p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

88) ll-C-30 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:55 AM Sheet 88 of 276 
P.2 

II-C-30 

NOTE: A signed copy of this item was not available . 

EOxii If 

'i 

iu 

•"M A5H 0 ^M-> / . ! 

'„'-LL:: . __J 
• 

PJL 

JUL 2 1 1989 

Mr. w. L. Fraser _^——~-~"T^r' 

Senior Vice-President t • ^''"(JCTR 1\ \^| \ \ '' 

TranaAlta Resources Investment Corporation IsjyLi^----''"'*'" 

110 12th Avenue S.W. -J1 . 

Box 1900 ; ;i iijtf \ } \?W V ' 

Calgary, Alberta T2P 2M1 , - |

 v 

* ^ - _—.—-

Dear Mr. Fraaert c~A A'^.P. 

I aa responding to your lette r of May 10, 1969, to 

Mr. Valdas V. Adaakus regarding a Clean Coal Technology 

demonstration project and your request for an assurance froa 

EPA not to enforce new source requirements that aay apply 

during or after the project. EPA oust evaluate the merits of 

this project to determine if a "ho action* assurance would ba 

appropriate. To sake this evaluation* EPA needs the following 

information! 

A. Description of the facility. 

(1) Bane* Location. 

(2) Type of industry. Size. 

(3) Current controls. 

(4) Emissions in kilograms per hour before* during and after 

the temporary DOE CCT or similar BEA-fuaded project. 

Emissions should be aaasursd/calculatad using representative 

operating conditions (generally maximum capacity) and 

using the same operating parameters* before, during and 

after . 

(5) Currant annual emissions (most recent two years or aore 

representative period)-in tons per year. / 

(6) Potential omissions in tons par year (maximum physical or 

operational design capacity, as limited by any federally 

enforceable emissions limitations) before* during and after 

the project. 
P.4 

- 2 -

B. Description of the project. 

(1) Type of temporary DOE CCT or similar EPA-ftsided project 

(i.e. , improved baghouse, improved low-£Ox burners, etc.) 

(2) Description of control mechanism. 

(3) Projected emission reduction efficiency. 

(4) Projected.cost effectiveness of controls. 

(5) Innovative features, including history of this avenue of 

research. 

(6) Profile of emissions increases/decreases during the project. 

(7) Non-air quality environmental affects, i.e.* aore solid 

waste* etc. 

(3) Duration of project. 

(9) Schedule with key dates* i.e. , contract* purchase* 

installation* start-up, teat dates*, dismantling, completion. 

(10) Project co-sponsors and monetary contributions of each. 

(11) Any physical/operational change* to be made at the facility 

in conjunction with and during the temporary 00B CCT or 

similar EPA-funded project* along with an explanation of 

Why these changes are necessary to the project. 

(12) Cost of physical/operational changes. 

C. Other, inforaatlon. 

(1) Potential sarket for the temporary DOB CCT or similar 

EPA-funded project. ...'".-••-.•'..•/-.___ ^.'. n ." 

(2) Applicable SIP limits, federally enforceable'perait 

conditions, pending SIP or enforcement actions* 

(3) Assurances that federally enforceable perait conditions* 

SIP limits* UtAQS and PSD increments will be complied 

with. If the project would cause actual amission 

increases* modelling data oust, be sub ait ted to demonstrate 

there will be no violations of the BAAQS or PSD increments. 

Please contact rn zc 39i-*"07 or Myra Cypser of ay staff 

at 382-2872 if you hfcvr* crtssanfct} cr questions* v 

Sincerely, '„"••• • 

John S. Seitz, Director 

Stationary Source Compliance Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards