p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

68) ll-C-10 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:54 AM Sheet 68 of 276 
P.2 

- V ' . 

Iffl 

M d ' 

II-C-10 

NOTE: This item is missing attachments. 
"> 

P.3 

v,£ 0 ST4,a 

r *•> 

UJ 

a 

1 2 StV 1983 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 5 

230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST. 

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 

REPLY TO THE AiTENTlON OF-

\AE EI 

•Y, 

Mr. John W. Boston 

Vice President ;, 

Wisconsin Electric Power Compan!^,'.-1 \{\^ | 7 |PP! 

Post Office Box 2046 -

lxi' 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 52301 

Dear Mr. Boston: 

Q 

Iii! 

As you know, the Wisconsin Department 

the United States Environmental Protec 

certain issues regarding the applicabi 

Prevention of Significant Deteriorate 

life extension project at the Port Was 

which is owned and operated by Wiscons 

responding to that request, USEPA Regi 

project also raises questions regardin 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) to 

result of the life extension project, 

you of the results of our inquiry. 

of Natural Resources (WDNR) has asked 

tion Agency (USEPA) Region V to review 

1 ity of the Clean Air Act's (Act's) 

n (PSD) requirements to the proposed 

hington electric generating station, 

in Electric Power Company (WEPCO). In 

on V discovered that the Port Washington 

g the applicability of the Act's New 

the Port Washington facilities as a 

The purpose of this letter is to inform 

Because the Port Washington life extension project involves matters of importance to USEPA as well as WEPCO, Region V sought assistance from USEPA Headquarter's offices in Washington, D.C , and Durham, North Carolina. At the 

request of Region V and Headquarters staffs, WEPCO submitted extensive 

information regarding the Port Washington project and related interpretive 

issues, and I wish to thank you for WEPCO's cooperation in this regard. In 

addition, at.WEPCO's request, meetings were held in Durham and Washington 

between WEPCO and USEPA representatives, and those meetings were helpful in 

our deliberations. Based on the information provided by WEPCO, the State, and 

USEPA's own files, USEPA Headquarters has furnished me with a memorandum 

detailing USEPA's position regarding the issues pertaining to the Port Washington 

life extension project. A copy of this memorandum, signed by Don R. Clay, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, is enclosed. A copy is also being furnished to 

the State. 

As explained in the enclosed memorandum, USEPA has reached a number of conclusions regarding the issues of legal interpretation surrounding the Port 

Washington life extension project. These views should be helpful to WEPCO in 

understanding the potential applicability of the Act's new source provisions 

to the Port Washington project, and in assessing its options with respect to 

that project. Based on.USEPA's legal interpretations and the facts available 

at this time, it appears likely that the project, if it were carried out as 

proposed, would involve a substantial and non-routine renewal of the Port 
P.4 

Washington facilities that may significantly i 

air pollutants for a period well beyond the cu 

facilities. As such, this would be the type o 

to be subject to both PSD and NSPS requirement 

critical factual information which would dicta 

pretations would actually apply in this case a 

this time to provide a final determination of 

to the Port Washington Life Extension Project, 

necessary in three general areas. (In additio 

should submit a formal request for an NSPS det 

60.5 if it desires a final NSPS applicability 

ncrease potential emissions of 

rrent life expectancy of those 

f project that Congress intended 

s. However, because certain 

te how the USEPA's legal interre lacking, it is not possible at 

either PSD or NSPS applicability 

Additional information would be 

n, as a preliminary matter, WEPCO 

ermination pursuant to 40 CFR 

determination.) 

First,.both the PSD and NSPS programs apply to modifications on a pollutantspecific basis, and USEPA has not been furnished with sufficient data to firmly 

assess the impact of the proposed Port Washington renovations on emissions from 

the facilities. The WEPCO would need to provide such data before USEPA could 

finally determine whether emissions increases potentially triggering PSD and 

NSPS applicability would occur. 

Second, WEPCO may lawfully avoi 

enhancing pollution control equ 

operations below maximum potent 

to trigger applicability would 

WEPCO, it is our understanding 

of pollution control jquipment, 

of the measures outlined above 

source requirements. If this i 

that appropriate discussions ma 

State, regarding the steps that 

subject to PSD and NSPS. 

d both PSD and NSPS requirements by adding or 

ipment, or, in the case of PSD, restricting 

ial, such that the emission increases necessary 

not occur. Based on information supplied by 

that the company already intends some enhancement 

and WEPCO may desire to undertake a combination 

rather than subject itself to the Act's new 

s indeed the case, WEPCO should so inform me so 

y be held between WEPCO, this office, and the 

would be necessary to render the project not 

Third, with respect to NSPS applicability to unit 1 at Port Washington, additional 

information regarding the work to be performed is necessary to determine whether 

a physical or operational change would occur that could trigger applicability. 

Again, I want to thank you for WEPCO's cooperation in this matter, 

any questions, please feel free to contact me. 

Sincerely yours , 

r 

If you have 

'g*yy-c* 

David Kee, Director 

Air and Radiation Division (5AR-26) 

Enclosure 

cc: Donald F. Theiler, Director 

Bureau of Air Management 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources