p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

76) ll-C-18 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:55 AM Sheet 76 of 276 
P.2 

< 

SB?. 

UJ 

a 

March 8, 1990 

II-C-18 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 5 

230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST. 

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 

REPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF: 

Mr. Timothy J. Method 

Assistant Commissioner 

Office of Air Management 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

105 South Meridian Street 

Post Office Box 6015 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015 

D63T Mx. Method: 

Please be advised that ny January 30, 1990, letter to your regarding the 

Clean Coal Technology (CCT) project at Northern Indiana Public Service 

Coirpany's (NIPSCO) Bailly Generating Station, should be modified. While the' 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to agree with the State that 

Clean. Air Act (CAA) provisions for new scurce performance standards (NSPS) 

and new source review (NSR) do not apply if the conditions outlined in my 

January 30, 1990, letter are met, some revisions are necessary. 

On page 8, the section on "Conditions for Permanent Controls or Devices to Be 

Considered Net Less Environmentally Beneficial" should be changed as folloi-/s: 

In fir.jt paragraph, second sentence (change underlined) -

"At this time, EFA. anticipates that its ruling will inclurLe a presumption 

that such pollution controls will not result in an environmental harm, with 

respect to permanent controls, if the source demonstrates that:" 

In the second condition (change underlined) -

"2. There will-be no environmental harm resulting from the proposed 

activities. This inclines conditions that the proposed change would not by 

itself: 

(a) (no change) 

(b) increase the annual amissions cf any pollutant regulated under 

the CAA;" (delete the Tffirase "as a result of increased capacity 

utilization rate) 
P.3 

- 2 -

Insert new paragraph after condition 2d -

"Changes which are expected to increase emissions to the atmosphere, such as 

changes which increase a source's hourly operatinq capacity (e.e. , 

eliminating a bottleneck), hourly emissions rate (e.g.. one pollutant 

decreases but another increases). or utilization rate (e.g.. an anticipated 

increase in hours of operation resulting from the installation of controls) 

would not be affected by this interpretation and would continue to be 

potentially subiect to NSR and NSPS. The EFA will presume, however, that the 

addition of a control device will not, bv itself, result in an increase in 

capacity utilization. However, this presumption will be overcome if there is 

a clear likelihood that operating hours or production rates will increase 

because of the installation of the device. 

On page 10, a corresponding change should also be made to amend the first 

full paragraph as follows (change underlined): 

"The EFA also anticipates that its interpretative ruling will... In 

assessing whether any net increase in actual emissions of any pollutant, 

over representative actual emission rates, is likely to occur as a result of 

the addition of controls, the reviewing agency should consider the economic 

incentives to increase production rates or hours of operations associated 

with the installation and use of the control device. Where increased 

emissions due to increased utilization of the facility are clearly a likely 

result from addition of the device, the change should not be considered 

environmentally beneficial." (Delete last sentence of paragraph starting 

with "The authority...). 

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Ron Van Mersbergen at 

(312) 886-6056. 

Sincerely yours, 

David Kee, Director 

Air and Radiation Division 

cc: William R. Elliott, NIPSCO 

Thomas R. Anderson, Save the Dunes Council