p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

92) ll-C-34 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:55 AM Sheet 92 of 276 
OPI ER 295~1 b- f--\; y.ou AM; aiaiwiTo^ot 

•J:91 9:48 FROM EPS-RQMD-SIXTH-FLR 

, JJtVjr-lZBl 89=13 FROM EPA OAR OAQPS SSCD 

Ar,.,. 

y-W;_ 

•A 

P.2 

II-C-34 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

FEB 2 2 1989 

OWTC* Of 

AIR ANO AA0UT1O* 

Hr. Day id U Feltner 

senior Attorney 

Ohio Edison 

76 South Main stree t 

Akron, Ohio 44308 

Dear Mr* Feltner. 

The Administrator has asked ne t o respond t o your 

December 22, 1988 lette r asking tfxether Kew Source performance 

Standards (NSPS) or Prevention of Significant Deterioration _ 

(PSD)' regulation's will apply to Unit #1 .at the Nile* Generating 

Station in Niles, Ohio, when a Reburn technology demonstration 

project is completed and Unit #1 is returned to its pre-daaonstration "physical and cperating condition." 

This project will test Reburn technology for reducing 

nitrogen-, oxides froa flue gas* According to'your letter* the 

Reburn technology demonstration could also result in reduced 

levels at sulfur dioxide, particulates And other pollutants. 

This project is being funded by BPA* the State of Ohio, the 

Electri c Power Research institute , and the Gas Research 

Institute . Ohio Edison and the other participants in tyis.,.. 

demonstration project are commended for thei r efforts to ' 

attain greater emission reductions. EPA supports this 

demonstration of Reburn technology and generally encourages 

demonstrations of other innovative control technologies, 

BPA wil l evaluate other innovative control technologies on a

 ; 

case-by-case oasis- If the project is successful and emission 

reductions are demonstrated, the continued use of the technology 

would he strongly encouraged by EPA. 

An increase in emissions/ ae a result c£ returning the unit 

hack to pre-demonstration conditions after the Reburn project, 

could constitute a modification or najor modification pursuant 

t o 40 CFR 60*14 or 52*21 (b)(2) and could trigger NSPS or PSD. 

EPA has evaluated the merits of Ohio Edison's Nile s Unit 1 

project with regard to applicability of the Agency's November 

16, 1984 Policy Against "No Action" Assurances* As a result, 

\ 
JUtl- W '~3l 9:48 FROM EPA-AQMD-SIXTH-FLR " PAGE. 003 

*V*' 

,. I ,3^-07-1991 09= 13 PRQW EPQ OAR OAGPS SSCD TO 86290237 P.03 

,. -A ' 

•Vi 

'•h I - 2 -

EPA believes a "no action" assurance is appropriate in this 

case because the project would appear to be "clearly necessary 

to serve the public interest" and it is expected to provide 

"important information for research purposes" and there is a 

need "which no other mschanism can address adequately.n 

Based on the representations made in your letter , EPA 

will not enforce NSPS and PSD requirements that may apply, 

pursuant to 40 CFR 60.14 and 52.21(b)(2), as a result of 

emission increases which may occur after the completion of 

the Reburn technology demonstration at Nile s Unit #1, . 

specifically, When the mit is returned to its pre-demonstration \ 

condition. For purposes of advising al l parties to the 

project, the pre-demonstration conditions should, prior t o 

the demonstration, be established to avoid a future dispute* 

I do not anticipate any problem in determining pre-demonstration levels. 

This assurance does not apply to amission increaees 

above the pre-demonstration levels and also does .not apply to 

emission increases which result from changes that are unrelated 

to the conduct of the demonstration project, Whether these 

changes are made before, during or after the project* of 

course, Ohio Edison oust comply with al l pre-demonstration 

EPA and stat e emission limits and permit conditions during 

and after the demonstration, unless these are formally revised* 

Sincerely 

Don R* Clay 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation