standards in West Texas and LAER emission standards
in East Texas, as justified by taking into account the emissions from flaring
or venting and from the other form of electrical generation offset by the
operation of the small electric generating unit. EDI recommended the following
emission limits for these units: in the West Texas region, NO
x
emissions shall not exceed 5.0 lb/MWh and CO emissions shall not
exceed 6.0 lb/MWh; in the East Texas region, NO
x
emissions shall not exceed 2.0 lb/MWh and CO emissions shall not exceed 6.2
lb/MWh. Environmental Defense commented that the commission should follow
two principles in establishing the adjustments for use of waste gas: 1) the
tighter the overall emission limits under the standard permit, the more flexibility
that can be accorded to these applications; and 2) the method of calculating
adjustments and verifying applications should be kept simple. Public Citizen
thought that the 25% credit is too inexact. Public Citizen commented that
most co-generated waste heat will be used to displace some operation with
calculable emissions, such as a boiler, heating unit, or air conditioner.
Public Citizen commented that the credit should be based on the emissions
of the displaced equipment multiplied by the hours of operation of the DG
unit, especially in nonattainment areas.
In response to all of these comments, the commission has changed the standard
permit so that it now contains a specific East Texas region NO
x
standard of 1.77 lb/MWh for units that use as fuel landfill gas,
digester gas, or oil field gases containing less than 1.5 grains hydrogen
sulfide or 30 grains total sulfur compounds. The commission acknowledges that
engines currently using landfill gas cannot achieve the NO
x
standard in the proposed standard permit because of limitations in
current technology, and that the 25% credit is not sufficient to bridge the
current technological gap. The commission also recognizes the useful benefit
in generating electricity with a fuel that is usually flared or vented to
the atmosphere. Consistent with the goal of a streamlined, simple authorization
mechanism, the commission believes that applying a specific standard for these
units rather than a formula based on various factors is more appropriate.
The standard for these units should allow for the cleanest lean burn engines.
As discussed above, the CO requirement has been removed from the standard
permit. Units in the West Texas region using these fuels may comply with the
West Texas regions standards contained in the standard permit.
Limitations on Sulfur in Fuel
Cotton Bledsoe stated that a ten grain standard is a very low standard
and may prevent many waste gas applications of DG.
The commission agrees that in certain gas fields it is appropriate to allow
for a higher sulfur content. The standard permit was revised to allow gases
that contain less than 1.5 grains of hydrogen sulfide or 30 grains of total
sulfur to be used as fuel. The commission believes that the 10 grain sulfur
limit for natural gas fuel is more than generous in most areas of Texas.
Consistent Nationwide Standards for EGUs
Honeywell Power stated that coordination of efforts on a nationwide level
is paramount for successfully providing generation options to Texas' ratepayers
that are environmentally friendly. Honeywell Power recommended some form of
coordination with California on the issue of DG emissions. Good Company encouraged
the commission to pursue development of the standard permit in conjunction
with other state (e.g., California) and national efforts currently underway.
EMA encouraged the commission to follow other ongoing issues and efforts related
to DG around the nation. EMA cited to efforts on the part of the DOE in this
area, the California state legislature, and the Ozone Transport commission.
The commission has been in contact with California Air Resources Board
(CARB) personnel, EPA personnel, and DOE personnel as this standard permit
has been drafted. The commission plans to participate with DOE and the PUC
on a study of technology and market potential for small electric generating
units. The California South Coast Air Quality Management District standards
were used to help establish BACT for reciprocating engines.
Future Regulatory Treatment of Electric Generating Units
Honeywell Power recommended that the commission phase out existing DG and
shaft power units over a period of three to five years and that "in-kind"
replacement of these units should be prohibited. Honeywell Power suggested
that an exemption from the phaseout be provided to owners and operators who
cannot economically justify replacement of the equipment. Honeywell Power
stated that such a phaseout would significantly improve air quality.
By statutory authority, NSR air permits only apply to new or modified facilities,
though owners or operators of existing facilities may voluntarily operate
their units under the standard permit. Requiring existing units to be replaced
would require rulemaking that is beyond the scope of this standard permit.
Certification and Recertification Requirements
ALSTOM stated that the proposed certification approach is reasonable for
the purpose of guaranteeing emissions at commissioning and for continuous
operation for a three-year period. ALSTOM applauded the apparent aim of the
certification approach to shift certification responsibility from the operator
to the manufacturer. ALSTOM stated that the 10% sample rate for recertification
is reasonable because sales of small gas turbines for this purpose will likely
number in the tens or hundreds, rather than thousands. Austin Energy commented
that the certification requirement in paragraph (3)(B) makes sense if a manufacturer
is providing the entire prime mover/generator/emissions control device as
a packaged unit. Austin Energy commented that there should be certification
provisions made for an entity that desires to add emissions control devices
to existing or new prime movers or for units configured on site from equipment
provided by different manufacturers. Capstone commented that recertification
based on testing of 10% of the DG fleet would be burdensome if DG thrives.
Therefore, Capstone recommended the following: 1.0% of the installed base
should be tested. If more than 25% fail to meet the standard, then 10% of
the base should be tested. If 25% of this sample fail, then the entire fleet
should be tested. Failing units would be required to be retrofitted and recertified.
Cummins stated that the certification and recertification plan is not sound
standard practice for high volume, mass-produced equipment. Global Power commented
that the manufacturer certification requirement cannot be met if post-combustion
devices are added to the exhaust stream because manufacturers of DG-size reciprocating
engines and turbines do not manufacture post-combustion devices nor market
integrated systems.
The standard permit has been revised so that manufacturers or owners may
certify units. The commission wanted owners and operators of existing units
an opportunity to use the standard permit. The commission also removed the
10% recertification sample rate by manufacturers and, instead, will require
recertification of units by owners or operators every 16,000 hours of operation
but not less frequently than every 3 years. Recertification may be accomplished
by following a maintenance schedule that a manufacturer certifies will ensure
continued compliance with the required NO
x
standard
or by third party testing of the unit using appropriate EPA reference methods.
The requirement that manufacturers test 10% of the fleet was not consistent
with most air pollution control regulatory requirements which place the onus
of testing on the owner or operator of the unit.
AGCC stated that the recertification requirements create a hardship for
DG projects of 1 MW or less because those requirements may eliminate the economic
feasibility of those projects. AGCC also recommended that the commission approve
the use of hand-held NO
x
and CO meters instead
of EPA reference methods and/or compliance assurance monitoring (CAM).
The standard permit has not been revised in response to these comments.
The commission anticipates that most owners or operators will recertify by
simply operating the unit consistent with the manufacturer's maintenance schedule.
This should keep costs to recertify to a minimum. The standard permit was
not changed to allow for recertification using a portable analyzer because
the EPA reference methods are considered a more reliable method for specifically
identifying the quantity of an air contaminant. However, the standard permit
does allow CARB methods to also be used for certification. Finally, the standard
permit does not specifically require CAM. However, owners or operators of
sites required to operate under a federal operating permit and concerned about
the applicability of CAM are directed to 30 TAC §122.702 for applicability
information.
Waukesha Engine recommended that paragraph (3)(B) clarify who is required
to certify the emissions from generating units and to affix the specified
label.
The standard permit was revised in response to this comment. Paragraph
(4)(A) provides that either the manufacturer or the owner may certify the
unit. The person certifying the unit should display that certification on
the unit's nameplate or on a label attached to the unit.
Plug Power recommended that the commission enforce the compliance at the
manufacturing or distribution facilities, and not at the individual residential
customer.
Units constructed and operated at a domestic residence for domestic use
are permitted by rule under §106.101 and not subject to this standard
permit. Therefore, the standard permit has not been revised in response to
this comment. Section 106.101 does not require certification.
Plug Power recommended that the commission use the PUC-proposed approach
of having an independent third party certify that the DG commercial model
meets the emission standards. Plug Power commented that, ideally, the PUC
certification of compliance with the technical interconnection requirements
and the commission certification of compliance with the emission standards
would be accomplished by the same independent third party and through the
same document applied for, and issued jointly by, the commission and PUC.
As previously discussed, a manufacturer or an owner may certify compliance
while an owner or a third party may recertify a unit. A dual commission/PUC
DG certification program is not in place at this time. If, however, it becomes
apparent that such a certification process would be useful because of the
number of DG units being constructed, the commission is open to studying the
feasibility of such a program should the PUC be interested.
Catalytica commented that if the intent of paragraph (3)(B) is to commit
the equipment supplier to stand behind the emission claim, the appropriate
term would be "guarantee." Catalytica also commented that if the intent is
to have a certification process where the supplier demonstrates the emission
level, the certification process must be spelled out somewhere in advance
of the use of the permit.
Catalytica's interpretation of proposed paragraph (3)(B) is correct; however,
the commission believes there is no appreciable benefit to using the word
"guarantee" as opposed to the word "certify" so the standard permit was not
changed in response to this comment. The standard permit does not provide
for certification by a supplier; only a manufacturer or an owner or operator
may certify the unit.
Catalytica asked whether undergoing EPA's environmental technology verification
(ETV) program or California's precertification program would constitute certification
under the standard permit. Catalytica asked what specifically needs to be
certified.
As the standard permit is issued, only EPA's reference methods, CARB's
methods, or an equivalent testing method, upon a showing by a petitioner of
its equivalency, may be used to certify a unit. A manufacturer or owner or
operator is certifying that the NO
x
emissions
from the electric generating unit (i.e., the combustion source driving the
generator) meet the applicable pound per megawatt-hour NO
x
emission limit in the standard permit.
Public Citizen recommended that the commission assure that the referenced
EPA test protocols match those proposed for real-world Texas DG use and not
just those appropriate for emergency generators.
The standard permit was not changed in response to this comment since EPA
reference methods, when properly used, are a long-standing, reliable method
for determining NO
x
emissions from a stationary
source, regardless of the stationary source being tested. For this reason,
the commission will accept certifications using EPA reference methods. The
commission will also accept CARB methods because they closely track EPA reference
methods.
Plug Power recommended that the commission consider registering models
of electric generation technologies, not individual units or groups of units.
Manufacturers choosing to certify their units will certify that the emissions
from the unit meet the standards established in the standard permit. If the
manufacturer certifies a model meets the required standards and has test data
to validate this certification, the commission will accept this certification.
Owners or operators authorizing units not certified by a manufacturer must
certify the unit using the test methods previously discussed.
Cotton Bledsoe asked whether "accompanying papers" from a manufacturer
or manufacturer's web site as to emission rates satisfy the nameplate requirement.
The standard permit was not changed in response to this comment. The standard
permit allows the certification of NO
x
emissions
to be displayed on the nameplate or on a label attached to the unit. The commission
believes this will enable commission enforcement personnel to more quickly
determine if the unit is certified to meet the required standard. Therefore,
accompanying papers will not satisfy the nameplate requirement.
Concern about Existing Fleet of Electric Generating Units and NSR Permitting
of EGUs
NRDC commented that the standard permit takes the first step in controlling
the emissions from small electricity generators but that it does not address
the already installed base of generators, nor prohibit units from seeking
a traditional site-specific minor NSR permit at potentially higher emission
rates. NRDC called on the commission to continue its efforts as soon as final
action on the standard permit is taken to close these gaps.
Regulating the currently installed base of EGUs goes beyond the scope of
this standard permit. The standard permit only applies to new or modified
units installed and operated after the effective date of this standard permit.
Requiring existing units to upgrade would require rulemaking, although owners
or operators may voluntarily register existing units under this standard permit.
By statute and rule, the standard permit must reflect BACT for the units
authorized under it. The commission believes that the issued standard permit
reflects BACT for a variety of units of different sizes and operating characteristics.
Therefore, persons applying for a regular NSR permit at emission levels higher
than in the standard permit will be required to show why the BACT standards
in the standard permit should not apply to their EGU.
Impact of the Proposed Standard Permit on the Agricultural and Oil/Gas
Industries
ATMOS commented that the proposed standard permit would result in a severe
hardship on the agricultural industry and economy of West Texas because engines,
rather than electric grid, are often used to power irrigation equipment in
this region. DTE commented that the standard permit will negatively impact
Texas' economy if it applies to existing reciprocating and gas turbine engines
currently used for water pumping/irrigation and oil and natural gas recovery.
In response to these comments and comments received on §106.512, the
amendment to §106.512 expected to be adopted by the commission concurrently
with issuance of this standard permit allows for engines or turbines used
exclusively to provide power to electric pumps used for irrigating crops to
be permitted by rule. As previously noted, the standard permit only applies
to new or modified engines or turbines. The majority of engines or turbines
used in oil and natural gas recovery are not used for generating electricity
and should continue to be permitted by rule under §106.512.
TRD-200103005
Margaret Hoffman
Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: May 29, 2001
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission)
staff is providing an opportunity for written public comment on the listed
Default Orders (DOs). The TNRCC staff proposes a DO when the staff has sent
an Executive Director's Preliminary Report and Petition (EDPRP) to an entity
outlining the alleged violations; the proposed penalty; and the proposed technical
requirements necessary to bring the entity back into compliance, and the entity
fails to request a hearing on the matter within 20 days of its receipt of
the EDPRP. Similar to the procedure followed with respect to Agreed Orders
entered into by the executive director of the TNRCC pursuant to Texas Water
Code (TWC), §7.075, this notice of the proposed order and the opportunity
to comment is published in the
Texas Register
no later than the 30th day before the date on which the public comment period
closes, which in this case is
July 9, 2001
.
The TNRCC will consider any written comments received and the TNRCC may withdraw
or withhold approval of a DO if a comment discloses facts or considerations
that indicate that a proposed DO is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or
inconsistent with the requirements of the statutes and rules within the TNRCC's
jurisdiction, or the TNRCC's orders and permits issued pursuant to the TNRCC's
regulatory authority. Additional notice of changes to a proposed DO is not
required to be published if those changes are made in response to written
comments.
A copy of each of the proposed DOs is available for public inspection at
both the TNRCC's Central Office, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building
A, 3rd Floor, Austin, Texas 78753, (512) 239-3400 and at the applicable Regional
Office listed as follows. Comments about the DO should be sent to the attorney
designated for the DO at the TNRCC's Central Office at P.O. Box 13087, MC
175, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 and must be
received
by 5:00 p.m. on July 9, 2001
. Comments may also be sent by facsimile
machine to the attorney at (512) 239-3434. The TNRCC attorneys are available
to discuss the DOs and/or the comment procedure at the listed phone numbers;
however, comments on the DOs should be submitted to the TNRCC in
writing
.
(1) COMPANY: Abel Lopez, Jr. dba Savey 1; DOCKET NUMBER: 1999-0279-PST-E;
TNRCC ID NUMBER: 0031361; LOCATION: 2713 Mustang Drive, Grapevine, Tarrant
County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales of refined
petroleum products; RULES VIOLATED: §334.7, by failing to provide a written
notice to the executive director that the underground storage tanks (USTs)
were out of service; §334.54, by failing to properly upgrade or permanently
remove from service the USTs which were temporarily out of service in excess
of 12 months; PENALTY: $10,625; STAFF ATTORNEY: Elisa Roberts, Litigation
Division, MC R-4, (817) 588-5877; REGIONAL OFFICE: Arlington Regional Office,
1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010-6499, (817) 588-5800.
(2) COMPANY: Derek T. Williams; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1187-OSI-E; TNRCC ID
NUMBER: OS4948; LOCATION: 250 Oak Lane, Vidor, Orange County, Texas; TYPE
OF FACILITY: on-site sewage facility; RULES VIOLATED: §285.7(h) and §285.91(4),
by failing to submit three maintenance reports, one total suspended solids
sample, and one biochemical oxygen demand sample for each contract; §285.7(h)
and §285.91(4), by failing to include fecal coliform or chlorine residual
testing information for each contract in the three maintenance reports that
were submitted; PENALTY: $313; STAFF ATTORNEY: Joshua M. Olszewski, Litigation
Division, MC 175, (512) 239-3645; REGIONAL OFFICE: Beaumont Regional Office,
3870 Eastex Fwy., Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 892-2119.
(3) COMPANY: Dupree-Pruett Company, Inc. dba One Stop Convenience Stores;
DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0617-PST-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: 0052819; LOCATION: 1414 E.
Blanco, Boerne, Kendall County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: underground storage
tanks (UST); RULES VIOLATED: §334.48(c), by failing to conduct effective
or automatic manual inventory control procedures for each UST system; §334.50(b)(1),
by failing to provide proper release detection requirements for each UST system's
tanks and piping by not testing line leak detectors once per year and not
testing non-pressurized piping tightness once every three years; §334.10(b)(1)(A),
by failing to develop, maintain, and have readily available for inspection
all UST records required including records documenting compliance with release
detection and inventory control requirements prior to December 20, 1999 inspection,
and records which documented the UST system's compliance with the corrosion
protection requirements; §37.815, by failing to maintain a demonstration
of financial assurance and responsibility for taking corrective action and
compensating third parties for bodily injury and property damage caused by
accidental releases arising from the UST operations; PENALTY: $6,300; STAFF
ATTORNEY: Reynaldo De Los Santos, Litigation Division, MCR-13, (210) 403-4016;
REGIONAL OFFICE: San Antonio Regional Office, 14250 Judson Rd., San Antonio,
Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490-3096.
(4) COMPANY: Mark Locke dba Champion Water Services dba Dayton Oaks Estates
Public Water Supply; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0655-PWS-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: 1460136;
LOCATION: County Roads 2339 and 2341, Liberty, Liberty County, Texas; TYPE
OF FACILITY: public water supply system; RULES VIOLATED: §290.106(c)(5)
and §290.117(e)(2) and (g), by failing to conduct reduced tap monitoring
for lead and copper and to provide public notice of the lead and copper sampling
violations; §290.51(a)(3) and THSC, §341.041, by failing to pay
public health service fees; §290.46(d)(2), by failing to maintain the
required chlorine residual at all times and throughout all parts of the public
water supply; §290.46(r), by failing to maintain a minimum water pressure
of 35 pounds per square inch at a flow rate of 1.5 gallons per minute at each
service outlet or connection; §290.118(b) and THSC, §341.031(a)
and §341.0315(c), by failing to provide water that meets the Commission's
"Drinking Water Standards" for iron and manganese; §290.46(v), by failing
to install electrical wiring within a securely mounted conduit; §290.46(m),
by failing to initiate a program to facilitate cleanliness and improve the
general appearance of all of the system's plant facilities by cutting the
grass and removing debris at the well site; PENALTY: $1,938; STAFF ATTORNEY:
James Biggins, Litigation Division, MC R-13, (210) 403-4017; REGIONAL OFFICE:
Houston Regional Office, 5425 Polk Ave., Ste. H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486,
(713) 767-3500.
(5) COMPANY: WeeBe Industries, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0776-AIR-E; TNRCC
ID NUMBER: TA-0611-H; LOCATION: 3700 Flory Street, Fort Worth, Tarrant County,
Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: architectural metal work manufacturing business;
RULES VIOLATED: §115.426(a)(1)(B) and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing
to maintain records of the utilization of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
compliant coatings and solvents during an inspection on August 19, 1999; §116.110(a)
and THSC, §382.085(b) and §382.0518(a), by failing to obtain a permit
prior to beginning operations during an inspection on August 19, 1999; §115.426(a)(1)(B)
and THSC, §382.085(b), by failing to maintain records of the utilization
of VOC compliant coatings and solvents during an inspection on December 22,
1999; §116.110(a) and THSC, §382.085(b) and §382.0518(a), by
failing to obtain a permit prior to beginning operations during an inspection
on December 22, 1999; PENALTY: $20,000; STAFF ATTORNEY: Gitanjali Yadav, Litigation
Division, MC 175, (512) 239-2029; REGIONAL OFFICE: Arlington Regional Office,
1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010-6499, (817) 588-5800.
TRD-200103008
Paul C. Sarahan
Director, Litigation Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: May 29, 2001
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission)
staff is providing an opportunity for written public comment on the listed
Agreed Orders (AOs) pursuant to Texas Water Code (the Code), §7.075,
which requires that the TNRCC may not approve these AOs unless the public
has been provided an opportunity to submit written comments. Section 7.075
requires that notice of the proposed orders and of the opportunity to comment
must be published in the
Texas Register
no
later than the 30th day before the date on which the public comment period
closes, which in this case is
July 9, 2001
.
Section 7.075 also requires that the TNRCC promptly consider any written comments
received and that the TNRCC may withhold approval of an AO if a comment discloses
facts or considerations that indicate the proposed AO is inappropriate, improper,
inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Code, the Texas Health
and Safety Code (THSC), and/or the Texas Clean Air Act (the Act). Additional
notice is not required if changes to an AO are made in response to written
comments.
A copy of each of the proposed AOs is available for public inspection at
both the TNRCC's Central Office, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building
C, 1st Floor, Austin, Texas 78753, (512) 239-1864 and at the applicable Regional
Office listed as follows. Written comments about these AOs should be sent
to the enforcement coordinator designated for each AO at the TNRCC's Central
Office at P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 and must be
received by 5:00 p.m. on July 9, 2001
. Written comments may also be
sent by facsimile machine to the enforcement coordinator at (512) 239-2550.
The TNRCC enforcement coordinators are available to discuss the AOs and/or
the comment procedure at the listed phone numbers; however, §7.075 provides
that comments on the AOs should be submitted to the TNRCC in
writing
.
(1) COMPANY: Alliant Energy Desdemona, L.P.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1093-AIR-E;
IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number EA-0085-H; LOCATION: Desdemona, Eastland County,
Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: natural gas compression; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.146(1)
and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to certify compliance with the
Title V General Operation Permit Number O-00323; and 30 TAC §106.512(6)(B), §116.110(a),
and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to extend exhaust stacks for engines
E-5 and E-7; PENALTY: $7,875; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: George Ortiz, (915)
698-9674; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1977 Industrial Boulevard, Abilene, Texas 79602-7833,
(915) 698-9674.
(2) COMPANY: Blue Dolphin Energy Company; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0017-AIR-E;
IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number BL-0421-R; LOCATION: Freeport, Brazoria County,
Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: oil and gas production; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.146(2)
and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to submit annual compliance certifications;
and 30 TAC §122.145(2)(B) and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing
to submit deviation reports; PENALTY: $3,600; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Kevin
Keyser, (713) 767-3500; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston,
Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.
(3) COMPANY: The City of Coleman; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1092-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER:
Air Account Number CO-0003-M; LOCATION: Coleman, Coleman County, Texas; TYPE
OF FACILITY: electrical generation; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.146(1)
and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to certify compliance with the
Title V General Operating Permit Number O-00102; PENALTY: $4,000; ENFORCEMENT
COORDINATOR: George Ortiz, (915) 698-9674; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1977 Industrial
Boulevard, Abilene, Texas 79602-7833, (915) 698-9674.
(4) COMPANY: City of Crystal City; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1078-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER:
Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Permit Number 10098-001;
LOCATION: Crystal City, Zavala County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater
treatment; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1) and §325.4, and TPDES
Permit Number 10098-001, by failing to employ a class B certified wastewater
treatment facility operator; 30 TAC §305.125(1) and §319.4 - 319.12,
and TPDES Permit Number 10098-001, by failing to perform pH and dissolved
oxygen analyses on effluent samples and routinely perform minimum process
control testing; 30 TAC §§305.125(1), 312.1, and 312.13, and TPDES
Permit Number 10098-001, by failing to remove stock-piled sludge and clean
sludge drying beds; and 30 TAC §305.125(1) and §312.142(a), and
TPDES Permit Number 10098-001, by failing to register to transport municipal
sludge prior to initiating transportation of sewage sludge; PENALTY: $15,000;
ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Malcolm Ferris, (210) 490-3096; REGIONAL OFFICE:
14250 Judson Road, San Antonio, Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490-3096.
(5) COMPANY: CX Transportation, A Division of TIC United Corporation; DOCKET
NUMBER: 2000-1390-MLM-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number CS-0048-P; LOCATION:
New Braunfels, Comal County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: transportation terminal
for bulk lime and cement handling; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §106.144, §116.110(a),
and the Code, §382.085(b) and §382.0518(a), by failing to treat
the vehicle work areas to achieve maximum control of dust emissions; 30 TAC §335.4
and the Code, §26.121, by allowing the discharge of industrial waste
onto the ground; and 30 TAC §101.4 and the Code, §382.085(a) and
(b), by failing to prevent the discharge of air contaminants; PENALTY: $5,625;
ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Rebecca Clausewitz, (210) 490-3096; REGIONAL OFFICE:
14250 Judson Road, San Antonio, Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490-3096.
(6) COMPANY: Dean-Chem, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1265-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER:
Air Account Number HX-2466-F; LOCATION: Houston, Harris County, Texas; TYPE
OF FACILITY: small hard chrome electroplating shop; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.110(a)
and the Code, §382.085(b) and §382.0518(a), by failing to obtain
a permit; and 30 TAC §113.190, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
63 Subpart N, and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to come into compliance
with the National Emission Standards for Chromium Emissions From Hard and
Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; PENALTY:
$6,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Miriam Hall, (512) 239-1044; REGIONAL OFFICE:
5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.
(7) COMPANY: The City of Ector; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0084-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER:
Public Water Supply (PWS) Number 0740007; LOCATION: Ector, Fannin County,
Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.41(c)(1)(F),
by failing to provide documentation of sanitary control easements; and 30
TAC §290.45(b)(1)(D)(i), by failing to meet water system capacity requirements;
PENALTY: $500; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Judy Fox, (817) 588-5800; REGIONAL
OFFICE: 1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010- 6499, (817) 588-5800.
(8) COMPANY: Mr. Eddie Johnson dba Eddie's Paint & Body Shop; DOCKET
NUMBER: 2001-0125-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number AC-0093-I; LOCATION:
Lufkin, Angelina County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: automotive body shop; RULE
VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.110(a) and the Code, §382.085(b) and §382.0518(a),
by failing to obtain a permit or meet the conditions of a permit by rule;
PENALTY: $800; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: John Barry, (409) 898-3838; REGIONAL
OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Suite 110, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409)
898-3838.
(9) COMPANY: Elmo Water Supply Corporation; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1344-PWS-E;
IDENTIFIER: PWS Number 1290013; LOCATION: Elmo, Kaufman County, Texas; TYPE
OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.45(b)(1)(D)(iii)
and (iv), and (f)(4), by failing to provide a pressure tank capacity of 20
gallons per connection or an elevated storage tank capacity of 100 gallons
per connection, provide the pump station with two or more pumps that have
a total capacity of two gallons per minute (gpm) per connection, and provide
a maximum authorized daily purchase rate; PENALTY: $1,375; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR:
Wendy Cooper, (817) 588-5800; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington,
Texas 76010- 6499, (817) 588-5800.
(10) COMPANY: Mr. Bobby Lee dba Environmental Box Cleaning and Storage
Services; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1275-IHW-E; IDENTIFIER: Solid Waste Registration
Number 83646; LOCATION: Houston, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: container
cleaning and servicing; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §§335.94(a), 335.2(a),
335.43(a), and 40 CFR §270.1(c), by failing to obtain a permit for storing
hazardous wastes; 30 TAC §335.69(a)(1)(B), §335.112(a)(9), and 40
CFR §262.34(a)(1)(ii) and §265.193(a)(1), by failing to have secondary
containment for a wastewater holding tank; and 30 TAC §335.9(a)(1), by
failing to maintain records of hazardous wastes generated and shipped off-site;
PENALTY: $6,400; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Faye Liu, (713) 767-3500; REGIONAL
OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.
(11) COMPANY: Tuong H. Nguyen dba Express Way Food Store; DOCKET NUMBER:
2001- 0028-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: Petroleum Storage Tank (PST) Facility ID Number
0064954; LOCATION: Mesquite, Dallas County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience
store with retail sales of gasoline; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §115.242(3)(J)
and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to maintain the Stage II vapor
recovery system; 30 TAC §115.245(2) and the Code, §382.085(b), by
failing to conduct pressure decay testing annually; 30 TAC §334.50(b)(2)(A)(i)(III)
and the Code, §26.3475, by failing to test a line leak detector; and
30 TAC §334.21, by failing to pay the underground storage tank (UST)
fees; PENALTY: $5,625; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Jorge Ibarra, (817) 588-5800;
REGIONAL OFFICE: 1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010-6499, (817)
588-5800.
(12) COMPANY: FFP Marketing Company, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0193-AIR-E;
IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number EE-1961-R; LOCATION: El Paso, El Paso County,
Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: gasoline dispensing station; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §114.100(a)
and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to comply with the 2.7% by weight
oxygenated fuel content requirement; PENALTY: $750; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR:
Tel Croston, (512) 239-5717; REGIONAL OFFICE: 401 East Franklin Avenue, Suite
560, El Paso, Texas 79901-1206, (915) 834-4949.
(13) COMPANY: Grand Ranch Treatment Company; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0269-MWD-
E; IDENTIFIER: TPDES Permit Number 13846-001; LOCATION: Joshua, Johnson County,
Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1)
and (5), §319.1, TPDES Permit Number 13846-001, and the Code, §26.121,
by failing to comply with the permitted daily average limit of 15 milligrams
per liter (mg/L) for total suspended solids (TSS), submit the discharge monitoring
reports, comply with permitted single grab sample limit of 60 mg/L for TSS,
permitted daily average load limit of 3.8 pounds per day (lbs/day) for TSS,
permitted daily average limit of 200 fecal coliform bacteria colonies, and
permitted seven day average limit of 400 fecal coliform bacteria colonies;
PENALTY: $5,400; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Gary Shipp, (806) 796-7092; REGIONAL
OFFICE: 4630 50th Street, Suite 600, Lubbock, Texas 79414-3520, (806) 796-7092.
(14) COMPANY: Harris County Precinct No. 1 - Main Camp; DOCKET NUMBER:
2001- 0030-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number BL-0421-R; LOCATION: Houston,
Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED:
30 TAC §290.117(e)(2) and the Code, §341.0315, by failing to conduct
annual reduced lead and copper tap monitoring; PENALTY: $313; ENFORCEMENT
COORDINATOR: Terry Murphy, (512) 239-5025; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue,
Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.
(15) COMPANY: Hart and Cooley, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1444-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER:
Air Account Number EE-2271-T; LOCATION: El Paso, El Paso County, Texas; TYPE
OF FACILITY: fabricated metal product manufacturing; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.121, §122.130(b)(1),
and the Code, §382.054 and §382.085(b), by failing to submit an
initial abbreviated Federal Operating Permit Application; and 30 TAC §116.110(a)
and the Code, §382.0518(a) and §382.085(b), by failing to obtain
a permit or satisfy the conditions of a permit by rule for modifications;
PENALTY: $4,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Rebecca Cervantes, (915) 834-4949;
REGIONAL OFFICE: 401 East Franklin Avenue, Suite 560, El Paso, Texas 79901-1206,
(915) 834-4949.
(16) COMPANY: Holly Huff Water Supply Corporation; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1457-
PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: PWS Number 1210004; LOCATION: Jasper, Jasper County, Texas;
TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.121(a),
by failing to maintain a copy of the chemical and microbiological monitoring
plan; 30 TAC §290.46(m) and §290.46(v), by failing to have an adequate
maintenance program; 30 TAC §290.43(c)(4), by failing to provide a working
water level indicator; 30 TAC §290.45(b)(1)(D)(i) and (v), by failing
to provide a total rated well capacity of 0.6 gpm per connection and provide
an emergency power supply or interconnection to another public water system;
and 30 TAC §290.41(c)(1)(F), by failing to secure and record sanitary
well easements; PENALTY: $1,488; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Laura Clark, (409)
898-3838; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Suite 110, Beaumont, Texas
77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.
(17) COMPANY: Hope Center Youth and Family Services; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0941-
MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: TPDES Permit Number 11943-001; LOCATION: Groveton, Trinity
County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1),
(5), and (11)(B) and (C), §319.7(a), (c), and (d), and TPDES Permit Number
11943-001, by failing to ensure that all systems of collection, treatment,
and disposal are properly operated and maintained; submit effluent reports;
report, in writing, any effluent violation; record and maintain records of
calibration for the pH meter; meet minimum permit effluent limits; meet the
minimum dissolved oxygen (DO) permit limit of four mg/L and the minimum chlorine
residual permit limit of one mg/L; properly record results of chlorine residuals;
have an effluent flow measuring device; and properly report results of chlorine
residual analysis; PENALTY: $5,625; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Susan Kelly,
(409) 898-3838; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Suite 110, Beaumont,
Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.
(18) COMPANY: Mr. Javier Tapia dba J.T. Dairy; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0328-AGR-E;
IDENTIFIER: Enforcement Identification Number 16089; LOCATION: San Angelo,
Tom Green County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: dairy; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §321.31(a)
and the Code, §26.121, by failing to prevent the discharge of waste and
wastewater; and 30 TAC §321.33(e), by failing to locate, construct, and
manage waste control facilities; PENALTY: $4,800; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR:
Mark Newman, (915) 655-9479; REGIONAL OFFICE: 622 South Oakes, Suite K, San
Angelo, Texas 76903-7013, (915) 655-9479.
(19) COMPANY: Knightco Company dba Superior Lubricants; DOCKET NUMBER:
2001- 0182-PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 0033904;
LOCATION: Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: gasoline service
station; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §115.245(2) and the Code, §382.085(b),
by failing to perform an annual pressure decay test; PENALTY: $1,000; ENFORCEMENT
COORDINATOR: Cheryl Thompson, (817) 588-5800; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1101 East Arkansas
Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010-6499, (817) 588-5800.
(20) COMPANY: KO Steel Foundry and Machine Company, A Division of TIC United
Corporation; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0073-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number
BG-0112- O; LOCATION: San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY:
foundry; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §101.10 and the Code, §382.085(b),
by failing to submit an emissions inventory questionnaire; PENALTY: $1,000;
ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Miriam Hall, (512) 239-1044; REGIONAL OFFICE: 14250
Judson Road, San Antonio, Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490- 3096.
(21) COMPANY: Lake Livingston Water and Sewer Service Corporation; DOCKET
NUMBER: 2000-1399-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: PWS Numbers 2040009 and 1870137; LOCATION:
Shepherd, San Jacinto County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water supply;
RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.43(d)(3) and (e), and §290.46(m), by
failing to provide the pressure tank with a device for determining the air-water-volume
ratio, maintain the intruder-resistant fence, and the general appearance of
the tanks; 30 TAC §290.45(b)(1)(C)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv), by failing
to provide a well capacity of 0.6 gpm per connection, provide a total storage
capacity of 200 gallons per connection, provide two or more service pumps
having a total capacity of two gpm per connection, and a pressure tank capacity
of 20 gallons per connection; and 30 TAC §290.46(u) and (v), and the
Code, §76.1004(a), by failing to plug or repair to a non-deteriorated
condition the out-of-service well and install wiring at well numbers one and
two in securely mounted conduit; PENALTY: $2,063; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR:
Laura Clark, (409) 898-3838; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex Freeway, Suite 110,
Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.
(22) COMPANY: Lasco Bathware, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1446-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER:
Air Account Number DB-0976-P; LOCATION: Lancaster, Dallas County, Texas; TYPE
OF FACILITY: fiberglass bathware; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.116(a) and
the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to properly install the filters in
the fiberglass area; 30 TAC §101.6(a)(1)(A) and the Code, §382.085(b),
by failing to determine whether an upset is a reportable quantity; and 30
TAC §116.115(c), Permit Number 9519, and the Code, §382.085(b),
by failing to maintain the facility operation within the maximum allowable
emission rate table limit; PENALTY: $35,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Wendy
Cooper, (817) 588-5800; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington,
Texas 76010-6499, (817) 588- 5800.
(23) COMPANY: City of Lexington; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0292-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER:
TPDES Permit Number 10016-001 and Environmental Protection Agency Identification
Number TX0054429; LOCATION: Lexington, Lee County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY:
wastewater treatment; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1), TPDES Permit
Number 10016-001, and the Code, §26.121, by failing to comply with permit
limits for five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), pH, and TSS; PENALTY:
$1,200; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Jaime Garza, (915) 425-6010; REGIONAL OFFICE:
1921 Cedar Bend Drive, Suite 150, Austin, Texas 78758-5336, (512) 339-2929.
(24) COMPANY: Roy Martini dba Roy Martini Special Services; DOCKET NUMBER:
2001- 0102-MSW-E; IDENTIFIER: Unauthorized Facility Number 45514010; LOCATION:
Robstown, Nueces County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: municipal solid waste; RULE
VIOLATED: 30 TAC §330.4, §330.5, and the Code, §26.121, by
failing to obtain authorization or a permit prior to accepting municipal solid
waste; 30 TAC §328.57(c)(1) and (3), by failing to obtain a scrap tire
transporter registration and transport scrap tires to an authorized tire facility;
and 30 TAC §328.60(a), by failing to obtain a scrap tire storage facility
registration prior to transporting more than 500 scrap tires; PENALTY: $3,200;
ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Carol McGrath, (361) 825-3100; REGIONAL OFFICE: 6300
Ocean Drive, Suite 1200, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412-5503, (361) 825-3100.
(25) COMPANY: Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0048-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER:
Air Account Number HG-1436-O; LOCATION: La Porte, Harris County, Texas; TYPE
OF FACILITY: transfilling, various gas mixture manufacturing, and residual
gas treatment RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.110(a)(1) and (4), and the Code, §382.085(b),
by failing to obtain a permit for storage, transfilling, and disposal of chemicals
and satisfy the conditions for facilities permitted by rule; PENALTY: $4,800;
ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Trina Lewison, (713) 767-3500; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425
Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.
(26) COMPANY: McKinney Crushing Company, Incorporated; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-
1164-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number 90-0168-O; LOCATION: Terrell, Kaufman
County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: rock crusher; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §116.115(b)
and (c), Permit Number 168L, and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to
operate and maintain spray arms on the crusher and water stockpiles and roads
of the plant as necessary to achieve maximum control of the dust; PENALTY:
$2,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Carl Schnitz, (512) 239-1892; REGIONAL OFFICE:
1101 East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010-6499, (817) 588-5800.
(27) COMPANY: Paul H. Krebs dba Roving Meadows Utilities Wastewater Treatment
Facilities; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0013-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: TPDES Permit Number
12691-001; LOCATION: Baytown, Harris County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater
treatment; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §305.125(1), TPDES Permit Number 12691-001,
and the Code, §26.121, by failing to comply with the permitted daily
average concentration limit of 15.0 mg/L, single grab limit of 60.0 mg/L,
and the daily average loading limit of 2.8 pounds per day for TSS, correctly
calculate and report TSS and BOD daily average concentration and daily average
loading values; PENALTY: $4,375; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Catherine Albrecht,
(713) 767- 3500; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas
77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.
(28) COMPANY: Bennard Rowland dba Rowland Dusters; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0834-
PST-E; IDENTIFIER: PST Facility Identification Number 15260; LOCATION: Lasara,
Willacy County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: crop dusting; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.6
and §334.55(a) and (e), by failing to provide notification of construction
activities prior to initiating the permanent abandonment of USTs in-place,
have qualified personnel conduct the construction activities, and empty the
USTs of residue or residual vapors, and conduct a site assessment; 30 TAC §334.10(b)(1)(A),
by failing to develop and maintain all records; 30 TAC §334.49(a) and
the Code, §26.3475, by failing to equip the UST system with corrosion
protection; 30 TAC §334.50(a)(1)(A) and the Code, §26.3475, by failing
to provide a release detection method; 30 TAC §334.51(b)(2) and the Code, §26.3475,
by failing to equip the UST system with tight-fill fitting, spill containment,
and overfill protection equipment; and 30 TAC §334.93(a)(2) and (b)(1),
by failing to demonstrate financial responsibility for taking corrective action;
PENALTY: $9,600; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Sandra Hernandez, (915) 425-6010;
REGIONAL OFFICE: 1804 West Jefferson Avenue, Harlingen, Texas 78550-5247,
(915) 425-6010.
(29) COMPANY: SANIN, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 1999-1407-PST-E; IDENTIFIER:
PST Facility Identification Number 0029667; LOCATION: Austin, Travis County,
Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: underground storage tank; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §334.50(a)(1)(A)
and the Code, §26.3475, by failing to provide a method of release detection;
30 TAC §334.49(a)(2) and (3), and the Code, §26.3475, by failing
to operate a corrosion protection system and maintain corrosion protection
records; and 30 TAC §334.93, by failing to demonstrate, at the time of
inspection, the necessary financial responsibility for taking corrective action;
PENALTY: $8,500; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Craig Fleming, (512) 239-5806; REGIONAL
OFFICE: 1921 Cedar Bend Drive, Suite 150, Austin, Texas 78758-5336, (512)
339-2929.
(30) COMPANY: The Sherwin-Williams Company; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0010-AIR-E;
IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number DB-0728-N; LOCATION: Garland, Dallas County,
Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: paint manufacturing; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.130(c)(2), §122.121,
and the Code, §382.054 and §382.085(b), by failing to submit a Title
V operating permit application and continuing to operate; PENALTY: $2,000;
ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Bill Davis, (512) 239-6793; REGIONAL OFFICE: 1101
East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010-6499, (817) 588-5800.
(31) COMPANY: Southern Montgomery County Municipal Utility District; DOCKET
NUMBER: 2000-1124-MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: TPDES Permit Number 11001-001; LOCATION:
Spring, Montgomery County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment;
RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §§305.125(1), 319.7(a), 325.2(a), TPDES Permit
Number 11001-001, and the Code, §26.121, by failing to prevent the unauthorized
discharge of raw sewage, identify the individual who collected samples and
made measurements, and prevent an uncertified individual from operating the
facility; and 30 TAC §319.302(c) and the Code, §26.039(e), by failing
to notify the local media of a sewage spill; PENALTY: $13,200; ENFORCEMENT
COORDINATOR: Catherine Albrecht, (713) 767-3500; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk
Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas 77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.
(32) COMPANY: Starward Realty and Development, Inc. dba Sunchase Subdivision
Water Supply; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0767-PWS-E; IDENTIFIER: PWS Number 1230083;
LOCATION: Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: public water
supply; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §290.120(h)(4), by failing to conduct a
corrosion control study; and 30 TAC §291.76 and the Code, §5.235(n),
by failing to pay the regulatory assessment fees; PENALTY: $313; ENFORCEMENT
COORDINATOR: Cheryl Thompson, (817) 588-5800; REGIONAL OFFICE: 3870 Eastex
Freeway, Suite 110, Beaumont, Texas 77703-1892, (409) 898-3838.
(33) COMPANY: Stoney Point Agricorp, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1229-AGR-E;
IDENTIFIER: TPDES Permit Number 003681-000 (expired); LOCATION: Covington,
Hill County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: cattle feedlot; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §321.34(e), §321.33(f),
and the Code, §26.121(c), by failing to submit an application for renewal
and continuing to operate; PENALTY: $0; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: James Jackson,
(254) 751-0335; REGIONAL OFFICE: 6801 Sanger Avenue, Suite 2500, Waco, Texas
76710-7826, (254) 751-0335.
(34) COMPANY: Structural Metals, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-1048-AIR-E;
IDENTIFIER: Air Account Number GL-0028-H and Air Permit Number 37740; LOCATION:
Seguin, Guadalupe County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: electric arc furnace; RULE
VIOLATED: 30 TAC §122.121 and the Code, §382.054, by failing to
stop operation of a unit having major emissions of sulfur dioxide; 30 TAC §116.115(b)(2)(G),
Permit Number 8248, and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to limit sulfur
dioxide emissions from the electric arc furnace; 30 TAC §113.615(2) and
the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to obtain permit authorization to emit
large quantities of sulfur dioxide; and 30 TAC §122.136(b) and the Code, §382.085(b),
by failing to correct the federal operating permit application within 60 days
of discovering that the facility is a major source of sulfur dioxide emissions;
PENALTY: $12,000; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Malcolm Ferris, (210) 490-3096;
REGIONAL OFFICE: 14250 Judson Road, San Antonio, Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490-3096.
(35) COMPANY: The Texas Department of Criminal Justice; DOCKET NUMBER:
2000-1162- MWD-E; IDENTIFIER: TPDES Permit Number 10829-001; LOCATION: Angleton,
Brazoria County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wastewater treatment; RULE VIOLATED:
30 TAC §305.125(1), TPDES Permit Number 10829-001, and the Code, §26.121,
by failing to comply with the ammonia-nitrogen daily average permit limit
and the DO minimum limit; PENALTY: $850; ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Carl Schnitz,
(512) 239-1892; REGIONAL OFFICE: 5425 Polk Avenue, Suite H, Houston, Texas
77023-1486, (713) 767-3500.
(36) COMPANY: United Rentals, Inc.; DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-0192-AIR-E; IDENTIFIER:
Air Account Number EE-1203-U; LOCATION: El Paso, El Paso County, Texas; TYPE
OF FACILITY: equipment rental and leasing; RULE VIOLATED: 30 TAC §114.100(a)
and the Code, §382.085(b), by failing to comply with the 2.7% by weight
oxygenate content requirement during the control period; PENALTY: $1,000;
ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR: Tel Croston, (512) 239-5717; REGIONAL OFFICE: 401
East Franklin Avenue, Suite 560, El Paso, Texas 79901- 1206, (915) 834-4949.
TRD-200103001
Paul Sarahan
Director, Litigation Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: May 29, 2001
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission)
staff is providing an opportunity for written public comment on the listed
Agreed Orders (AOs) pursuant to Texas Water Code (TWC), §7.075. Section
7.075 requires that before the commission may approve the AOs, the commission
shall allow the public an opportunity to submit written comments on the proposed
AOs. Section 7.075 requires that notice of the opportunity to comment must
be published in the
Texas Register
no later
than the 30th day before the date on which the public comment period closes,
which in this case is
July 9, 2001
. Section
7.075 also requires that the commission promptly consider any written comments
received and that the commission may withdraw or withhold approval of an AO
if a comment discloses facts or considerations that the consent is inappropriate,
improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the statutes
and rules within the TNRCC's orders and permits issued pursuant to the TNRCC's
regulatory authority. Additional notice of changes to a proposed AO is not
required to be published if those changes are made in response to written
comments.
A copy of each of the proposed AOs is available for public inspection at
both the TNRCC's Central Office, located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Building
A, 3rd Floor, Austin, Texas 78753, (512) 239-3400 and at the applicable Regional
Office listed as follows. Comments about the AOs should be sent to the attorney
designated for the AO at the TNRCC's Central Office at P.O. Box 13087, MC
175, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 and must be
received
by 5:00 p.m. on July 9, 2001
. Comments may also be sent by facsimile
machine to the attorney at (512) 239-3434. The TNRCC attorneys are available
to discuss the AOs and/or the comment procedure at the listed phone numbers;
however, §7.075 provides that comments on the AOs should be submitted
to the TNRCC in
writing
.
(1) COMPANY: City of Little Elm; DOCKET NUMBER: 2000-0023-MWD-E; TNRCC
ID NUMBER: TX0053783, 11600-001; LOCATION: 2600 feet east of the intersection
of Farm-to- Market Road (FM) 720 and Hart Road, approximately 1000 feet south
of FM 720 in Denton County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: municipal wastewater
treatment plant; RULES VIOLATED: TWC, §26.121, NPDES Permit Number TX0053783,
and WQ Permit Number 11600-001, by exceeding the biochemical oxygen demand
limits, and exceeding the total suspended solids effluent limits; PENALTY:
$11,250; STAFF ATTORNEY: Laurel Lindsey, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512)
239-3693; REGIONAL OFFICE: Arlington Regional Office, 1101 East Arkansas Lane,
Arlington, Texas 76010-6499, (817) 588-5800.
(2) COMPANY: Elhamad Enterprises, Inc. dba Jr's Mini Mart; DOCKET NUMBER:
1999- 1236-PST-E; TNRCC ID NUMBER: 0034001; LOCATION: 2600 E. Belknap, Forth
Worth, Tarrant County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: underground petroleum storage
tank facility (UST); RULES VIOLATED: §115.222(5) and Texas Health and
Safety Code (THSC), §382.085(b), by failing to have a pressure vacuum
relief valve at the top of each vent pipe; §334.48(c), by failing to
perform inventory control procedures for the UST system; §334.50(a)(1)(A),
(d)(1)(B)(ii) and (iii)(1), by failing to provide a method of leak detection,
failing to provide records indicating inventory control is being reconciled
each month, and failing to provide documentation indicating that volume measurements
are recorded each day; §334.51(b)(2)(B) and (C), by failing to provide
a spill container/catchment basin at each UST fill tube and install an automatic
shut off valve or other device at each UST; §334.93(a) and (b), by failing
to provide documentation of corrective action and third party liability insurance;
PENALTY: $19,500; STAFF ATTORNEY: Laurencia Fasoyiro, Litigation Division,
MC R-12, (713) 422-8914; REGIONAL OFFICE: Arlington Regional Office, 1101
East Arkansas Lane, Arlington, Texas 76010-6499, (817) 588-5800.
(3) COMPANY: Joe Hamilton dba Keg Korner; DOCKET NUMBER: 1999-0443-PST-E;
TNRCC ID NUMBER: 71627; LOCATION: intersection of FM 1476 and FM 1496, Proctor,
Comanche County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: convenience store with retail sales
of gasoline; RULES VIOLATED: §334.7(a)(1) and TWC, §26.346(a), by
failing to register with the Commission, on authorized forms, underground
storage tanks (UST); §§334.401(a), 334.414, and 334.55(a)(3), by
failing to have the permanent removal from service of a UST conducted by a
qualified person possessing the required license or certification; by failing
to utilize a contractor registered with the Commission for the permanent removal;
by failing to utilize a licensed installer or on-site supervisor for the permanent
removal; and by failing to complete the permanent removal from service of
a UST system in a manner designed to minimize the risks to human health and
safety or the environment; §334.55(a)(6) and (e), by failing to conduct
a site assessment in response to the permanent removal from service of a UST
system; §334.55(b)(4)(A), by failing to transport a tank from the removal
site within 24 hours of removal; §334.21, by failing to pay the required
annual UST registration fees; PENALTY: $13,500; STAFF ATTORNEY: Elisa Roberts,
Litigation Division, MC R-4, (817) 588-5877; REGIONAL OFFICE: Abilene Regional
Office, 1977 Industrial Blvd., Abilene, Texas 79602-7833, (915) 698-9674.
(4) COMPANY: Steves & Sons, Incorporated; DOCKET NUMBER: 1999-0699-AIR-E;
TNRCC ID NUMBER: BG-0214-F; LOCATION: 203 Humble Avenue, San Antonio, Bexar
County, Texas; TYPE OF FACILITY: wood door manufacturing operation plant;
RULES VIOLATED: §101.4 and THSC, §382.085(a) and (b), by failing
to maintain abatement equipment thereby causing a nuisance condition, specifically,
accidentally allowed sawdust emissions in such concentration and of such duration
as to interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation,
or property; §101.4 and THSC. §382.085(a) and (b), by failing to
maintain abatement equipment thereby causing a nuisance condition, specifically,
when an employee mistakenly opened the hopper of the sawdust collection system,
which allowed sawdust to spill to the floor and disperse offsite during cleanup
in such concentration and of such duration as to interfere with the normal
use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation, or property; PENALTY: $4,375;
STAFF ATTORNEY: Joshua M. Olszewski, Litigation Division, MC 175, (512) 239-3400;
REGIONAL OFFICE: San Antonio Regional Office, 14250 Judson Rd., San Antonio,
Texas 78233-4480, (210) 490-3096.
TRD-200103009
Paul C. Sarahan
Director, Litigation Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: May 29, 2001
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission will conduct a public
hearing to receive comments concerning amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 115, Subchapters
B, D, E, and F concerning Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC) and a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP) under the requirements
of Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.017; Texas Government Code, Subchapter
B, Chapter 2001; and 40 Code of Federal Regulations, §51.102 of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency regulations concerning SIPs. These
subchapters will be submitted as a revision to the SIP.
The rule amendments are a staff initiative needed to implement regulatory
reform so that the rules are free of technical and typographical errors and
are more clear and easy to read. The amendments are also needed to add clarifications
consistent with rule interpretations made by the commission's Air Rule Interpretation
Team into the rules. The new recordkeeping requirement is needed so that staff
can determine compliance with an exemption for certain operations in Gregg,
Nueces, and Victoria Counties.
A public hearing on the proposal will be held July 3, 2001, at 10:00 a.m.
in Room 2210 of Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Building F,
located at 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin. The hearing is structured for the
receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may
present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussion
will not occur during the hearing; however, an agency staff member will be
available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and answer
questions before and after the hearing.
Comments may be submitted to Ms. Angela Slupe, Office of Environmental
Policy, Analysis, and Assessment, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087;
or by fax at (512) 239-4808. All comments must be received on July 9, 2001,
and should reference Rule Log No. 2001-005-115-AI. Comments received by 5:00
p.m. on that date will be considered by the commission before any final action
on the proposal. For further information, please contact Ms. Jill Burditt
at (512) 239-0560.
Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation
needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the agency at
(512) 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.
TRD-200102965
Margaret Hoffman
Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: May 24, 2001
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission) will conduct
public hearings to receive testimony regarding revisions to 30 TAC Chapters
101, 114 and 117, and to the state implementation plan (SIP) under the requirements
of the Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.017; Texas Government Code,
Subchapter B, Chapter 2001; and 40 Code of Federal Regulations, §51.102,
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations concerning
SIPs. The revisions concern the attainment demonstration for the Houston/Galveston
(HGA) ozone nonattainment area.
The proposed SIP revision for the HGA ozone nonattainment area contains
transportation conformity budgets, rate-of-progress tables, control strategies
(including reduction of emissions resulting from permitting of facilities
which are exempted under Texas Health and Safety Code §382.0518(g)),
and the layout of the mid-course review process. The multi-part mid-course
review process includes a thorough evaluation of all modeling, inventory data,
and other tools used to develop the attainment demonstration, as well as an
ongoing assessment of scientific studies, new technologies, and ideas to incorporate
into the plan. The proposed changes to Chapter 114 and the SIP would: 1) change
the idling restriction rules clarifying that the operator of a rented or leased
vehicle is responsible for compliance with the requirements of Chapter 114
in situations where the operator of a leased or rented vehicle is not employed
by the owner of the vehicle; and 2) limit implementation of the low emission
diesel fuel control strategy for on-road fuel and non-road fuel to the four-county
Dallas/Fort Worth nonattainment area, the eight-county HGA nonattainment area,
the three-county Beaumont/Port Arthur nonattainment area, and the 95-county
central and eastern Texas region to be able to demonstrate and maintain attainment
with the ozone national ambient air quality standard. The proposed amendments
and new section would modify the existing May 1, 2002 program compliance dates
so that they occur in 2005 and would allow for alternative emission reduction
plans.
The proposed changes to Chapter 117 and the SIP would: 1) decrease the
nitrogen oxide (NO
x
) emission reductions required
from electric utilities; 2) amend the schedule for the Emission Specifications
for Attainment Demonstration for non-utility facilities with NO
x
emissions; 3) provide for a possible alternative strategy to be implemented
that will reduce the maximum amount of NO
x
emission
reductions required from point sources; 4) clarify the utility rules emission
inventory baseline; 5) clarify the calculation of the maximum heat rate for
cogeneration units; 6) add an emission specification for the attainment demonstration
for stationary gas turbines and duct burners at minor sources of NO
x
in HGA; 7) add flexibility to the HGA system cap requirements by
allowing trading among owners under the system cap trading program on a daily
or 30-day rolling average basis; 8) add flexibility for reciprocating engines
fired by landfill gas; 9) add requirements to achieve the intended emission
reductions of the program; 10) require stationary diesel and dual-fuel fired
engines to meet new emission specifications in the HGA area; and 11) delete
the exemption for certain small electric generating units.
The proposed changes to Chapter 101 and the SIP would: 1) state that level
of activity for allowance determination applies to facilities and remove the
requirement that level of activity relates directly to economic output or
emission rate; 2) specify that only an owner or operator may certify emission
reductions as emission credits; 3) allow additional time for requests for
deviations from allowance allocation methods; 4) allow an additional 30 days
for balancing compliance accounts; 5) allow owners or operators receiving
allowances to sell allowances permanently; 6) remove the requirement that
a mobile emission reduction credit be surplus when it is used; 7) disallow
temporary shutdowns as sources of credits; 8) require executive director approval
prior to use of emission credits; 9) correct obsolete rule citations; 10)
require the executive director to conduct audits of the cap and trade program
and make annual reports on the program available to the public and the EPA;
11) revise the discrete emission reduction credit discount schedule as it
relates to the cap and trade program; and 12) amend the reduction and compliance
schedule for non-utility facilities with NO
x
emissions.
Public hearings on these proposed revisions will be held at the following
times and locations: June 13, 2001, 6:00 p.m., Galveston City Council Chambers,
Room 200, 823 Rosenberg, Galveston; June 14, 2001, 10:00 a.m., Rosenberg Civic
and Convention Center, Room C, 3825 Highway 36 South, Rosenberg; June 14,
2001, 6:00 p.m., Houston City Hall Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 901 Bagby,
Houston; and June 15, 2001, 10:00 a.m., Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission, Building E, Room 201S, 12100 North I-35, Austin; and July 2, 2001,
6:00 p.m., Houston City Hall Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 901 Bagby, Houston.
Notices for the June 13 - 15 hearings were published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram,
Houston Chronicle, Longview News-Journal, and San Antonio Express-News on
May 11, 2001 and in the Austin American Statesman and Beaumont Enterprise
on May 12, 2001.
The hearings are structured for the receipt of oral or written comments
by interested persons. Registration will begin one hour prior to each hearing.
Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration.
A four-minute time limit will be established at each hearing to assure that
enough time is allowed for every interested person to speak. Open discussion
will not occur during the hearings; however, agency staff members will be
available to discuss the proposal one hour before the hearings, and will answer
questions before and after the hearings.
Written comments may be submitted to Heather Evans, Office of Environmental
Policy, Analysis, and Assessment, MC 206, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087;
faxed to (512) 239- 4808; or emailed to
siprules@tnrcc.state.tx.us.
The public comment period will close at 5:00 p.m. on July 2, 2001,
although written comments submitted at the July 2, 2001 hearing will be accepted.
On May 10, 2001, the commission proposed changes to Chapters 114, 117, and
to the SIP which were made available on the commission's web site and which
were the subject of newspaper notices as listed above. Subsequently, on May
30, 2001 the commission proposed changes to Chapters 101, 117 and the SIP.
The latest versions of all of the proposed rules in Chapters 101, 114 and
117 and the SIP revision were placed on the commission's web site on May 30,
2001 and are available at
http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/sips/houston.html
.
Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation
needs who are planning to attend the hearings should contact the agency at
(512) 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.
TRD-200103034
Margaret Hoffman
Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: May 30, 2001
The following notices were issued during the period of May 14, 2001 through
May 23, 2001.
The following require the applicants to publish notice in the newspaper.
The public comment period, requests for public meetings, or requests for a
contested case hearing may be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk,
Mail Code 105, PO Box 13087, Austin Texas 78711-3087, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE
DATE OF NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE.
CITY OF BECKVILLE has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. 10718-001,
which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average
flow not to exceed 140,000 gallons per day. The facility is located approximately
0.6 mile southeast of the intersection of State Highway 149 and Farm-to-Market
Road 124, adjacent to Wall Branch, south of the City of Beckville in Panola
County, Texas.
CITY OF CADDO MILLS has applied for renewal of an existing wastewater permit.
The applicant has an existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit No. TX0024970 and an existing Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission (TNRCC) Permit No. 10425-001. The draft permit authorizes the discharge
of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 200,000
gallons per day. The plant site is located approximately 0.7 mile south of
the intersection of State Highway 60 and Farm to Market Road 36 in Hunt County,
Texas.
CAPITOL AREA BOY SCOUTS COUNCIL, INC., BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA has applied
for a new permit, Proposed Permit No. 14187-001, to authorize the disposal
of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 23,795
gallons per day via subsurface drainfields with a minimum area of 85,334 square
feet. This notice corrects the requested flow stated in the Notice of Receipt
of Application and Intent to Obtain a Water Quality Permit. This permit will
not authorize a discharge of pollutants into waters in the State. The facility
and disposal site are on a 541-acre tract located along Farm-to-Market Road
1441 nearly 3.5 miles east of its intersection with State Highway 95, between
U.S. Highway 290 and State Highway 71, approximately 5 miles north of Bastrop
along State Highway 95 in Bastrop County, Texas.
CITY OF COPPERAS COVE has applied for a major amendment to TPDES Permit
No. 10045- 005 to authorize an increase in the discharge of treated domestic
wastewater from an annual average flow not to exceed 3,050,000 gallons per
day to an annual average flow not to exceed 4,000,000 gallons per day. The
facility is located north of the City of Copperas Cove adjacent to the west
side of Farm-to-Market Road 116 at a point approximately 1.8 miles north of
the intersection of Farm-to- Market Road 116 and Farm-to-Market Road 1113
in Coryell County, Texas.
CITY OF CUMBY, has applied for a renewal of TNRCC Permit No. 13792-001,
which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average
flow not to exceed 120,000 gallons per day. The facility is located approximately
2000 feet east of the intersection of Interstate Highway 30 and Farm-to-Market
Road 275 on the east side of the City of Cumby along the south side of the
Louisiana and Arkansas Railroad in Hopkins County, Texas.
EXCEL CORPORATION which operates a slaughter house, beef packing plant,
and rendering facility has applied for a major amendment to Permit No. 01350
to authorize an increase in the irrigation area from 1,445 acres to 2,865
acres. The current permit authorizes the disposal of process wastewater, utility
wastewater, and domestic wastewater at an application rate not to exceed 4.2
acre feet/acre/year via irrigation of 1,445 acres and the disposal of brine
and pickling wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 21,000 gallons
per day via evaporation. This permit will not authorize a discharge of pollutants
into waters in the State. The facility is located immediately south of U.S.
Highway 60 and the Santa Fe Railroad, approximately 3.3 miles southwest of
the City of Friona, Parmer County, Texas.
CITY OF FARWELL has applied for a major amendment to Permit No. 10661-001,
to authorize an increase in the daily average flow from 147,000 gallons per
day to 185,000 gallons per day and to increase the acreage irrigated from
33 acres to 34 acres of agricultural non-public access land. This permit will
not authorize a discharge of pollutants into waters in the State. The facility
and disposal site are located approximately 1/4 mile east of the City of Farwell
and immediately north of the Panhandle and Santa Fe Railroad in Parmer County,
Texas.
CITY OF GEORGETOWN has applied to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission (TNRCC) for a new permit, Proposed Permit No. 14232-001, to authorize
the disposal of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to
exceed 200,000 gallons per day via surface irrigation of 100 acres of golf
course. This permit will not authorize a discharge of pollutants into waters
in the State. The facility and disposal site are located approximately 5.8
miles west of Interstate Highway 35 and 1.05 miles north of State Highway
29 in Williamson County, Texas.
HARRIS COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 17 has applied for a major
amendment to TNRCC Permit No. 11917-001 to authorize an increase in the discharge
of treated domestic wastewater from a daily average flow not to exceed 450,000
gallons per day to a daily average flow not to exceed 700,000 gallons per
day. The facility is located on the south bank of South Mayde Creek approximately
4000 feet east of the intersection of Elrod and Morton Roads in Harris County,
Texas.
HUNTSMAN PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION which operates a pertochemical manufacturing
plant, has applied for a renewal of TNRCC Permit No. 00584 which authorizes
the discharge of process wastewater , cooling tower blowdown, broiler blowdown,
demineralizer blowdown, sanitary wastewater and storm water at a daily average
flow not to exceed 617,000 gallons per day via outfall 001: and storm water
on an intermittent and flow variable basis via outfall 002. The facility is
located approximately five miles east of the Cit of Conroe: approximately
0.25 miles south of Farm-to-Market Road 1485: and approximately 0.5 miles
west of the City of Cut-N- Shoot, Montgomery County, Texas.
JIM NED CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT has applied for a renewal
of Permit No. 11908-001, which authorizes the disposal of treated domestic
wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 5,000 gallons per day via
evaporation with two (2) 0.35 acre ponds. The facility and disposal site are
located north of the intersection of Avenue E and Fourth Street in Lawn in
Taylor County, Texas.
CITY OF LA COSTE has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. 10889-001,
which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average
flow not to exceed 200,000 gallons per day. The facility is located at the
easterly city limits of the City of La Coste, approximately 0.5 mile east-southeast
of the intersection of Farm-to-Market Road 471 and Farm-to- Market Road 2790,
0.30 mile due south of the Southern Pacific Railroad in Medina County, Texas.
MAHARD EGG FARMS, INC. has applied to the TNRCC for a new permit, Proposed
Permit No. 04043 to authorize the disposal of process wastewater at a daily
average flow not to exceed 4000 gallons per day via evaporation and irrigation
etc. of 80 acres. The applicant proposes to operate an egg farm. This permit
will not authorize a discharge of pollutants into waters in the State. The
facility and disposal area are located approximately 1.6 miles north of the
intersection of County Road 90N and Texas Farm-to-Market Road 2379, on the
east side of County Road 90N, Wilbarger County, Texas. The plant site and
disposal area are located in the drainage basin of , in Segment No. 0206,
of the Red River Above Pease River.
CITY OF NACOGDOCHES has applied for a renewal of TNRCC Permit No. 10342-004,
which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average
flow not to exceed 12,880,000 gallons per day. The draft permit authorizes
the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at an annual average flow not
to exceed 12,880,000 gallons per day. The applicant has also applied to the
TNRCC for approval of a substantial modification to its pretreatment program
under the TPDES program. The facility is located on the east side of Bayou
La Nana between Farm-to-Market Road 1275 and Farm-to-Market Road 2863 in Nacogdoches
County, Texas.
CITY OF OMAHA has applied for a renewal of TNRCC Permit No. 10239-001,
which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average
flow not to exceed 200,000 gallons per day. The facility is located approximately
2,800 feet southwest of the intersection of U.S. Highways 67 and 259 in Morris
County, Texas.
RIO GRANDE VALLEY SUGAR GROWERS, INC. has applied for a renewal of an existing
wastewater permit. The applicant has an existing National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. TX0032905 and an existing Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Permit No. 01752. The draft permit
authorizes the discharge of process wastewater, domestic wastewater, and stormwater
at a daily average flow not to exceed 0.289 gallons per day via Outfall 001
and the disposal of partially treated wastewater via irrigation of 2000 acres.
The applicant operates a raw sugar and molasses production facility. The plant
site is located three miles west of the community of Santa Rosa on State Highway
107 in Hidalgo County, Texas.
CITY OF SAN ANGELO has applied for renewal of an existing filter backwash
water permit. The applicant has an existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit No. TX0002178 and an existing Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Permit No. 10641-001. The draft permit authorizes
the discharge of filter backwash water at a daily average flow not to exceed
400,000 gallons per day. The plant site is located at Avenue I and Metcalf
Street in the City of San Angelo in Tom Green County, Texas.
SAN YGNACIO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT has applied for a renewal of Permit
No. 13383-001 to authorize the disposal of treated domestic wastewater at
a daily average flow not to exceed 0.194 million gallons per day via irrigation
of 72 acres of pastureland. This permit will not authorize a discharge of
pollutants into waters in the State. The wastewater treatment facilities and
disposal site are located approximately 2.2 miles north-northeast of the intersection
of U.S. Highway 83 and Farm-to-Market Road 3169 at San Ygnacio in Zapata County,
Texas.
STEAG POWER which proposes to operate the Brazos Valley Electric Generating
Facility, a combined cycle electric power generating station, has applied
for a major amendment to TPDES Permit No. 04258 to authorize an increase in
the discharge of low volume wastewater, process area storm water, and previously
monitored effluent (cooling tower blowdown) from a daily average flow not
to exceed 700,000 gallons per day to a daily average flow not to exceed 10,000,000
gallons per day via Outfall 001; to authorize the increase of effluent limitations
for total dissolved solids, chlorides, and sulfates at Outfall 001; and to
relocate Outfall 001. The applicant has also requested additional amendments
requests were not addressed in the Notice of Receipt of Application and Intent
to Obtain a Water Quality Permit which include the relocation of total suspended
solids and oil and grease monitoring requirements and limitations from Outfall
001 to internal Outfalls 201 and 301, and the removal of metal cleaning wastes
and associated limitations at Outfall 201 which will now be disposed off-site.
The current permit authorizes the discharge of low volume wastewater, process
area storm water, and previously monitored effluent from Outfalls 101 and
201 (cooling tower blowdown and metal cleaning waste) at a daily average flow
not to exceed 700,000 gallons per day via Outfall 001, and storm water on
an intermittent and flow variable basis via Outfall 002. The facility is located
at the intersection of Rabbs Prairie Road, Smithers Lake Road, and Lockwood
Road, approximately two miles southwest of the City of Thompsons, Fort Bend
County, Texas.
CITY OF TOLAR has applied for a new permit, proposed Texas Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (TPDES) Permit No. 14233-001, to authorize the discharge
of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to exceed 100,000
gallons per day. The facility is located approximately 1/5 mile west of Farm-to-Market
Road 201 and 1/4 mile south of U.S. Highway 377 on the south side of Squaw
Creek in the City of Tolar in Hood County, Texas. The treated effluent is
discharged to Squaw Creek; thence to Squaw Creek Reservoir; thence to Squaw
Creek; thence to the Paluxy River/North Paluxy River in Segment No. 1229 of
the Brazos River Basin.
UPPER TRINITY REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT has applied to the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) for a new permit, proposed Texas
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Permit No. 10698-002, to authorize
the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average flow not to
exceed 500,000 gallons per day. This application was submitted to the TNRCC
on September 27, 2000. The facility is located on the south side of the Little
Elm Creek branch of Lewisville Lake, approximately 3,000 feet northwest of
the intersection of U.S. Highway 380 and Navo Road in Denton County, Texas.
WOODRIDGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit
No. 13474-001, which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater
at a daily average flow not to exceed 4,000 gallons per day. The facility
is located approximately 1600 feet southeast of the intersection of Farm-to-Market
Road 134 and State Highway 43 in Harrison County, Texas.
CITY OF YANTIS has applied for a renewal of TPDES Permit No. 12187-001
which authorizes the discharge of treated domestic wastewater at a daily average
flow not to exceed 42,000 gallons per day. The facility is located approximately
one mile south of the intersection of Farm-to- Market Road 17 and State Highway
154 in Wood County, Texas.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
Written comments and requests for a public meeting may be submitted to
the Office of the Chief Clerk, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION
OF THIS NOTICE.
ROBERT STEINBERGER Tex-Stein Dairy has applied for TPDES Registration No.
03674 to authorize the applicant to construct a new retention control structure
at an existing dairy facility. The facility will expand from a current maximum
capacity of 995 head to 1500 head in Archer County, Texas. No discharge of
pollutants into the waters in the state is authorized by this registration
except under chronic or catastrophic rainfall conditions. The existing facility
is located 0.9 miles south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 281 and State
Highway 25, on the west side of U.S. Highway 281 in Archer County, Texas.
TRD-200103029
LaDonna Castañuela
Chief Clerk
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: May 30, 2001
Capitol Aggregates, Ltd., P. O. Box 6230, Austin, Texas, 78762, applicant,
has submitted Application No. 4025E to amend Water Use Permit No. 3732, as
amended, pursuant to Texas Water Code (TWC) §11.122, and Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission Rules 30 TAC §§295.1, et seq. Water
Use Permit No. 3732, as amended, authorizes the permittee to divert and use
not to exceed 4,504 acre-feet of water per annum (with consumptive use of
600 acre-feet per annum) for mining (sand and gravel washing) purposes at
a maximum rate of 17.47 cfs (7,840 gpm) from the perimeter of two reservoirs
that capture underflow of the Medina River, a tributary of the San Antonio
River, San Antonio River Basin in Bexar County. Special Conditions apply as
follows: the diversion of 3,304 acre-feet per annum is authorized only when
the flow of the Medina River immediately downstream of the most downstream
reservoir is at least 20 cfs, the diversion of the remaining 1,200 acre-feet
of water is not restricted; permittee shall return at least 87 percent of
the diverted water to settling ponds in the project area; and, prior to diversion
of water authorized herein, permittee shall contact the South Texas Watermaster.
Permittee seeks to amend Water Use Permit No. 3732, as amended, by adding
a diversion point at the Montgomery Road Plant, being Latitude 29.332 degrees
N and Longitude 98.754 degrees W, with no changes in water use or diversion
rate and removing an existing diversion point at the Pue Road Plant, being
Latitude 29.334 degrees N and Longitude 98.699 degrees W.
The application was received on December 27, 2000. The Executive Director
reviewed the application and determined it to be administratively complete
on April 23, 2001. Pursuant to TAC 295.158, notice will be sent to the five
water right holders with diversion points in the Medina River Watershed between
the existing and proposed additional diversion point. Should the requested
amendment be granted, it will be subject to administrative requirements of
the South Texas Watermaster.
Written public comments and requests for a public meeting should be submitted
to the Office of Chief Clerk, at the address provided in the information section
below, by Tuesday, June 19, 2001. A public meeting is intended for the taking
of public comment, and is not a contested case hearing. A public meeting will
be held if the Executive Director determines that there is a significant degree
of public interest in the application.
The TNRCC may grant a contested case hearing on this application if a written
hearing request is filed by Tuesday, June 19, 2001. The Executive Director
may approve the application unless a written request for a contested case
hearing is filed. To request a contested case hearing, you must submit the
following: (1) your name (or for a group or association, an official representative),
mailing address, daytime phone number, and fax number, if any; (2) applicant's
name and permit number; (3) the statement "[I/we] request a contested case
hearing;" (4) a brief and specific description of how you would be affected
by the application in a way not common to the general public; and (5) the
location and distance of your property relative to the proposed activity.
You may also submit proposed conditions for the requested permit which would
satisfy your concerns. Requests for a contested case hearing must be submitted
in writing to the Office of the Chief Clerk at the address provided in the
information section below.
If a hearing request is filed, the Executive Director will not issue the
permit and will forward the application and hearing request to the TNRCC Commissioners
for their consideration at a scheduled Commission meeting.
Written hearing requests, public comments or requests for a public meeting
should be submitted to the Office of the Chief Clerk, MC 105, TNRCC, P.O.
Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. For information concerning the hearing
process, please contact the Public Interest Counsel, MC 103, the same address.
For additional information, individual members of the general public may contact
the Office of Public Assistance at 1-800-687-4040. General information regarding
the TNRCC can be found at our web site at www.tnrcc.state.tx.us.
TRD-200103030
LaDonna Castañuela
Chief Clerk
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: May 30, 2001
The State Office of Administrative Hearings issued a Proposal for Decision
and Order to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission on May 10,
2001. Executive Director of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission,
Petitioner v. William Ince; Respondent; SOAH Docket Number 582-01-2067; TNRCC
Docket Number 2000-0101-MSW-E. In the matter to be considered by the Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission on a date and time to be determined
by the Chief Clerk's Office in Room 201S of Building E, 12118 North Interstate
35, Austin, Texas. This posting is Notice of Opportunity to Comment on the
Proposal for Decision and Order. The comment period will end 30 days from
date of publication. Written public comments should be submitted to the Office
of the Chief Clerk, MC-105, TNRCC, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087.
If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact Doug Kitts, Chief
Clerk's Office, (512) 239-3317.
TRD-200102912
Douglas A. Kitts
Agenda Coordinator
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: May 24, 2001
In accordance with the requirements of Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001,
Subchapter B, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or
commission) will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony concerning
the proposed amendment of 30 TAC Chapter 39, §39.551, Application for
Wastewater Discharge Permit, Including Application for the Disposal of Sewage
Sludge or Water Treatment Sludge.
The proposed amendment would amend Chapter 39 notice requirements for applicants
seeking to discharge storm water and certain non-storm water from municipal
separate storm sewer systems under an individual Texas Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit.
A public hearing on this proposal will be held in Austin on June 25, 2001
at 10:00 a.m., in Building F, Room 3202A at the commission's central office
located at 12100 Park 35 Circle. The hearing will be structured for the receipt
of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present
oral statements when called upon in order of registration. There will be no
open discussion during the hearing; however, an agency staff member will be
available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and will
answer questions before and after the hearing.
Comments may be submitted to Patricia Durón, MC 205, Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis,
and Assessment, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or by fax to (512)
239-4808. All comments should reference Rule Log Number 2000-040-039-AD. Comments
must be received by
5:00 p.m., July 9, 2001
.
For further information, please contact Debi Dyer, Policy and Regulations
Division, (512) 239-3972.
Persons with disabilities who have special communication
or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearing should
contact the Office of Environmental Policy, Analysis, and Assessment at (512)
239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible
.
TRD-200102968
Margaret Hoffman
Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Filed: May 24, 2001
Request for Proposal - Training and Technical Assistance Services to At-Risk Youth (STAR) Program
The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (PRS), Division
of Prevention and Early Intervention, is soliciting proposals for a service
contract to provide training and technical assistance for Services to At-Risk
Youth (STAR) program contractors. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory
Services, hereafter referred to as PRS or the Department, anticipates funding
only one contract as a result of this solicitation. The Request for Proposal
(RFP) will be released on or about June 5, 2001. The RFP will be posted on
the State Internet Site at www.marketplace.state.tx.us on the date of its
release.
Brief Description of Services:
Services solicited
under this RFP include: working closely with PRS staff and STAR contractors
to develop training that best meets the needs of STAR contractors; providing
training to STAR contractor program delivery staff to increase counseling,
clinical, and direct care skills; providing training to STAR contractor administrative
staff to increase administrative and program management skills; providing
on-site specialized technical assistance and resource materials to individual
STAR contractors to ensure compliance with STAR program guidelines and the
STAR automated system; maintaining a help desk and automation guide for STAR
contractors to ensure appropriate use of the STAR automated system; quarterly
publishing and distributing a newsletter to all STAR contractors to provide
information that is pertinent to youth- serving agencies; facilitating a one-day
annual meeting for STAR contractors; and maintaining a STAR program Internet
web site.
The goal of this procurement is to provide technical assistance and training
to enhance the skills of administrative, program management, clinical, and
other direct care contract staff and PRS staff.
Eligible Applicants:
Eligible offerors include
private nonprofit and for-profit corporations, cities, counties, partnerships,
and individuals. Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUBs), Minority Business
and Women's Enterprises, and Small Businesses are encouraged to submit proposals.
Limitations:
Total funding of approximately
$271,010 is available for September 1, 2001, through August 31, 2002. The
funding allocated for the contract resulting from this RFP is dependent on
Legislative appropriation. Funding is not guaranteed at the maximum level,
or at any level. PRS reserves the right to reject any and all offers received
in response to this RFP and to cancel this RFP if it is deemed in the best
interest of PRS. PRS also reserves the right to re-procure this service.
If no acceptable responses are received, or no contract is entered into
as a result of this procurement, PRS intends to procure by non-competitive
means in accordance with the law, but without further notice to potential
vendors.
Deadline for Proposals, Term of Contract, and Amount
of Award:
Proposals will be due July 16, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. The effective
dates of contracts awarded under this RFP will be September 1, 2001, through
August 31, 2002, at a maximum amount of $271,010 for the period. If contracts
are renewed, funding will be reviewed annually with prescribed maximum funding
levels each year.
Contact Person:
Potential offerors may obtain
a copy of the RFP on or about June 5, 2001. It is preferred that requests
for the RFP be submitted in writing (by mail or fax) to: Jacqueline Gomez,
Mail Code E-541; c/o Marilyn Eaton; Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory
Services; P.O. Box 149030; Austin, Texas 78714-9030; Fax: (512) 438-2031.
TRD-200102934
C. Ed Davis
Deputy Director, Legal Services
Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services
Filed: May 24, 2001
Notice of Application for Amendment to Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority
On May 15, 2001, NorthPoint Communications, Inc. filed an application with
the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) to amend its service provider
certificate of operating authority (SPCOA) granted in SPCOA Certificate Number
60164. Applicant intends to relinquish its SPCOA.
The Application: Application of NorthPoint Communications, Inc. to Relinquish
its Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority, Docket Number 23872.
Persons with questions about this docket, or who wish to intervene or otherwise
participate in these proceedings should make appropriate filings or comments
to the Public Utility Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326
no later than June 13, 2001. You may contact the commission's Customer Protection
Division at (512) 936-7120. Hearing and speech- impaired individuals with
text telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence
should refer to Docket Number 23872.
TRD-200102982
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: May 25, 2001
On May 24, 2001, The Telephone Reconnection, Inc. filed an application
with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) to amend its service
provider certificate of operating authority (SPCOA) granted in SPCOA Certificate
Number 60139. Applicant intends to relinquish its SPCOA.
The Application: Application of The Telephone Reconnection, Inc. for an
Amendment to its Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority, Docket
Number 24161.
Persons with questions about this docket, or who wish to intervene or otherwise
participate in these proceedings should make appropriate filings or comments
to the Public Utility Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326
no later than June 13, 2001. You may contact the commission's Customer Protection
Division at (512) 936-7120. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephone (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence
should refer to Docket Number 24161.
TRD-200102992
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: May 25, 2001
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on May 18, 2001, for approval of an
increased depreciation rate of 13.4% for digital switching equipment pursuant
to §§52.252 and 53.056 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas
Utilities Code Annotated (Vernon 1998 & Supplement 2001) (PURA). A summary
of the application follows.
Docket Title and Number: Application of Border to Border Communications,
Inc. for Increase in Depreciation Rate for Digital Switching Equipment. Docket
Number 24127.
The Application: Border to Border Communications, Inc. filed with the Public
Utility Commission of Texas (commission) an application for approval of a
13.4% depreciation rate increase on digital switching equipment, effective
January 1, 2001.
Persons who wish to intervene in the proceeding or comment upon the action
sought should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 13326,
Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or call the commission's Customer Protection Division
at (512) 936-7120 or (888) 782-8477. Hearing- and speech-impaired individuals
with text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136 or
use Relay Texas (toll-free) 1-800-735-2989.
TRD-200103024
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: May 30, 2001
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on May 23, 2001, for a service provider
certificate of operating authority (SPCOA), pursuant to §§54.151
- 54.156 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA). A summary of the application
follows.
Docket Title and Number: Application of Cypress Communications Operating
Company, Inc. for a Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority, Docket
Number 24158 before the Public Utility Commission of Texas.
Applicant intends to provide plain old telephone service, and long distance
services.
Applicant's requested SPCOA geographic area includes the area of Texas
currently served by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or
call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 no later
than June 13, 2001. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephone
(TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136.
TRD-200102990
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: May 25, 2001
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on May 23, 2001, for a service provider
certificate of operating authority (SPCOA), pursuant to §§54.151
- 54.156 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA). A summary of the application
follows.
Docket Title and Number: Application of GiantLoop Telecom, Inc. for a Service
Provider Certificate of Operating Authority, Docket Number 24159 before the
Public Utility Commission of Texas.
Applicant intends to provide dedicated and private line fiber optic telecommunications
transmission capacity to business customers.
Applicant's requested SPCOA geographic area includes the area of Texas
currently served by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Verizon Southwest.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or
call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 no later
than June 13, 2001. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephone
(TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136.
TRD-200102991
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: May 25, 2001
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission) of an application on May 24, 2001, for a service provider
certificate of operating authority (SPCOA), pursuant to §§54.151
- 54.156 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA). A summary of the application
follows.
Docket Title and Number: Application of Steller Communications, Inc. for
a Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority, Docket Number 24163
before the Public Utility Commission of Texas.
Applicant intends to provide plain old telephone service, ADSL, ISDN, HDSL,
SDSL, RADSL, VDSL, Optical Services, T1-Private Line, Switch 56 KBPS, Frame
Relay, Fractional T1, long distance, and wireless services.
Applicant's requested SPCOA geographic area includes the area of Texas
served by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Verizon Southwest in 11
north central Texas counties.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, or
call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 no later
than June 13, 2001. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephone
(TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136.
TRD-200102993
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: May 25, 2001
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (P.U.C. or commission) of an application on May 23, 2001, for waiver
of the requirements of P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.465(g)(2)(B), regarding
access line counting.
Docket Title and Number: Application of Leaco Rural Telephone Cooperative,
Inc. (Leaco) for Waiver of Reporting Requirements Imposed by P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §26.465(g)(2)(B), Docket Number 24151.
The Application: P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.465(g)(2)(B) requires
certificated telecommunications providers to file with the commission quarterly
reports showing the number of access lines within each municipality served
by the provider. Applicant reports that it provides service to fifteen access
lines exclusively in Texas. According to applicant, the Texas access lines
serve residents of Loving County, a county with a declining population and
only one town, Mentone, which is not incorporated nor in the service area
served by the applicant. Applicant is seeking a good cause exception pursuant
to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.3, in the belief that the expenditure
in time, effort and cost to comply with P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.465(g)(2)(B)
is unduly burdensome and disproportionate in view of the absence of municipal
access lines in the applicant's service area in Texas.
Persons who wish to comment upon the action sought should contact the Public
Utility Commission of Texas, by mail at P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas, 78711-3326,
or call the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or
toll free at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with
text telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All comments
should reference Docket Number 24151.
TRD-200103000
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: May 29, 2001
On May 22, 2001, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Time Warner Telecom
of Texas, LP, collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application
for approval of amendment to an existing interconnection agreement under Section
252(i) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law Number 104-104,
110 Statute 56, (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 and 47 United
States Code) (FTA) and the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities
Code Annotated, Chapters 52 and 60 (Vernon 1998 & Supplement 2001) (PURA).
The joint application has been designated Docket Number 24147. The joint application
and the underlying interconnection agreement are available for public inspection
at the commission's offices in Austin, Texas.
The commission must act to approve the interconnection agreement within
35 days after it is submitted by the parties.
The commission finds that additional public comment should be allowed before
the commission issues a final decision approving or rejecting the amendment
to the interconnection agreement. Any interested person may file written comments
on the joint application by filing ten copies of the comments with the commission's
filing clerk. Additionally, a copy of the comments should be served on each
of the applicants. The comments should specifically refer to Docket Number
24147. As a part of the comments, an interested person may request that a
public hearing be conducted. The comments, including any request for public
hearing, shall be filed by June 21, 2001, and shall include:
1) a detailed statement of the person's interests in the agreement, including
a description of how approval of the agreement may adversely affect those
interests;
2) specific allegations that the agreement, or some portion thereof:
a) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party
to the agreement; or
b) is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
or
c) is not consistent with other requirements of state law; and
3) the specific facts upon which the allegations are based.
After reviewing any comments, the commission will issue a notice of approval,
denial, or determine whether to conduct further proceedings concerning the
joint application. The commission shall have the authority given to a presiding
officer pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule §22.202. The commission may
identify issues raised by the joint application and comments and establish
a schedule for addressing those issues, including the submission of evidence
by the applicants, if necessary, and briefing and oral argument. The commission
may conduct a public hearing. Interested persons who file comments are not
entitled to participate as intervenors in the public hearing.
Persons with questions about this project or who wish to comment on the
joint application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701
North Congress Avenue, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may call
the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or toll free
at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones
(TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should
refer to Docket Number 24147.
TRD-200102989
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: May 25, 2001
On May 24, 2001, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Mpower Communications
Corporation, collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application
for approval of amendment to an existing interconnection agreement under Section
252(i) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law Number 104-104,
110 Statute 56, (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 and 47 United
States Code) (FTA) and the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities
Code Annotated, Chapters 52 and 60 (Vernon 1998 & Supplement 2001) (PURA).
The joint application has been designated Docket Number 24165. The joint application
and the underlying interconnection agreement are available for public inspection
at the commission's offices in Austin, Texas.
The commission must act to approve the interconnection agreement within
35 days after it is submitted by the parties.
The commission finds that additional public comment should be allowed before
the commission issues a final decision approving or rejecting the amendment
to the interconnection agreement. Any interested person may file written comments
on the joint application by filing ten copies of the comments with the commission's
filing clerk. Additionally, a copy of the comments should be served on each
of the applicants. The comments should specifically refer to Docket Number
24165. As a part of the comments, an interested person may request that a
public hearing be conducted. The comments, including any request for public
hearing, shall be filed by June 22, 2001, and shall include:
1) a detailed statement of the person's interests in the agreement, including
a description of how approval of the agreement may adversely affect those
interests;
2) specific allegations that the agreement, or some portion thereof:
a) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party
to the agreement; or
b) is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
or
c) is not consistent with other requirements of state law; and
3) the specific facts upon which the allegations are based.
After reviewing any comments, the commission will issue a notice of approval,
denial, or determine whether to conduct further proceedings concerning the
joint application. The commission shall have the authority given to a presiding
officer pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule §22.202. The commission may
identify issues raised by the joint application and comments and establish
a schedule for addressing those issues, including the submission of evidence
by the applicants, if necessary, and briefing and oral argument. The commission
may conduct a public hearing. Interested persons who file comments are not
entitled to participate as intervenors in the public hearing.
Persons with questions about this project or who wish to comment on the
joint application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701
North Congress Avenue, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may call
the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or toll free
at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones
(TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should
refer to Docket Number 24165.
TRD-200103017
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: May 29, 2001
Notice is given to the public of the filing with the Public Utility Commission
of Texas (commission), of a long run incremental cost (LRIC) study pursuant
to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.215.
Docket Title and Number. Verizon Southwest's Application for Approval of
LRIC Study for CentraNet Numbers Not in Use Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive
Rule §26.215 on or about June 4, 2001, Docket Number 24173.
Any party that demonstrates a justiciable interest may file with the administrative
law judge, written comments or recommendations concerning the LRIC study referencing
Docket Number 24173. Written comments or recommendations should be filed no
later than 45 days after the date of sufficiency and should be filed at the
Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701 North Congress Avenue, P.O. Box 13326,
Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may call the commission's Customer Protection
Division at (512) 936-7120. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text
telephones (TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136.
TRD-200103019
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: May 29, 2001
On May 24, 2001, Coleman County Telephone Cooperative, Inc. and Dobson
Cellular Systems, Inc., collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint
application for approval of interconnection agreement and amendment to interconnection
agreement under Section 252(i) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Public Law Number 104-104, 110 Statute 56, (codified as amended in scattered
sections of 15 and 47 United States Code) (FTA) and the Public Utility Regulatory
Act, Texas Utilities Code Annotated, Chapters 52 and 60 (Vernon 1998 &
Supplement 2001) (PURA). The joint application has been designated Docket
Number 24164. The joint application and the underlying interconnection agreement
are available for public inspection at the commission's offices in Austin,
Texas.
The commission must act to approve the interconnection agreement within
35 days after it is submitted by the parties.
The commission finds that additional public comment should be allowed before
the commission issues a final decision approving or rejecting the interconnection
agreement. Any interested person may file written comments on the joint application
by filing ten copies of the comments with the commission's filing clerk. Additionally,
a copy of the comments should be served on each of the applicants. The comments
should specifically refer to Docket Number 24164. As a part of the comments,
an interested person may request that a public hearing be conducted. The comments,
including any request for public hearing, shall be filed by June 22, 2001,
and shall include:
1) a detailed statement of the person's interests in the agreement, including
a description of how approval of the agreement may adversely affect those
interests;
2) specific allegations that the agreement, or some portion thereof:
a) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party
to the agreement; or
b) is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
or
c) is not consistent with other requirements of state law; and
3) the specific facts upon which the allegations are based.
After reviewing any comments, the commission will issue a notice of approval,
denial, or determine whether to conduct further proceedings concerning the
joint application. The commission shall have the authority given to a presiding
officer pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule §22.202. The commission may
identify issues raised by the joint application and comments and establish
a schedule for addressing those issues, including the submission of evidence
by the applicants, if necessary, and briefing and oral argument. The commission
may conduct a public hearing. Interested persons who file comments are not
entitled to participate as intervenors in the public hearing.
Persons with questions about this project or who wish to comment on the
joint application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701
North Congress Avenue, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may call
the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or toll free
at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones
(TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should
refer to Docket Number 24164.
TRD-200103016
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: May 29, 2001
On May 25, 2001, SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc. and DSLnet Communications,
LLC, collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint application for
approval of interconnection agreement under Section 252(i) of the federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law Number 104-104, 110 Statute 56,
(codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 and 47 United States Code)
(FTA) and the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities Code Annotated,
Chapters 52 and 60 (Vernon 1998 & Supplement 2001) (PURA). The joint application
has been designated Docket Number 24169. The joint application and the underlying
interconnection agreement are available for public inspection at the commission's
offices in Austin, Texas.
The commission must act to approve the interconnection agreement within
35 days after it is submitted by the parties.
The commission finds that additional public comment should be allowed before
the commission issues a final decision approving or rejecting the interconnection
agreement. Any interested person may file written comments on the joint application
by filing ten copies of the comments with the commission's filing clerk. Additionally,
a copy of the comments should be served on each of the applicants. The comments
should specifically refer to Docket Number 24169. As a part of the comments,
an interested person may request that a public hearing be conducted. The comments,
including any request for public hearing, shall be filed by June 22, 2001,
and shall include:
1) a detailed statement of the person's interests in the agreement, including
a description of how approval of the agreement may adversely affect those
interests;
2) specific allegations that the agreement, or some portion thereof:
a) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party
to the agreement; or
b) is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
or
c) is not consistent with other requirements of state law; and
3) the specific facts upon which the allegations are based.
After reviewing any comments, the commission will issue a notice of approval,
denial, or determine whether to conduct further proceedings concerning the
joint application. The commission shall have the authority given to a presiding
officer pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule §22.202. The commission may
identify issues raised by the joint application and comments and establish
a schedule for addressing those issues, including the submission of evidence
by the applicants, if necessary, and briefing and oral argument. The commission
may conduct a public hearing. Interested persons who file comments are not
entitled to participate as intervenors in the public hearing.
Persons with questions about this project or who wish to comment on the
joint application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701
North Congress Avenue, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may call
the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or toll free
at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones
(TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should
refer to Docket Number 24169.
TRD-200103018
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: May 29, 2001
On May 21, 2001, TCI Telephony Services of Texas, Inc. and Southwestern
Bell Telephone Company, collectively referred to as applicants, filed a joint
application for approval of an interconnection agreement and amendment thereto
under Section 252(i) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public
Law Number 104-104, 110 Statute 56, (codified as amended in scattered sections
of 15 and 47 United States Code) (FTA) and the Public Utility Regulatory Act,
Texas Utilities Code Annotated, Chapters 52 and 60 (Vernon 1998 & Supplement
2001) (PURA). The joint application has been designated Docket Number 24141.
The joint application and the underlying interconnection agreement are available
for public inspection at the commission's offices in Austin, Texas.
The commission must act to approve the interconnection agreement within
35 days after it is submitted by the parties.
The commission finds that additional public comment should be allowed before
the commission issues a final decision approving or rejecting the amendment
to the interconnection agreement. Any interested person may file written comments
on the joint application by filing ten copies of the comments with the commission's
filing clerk. Additionally, a copy of the comments should be served on each
of the applicants. The comments should specifically refer to Docket Number
24141. As a part of the comments, an interested person may request that a
public hearing be conducted. The comments, including any request for public
hearing, shall be filed by June 21, 2001, and shall include:
1) a detailed statement of the person's interests in the agreement, including
a description of how approval of the agreement may adversely affect those
interests;
2) specific allegations that the agreement, or some portion thereof:
a) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party
to the agreement; or
b) is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
or
c) is not consistent with other requirements of state law; and
3) the specific facts upon which the allegations are based.
After reviewing any comments, the commission will issue a notice of approval,
denial, or determine whether to conduct further proceedings concerning the
joint application. The commission shall have the authority given to a presiding
officer pursuant to P.U.C. Procedural Rule §22.202. The commission may
identify issues raised by the joint application and comments and establish
a schedule for addressing those issues, including the submission of evidence
by the applicants, if necessary, and briefing and oral argument. The commission
may conduct a public hearing. Interested persons who file comments are not
entitled to participate as intervenors in the public hearing.
Persons with questions about this project or who wish to comment on the
joint application should contact the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701
North Congress Avenue, P.O. Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. You may call
the commission's Customer Protection Division at (512) 936-7120 or toll free
at 1-888-782-8477. Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones
(TTY) may contact the commission at (512) 936-7136. All correspondence should
refer to Docket Number 24141.
TRD-200102988
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: May 25, 2001
The Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) will hold a workshop
regarding the provision of advanced services by electing companies, certificate
of operating authority (COA) or service provider certificate of operating
authority (SPCOA) holders on Tuesday, June 19, 2001, at 9:30 a.m. in the Commissioners'
Hearing Room, located on the 7th floor of the William B. Travis Building,
1701 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701. Project Number 21175,
Questions concerning the workshop or this notice should be referred to
Don Ballard, Chief Attorney, Policy Development Division, at (512) 936-7255.
Hearing and speech-impaired individuals with text telephones (TTY) may contact
the commission at (512) 936-7136.
TRD-200103015
Rhonda Dempsey
Rules Coordinator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Filed: May 29, 2001
Notice of Availability of Consulting Services Contract
This request for consulting services is filed under the provisions of the
Government Code, Chapter 2254.
PURPOSE: Stephen F. Austin State University is seeking consulting services
to provide inspection and budget forecasting for all educational and support
facility roofs for a period of five years, beginning September 1, 2001 and
ending August 31, 2006. Proposed inspection and documentation will provide
the following: 1. physical inspection of all campus facility roofs 2. documentation
of observed conditions with emphasis on known roof problems, reported leak
conditions and preventative maintenance 3. summary of conditions requiring
manufacturer warranty notification 4. summary of conditions requiring roof
related repair 5. summary of roofs projected for replacement for the fiscal
years 2002 through 2006 6. final reports to be presented in CPU Windows 95/98
environment, including building history of roof type, age, construction, flashing
type, square footage, insulation, material manufacturer, etc., current conditions,
budget forecast of repairs and replacements, roof plans, excel spread sheet,
photographs and warranties. Additional roof inspections shall be provided
during repair or construction as required by the University, with the price
to be negotiated depending on specific requirements for each job.
ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS: All governmental, public, nonprofit private, or for-profit
private entities that can demonstrate the expertise necessary to carry out
the required consultant services are encouraged to submit proposals.
PROPOSAL FORMAT: Interested parties must submit proposal with the following
information: experience, qualifications, cost for inspection services to be
provided the first year; subsequent years to be negotiated annually, the name,
address, and phone number of the individual assigned to the account, and the
vendor identification number/tax identification number of the applicant.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Evaluation will be made by the Director of Purchasing
and the Associate Director of Facilities Services based upon evidence of the
applicant's knowledge and experience in performing the specified services
and costs.
DEADLINES: Proposal must be received in the office of Diana Boubel, Director
of Purchasing, PO Box 13030, 2124 Wilson Drive, Nacogdoches, Texas 75962 by
June 12, 2001, 5:00 p.m. A decision will be made at the regularly scheduled
Board of Regents meeting July, 2001. Contract to be effective September 1,
2001 through August 31, 2006 up to an estimated amount not to exceed $80,000.
Please contact Diana Boubel at (936) 468-2206 or John Rulfs at (936) 468-4341
for more information.
TRD-200103006
R. Yvette Clark
General Counsel
Stephen F. Austin State University
Filed: May 29, 2001
Notice of Supreme Court of Texas Advisory Council Meeting
Pursuant to Supreme Court of Texas Misc. Docket Order No. 99-9167, the
Supreme Court Rules Advisory Committee publishes notice of the following meeting
open to the public. The Supreme Court Rules Advisory Committee will meet
The agenda for the meeting includes: (1) call to order; (2) discussion
relating to previous advisory committee proposals submitted to the Supreme
Court, including discussion of the status of proposals submitted to the Supreme
Court relating to changes in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure, and the Texas Parental Notification Rules; (3) reports
related to proposals to amend, change, or modify the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure relating to issues involving
the finality of judgments; Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47 relating to
the issuance and use of appellate opinions; Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
9 on the types of U.S. mail service which may serve as service of appellate
process, that portion of the Parental Notification rules relating to the manner
of implementing appeals, and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 103 relating to
the service of citation and process; and (4) other business, including review
of public comments or other proposals to amend, change, or modify the rules
and procedures for the courts of the state of Texas.
Additional information related to this meeting may be obtained from Chris
Griesel, Rules Attorney, at (512) 463-6645 or by e-mail at chris.griesel@courts.state.tx.us.
Comments on any rule change proposal, including a rule proposal made at this
meeting, may be submitted to: Rules Attorney, Supreme Court of Texas, P.O.
Box 12248, Austin , Texas 78711 or by email to chris.griesel@courts.state.tx.us
.
Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may
need auxiliary aids or services or others who may need additional assistance
are requested contact Chris Griesel at (512) 463-6645 at least two (2) working
days before the meeting so that the appropriate arrangements may be made.
TRD-200103040
John T. Adams
Clerk
The Supreme Court of Texas
Filed: May 30, 2001
Coastal Coordination Council
Comptroller of Public Accounts
Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Notice to Bidders
East Texas Council of Governments
General Services Commission
Texas Department of Health
Designation of Oak Tree Family Clinic as a Site Serving Medically Underserved Populations
Notice of Amendment to the Radioactive Material License of Nuclear Sources & Services, Inc., dba NSSI/Sources & Services, Inc.
Texas Health and Human Services Commission
Planning Forum and Public Hearing
Planning Forum and Public Hearing
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
Request for Proposals for Financial Services
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs
Notice of 2001 Texas Community Development Program Grant Awards
Notice of 2001 Texas Community Development Program Grant Awards
Notice of 2001 Texas Community Development Program Grant Awards
Notice of 2001 Texas Community Development Program Grant Awards
Texas Department of Human Services
Texas Lottery Commission
Instant Game Number 238 "High Roller"
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Notice of Opportunity to Comment on Default Orders of Administrative Enforcement Actions
Notice of Opportunity to Comment on Settlement Agreements of Administrative Enforcement Actions
Notice of Opportunity to Comment on Settlement Agreements of Administrative Enforcement Actions
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice of Public Hearings
Notice of Water Quality Applications
Notice of Water Rights Application
Proposal for Decision
Public Hearing Notice
Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services
Public Utility Commission of Texas
Notice of Application for Amendment to Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority
Notice of Application for Approval of Depreciation Rate Change
Notice of Application for Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority
Notice of Application for Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority
Notice of Application for Service Provider Certificate of Operating Authority
Notice of Application for Waiver of Reporting Requirements in P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.465(g)(2)(B)
Public Notice of Amendment to Interconnection Agreement
Public Notice of Amendment to Interconnection Agreement
Public Notice of Intent to File Pursuant to P.U.C. Substantive Rule §26.215
Public Notice of Interconnection Agreement
Public Notice of Interconnection Agreement
Public Notice of Interconnection Agreement and Amendment Thereto
Public Notice of Workshop-Rulemaking to Address the Provision of Advanced Services By Electing Companies, COA or SPCOA Holders in Rural Service Areas
Stephen F. Austin State University
The Supreme Court of Texas
Texas A&M University, Board of Regents