p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

54) ll-B-29 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:53 AM Sheet 54 of 276 
P.2 

w ,~ * ffi*7is 

II-B-29 

NOTE: This item is missing attachments. 
P.3 

^ t o sr4> 

r\ 

% «0 ^ 

MFMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

TO: 

ft~B~2* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ^*~~— 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina W2)X~~rr~if^% \ fftV 

f

irS fl 

MAY 25 1990 

Letter to John Boston, Wi 

Gerald A. Emison, D 

Office of Air Quali 

Electric PdWeFCompany (WEPCO) 

fstandVds (MD-10) 

William G. Rosenberg, Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation (ANR-443) 

The attached letter to John Boston of WEPCO provides the company with 

the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) response to the court decision 

in the WEPCO case. As you will recall, although the WEPCO issue has come to 

be associated with the applicability of the Agency's new source review program 

to utility companies also subject to acid rain requirements, the-original case 

involved the replacement of a major component at the Port Washington power 

plant owned by WEPCO. The WEPCO sued on EPA's determination that the 

replacement, and other associated changes, made the plant subject to EPA's new 

source review requirements. The court upheld EPA's determination in large 

part, but concluded that the Agency's method of determining whether the WEPCO 

action was subject to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) rules 

needed to be revised. The court found that in calculating whether the 

particular kind of change would increase emissions, EPA should make a 

projection of the plant's actual emissions in the future, rather than assuming 

that the plant would operate at its maximum capacity. 

The letter to Mr. Boston sets forth the way in which EPA has calculated 

the WEPCO plant's "estimated future actual emissions." In making this 

calculation we have relied on the utility's own data concerning the plant s 

historical operations and the company's projections of the plant's future 

operation and emissions rates, as reflected in papers filed with the Wisconsin 

Public Utility Commission and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 

The result is that WEPCO is subject to PSD but only for nitrogen oxides 

(N0V). The permit will require the same enforceable limits on the fuel sulfur 

content and particulate controls as those proposed by WEPCO. It will not 

restrict future operating levels. 

With regard to the new source performance standards (NSPS), WEPCO 

proposes to avoid triggering NSPS for the reconstruction by further 

controlling two units to a level sufficient to offset projected emissions 

increases. Unit 5 is not being renovated at this time. If in the future it 

is renovated, it would be subject to NSPS. We have discussed this with the 

company and find their proposal acceptable. 
P.4 

. V 

On April 6, my staff met with WEPCO representatives to discuss our 

revised applicability determination. On April 10, WEPCO informed us that they 

would not challenge such an applicability determination and would proceed with 

the necessary PSD permit for NO if the State found that no further N0X 

control is necessary. A PSD permit application for N0X has already been 

submitted by WEPCO to the State. The State has agreed that the Port 

Washington boilers' characteristically low emissions of M L represent best 

available control technology for the renovation project, the WEPCO is anxious 

to receive the attached letter from: EPA so that it can proceed with the 

processing and issuance of the State permit. 

Both WEPCO and Wisconsin are aware of, and concur with, the basis for 

our revised determination and have indicated no disagreement. This letter 

will allow WEPCO and the State to process the PSD permit. 

Attachment