p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

tfyfimm iv-c-21 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:04 AM Sheet 275 of 276 
P.2 

-«*»* IV-C-2-1 

, _ 0 ST4> 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

FIL E -CO_E>Y 

OCT 7-1991 

Honorable Paul E. Gillmor 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Gillmor: 

This is in response to your letter of September 11, 1991, 

regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 

interpretation of the definition of "repowering." 

Section 402(12) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 defines 

repowering as the "replacement of an existing coal-fired boiler" 

with one of several specified clean coal technologies. The 

definition also includes, as qualifying technologies, other 

technologies which are derivatives of "one or more of the 

[specified] technologies, and any other technology capable of 

controlling multiple combustion emissions simultaneously with 

improved boiler or generation efficiency and with significantly 

greater waste reduction relative to the performance of technology 

in widespread commercial use." As you have correctly pointed 

out, this definition, as written, could be interpreted as 

limiting technologies which would be considered repowering 

projects to those that only involve the replacement of the 

boiler. 

As you may know, as part of the rulemaking process, EPA is 

currently taking comments on its proposal to amend regulations 

implementing new source requirements governing modifications at 

electric utility generating units. The proposed rule 

incorporates the statutory definition of repowering without 

change. Your comment is being given careful consideration, and 

EPA will be addressing this issue in the final rulemaking. 

I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust 

that this information will be helpful to you. 

Sincerely, 

/•/ Michael H.8_»jaro(fcr) 

William G. Rosenberg 

Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation 

CONCURRENCES 

SYMBOL k 

SURNAME k 

DAT E 

M$.f&. 

i $ffl/ 

/0$&> 

^Lv?wf* 

"tl-hph i "!tW_ 

QtSLsis^utf 

3/W/ 

0AO(VT OLAJJ 

10:T 

r~rr-i/~i i i CIIC COPY 
P.3 

A .rft-NIOR 

^UCT. OHIO 

A " HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

JSHINGTON. DC 20515 

202-225-6405 

TRAVEL AND TOURISM CAUCUS 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY 

STUDY CONFERENCE 

RURAL HEALTH CARE CAUCUS 

CONGRESSIONAL RURAL CAUCUS 

REPUBLICAN POLICY EXECUTIVE 

COMMITTEE 

A 

3 

Congress of ti)e ®mteb States 

Jlouge of i&epreiSentattoeg 

atafnnijton, BC 20515 

September 11, 1991 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING. FINANCE 

AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

SUBCOMMITTEES: 

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS SUPERVISION, 

REGULATION AND INSURANCE 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. 

FINANCE. TRAOE AND MONETAAV POLICY 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION 

RANKING REPUBLICAN MEMBER 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL 

The Honorable William Reilly 

Director 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Congressional Liaison 

West Tower, Room 835, A-103 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Director Reilly: 

I am writing with concern about the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's draft rule to implement Section 402(12) of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, dealing with repowering 

of power plants. 

EPA's proposed rule seems to say that boiler replacement 

or substantial boiler modifications would be required for 

technologies to qualify as repowering technologies. Such a 

restrictive interpretation of Section 402(12) would disqualify 

multi-pollutant clean coal technologies, technologies I 

strongly support, for repowering extensions. The federal 

government and the State of Ohio have spent millions to develop 

clean coal technologies to help our environment, and that 

investment could be seriously jeopardized if the draft rule is 

carried into effect. 

A July 2, 1990 letter from Secretary of Energy James 

Watkins to Congressman Ralph Regula stated the administration's 

position on boiler replacement in terms markedly different than 

does the EPA's rule: "The Administration worked closely with 

Senate leadership in developing the definition of repowering 

which was adopted in S. 1630 and was thereafter incorporated in 

H.R. 3030. The intent of the language is to include in the 

definition of repowering any technology capable of controlling 

multiple combustion emissions simultaneously....For this class 

of technologies, boiler replacement is not intended to be a 

precondition to being considered a repowering technology." The 

Secretary's letter is enclosed for your review. 

BOWLING GREEN 

280 SOUTH MAIN STREET 

FEDERAL BUILDING, #10 0 

BOWLING GREEN. OH 43402 

VbEFIANCE PORT CLINTON 

608 TJo_TH CLINTON STREET 120 JEFFERSON STREET, 2D FLOOR 

PWINCE . OH 43512 PORT CLINTON, OH 43452 

"•419-782-1996 419-734-1999 

TOI l FPFp IN OHIO 1-flOO-541-6446 

SANDUSKY 

165 EAST WASHINGTON ROW 

WASHINGTON BUILDING. 302 

SANDUSKY, OH 44870 

419-627-1988 
P.4 

«-• " 

. EXHIBIT 1 

THE 3H,!HI.IA__Y or ENERGY. 

Washington, DC. July <?. 1930. 

Hon. RA__TH RBSUUL, 

Home efJtepveuntatioes, 

Wasinuvtuiiy DC. 

DEAR CONGRESSMAN RAL_T__ Thank 70a tar 

ftPlTrising-me-af your Intent to clarify in the 

•ear Air Act amendments that clean coal 

technologies which simultaneously control 

•multiple pollutants are eligible for the ex. 

tension of the Phase U comphance deadline. 

You «pee_f_ea_4y focused-on the-eftgibflity of 

technologies oot requiring boiler replace-

ment tar considenctiaa as repowering tech-

mtogies. 

The A______i___stra__ion worked cioaety with 

the -^n**^ *Lf*ii*lp****_hip in drvfiioping the definition of repowering which was •ri^-*-** in S. 1630 and was thereafter Incorporated into 

ELR. 3090. Tiie luteal of the language 1s to 

include in the definition of repowering any 

.echxiuiogy capable ox uj__a*u_i__,._. .uuilipic 

combustion emissions simultaneously, so 

long as the two criteria specified (i.e.. in-

creased boiler efficiency and significantly 

greater waste reduction) are met. For this 

class of technologies, boiler replacement is 

not intended to be a precondition to being 

considered a repowering technology. Ac-

cordingly, the Administration does not be-

lieve that further clarification of the defini-

tion is required. 

The Department is aware of two projects 

in the Clean Coal Technology Program 

rwhic

h control multiple pollutants and 

which may meet the remaining two precon-

ditions described above. These projects, nei-

ther of which requires boiler replacement, 

are the Low NOt/SO*. Burner Retrofit for 

Utility Cyclone Boilers Project and the Ad-

vanced Slagging Combustor Utility Demon-

stration Project. Both involve replacement 

of burners with sophisticated slagging com-

bustors for NOt control and use of alkaline 

reagents for SOt control. Data for these two 

technologies responsive to the questions in 

your letter are included in the enclosed fact 

sheets. Please note that the definition of 

'repowering in both H_R. 3030 and S. 1630 

prescribes that final determinations regard-

ing the applicability of the repowering defi-

nition to technologies like these will be 

made on a case-by-case basis by the Environ-

mental Protection Agency in consultation 

with the Department of Energy. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has advised that there is not objection to 

the submission of this report from the 

standpoint of the President's program. 

Thank you for your inquiry on this impor-

atn matter. 

Sincerely. 

JAMES D. WATKINS. 

Admiral. U.S. Navy (Retired).