Mid-Atlantic, LLC

February 16, 2011

Deborah Rabin

Regulations Coordinator

Air & Radiation Management Administration

Maryland Department of the Environment

1800 Washington Blvd, Suite 730

Baltimore, MD 21230-1720

Re: Comments on Proposed Changes to MDE Regulations

GenOn Energy Inc. (“GenOn”) offers the Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”) the following 

comments to certain proposed regulation changes that were published in the Maryland Register, Volume 38, Issue 2 

on January 14, 2011. 

26.11.09.01, .02, & .10 – Fuel Burning Equipment that Burns Used Oil

Notice of Proposed Action [11-027-P]

Facilities with fuel-burning equipment having a heat input rating greater than 50 million Btu per hour that have 

received permission from MDE to burn on-specification used oil should not be required to reapply to MDE to 

continue their current practice. Subsection 10A(3) lays out reasonable conditions for “A person who is burning

used oil or WCF under a current written approval from the Department...”, however subsection 10A(4)(b) appears 

to trump that language by requiring fuel-burning equipment with a heat input capacity rating of 50 million MBtu or 

greater to “obtain written approval from the Department”. 

GenOn owns three power plants in Maryland with fuel-burning equipment that is permitted to burn on-specification 

used oil. All of these boilers have heat input ratings greater than 50 million Btu per hour. GenOn does not support

this regulation change if it causes facilities to seek approval from MDE for a practice which has previously been 

approved. Existing sources that have approval to burn on-specification used oil, regardless of size, should be 

allowed to retain that status.

26.09.01 & .02 – Maryland CO2 Budget Trading Program

Notice of Proposed Action [11-030-P]

As the Statement of Purpose in the Notice of Proposed Action recognizes (38 Md. Reg. 101, (January 14 , 2011)), 

the Clean Air Act defines “major source” for Title V purposes as one that emits 100 tons per year of any pollutant. 

42 U.S.C. §§ 7661(2)(B); 7602(j). Similarly, a “major emitting facility” for purposes of the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration program is one with emissions of a pollutant equal to or more than 100 TPY (if it is a 

categorized source) or 250 TPY (it is a non- categorized source). 42 U.S.C.7479(1) In the so-called “Tailoring 

Rule” cited in the Notice for Proposal, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has purported to elevate 

these “major’ thresholds, specifically as they apply to Green House gases (“GHG”), substantially above those 

imposed in the Clean Air Act. As EPA acknowledges, the extension of the PSD and Title V programs to all 

stationary sources that emit CO2 and other GHGs above the threshold levels stated in the CAA's text would 

produce 'absurd' results. It was incumbent on EPA to avoid these results by interpreting 'pollutant,' as used in the 

Act's PSD and Title V provisions, as not including GHGs. EPA's fundamental error was its inclusion of CO2 in the 

definition of 'regulated NSR pollutant' at all.

GenOn Mid-Atlantic, LLC

8301 Professional Place, Suite 230

Landover, MD 20785
Moverover, these changes to the thresholds are not simply an interpretation of a de minimus level. The Clean Air 

Act's "major" source thresholds of 100 and 250 TPY make clear that GHGs are not among the class of 

pollutants Congress intended those programs to cover. The premise of the Tailoring Rule and related EPA rules --

i.e., that EPA can and should take regulatory action that subjects GHG to the PSD and Title V programs -- is 

unsound. The Tailoring Rule is the subject of litigation, and it should not be used as the basis of a regulation in 

Maryland. 

If you have questions on these comments, please contact me at 301-955-9168 or david.cramer@genon.com. Thank

you.

Sincerely,

David S. Cramer

Director, Environmental Policy & Regulation

GenOn Mid-Atlantic, LLC