P.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

97) IV-C-11 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:22 AM Sheet 97 of 142 
P.2 

c 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY A ' I 0 - 3 1 

^ R-c- U 

JUN 8 1999 

Charlie Ellis, President 

Jewell Coal & Coke Company 

P.O.Box70 FEB _ 5 2000 

VansanL VA 24656 

Dear Mr. Ellis: 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

This is in response to your letter of May 12,1999, that encouraged the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) as part the current effort to reform the new source review (NSR) 

program, to reexamine the criteria that determine when major stationary sources are subject to 

the full program requirements. You stated that your understanding is that the basis for evaluation 

of sources is actual production and urged EPA to change this to potential, rather than actual, 

levels for evaluation purposes. I understand your concern to refer to how the NSR rules calculate 

an emissions increase at sources undertaking a physical or operational change. 

The current NSR regulations, in accordance with the Clean Air Act, require a source to 

obtain a preconstruction permit if it makes a physical change at a plant or a change in the method 

of operation that results in an increase in emissions. In general, the rules calculate the emissions 

increase from a change by comparing the actual emissions from emissions units affected by the 

change to those units' post-change potential emissions. A source may take enforceable 

restrictio'ns on operating parameters or direct emissions that prevent the calculated increase from 

exceeding the threshold. Or, it may take credit for actual emission reductions of the same 

pollutant that have occurred in the several years (typically the last 5) preceding the change to 

yield a net emissions increase that is lower than the threshold. 

It is crucial to note that the emissions increase calculation is necessary only when a 

facility makes a physical change or change in the method of operation that increases emissions. 

Changes that do not result in a significant net emissions increase do not trigger major NSR. 

Further, sources that simply increase operations without a physical or operational change—for 

instance, to take advantage of normal market fluctuations—are exempt from major NSR. [See 

40 C.F.R. § 52.21 (b)(2)(iii)(f).] 

In areas designated attainment or unclassifiable, the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) requirements apply to significant net emission increases of each pollutant 

resulting from a proposed modification^PSD requires the source to apply the best available 

control technology to the new or modified emissions units at which an increase occurs. Further, 

y> 

( ' 

USEPA:OAQPS:ITPID:IIG:DCrumpler:ythorpe:919-541-0871:NCMU:MD-12:6/4/99 

Control # AX-9903989 Due: 6/7/99 

FILENAME: F:\ell 

FILE: REG 149 E 

!OL 

SURNAME 

DATE 

FILENAME: F:\ellis.wpd n —fr fl /— T>> • CGC- 4 -

FILE: REG 149 E Ck^^M ^^g;^ /to^ Ue ^ ^ fty* 

m r t>» 3 ± 

'uta^cSa.t^e/ 

Wfl 

CONCURRENCES 

ERA Form 1320-1A (1/90) Printed Jn Recycled Paper OFFICIAL FILE COPY 
P.3 

•c 

c 

the source must analyze the impact of post-controlled emissions on the ambient concentrations 

as well as effects on soils, water, vegetation, visibility, and Class I areas (large National Parks 

and Wilderness Areas). Unacceptable impacts such as violations of national ambient air quality 

standards or increments, adverse impacts on Class I areas, or localized impacts on soils, water, 

vegetation, and visibility must be mitigated before the source can begin construction on the 

proposed project. In those instances where a new source or modification is minor and does not 

trigger the major source NSR applicability'thresholds, the minor new source or modification 

permitting process is to include an air quality impact assessment to insure that ambient air quality 

standards are protected. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.160. A source that uses state-of-the-art emissions 

controls for each pollutant can often expedite the permitting process and optimize opportunities 

for expansion or growth. 

The EPA has, in a 1996 proposed rulemaking, sought public comment on changing this 

calculation to use potential emissions as the pre-change baseline. [See 61 FR 38250,38268-70 

(July 23,1996).] The EPA presently is considering public comments on this proposal and hopes 

to complete final rulemaking by January 2000. We appreciate your comments and will include 

your letter in the public docket for this rulemaking. 

I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust that this information will be helpful 

toyou' ORIGINAL SIGNED 

Sincefiry, 

HENRY C THOMAS, JR. 

John S. Seitz 

Director 

Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards 

z 
' 05/28/99, FRI 13:48 FAX 

V 65/20/99 TEU 16:51 FAX 5409 56019 

JEWELL 

JEWEL SMOKELESS 

^%/crmM} (we(ffl.& 

C:OMI>TMY TT 

! 

COAL & COKE COMPANY 

t'ANAAlMfcr.K 

&OfrA 

PHONE NUMBER: 

qpPOB 70 > VANSAKT VA 1445* 

F ICS1MILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET 

FROM: 

'hm#y\aSL &fanjLsi cM*^ 

.DATE: <r/W?? 

rn--

D URGENT • FOR R /1E\ 

NOT* S/COM HI I'.NTS: 

C&Y? 

TOTAL NO. OP PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 3 

StNDEK'S PHONE NUMBER: 

540935-8810 

SENDERS' FAX NUMBER: 

540935-6019 

D PllEASE COMMENT • PLEASE REPLY • PLEASE RECYCLE 

P.4 

10017 

8 001 

3 
05/28/99% FRI 13:49 FAX P.5 

05/20/99 TEU 16:51 FAX 5409156019 JEWEL SMOKELESS 

10018 

l&OO^ * 

Jewell Coal 8c Coke Company 

mf». 

P. O. Box 70 

Vanssnt, Virginia 24656 

May 20, 1999 

Telephone 935-8810 

The Honorable Carol 

Administrator 

Environmental Prot« 

401 M Street, KI 

Washington, D.C. 

Dear Ad.ministrac.or 

I am writxnq t 3 a 

efforts to deivel 

streamlined, 

the "New Sour 

that will al 

previous fiftejti 

Program being 

product .ion. 

cc tnmo' 

ce 

lpw 

!A 

b< 

M.'Browner 

ction Agency 

046b 

Bxownter: ' 

iplaud the Environmental Protection Agency for its 

p a New Saxir ce Review program based upon a 

-sensja approach, and to urge the EPA, as it drafts 

I iview 'Reform Regulations," to incorporate changes 

i company to recoup production lost during the 

lib) year period due to the New Source Review 

ed on actual production instead of potential 

In Southwest Virginia the 1990 New Source Review Draft Rule currently 

in effect has vely j erioua implications for our coke plant. The 

current rule penalize i Jewell which, during the previous fifteen (15) 

year period experlenc sd decreased demand due to a variety of market 

and business Actors . -: Because Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration itPSa) thresholds . for. permitting purposes ©re presently 

based upon act aal nproduction "levels, ' companies, such as Jewell, whose 

production levels ! were abnormally depressed during this time were 

unable to inc :eai. their production to normal levels without, beinq 

again subjected t) the PSD permit review process. Therefore, when 

the coke market i iproved in the years following 1980, we were unable 

to regain pre due ion lost through application of the existing New 

Source Review Proi ram. 

As a result, 

forward to stay 

has permanently 

establishment of 

years of potentia 

Je\|ell w,as forced to reduce production in 1983 and 

n business during times of economic hardship, and 

lost jproduction tonnage under the prbgram. The 

a reqoupmerit window for the previous 'fifteen (15) 

production would be fair and serve as a more The 

4-

4 
' 05<'28/e9, Fffl 13:49 FAX 

«• .<-

05/20/99 THU 16:52 FAX 540935601JI 

P.6 

JEWEL SHORELESS 

12)019 

1003 

Honorable Carol M. Browner 

May 20, 1999 

-Page twoaccurate representation of our plant's emissions over the course of 

an economic cycle. 

As you may be aw<i 

technology • in use 

Vansant, Virginia, 

and establishes th« 

Technology: (MACT) 

r e, the Jewell Thompson Non-Recovery Coke Oven 

at the Jewell Coal & Coke Company located in 

has the world's cleanest coke production facility 

industry standard for Maximum Achievable Control 

n 

o 

whi ;h 

However, applicati 

1990 New Source 

economic andlenvir 

technology. The 1 

adverse

 : economic 

Virginia, but al 

Consumers of coke 

coke, much oil 

environmental con 

improve

 :air {jualit 

program is to deg 

foreign coke, w 

workers in the coa 

I 

It is my hope tha' 

Regulations,! it wo, 

for a previous fi 

such as Jewell, 

the New Source 

New Source Reviet 

producers: who are 

Thank, you fpr you 

hi] 

of the 1977 New Resource Review Program and the 

leview \Draft Rule has minimized the potential 

mmental benefit to be realized through use of this 

mits; on. coke production have resulted not only in 

mpacts for the Jewell companies and Southwest 

in an inadequate domestic supply of coke. 

re thus forced to rely more heavily on imported 

is prqdjuced. overseas with significantly fewer 

s.

 : So, while the intent of the EPA is to 

tne effect of the implementation of the existing 

ade air-quality by increasing the use of "dirty" 

at the same time creating economic hardship for 

and. coke; Indus tries in the United States. 

r :olj 

your ireply. 

information 

If I 

please 

asithe CPA develops'the New Source Review Reform 

1 draft the: regulations in such a way as to allow 

teen (15 | year recoupment window where companies, 

c n regain potential production lost as a result of 

Re

 riev .Program!. -The unintended consequences of the 

px qgrorti 

roc udlrig 

should1-not be to punish American coke 

the cleanest coke in the world. 

atiitentiion pp our • concerns and we look forward to 

can plrovitle: you or your staff with any additional 

give nie; * call; , 

Sincerely, 

= :".;,• I JEWELL COAL & COKE COMPANY \ 

i ••-«•. W I 

!. .Charlie Ellis 

! !:

!l- President 

" i '( • ' 

'•«•: • -

i • 

i •