P. 1



# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 41 ) ll-B-1 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/20089:50:53 AM Sheet 41 of 276P. 2

. ~ t

4iPSO V UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LP R \\\\ S

SUBJECT : FROM :

TO : \WASHINGTON , D.C . 2046 0



### JU L

### 2 8 193

3 II-B-1 6

OFFIC E O F AIR . NOIS E AN D RADIATIO N idgepor t Harbo r Coa l Conversio n Directo r StationarySourc e Complianc e Divisio n Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlannin g an d Standard s Harle yLaing , Directo r Ai r Managemen t Division , Regio n I Thi s i s in respons e t o you r Jun e 8 , 198 3 reques t fo r a n applicabilit ydeterminatio nconcernin g th e conversio n t o coa l o f Bridgepor t Harbo r Uni t #3 . You r opinio n i s tha t th e conver sio nshoul d no t b e subjec t t o eithe r PS D o r NSP S requirement s becaus e yo u fee l the boile r wa s originall ydesigne d t o bur n coal , an

d a s suc hi s exemp t unde r §60.14(e)(4 ) fro m NSP S coverag e an d unde r §52.21(b)(2)(iii)(e)(1 ) fromPS D coverage . Yo u aske d fo r ou r concurrenc e i nthi s opinion . Unite d Illuminatin g Compan y(UI ) want s t o bur ncoa l i n it s 40 0 MWcapacit yBridgepor t Harbo r Uni t # 3 (i t currentl y burn s oil ) an

d request s you r determinatio ntha t suc ha conversio n i s exemp t fro

m NSP S an

d PS D applicability . U I contend s tha t the uni t wa s originall ydesigne d t o accommodat e coal , an d ha s supplie d copie s o f the origina l proposal , contrac t an d design s t o suppor t thi s position . Eve nthoug ha decisio nwa s mad e i n 1967 , durin g th e latte r stage s o f construction , t o us e oi l a s the primar yfuel , n o coal-firin g equipmen t wa s delete d fro m the contrac t an

d al l equipmen t contracte d fo r wa s installed . Additionally , coa l handlin g facilities , pulverizers , as han d slag handlin g equipmen t an d al l othe r system s an d equipmen t require d fo r pulverize d coa l firing o f th e uni t wer e installed . Sinc e coa l wa s neve r burne d i n th e unit , change s ar e no w necessar yt o enabl e it s use . Suc hchange s includ e modification s t o tubing withi nth e boiler , the additio no f flame scanners , burners , ignitor s an

d relays , an

d piping an

d wirin g t o allo wfo r botto m as hremoval . I n addition , the pulverizer s mus t b e mad e functional . Thes e change s t o th e steam generatin g uni t ar e estimate d t o cos t approximatel y5 millio n dollars .P. 3

i I 

### -2

-

Th e NSP S fo r electri c utilit ystea mgeneratin g units , 4 0 CFR60 , Subpar t Da , provide s anexemptio n fromcoverag e fo r conversio n fromoi l t o coal . Se e §60.40a(d) : Anychange s t o an existing stea mgeneratin g uni t originall ydesigne d t o fir e gaseou s o r liqui d fossi l fuel s t o accommodat e the us e o f an yothe r fue l (fossi l o r nonfossil ) shal l no t brin g tha t uni t unde r th e applicabilit y o f thi s subpart . Ales s inclusiv e provisio n exempt s coa l conversion s from Subpar t D NSP S applicabilit yi f th e existing facilit ywa s designe d t o accommodat e coa l befor e Augus t 18 , 1971 . Se e §60.14(e)(4) , whic hexempt s fromth e modificatio nprovisions : Us e o f a n alternativ e fue l o r ra wmateria l if , prio r t o th e dat e an ystandar d unde r thi s par t become s applicabl e t o tha t sourc e type , th e existing facilit ywa s designe d t o accommodat e tha t alternativ e use . Afacilit yshal l b e considere d t o b e designe d t o accommodat e a nalternativ e fue l o r ra wmateria l i f tha t us e coul d b e accomplishe d unde r th e facility' s constructio n specification s a s amende d prio r t o th e change . Bridgepor t Harbo r Uni t # 3 i s exemp t fro m Subpar t D a coverag e becaus e o f th e provisio na t §60.40a(d) . Mystaf f ha s examine d th e conversio n a s relate d t o Subpar t D applicability , an d discusse d i t wit hEPA' s Emissio n Standard s an d Engineerin g Divisio n(ESED) . Th e constructio nspecification s fo r uni t # 3 outline d i n you r memorandum

clearl yindicat e tha t th e uni t wa s designe d t o accommodat e coa l prio r t o th e Subpar t D applicabilit ydate , eve nthoughcoa l wa s neve r burned . Also , the approximatel y5 millio ndollar s whic hU I mus t spen d o nth e affecte d facility , the stea mgeneratin g unit , t o enabl e i t t o actuall ybur n coal , i s minima l compare d t o th e cost s o f a coa l conversion , an d represent s onl ymino r adjustment s t o equipmen t alreadyi nplace . Fo r thes e reasons , bot hSSC D an d ESE D concu r wit hyou r conclusio ntha t Uni t # 3 i s exemp t fromcoverag e unde r Subpar t D a s wel l a s Subpar t Da . Th e questio n o f PS D applicabilit yi s mor e difficul t becaus e i t i s necessar yt o determin e i f th e entir e plant , rathe r tha n simpl yth e boiler , wa s capabl e o f accommodatin g coa l befor e th e Januar y6 , 197 5 applicabilit ydate . I na telephon e conversatio n o nJul y19 , 198 3 betwee nRober t Myer s o f m ystaf f an

d John Courcie rP. 4



### -3

-

o f you r office , John relate d t o Bo bthe exten t t o whic hU I ha s incorporate d coa l capabilit ya t thei r Bridgepor t Harbo r Station . Apparentl yU I ha s alreadypu t i nplace , prio r t o Januar y6 , 1975 , al l o f th e coa l handlin g an d suppor t facilitie s necessar yfo r the combustio n o f coal . Thi s equipmen t continue s t o b e availabl e an d onl yrequire s some mino r adjustmen t i norde r t o accommodat e coa l a t Uni t #3 . Therefore , i t i s the opinio no f thi s offic e tha t UI' s Bridgepor t Harbo r Statio n wa s capabl e o f accommodatin g th e alternativ e fue l prio r t o Januar y6 , 1975 , an d i s exemp t fro mth e PS D permittin g requirement s pursuan t t o §52.21(b)(2 ) (iii)(e)(1) . Thi s respons e ha s receive d th e concurrenc e o f bot hOAQP S an d th e Offic e o f Genera l Counsel . Pleas e contac t Rober t Myer s a t FT S 382-287 5 i f yo u hav e additiona l concerns .

Edwar d E . Reic h

cc : Jac k Farme r Wal t Stevenso n Ear l Sal o Dav e Rochli n Mik e Trutna Pete r Wyckof fP. 5

• ' > " UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCY DA-5E : Jun e 8 , 198 3

SUBJEC T

FRO M PS D Applicabilit yfo r Bridgepor t Harbo r Coa l Conversio n Harle yF . Laing , Directo r \\\ ^ Ai r Managemen t Divisio n Regio nI

T O Edward E . Reich , Directo r Divisio n o f StationarySourc e Enforcemen t Issu e Regio nI request s you r concurrenc e i nou r determinatio n tha t the Bridgepor t Harbo r Uni t # 3 i s no t subjec t t o eithe r PS D o r NSP S requirements . I t i s ou r belie f tha t the boile r wa s origi

nall ydesigne d t o bur n coa l an d the change s tha t ar e bein g under

take na t UI' s Bridgepor t Harbo r statio nd o no t constitut e a majo r modificatio n a s define d unde r PS D an d NSPS , an

d therefore , shoul d b e exemp t fro

mthes e reviews . Background Th e Unite d Illuminatin g Company(UI ) ha s file d an applicatio n wit h the Connecticu t Departmen t o f Environmenta l Protectio n(C T DEP ) t o bur ncoa l i n Uni t # 3 (BH S 3 ) a t UI' s Bridgepor t Hatbo r Station . Th e C T DE P issue d U I anoperatin g permi t fo r BH S 3 , an d ha s sinc e requeste d tha t Regio n I determin e whethe r o r no t th e coa l conversio n a t BH S 3 (whichwa s originall ydesigne d t o bur ncoal ) shoul d b e considere d a modificatio n an d therefor e subjec t t o th e PS D and/o r the NSP S regulation s (4 0 CF RPar t 60 , Subpart s D an d Da) . U I contend s tha t BH S 3 wa s originall ydesigne d t o accommodat e coal . I n fact , theyhav e supplie d th e C T DE P wit hcopie s o f the origina l proposal , contract , an d design s whic hindicat e tha t coa l wa s indee d intende d t o b e th e primar yfuel . Durin g the latte r stage s o f the constructio n i n 1967-1968 , a decisio n wa s mad e t o us e oi l a s the primaryfue l an

d coa l a s a secondaryfuel . However , n o coa l firing equipmen t wa s delete d from th e contrac t an

d al l coa l firing equipmen t contracte d fo r wa s installed . I n addition , al l o f th e othe r system s an

d equipmen t require d fo r pulverize d coa l firing o f the unit , includin g coa l handlin g facilities , pulverizer s an d as h an d sla g handlin g equipment , wer e similarl yspecifie d b yU I an d installe d b

yUI' s contractor . A t a stat e investigativ e hearin g o n th e coa l conversion , certai n additiona l fact s wer e revealed . Althoug hU I showe d tha t the boile r wa s originall ydesigne d and buil t t o bur n eithe r coa l o r oil , significan t hea t exchang e surfac e alteration s wer e mad e t o allo w fo r continuous , long-termoi l burning . Coa l ha s neve r bee n burne d i nthe BH S 3 . Som e modification s t o BH S 3 ar e no wnecessar yi n orde r t o allo wfo r continuous , reliabl e coa l burnin g a t partia l

EP A F« m 1320 4 (R.v . 3-76 )P. 6

-2

-

loa d o r oi l a t ful l load , including modification s t o tubing withi n th e boiler , a s wel l a s t o some o f the auxiliaryequipment . Othe r change s t o the uni t includ e the additio no f flame scanners , burner s an d ignitors , an

d additiona l relays . Certai n piping an d wirin g t o allowthe bottomas hremova l system , certai ncoa l handling equipmen t an d the pulverizer s t o b e functiona l i s als o necessary . Additiona l equipmen t modificatio n woul d hav e bee nnecessaryi n196 8 t o bur n coal , bu t becaus e oi l wa s t o b e used a s fuel , suc hmodification s wer e neve r full ycompleted . Althoughthe stat e hearin g office r conclude d tha t extensiv e "physica l change s an d additions " t o the BH S 3 totalling some $3 5 millio nconstitut e a modificatio nt o a stationarysource , the C T DE P di d no t requir e U I t o obtai na mod

ified sourc e permi t fo r BH S 3 . Th e stat e did , howeve r requir e U l t o obtai n a n operatin g permi t t o conver t t o coal . Rational e NSP S (Subpar t D) : 40CF R60.14(e)(4 ) exempt s a chang e t o a facilit y (inthi s case , a boiler ) from consideratio na s a modificatio ni f the emission s increas e fro msuc hchang e result s fromus e o f analterna

tive fuel , provide d the us e o f the alternativ e fue l coul d b e accom modat e unde r the facility' s constructio nspecification s a s amende d prio r t o th e change . UI' s design s fo r BH S 3 , a s wel l a s thei r contract , specifie d al l equipmen t necessaryfo r burnin g coa l a s th e primaryfuel . Al l majo r equipmen t wa s installed . I t i s Regio nI' s opinio ntha t th e alteration s t o th e boile r necessaryt o bur ncoa l presentl yre sul t fromth e 196 8 alteration s t o the boile r tha t wer e mad e t o enabl e th e boile r t o bur n oil , an d a s suc hd o no t constitut e a modification . NSP S (Subpar t Da) : 4 0 CF R60.40a(d ) exempt s an oi l burning uni t from the provision s o f Subpar t Da i f suc huni t i s modifie d t o bur ncoal . PSD: 4 0 CF R52.21(b)(2)(iii)(e)(1 ) exempt s a chang e t o a sourc e (i n thi s case , th e generatin g station ) from consideratio na s a majo r modificatio ni f suc hchang e result s fromth e us e o f a nalternativ e fuel , provide d th e sourc e coul d accommodat e th e alternativ e fue l prio r t o Januar y6, 1975 . BH S 3 wa s buil t befor e thi s dat e an d wa s designe d t o bur n coal , an d i s therefor e exemp t fromPSD . I f you r offic e concur s wit hRegio n I' s determination , pleas e advis e u s b yJun e 24 , 1983 . I f you r offic e doe s no t concur , pleas e forwar d you r determinatio n b yJul y8 , 1983 . Sinc e severa l partie s ar e anxiousl yawaitin g thi s determinatio nw e woul d appreciat e you r respons e b yth e date s indicate d above . I f yo u shoul d hav e an yquestions , o r shoul d nee d additiona l inform

ation , pleas e contac t John Courcie r (FT S 223-5137 ) o f m ystaff . cc : Ric hBiondi , DSS E Marcu s McCraven , U I Leonar d Bruckman , C T DE P , Mik e Trutna , QAQP S