p. 1



# OAR Box 1778 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 180 ) ll-F- 7 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/20089:51:00AM

Sheet 180of 276P. 2 

## .J»j& A \ 

## \AJ UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y Offic e o fAi rQualityPlannin g an d Standard s Research Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1



### JX ^araAjU



# 3 

# §M

m ^\cD*-*url ! cn . I ; ;n

l MEMORANDU M TO : Docke t FROM : Chebryl l Edward s DATE : Jun e 4 , 199 1 SUBJECT : Interagenc yRevie wo f WEPC O Materia l 

## W ll-F-7

Th e attache d materia l wa s sen t t o th e Departmen t o f Energ yo n Apri l 22 , 199 1 fo r thei r review .



# AAA 

# JP. 3

[EXCERP T FROMLEGISLATIVE RULE ] Draft:Apri l 22 , 199 1 Utilit yPollutio ncontro l Proiec t Exemptio n EPAals o seek s t o revis e th e treatmen t o f utilit y modification s tha t consis t solel yo f th e installatio no f pollutio n contro l equipment . EPAha s alway s recognize d tha t Congres s di d no t inten d tha t everyactivit ya t a n existing facilit yb e considere d a physica l o r operationa l chang e fo r purpose s o f th e ne wsourc e requirement s o f th e PS D program. 1 Also , a s ha s bee n discussed , th e ne waci d rai nprovision s wil l requir e mos t electri c powerplant s t o vindertak e pollutio ncontro l project s withi n th e nex t fewyears . Decision s regardin g th e utilities 1 pollutio n contro l strateg yunde r Phas e I o f th e aci d rai n program

wil l b e mad e i n th e nex t fewmonths . However , utilitie s ar e concerne d tha t EPAwil l subjec t pollutio ncontro l project s t o a n actual-to-potentia l evaluation . I nfact , EPAha s refraine d fromapplying th e actual-to-potentia l methodologyt o severa l recen t pollutio n contro l project s an d ha s instea d use d a n actual-to-futur e actua l methodology. 2 Tha t polic yha s bee n

1 Fo r instance , EPAha s specificall yrecognize d tha t routin e maintenance , repai r an d replacement , an

d change s i n hour s o f operatio n o r i n th e productio n rat e ar e no t considere d a physica l chang e o r chang e i n th e metho d o f operation . Se e 4 0 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(iii) .

2 [Cit e pollutio n contro l an d CC T non-applicabilit y letters. ]P. 4

- 2 - formalize d i n a n interpretativ e ruling. 3 T O provid e utilitie s wit hadditiona l certainty , EP Ai s todayproposin g t o adop t a PS D exemptio n tha t provide s tha t th e addition , replacemen t o r us e a t a n existin g electri c utilit ysteamgeneratin g uni t o f anysystem o r devic e whos e primar yfunctio ni s th e reductio n o f ai r pollutant s (including th e switchin g t o a less-pollutin g fue l wher e th e primar ypurpos e o f th e switc hi s th e reductio no f ai r pollutants) , excep t whe n (1 ) suc haddition , replacemen t o r us e wil l resul t i n a reductio n i n th e contro l efficienc yo f an yai r pollutio n contro l systemo r devic e a t th e source ; o r (2 ) th e reviewin g authorit ydetermine s tha t suc haddition , replacemen t o r us e i s no t environmentall ybeneficial . Pendin g fina l actio n o n today' s proposal , EP Awil l continu e t o us e th e actual-to-futur e actua l methodologyspecifie d i nth e interpretativ e ruling . Fo r th e purpose s o f thi s exemption , a pollutio ncontro l systemo r devic e include s add-o ntype s o f emission s contro l equipmen t suc ha s conventiona l and advance d scrubbers , sorben t injection , low-NO xburners , electrostati c precipitators , and fabri c filters . Switchin g t o coa l wit ha lowe r sulfu r content , sv/itchin

g froma mor e pollutin g fue l t o natura l gas , natura l ga s o r coa l reburning , and cofirin g o f natura l ga s and othe r fuel s ar e example s o f suc hfue l switching . -An yactivit ytha t i s necessaryt o accommodat e switchin g t o a les s pollutin g fue l i s considere d t o b e par t o f th e pollutio ncontro l project . I n some

[Cit e interpretativ e rule. ]P. 5

- 3 - instances , thi s mayinvolv e physica l change s t o th e pollutio n generating equipmen t (e._g_._ , boiler ) , bu t onl yi f th e change s ar e necessaryt o maintai n th e norma l operating capabilit yo f th e uni t a t th e tim e o f th e modificatio nwher e th e capabilit ywoul d otherwis e b e impaire d a s a resul t o f th e fue l switch . Fo r example , a n electri c utilit ystea mgenerating uni t tha t switche s fro ma highe r sulfu r bituminou s coa l t o a low-sulfu r subbituminou s coa l maynee d t o mak e certai n change s t o th e boile r i n orde r t o avoi d derating th e unit . Change s tha t ar e intende d primaril yt o restor e origina l capacit yo r t o improv e th e operationa l efficienc yo f th e facilit y ar e no t considere d t o b e par t o f a pollutio ncontro l projec t fo r purpose s o f thi s exemption . Also , th e sourc e stil l mus t compl y wit hal l applicabl e SI P limit s and requirements , permi t condition s an

d applicabl e NAAQ S o r PS D incremen t limits . Fo r utilitie s undertaking a pollutio ncontro l projec t (a s define d above ) i n a nonattainmen t area , th e actual-to-futur e actua l methodologyspecifie d i nEPA' s interpretativ e rulin g shoul d b e applied . I n contras t t o th e projectio no f estimate d futur e actua l emission s fo r like-kind replacements , i nmakin g PS D applicabilit ydetermination s fo r pollutio n contro l projects , EPA wil l presum e tha t th e projec t wil l no t resul t i na nincreas e i n capacit yutilization . Thi s presumptio n mayb e overcome onl yi f applicabl e informatio n clearl ydemonstrate s tha t capacit yP. 6

_4 _ . utilizatio n wil l increas e a s a resul t o f th e pollutio ncontro l project .

Propose d tex t o f 4 0 CF R52.21(b)(2) : (ii ) Aphysica l chang e i n o r chang e i nth e metho d o f operatio n shal l no t include :

* * * (h ) Th e addition , replacemen t o r us e a t a n existin g electri c utilit ysteamgeneratin g uni t o f an ysyste mo r devic e whos e primar yfunctio n i s th e reductio n o f ai r pollutants , o r th e us e o f a les s pollutin g fuel , excep t when : (i ) th e Administrato r determine s tha t suc haddition , replacemen t o r us e i s no t environmentall ybeneficial ; o r (ii ) suc haddition , replacemen t o r us e wil l resul t i na reductio n i n th e contro l efficienc yo f anyothe r ai r pollutio n contro l syste mo r devic e a t th e source . Disk:Diane-C:WP5.1:Bill.18:Apri l 22 , 199 1