p. 1



# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 219 ) ll-F-2 9

Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:02 AM Sheet 219 of 276P. 2 

# Rf 04/09/9 1 14:2 2 DO E -PE- 1



### AP R0 9 1991

MEMORANDU M

TO :

FROM :

SUBJECT : 

### Departmen t ofEnerg y Washington , D C 2058 5

A*]* I J '. : •.-•* ; 

# 4 ^ fi-qo-oL

jr-F-28

• 5 

### JU N 1 4199 1

Do n Elliot t Genera l Counse l Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y

tC Lind a Stunt z ^ Deput y Unde r Secretar y

fo r Policy , Plannin g an dAnalysi s WEPC o Exclusio nfo r Pollutio nContro l Project s

A t ou r las t Whit e Hous e WEPC o meeting , DO E agree dt o draf t a WEPC o exclusio n fo r pollutio ncontro l projects . I a m enclosin g ou r proposa l fo r anexclusion . Thi s proposa l reflect s th e positio ntha t pollutio ncontrol s ca nbe exclude d from WEPC o a s a matte r o f lega l interpretatio nan dshoul db e exclude da s a matte r o f polic y

andcommo nsense . Althoug hyo uar e draftin g anothe r interpretativ e rule , w e hav e stil l use dth e forma t and , t o th e exten t possible , languag e fro m EPA' s mos t recen t draf t rule . A s yo uknow , thi s exclusio nwil l affec t othe r provision s o f you r redrafte drule . W e believ e thi s pollutio ncontro l exclusio nca nb e adopte d throug haninterpretativ e rule . However , 1 f th e decisio ni s mad e tha t an exclusio nlik e th e on e enclose dmus t b e adopte dthroug hforma l rulemaking , 1 t i s critica l tha t th e forma l rul e no t b e prejudice d1 nany wa y by a mor e restrictiv e treatmen t o f pollutio ncontro l project s i naninterpretativ e rule .
W e trus t thi s proposa l wil l b e helpfu l t o EP A an dhaste nth e developmen t o f a goo dWEPC o fix . Pleas e cal l 1 f yo uwis ht o discus s thi s matter .

cc : w/attachmen t Dic kSchmalense e Bil l Rosenber g Ar t Fraa s Teres a Gorma n Barr y Hartma n Jef f Holmstea d E dWatt sP. 3 

# f

C4JW*> 04/09/9 1 14:2 2 DO E -PE- 1 00 3

NSR AND NSPS

APPLICABILITY

FOR POLLUTION

CONTROL

PROJECTS

AT RLL SOURCES

A. Definition For purposes of

this ruling, the term "pollution control project" means any activityundertaken at an existing stationarysource or facilityprimarilyfor the purpose of

reducing air

pollution. Pollution control

projects generally include add-on types of emissions control

equipment

as well

as the use of

a less polluting fuel. Coiiventlonal and advanced

scrubbers, sorbent injection. low-NO K

burners, electrostatic precipitators, and fabric filters are examples of add-on control

equipment. Switching to coal

with a lower

sulfur content, switching from a more polluting fuel to natural

gas, natura l gas or coal reburning, and

cofirlng of

natura l gas and

other fuels are examples of

pollution control

projects where a less polluting fuel is being used. In addition, anyactivitythat is necessaryto accommodate switching to a less polluting fuel is considered

to be part

of the pollution control project. In some instances, this may involve physical

changes to the pollution generating equipment _9^_g.

. boiler), but onlyif

the changes are necessar yt o maintain the jjTorfrfa.'l

operating capabilityof the unit

which otherwise would be impaired

as a result

of the fuel

switch. For

example, an electric utility steamgenerating unit that switches froma higher sulfur bituminous coal

to a low-sulfur

subbituminous coal may

_n^ed ,to make certain changes to the boiler in order

to avoid derating

- llie unli\. The appropriate reviewing authoritymay request such Information as may be necessaryto determine that tho changes to be undertaken ar e par t of the pollution control project. However, changes whlcliare intended primarilyto ' restore original

capacityor

to improve the operational efficiencyof

the facilityare not considered

to be part

of a /9^ / pollution control

project

for purposes of

this ruling, £fl s such~7\ y ^ these changes are subject to requirements described elsewhere inj-^ this rullng7~~) —- ' B. Rationale for

Excluding Pollution Control Projects fromNSR and NSPS Requirements EPA has always recognized that Congress did

iiot Intend that e^er y activit yat

an existing facility be considered a physical

or operational

change for

purposes of

new source requirements. Also, Congress has singled out electric utilities to play a major role In reducin g S02 and N0K emissions under

Title IV

of the Clean Air

Act. As a result , man ypowerplants will

be undertaking activities over

the next

decade to comply with the new acid rain requirements. In addition, other stationarysources and facilities will

be undertaking activities to complywith other titles of

the Clean Air

Act. Because of

these activities whoseP. 4 

# V ' j --*•• * 04/09/9 1 14:2 3 DO E -PE- 1 00 4

purpose is to reduce emissions, EPA believes that guidance must be provided

as soon as possible concerning the applicabilityof NSPS and NSR to pollution control projects. Without such guidance, affected

sources maybe unable to make timelydecision s about how to complywith Clean Air Act requirements in the least costlyand

most efficient

manner. In practice, EPA has clarified the definition of "modificatioii" in both the NSPS

and NSR regulations through the adoption of a number of common-sense exclusions, such as routine maintenance, repair aiid replacement

activities. In addition, under existing NSPS regulations, the Installation or improvement

of an emissions control systemor

device (I.e., a pollution control project) which reduces hourlyemission rates does not trigger NSPS: mflj>.p£aO-rrJi*X The addition^or

us e of

anysystem or

device whose primaryfunction is the reduction of air pollutants [is excluded from NSPSJ

, except

when afl—emi&*tU7TS—eerrtrr© ! sijstWn~is~-r^moved

or repla^^d—by--^~-sysiye^I^-^rihieh the Administrator

determines,to be Jrenilpenvironmentally beneficial. 40CFR 60.14 &JJ 5)

. ^ J^J^j«r&u*«jJC tn. ***- This exclusion does not applyIf

the facility Is reconstructed. Changes that

ar e determined

to constitute reconstruction would trigger NSPS. In the past, EPA has taken various views as to whether the NSPS emissions control

excluslo:. should

applyfor

NSR purposes. However, it

is clear

that the NSR statutorydefinition of modification simplyadopts the NSPS definition in Section 111(a)(4). In addition, the legislative historyreflects that, as a general

matter , Congress Intended to conform the meaning of "modification"

for PSD purposes to usage under NSPS [See 123 Cong. Rec. H11957

(November

1, 1977)]. Finally, the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990impose new emission reduction requirements on manyexisting sources, wliich, as a consequence, must undertake various types of

pollution control

projects without

delay. Therefore, todayEPA Is clarifying its intention to applyfor NSR purposes the same common-sense exclusion for pollution control projects that

has been adopted

for NSPS purposes. under

today's interpretative rule, existing sources which would otherwise become subject

to NSR onlybecause theydecide to install or improve an emissions control systemor

device, or

participate in the CCT

programor

similar demonstration projects approved by EPA, would

Instead be excluded

fromNSR coverage.