p. 1 

# OAR Box 1840 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 26 ) IV-H-32 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/14/20081:25:30PM Sheet 26 of 27I f ' '•>'** •~ P. 2 

### A-90-3 7 IV-H-3 2

\ * 

# dAL0>

P ^P. 3

NOU-06-200 2 15=5 2 P.02/2 0

Draft : deliberativ e and privileged ; do notcite , quote , o rdistribute . Octobe r 23,200 2 ylM^^^^^lilloda vw e ar e solicitin g commen t o n a n additiona l .approach t o b e use d i n th e futur e fo r determinin g tiwrtype s o f replacemen t activitie s khiat
- <w__H qualif ya s RMR&R.—Th e piopO-c d regu l a t ur ylawjuage
- lu i thi' s appiudU' i i s L-uatarii-

d i n Alternative 1 B . Unde r thi s approach , EP A woul d establis h a percentag e o f the replacemen t valu e o f a proces s uni t a s a pov projcirr c threshol d fo r applying - LL K

__SiS£S__3__Sg!ffi__$ii$SS^ ^

j «£> 0jjfc&^* streamline th e RMR& R analysi s an d mak e thi s determinat i Thi s approac h shoul d enabl e yo u t o io n 

# 0 mor e readil yand shoul d fH f palleviat. e som e o f the

problem s note d above-;—liafawlllibta^diuy—th e availabilit yo f the anno'- l luainLunariL e alluwauce.
—

W e ar e solicitin g commen t o n whethe r thi s approac h woul d serv e t o streamline , th e RMR& R determinatio n proces s i n th e Xutur e fo r project s tha t involv e th e replacemen t o f existin g equipmen t wit h identica l ne wequipmen t an

d th e replacemen t o f existin g equipmen t wit h •ImgatTv,, ^ functionall yequivalen t equipment . W e ar e als o solicitin g commen t o n whethe r thi s approac h shoul d be adopte d alon g wit h th e annual/maintenance / a 1 1 nfrnfr;i<3 h 3 3P. 4

NUY-06-200 2 15:5 2 P . 03^2 0

proces s unit._E5 _

NOU-06-200 2 15:5 3



## iKy*4\m_tif4A P.04/2 0

Draft : deliberative-an dprivileged ; d o nfecite , quote , o r distribute . Octobe r 23 , 2002 

## Vi c aum*yi / situatio no f

implementin g apreconstructio nrevie w progra m fo r aprojec t

tha t wa s begu no r

complete dmor e tha nayea r prio r t o th e applicabilit y determination. ! T t nl nmlr l li nC note dthgf acivaiagin& i umjT " lWiijg' l puiud j o f liim ai. n11 1 n<*£

2 aliminat o th aj.m

u 3UJL'l'l'C y u l fcJAie_iUuy Lh i oog t .U>rooJ*o_-»^
- HT-rTT'nrVJJH * • ^ ^ increas e th e difficult y i nresolvin g issue s relate dt o exceedenc e o f th e cos t

threshold , becaus e i t coul dresul t

i ncase-by-cas e revie w o f muc holde r projects . Ijwhil e usin g asingl e yea r a s th e tim e perio dwil l reduc e th e flexibilit y fo r som e stationar y sources , w e believ e i t

wil l hel p t o reduc e th e likelihoo dtha t a nafter
the-fac t

NS Rrevie w wil l b e required . W e bylieve|__ i

Mmmmimmmmmmm. tha t th e tim e perio dfo r th e annua l maintenance.%rfl5MMiilli^^feiiSt^ i allowanc e shoul d 

## b eal 

## .m^ui^/ii^_iimmm_mmmm_\m^ year , i f the owner/operato r o f a majo r stationarysourc e use s a fisca l yea r tha t differ s froma calenda r yea r fo r accounting 

### 4 3P. 6

INU^-0b-200 2 15=1 2 P.02/2 2 IfcJOU O

Draft : deliberativ e an dprivileged ; d o oo t cite , quote , o r

distribute . Octobe r 23,200 2 Approac h JJ e recogniz e tha t ther e ar e numerou s occasion s when , t o facilitate , restore , o r improv e efficiency , reliability , availability , o r safet ywithi n norma l facilit yoperations , facilitie s replac e existing equipmen t wit h eithe r identica l equipmen t o r equipmen t tha t serve s th e same functiona l

¥aseB>«*8*<4MaB*w» * « . »• . Siii Li * __'&t&f____WSlil_\ 

### puj.puba|piMM > O

f tea , •ajguc

hreplacement s arg^Hi M conducte dimmediatel y afte r componen t

failur e JilJ^^Mi ^ _^M^B^__memm^^^^^w^.a.nd ai e fund- duu t

u f th e plant' s i5>SSSe i juaiaLenaii- e acJ.uui'tl_li___M__i H W £believ e tha t suc hreplacement s _huuxd j iw^^S^i^TOSS s 11111 1 b e considere d RMR& R activities . However , ,ther e mus t als o b e som e reasonabl e bound t o tt£»RMR&R exemption . Allowin g replacemen t o f equipmen t wit h "funct^nall y equivalent " o r "identical " equipmentVa s RMR&R , i f unbounded , coul d theoreticall yallo wreplacemen t o f a n entir e productio n lin e o r utilit yboiler . Th e following discussio n addresse s ke yconsideration s i n determinin g the appropriat e boundaryfo r the type s o f r

# freplacemen t activitie s tha t shoul d b e exclude d unde r th e MR^i R exclusion . / " &SE £ A . Replacemen t of . Existing Equipmen t wit h Identica l New^ g 

### 6 6P. 7

NOU-06-200 2 15=1 2 P.03/2 2

.Draft : deliberative and privileged ; d o notcite , quote , o rdistribute . October23,200 2
Ou r proposa l t o implemen t ne wapproache s t o determin e the type s o f existin g equipmen t tha t can b e replace d wit h identica l n

t ^HMEl^^^^^^B^^M^ p equipmen t an d qualif ya s RMR& R i s base d o n ou r vie wtha t mos t replacement s o f existing equipmen t tha t ar e necessaryfo r th e safe , efficient , an

d reliabl e operatio n o f practicall yal l industria l operation s ar e no t o f regulatoryconcern.—Fer r example,—i f a pum

p abboivi-atrw

J v/iL h a-dJs.-till.aLiuii-culLH.u j fail s and

- -i s -n^laie d wiLh an identica l new-pump,—w e belik e that
- huu

h a imiuitu

n projec t ia

> an d bliuul d b e cuiibldeita

d a n exclude d iepl-acement . industria l facilitie s ar e constructe d wit h the understandin g tha t equipmen t failure s ar e commo n an d ongoing maintenanc e program s ar e routine . Delaying o r foregoing maintenanc e coul d lead t o failur e o f th e Ajvdtt*** productio n uniyvaswma ycreat e o r ad d t o safet yconcerns / AJU^AAJ Whe n suc h equipmen t replacemen t occur s an d th e ^MT ^ - replacemen t i s identical , th e replacemen t i s inheren t t o the origina l desig n an

d purpose s o f th e facilit yan d ordinaril y wil l no t increas eNOU-06-200 2 15:1 3 P.04/2 2

# a

Draft : deliberative an d privileged ; do no tcite , q tpteyordistribute . October23,200 2 w e believ e tha t activitie s lik e such pu m> replacement s ar e routin e an

d jshoul d no t trigge r NS R permit:in g requirements . Jfaken t o the extreme , howoyo:^'eve n Ja n identical / zjut replacemen t projec t can/g o beyond th e bound s o f th e routin e maintenance , repair , an d replacemen t exclusion . Fo r example , instea d o f replacing a pump , wha t i f a chemica l manufacturin g facilit yreplace d a n entir e productio n unit ? Eve n i f th e replacemen t wa s identical , w e likel ywoul d no t conside r th e projec t t o b e an exclude d replacement . Suc h a projec t effectivel yconstitute s constructio n o f a ne w proces s uni t i n muc h th e same wa ythe constructio n o f an entirel yne wproces s uni t a t an existing stationarysourc e coul d no t constitut e routin e maintenance . l,iaddiLiun , ther e i s no ijuestiuti tha t fc i aa identica l xerplaceitt-r.i

t picrj-gc

L t u 'b a curisidere

d RMR&R,—the 1 _5f_ct_ d f&ciliL yiuu_ t continu e L o compl ywit h al i 'Clea n Ai r Ac t emissiutw 1 1 inti-ttrtiuna-'diz d sLaiidaid

h '-fLta 'Lh

e piujtic t i

_ implciu-rifced—(i.e;—a n idcnLical
- leplammen t RMfts R p_ovi-iun Wt 7a i dnu t

excus e ca.mpli-.m-
- wit hClenu Ai i Ac LBjjplic^bl H lequil'tfineuts ) . '

aL6 8P. 9

NOU-06-200 2 15:1 3 P.05/2 2

Draft : deliberativ e an dprivileged ; d o no t cite , quote , o r

distribute . Octobe r 23,200 2
W e recogniz e tha t i t ma ysometime s b e difficul t t o determin e wher e t o dra wth p lina-fffl

m.th e -dentle a -whe n .th

e ldgnfcicaJ

r5 ^w' A » f replacemen t o f equipment/involve s a.larg e portio n o f a n ji^utp****^ I existing unlt/V 1,3 1 otho r worrir , urba n pjipu.'fi

? a project / treate d a s an exclude d replacemen t projec t an d wJ*^/_noul d 

## rrt*t &Tbe viewe d a s a phVsica l chang e tha t migh t constitut e a ^ . - 

### modi f ication ? Ag) / ^^^N^Q^^^H4^W/dJ_^cV^/ ^ /UU4« 5 majo r r CU*4*4+*&, 

## 'ifiZ ^ a Ijle ar e sfil'icitin g commen t o napi"C Q oa t

ecng£~ approach, ____. base do nth e Ne

w Sourc e Performanc e Standar d(TNSPS") / /Ui^f progra mt o de t

ermine , whethe r

identicaiYceplacement * ( Z* . At?/iJ£f^ -Qtivati^nfeTqualif y a s RMR&R . Unde r

th e NSPS program , a projec t a t a nexistin g affecte d-burra w trigger s an y applicabl e NSPS whe nth e cos t o f th e projec t

exceed s 5 0 percen t o f th e fi-ftd-cap4.ta l cuaf c Lha t woul db o gaquico d fjf-fp<_->»^/- » g. pppp-u.l . 1 n»Hrnl y r.r.i.1 IIH^ , t- 1 I-- ' | I ) f l • — curren t capita l replacemen t valu e o f th e existing affecte d . . o-_go4> ' 4 0 CF R 60.15(b) . I n essence , suc h a • fcuu£u*i % reconstruction" i s tantamoun t t o a^ r construction/and , therefore , trigger s an yapplicabl e NSP S eve n i f th e projec t woul d otherwis e b e excluded . W e recogniz e that , i n some\respects , a <pr»j_-t • •eeytr*" " threshol d suc h a s the NSP S reconstructio n tes t ma yb e viewe dP.1 0

NOU-06-200 2 15=1 4 P.06/2 2 »e

_vv* »

Draft : deliberativ e an dprivileged ; d o no t cite , quote , o r

distribut e Octobe r 23,200 2 a s th e prope r too l t o b e use d i n th e futur e fo r distinguishin g betwee n routin e an d non-routin e identicaLl " replacement s unde r th e NS R program . A s note d above , w e d o no t believ e i t i s reasonabl e t o exclud e fromNS R project s tha t involv e th e tota l _„ullca

_ replacemen t o f a n existing entir e proces s unit . B yextension , i t i s therefor e logica l an d consisten t t o conclud e tha t project s which , base d o n thei r cost , effectivel yconstitut e replacemen t o f th e A proces s uni t shoul d .SiimAlarl ybr a ffYff-Aneel £_m

mnuu.ldtJiabi&n

r Thus , w e believ e tha t th e 5 0 percen t capita l replacemen t threshol d use d unde r th e NSP S migh t constitut e ^____m_____) 1 uppc

_ X. imitatio no nth e concep t o f identica l

£±*Kurtkj>k &_$§!

_othe r a nappropriat e replacement? . W e als o recognize , however , tha t fiuu| f rw&ptJcL b i t iu_ y b u viewe da b necebScu y t o _-_«rl3__iflri ^ athreshol dlowe r tha nth e 5 0 percen t reconstructio nthreshol di.ioxde
jthe i wuid'b,—sin_-IIU^. » fpita l replacemen t tifflffiffiSfflffl

appropri , replacemen t

exclusion X -rr

r f o f th e existin g affect ? constructio n o f percentag e ne w 

## unit,HH__H_f l th e 5 0 percen t u e o f an yconstitute s _-JH__ i som

e uctio n threshol d 7 0P.1 1

NOU-06-200 2 15=1 4 

### JP P.07/2 2 

### iiijt-JnJL. •Bri t ^_a » replacemen

t activitie s reachacertaincollective level , evenon e that stop s shor

t o f constructiono f

ane w unit , they ma

y still constitut

e majo r renovation s o r

rehabilitation s tha

t warran t treatment a s majo r modification s rather

tha nroutine maintenance . Se e WEPCO , 89 3 F.Z dggl^J nohort , our

nhjmii-P i t nse t th e replacemen

t percentag e threshol dat

alevel that , i

nthe : , wouldcontinu e t o require ! scrutin y o f activitie s o f

tha t magnitud e whil e still als o i

nthe futur e allowing th e replacemen

t o f components tha

t ar e typicall y replacedwithina

nindustria l sourc e category i norder

t o maintai nth e source' s safe , reliable an defficien t operation , whethe

r thes e component s ar e typicall y replace dmultiple time s ayea r o r onl y onc e over

aperio do f

man y years . Wc-bclicy^uha

t figwd-eouldb e as lo w a s 25 % ofth e replacemen t value ofth e proces s unit . Accordingly , w e are proposing t o set th e thresholdfo

r like-kindreplacement s at

between2 5 an d5 0 percerf

t ofth e replacemen

t vnluc-ofthe proces s uni

t (wiiilo notiiffthat

like-kind replacements that

exceedth e threshol dma

y still qualif

y fo r treatment a s jbutin e under

our four
- /1&C0&**'

"T * **]M- "

/7 

# It rr-'J\ ^ "P.1 2

NOU-06-200 2 15:1 5 P.08/2 2

Draft : deliberative an

d privileged ; do notcite , quote , o rdistribute . October23,200 2 migh t b e whethe r a n modificat i tabJ» €lin e o f ica l replacem an existing u

n determinin g

ec t constitute s a
W e hg\»c nu t yet ' ieached* a cuuclu&iui j at , t u wh-thci—t c •ua e tliib

1 prujuc t cu- t concept-ami,—iff-bir,—wha t p_iM.., n Lair g u f capital
- seplacemen t valu e woul d b e an appiupiiat c boundary £ux th e IdenLica l replacemen t provision.—We~ar e soliciting commen t o n whethe r Un a M_t > fl_____iBffi____

» approac h i s workable , whethe r th e capita l replacemen t jDercentag e shoul d b e 5 0 percent/d r -iingiuhcL 1 le-aaaL

1 pcpoentag Q an

d whethe r differen t percentage s shoul d appl yt o differen t industria l grouping s o r differen t type s o f industria l processes. , Fo r example , i t ma yb e appropriat e t o se t a highe r percentag e fo r projec t operation s tha t involve hea t an d corrosiv e compounds . Suc h processe s ma yrequir e mor e expensiv e replacements , an

d a greate r degre e o f maintenanc e activitie s tha n othe r type s o f processes . W e als o solici t commen t on whethe r thi s approac h shoul d b e implemented ^ bcf-ifc,—ar

yiL
- i- s under—th e NSFfl-p

i implemented/Dn a pe i p^^'jec L jruijiair. , u

x owls oitieother reasone d basi s suc h a s applying th e percentage ! (collective ] t o ^±^\^L*Mmmmm tha t ar e i_tul*uciii.e-«fl»pove r a fixe d perio d o f time . -Finally , 

### C ^ . n»»w,yi r_t i •*_

_> <?i<;<:w. : c< ci-: % ? K&M£&4J<- i ,s>r> S

•.•v^-^-^^g^^MBffiaiWg ^ 7 1 

### w__W_Sm^MmaJsP.1 3

NOU-06-200 2 15:1 5 P.09/2 2

Draft : deliberativ e an dprivileged ; d o no t cite , quote , o r

distribute . October,- , 200 2 ' -^fc^fe/i ^ 

## K 

# 4_ -Th e oceon dtypq-u f

ruplucciucn t

ootay-i-tie. 3 cu

i mrhiali wer**^. ar aElicitin g oommfait i^.»th e rcplacciu-u Lu f -idLutiii, ^ *equip»on t

wife himpipucd , fmi.Llumll y uijuiuuliui l cquipiucu U I n<u r cupe-icnoOr V whe nequipmen t •wfe»as * ou t

o r break s down , r*-*-~rr ^ * lit ofte n i s replace d wit h equipmen t tha t .sense s th e same equipmen t tha t i s removed . Fo r example , whe n wor n ou t pipe s 

## , _Wf^M^umi^r* purpos e o r functio n bu t is/improve d i n som e way 

# f

ar e replace d i n a chemica l proces s plant , th e replacemen t pipe s sometime s ar e constructe d o f ne wo r differen t material s t o hel p reduc e corrosion , erosion , o r chemica l compatibilit yproblems . Moreover , th e technolog yemploye d i n certai n type s o f equipmen t i s constantl ychanging an d evolving . Whe n equipmen t o f thi s sor t need s t o b e replaced , i t ofte n i s simpl ynot . possibl e t o fin d th e old-styl e technology . Comftaniacyma

yhav e n o choic e bu t t o purchas e an d instal l equipmen t reflecting curren t design innovations . Eve n i f i t i s possibl e t o fin

d old-styl e equipment , s stri p a n I<o a hav e obviou s incentive s fo r wantin g t o us e th e bes t equipmen t tha t suit s th e give n nee d whe n replacement s mus t b e installed . 7 2P.1 4

NOU-06-200 2 15:1 5 P.10/2 2 4SJUX O

Draft : deliberative and privileged ; do notcite , quote , o rdistribute .

Octobe r23,200 2 Agoo d exampl e wa s presente d t o u s b yth e fores t product s industrydurin g ou r revie wo f th e NS R program' s impact s o n th e energysector . Acompan yi n tha t secto r decide d i t neede d t o replac e outdate d analo g controller s a t a serie s o f si x batc h digesters . Th e origina l controller s wer e n o longe r manufactured , although ne wdigita l controllers- , costing approximatel y$50,000 , ar e capabl e o f receivin g input s fromth e digeste r vesse l temperature , pressure , an

d chemical/steamflow . The ne wcontroller s woul d hav e mor e precisel yfille d an d pressurize d digester s wit h chips , chemical5 , an d steam , thu s bringing a batc h digeste r o n lin e faster . Th e source , determine d tha t under 1 Lhe-hrSf t pruyiamthi s projec t sJou_3b*not b e considere d routin e unde r today f spil l rule s an d decide d nott o P rc !P? ^ w *-*-h the £M6 

### ^ tifau^rft

WtfutA*!Zt

k>*MX4#? M proje c 

# r 1

iie C 

### dedll « elicitin g conaueu Lo nwha/ . p^uvisi-uub 1 

### ar e *^^y**T_!^ . Sf^^^^^^f^^^^^^^^^^^^!S^S^^i^t^tm!mm»^^^_______^^^^S^^MJ

M««5_a_t?^*W(«fi^m^!S^ ^ i&AXWilfW'.IS.Z

7 3P.1 5

NOU-06-200 2 15:1 6 P . 11/2 2



### Draft : deliberative an

dprivileged ; d

p not cite , quote , o r

distribute . uAj&VtlA. W*AH

KOctobe

r 23,200 2 

## _g_g__S__famMM ^

1 ' —••••I II I -• > ^^| * » -innr-HE M ,- , ,.., . , ' " '.MUl.' " J %FfS^mmk

^mtmssysztm ••YYtV^'*'•*>*• . <n *y*fl',;*»> : K . V M 4 . SiM-KlIii V <» ? jgiiftflpuana«« * gw» WCTIIWMI* . v .

7 4P.1 6

NOU-06-200 2 15=1 8 P.12/2 2

Draft : deliberativ e an

d privileged ; d o no tcite , quote , o r distribute . ^s Octobe r 23 , 2002 percentage-—Sl.uul dsuc haprojec t b e dutamat-i-ca-ll y ccn-idere dauuii-ruutin e ev.nL / u i shoul dth e sourc e an d permitting ' autfiiiry appi-y—the—fotit—facLui . describe di ntht ? EA B Pinai'-'Order—.Tid'th e Detroi t -Ediso nD.tcimin.LiuJ UL u e^aluaL e whelhe l i t i s tuntru e o r

non-routv.Tig?pi^j i W e nefewtha t

ther e ar e widel y divergen t view s a s t o ho w expansiv e th e re v tin g mnintanarrPt r exclusio nshoul dbe . Fro m ou r perspective /

th e mos t

importan t

thin g w

e ca nd o t o ;

_j» improv e ai r

qualit y i nth e Unite dStates/i s t o mak e <wCtA__$

- substantia l reduction s i nNO x an dSO , emission s fro m uricjntiulle dfacilitie s i nth e utilit y secto r Whe n 

### lllfliiMili ^

t h e curren t t h e ws npluyian.,! ! i>UhU\f


### m_m8_m__m_^mBMg®_w_mma__^^ wil l no t

achiev e significan t reduction s i nNO

x o r SOj||||| | likel y avoi dth e stric t limitaLiun b impose dbv WflR^^^S^S B ilg^^^^^^M i throug hon e o f severa l waysjUMI i 

# A 7 5P.1 7

NOU-06-200 2 15=1 8 P.13/2 2 

# 4*-"*^

. Draft : deliberativ ean d privileged ; d o no tcite , quote , o rdistribute .

Octobe r23,200 2 IrsMiJUjUL Fo r example , whe n a powe r plan t .operato r plan a t o flt&tfS*--^ a/sti***^- 6 

### an d i s assessin g it s complianc e alternatives , tha t finft/s operato r i s face d wit hthre e options : (1 ) procee d wit hth e projec t pursuan t t o a n NS R permit , whic hcoul d requir e mor e tha n $10 0 millio n t o b e spen t o n ai r pollutio n controls ; (2 ) foreg o th e project , whic hlikel ywoul d resul t i n a permanen t reductio n i n capacit yo r utilizatio n o f th e facility!! !

th e project , but-t-afee a n enforceable--emis.iuu a limit— farr, —rr r

_* WEPCO " - TUTTbdictiun , tak e step s t o limi t futur e emissions-)
- suc htha t th e projec t woul d no t resul t i n a significan t ne t emission s increase . W e believ e tha t onl ya smal l numbe r o f operator s woul d choos e th e firs t option . Thi s optio n woul d mak e economi c sens e onl yi n circumstance s wher e th e curren t capacit yan d utilizatio n o f th e facilit yar e s o lo wtha t th e majo r investmen t i n ai r pollutio n control s woul d provid e a n incrementall ybette r paybac k tha n th e optio n o f investin g th e sam e mone yi n other.asset s o r i n th e developmen t o f a ne wpowe r olant . d . Wefbeliev e tha t J Uequall y&mal l numbe r ufjf|||j V operator s woul d elec t th e secon d option . I t make s n o sens e 7 6P.1 8

NOU-06-200 2 15:1 9 P.14/2 2

. Draft : deliberative an

d privileged ; do notcite , quote , o rdistribute . Octobe r23,200 2 i n mos t case s fo r owner s o f costl ypowe r plant s t o le t thes e asset s significantl ydeteriorat e ove r time , becaus e th e valu e o f th e asse t wil l eventuall yb e lost .

___fbeliev

e tha t mos t operator s woul d fe_2_rthe thir d option . W e not e tha t industrycommenter s durin g ou r revie w o f th e impac t o f NS R o n th e energ ysecto r argue d tha t thi s optio n would , ove r time , resul t i n a substantia l reductio n i n th e capacit yo f thei r facilities . Fo r example , th e Tennesse e Valle yAuthorit yreporte d that , ove r th e las t 2 0 years , i t woul d hav e los t 3 2 percen t o f it s coa l system' s energ ycapabilit yi f i t ha d cappe d emission s unde r a 'narrow " routine
- maintenanc e exclusion . I n simila r analyses , Souther n Compan yestimate d tha t i t woul d hav e experience d a

n energ yshortfal l o f 57. 5 millio n MW-hr , an d Firs t Energyestimate d tha t i t woul d hav e los t 3 9 percen t o f it s coal-fire d generating capacit ybetwee n 198 1 an d 2000 . Wes t Associates,
- the Wester n SystemCoordinating Council , an d th e Nationa l Rura l Electri c Cooperativ e reporte d simila r results . ^^JCAJfffk^L^_^ . N*1-_ j frhstansbTffi thes e assessments , we believ e tha t mos t 7 7P.1 9

NOU-06-200 2 15:1 9 P.15/2 2 •_

_VS. w

. Draft ; deliberative and privileged ; d o notcite , quote , o rdistribute . October23,200 2 / operator s woul d procee d wit h projects^ , ovo n ' ^ jfc' i taki* ^ emission s limitations . T o th e exten t tha t suc h limitation s migh t curtai l ful l utilizatio n o f th e facility , incrementa l contro l measure s o f modes t cos t woul d likel yb e take n t o recove r th e Most " utilization . Fo r example , us e o f a slightl ylowe r sulfu r coa l coul d produc e th e marginall y lowe r S0 2 emission s tha t woul d b e neede d t o recaptur e capacity . Likewise , variou s type s o f relativel ylow-cos t combustio n o r proces s contro l modification s coul d b e

t o achiev e significant-reduction s i n histori c emis s levels/biwciufr

a jnos t facilitie s woul d tak e step s t o avoi d stric t limitation s impose d byan NS R permit , eve n whe n 

# r prujecta . are

j \WmmWBBKm non-routine/ } 

## 4 trt*. W e hav e attempte d t o quantitativel y possibl e emission s consequence s o f the rang e -T 1 1 nfmant
- optiong^deacribe d abov e t o verif yi f ou r polic y conclusion s arje^correct . Ou r analysi s w& s conducte d using 

# /r** 

# />.W \ SVfc W 7 8 IAA&*** 

# JP.2 0

NOU-06-200 2 15:2 0 P . 16/2 2



# Fo RIf . 7^'^2 - Draft : deliberative an

d privileged, ; d

o no tcite , quote , ordistribute . October23,200 2 conclusion s ar e correct . Ou r analysi s wa s conducte d usin g a n ^ Integrate d Planning Mode l (IPM ) . Thi s mode l and technica l informatio n describing i t ca n b e foun d i n th e docket . Th e analysi s include d two|Jll||p| | relevan t scenarios . I n the firs t scenario , w e assume d tha t aLili-aLiuii , efficiency^
- an d capacit yo f relevan t unit s modestl ydecreases-ove r time . Thi s scenari o wa s intende d t o reflec t th e consequence s o f a yic w£$•*wib

h a tfclo^ iwely^ - '"narrow * definitio n o f ^y^np^-mjii'rvfcpriiinrr^i * unde r whic h w e woul d assum e tha t ther e woul d b e slo wan d stead y deterioratio n o f relevan t generating assets . A s explaine d above , w e d o no t actuall ybeliev e tha t suc h a tren d woul d occu r unde r suc h a«« wdefinition , becaus e plant s woul d tak e step s t o limi t emission s an d perhap s implemen t incrementa l control s t o recaptur e los t capacity . Ngyer^ieless , w e believ e tha t thi s -rrnnr i _fii__. . n r 1 1 1 .M I -fnTnfr^jf

c am i nninn n S±^jadpoi£fe^becaus e the deterioratio n woul d b e mad e up i n ou r mode l b ywel l control/e d an d highl yefficien t ne wgenerating asset s rathe r than nfecapture d capacit yfro

mincrementall y bette r controlle d existing units . I n the «-ctr>iujiRIi i scenario! , w e assume d tha t utilization , eff i 

### mm iency , andf p capacit yo f relevan t unit s modestl yincrease ; over.time . Thia^Pi l scenario-war^^ SP.2 1

NOU-06-200 2 15:2 0 P.17/2 2

Draft : deliberativ e an dprivileged ; d o no t cite , quote , o r

distribute . Octobe r23,200 2 

### intendedA o reflec t

th e consequence s o f anew rul e wit ha *broadi_f ' definitio no f routin e maintenance , whic hwoul d allow/facilit y availabilit y snd^BM outpu t

t o be.** * •.iyniric-uLl y iuipi-wdTove r tim e withou t

triggerin g NSR. Thl b .cKi'iari u It, LL c 1 

### "wui 

### st " case " snei'iarr o irrLci'iu b u£ canissiun s becaus e '-geneiaticm—(-end,—therefore,—eiui-tiuna ) fiu mn.levan Lfacilitie s wuui db e aliowed-"t- " l-ncreas-e 1 

### t u th e levels.—Lha t

ar e thc-mu- LLcclruicall y au decul'iuuric-l-l y

______.__^jm&«OSi®S$__Si__£_SaS_£_ ^ e ££ rcre n L„tftB& i iB&l ^ m__m____________m£_j__mmm mm 1 1 'J""*""" " 11 1 —^^^^M.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^—^^^^^MF—^^M W i,-- " —r'1' 1 "TfflBW^TTJwjnvilllHftllflTVT** ?



## a+pA++tlu

tP-Un ktikt tk&XAi*..

: on , aar

i i T , nfi

l th e Th e IP M analyse s o f thes e scenario s prove s th e poin t mad e above , tha t the breadt h of/ a nsn.f r rh i exclusio n uound hs'wf c n o practica l impac t A . controllin g facto r i n determining , th e emission s reduction s tha t wil l b e achieve d i n the futur e unde r th e NS R program . Th e analysi s sho wtha t emission s o f S0 2 ar e essentiall yth e sam e unde r brrtssEll

l scenarios . Thi s stand s t o reaso n becaus e nationwid e emission s o f S0 2 fro mthe powe r secto r ar e cappe d b yth e titl e I V

Aci d Rai n Program . Emission s o f NO X unite r the"ggcund scenaii u wuul d be--abou t 140,00 0 tons 1 pe r yea r (tpy)—higher—tha n unde r th e firs t scenario . This
6 8P.2 2

NOU-06-200 2 15:2 1 P.18/2 2

. Draft * deliberative an

d privileged ; d

o notcite , quote , o rdistribute , October23,200 2

fractio n o f nationwid e NO x emission s fro mth e powe r sector , whic hhovers
- aroun d 4."5jj§ millio n tpy . —Moreover;—thi s estimat e -ref-1-ect s •^••scenari o wher e plan t uperatiun s ai e ebbe„tiall yunconstraine d b yth e NS R piuyxam . --Becaus e al l o-f—hh e option s ptc-sen-ted i n today' s proposa l wuul d establis h significan t cuu-trainL b u n - th e type s o f acti-vitiebb Llia L cc_-_d-b e iiaplectented-withcu t - triggerin g NSR , w e believ e thi s -btiiuale d increas e ii , WO Aamission s -isritruc hinflate d uv. r the 1 li"ue"""CDn5 , eqgence--o f enacting 1 •_»UL\I a fteL vL

mlgb^i^^ff i

'fiMr

___3^^^___i)d_pl_^s^^_i . **i Dat a regardin g th e emission s reduction s tha t ar e achieve d unde r othe r Clea n Ai r Ac t program s furthe r illustrat e th e relativ e limit s o f th e NS R progra ma s a too l fo r achievin g significan t emission s reductions . Fo r example , th e titl e I V Aci d Rai n Progra mha s reduce d S0 2 

## C**u. 

## y*W< ,

6 9P.2 3

NOU-06-200 2 15:2 1 P.19/2 2



# 3 $ <*7 • Draft : deliberative and privileged ; do notcite , quote , ordistribute . October23,200 2 emission s from

th e electri c utilit yindustryb ymor e tha n 7 millio n tpyan

d wil l ultimatel yresul t i n reduction s o f approximatel y1 0 millio n tpy . The Tie r 2 moto r vehicl e emission s standard s and gasolin e sulfu r contro l requirement s wil l ultimatel yachiev e NO x reduction s o f 2, 8 millio n tpy . Standard s fo r highwayheavy-dut yvehicle s an d engine s wil l reduc e NO x emission s b y2. 6 millio n tpy . Standard s fo r non roa d diese l engines ' ar e anticipate d t o reduc e NOx emission s byabou t 1. 5 millio n tpy . The NO x ""SI P call " wil l reduc e NO x emission s b

yove r 1 millio n tpy . Altogether , thes e an d othe r simila r program s achiev e emission s reduction s tha t far excee d thos e attributabl e t o th e NS R program an d dwar f an

y possibl e emission s consequence s attributabl e t o futur e promulgatio n o f a rul e base d o n today' s proposal . Acop yo f ou r IP M analysi s i s include d i n th e docke t fo r thi s rulemaking . W e as k fo r commen t o n al l aspect s o f thi s analysi s an

d o n th e polic ydiscussio n provide d above . Mut e tha t i n Lh

e following section , w e diacua & huwthe nrrbixrri-xr

f identica l replacement ' cou-id-b e ex-tende

d t o functionall yequivalen t replacements..—W e belitrve
- that-th e IPM analysl b AUII

pulleyaudlybl b appl yequall ytu but h the identica l r eplaceme;iL ' piupuhfll 1 and—the " prc;pcjsa-i - f u x fttmrtri-on

a 1- 1 y-equivalen t equipment.
- • Yo u t>huuxd--c:onsi-der— btrt h 7 0P.2 4

_NOU-06-200 2 15:2 2 P . 20/2 2

Draft : deliberative an

d privileged ; d

o no tcite , quote , o rdistribute . October23,200 2 debiy n paiameLei & u f thwaff-cLg d proceb b unit—(fu r exaiuple , ftrr
- electri c utilit y-tea mycngratiuyunits,—thi a wuu'i d ureai i ttictximumhea L inpu t an d fue l cut'ibUmptro u bpeciricati.n. ) . f n uLhe r wc-ds,—i f a n identica l replacement ' wuul d b e ruutiue , repl.cerr.eut projecta
- tha t resul L i.i—th e InbLallaLiu n ^r

f bvtLe i equipment 1 woul d b e viewe d as•RMR& R unde r Lh g NS R pruyra munieb b th e tusw equipmen t i s functiunall ydifferent . uiimpac t a—th e bas'i c dg&iyn-paraiuetgi b o f th e unit . rr-uccs s -Ificieuey,—hownuei";—i b nu t .—babi c d.&itj n parameter-,—a b BP A doe b nu t wan t 'NS

R t u imped e industr yi n makin g enery yand prucw& s efficienc yiupi.cvenienL b . Thi s shuul d 'addreb b th e .uncgrtt " ari

d pgicepLiu n tha t th e NS R pruyra mberve s a a a barrier—tu-projects
- unde r Lake n L u f-cill-tabe,—rebture,— er r iiuuruvtr efficiency,—reliability;—avai l ab i l i ty,—o r safeL y withi n nuuua l facilit y•jperat-iuub . W e nute 1 Lhat , db 1 with-identica l replacemen t pixjecLb , ou r apprua. h lu i replacemen t prujecLvinvul»/in yfunctionall y gquivalcn t bu t itupruved equipmen t mu_ t b e reaaunabl y buunded' . Ab above , wg'-a:e - -bollcitin ycjnirnen

t u n whethg r pie.cribin g a per 1 prujec t peicentay e o f replacemen t u f a proces s uni t tha t qualiflg b 1 JI - RMR_R treatmen t bliuuld
- wl-b u appl yt o thi b categor yu f replacemen t acLivitia b and,—i f __> - wheLhe r th e • pe r cen t ciyt ^ bhuuld-b e J O pwicen t or—auii. e bmaile- r 8 3P.2 5

NOU-06-200 2 15:2 2 P.21/2 2

. . Draft : deliberativ e an dprivileged ; do . oo t cite , quote , o r

distribute . Octobe r 23,200 2 pgrcentage . jdbso a & abcve , ther e i s n o questio n that,—fo r a functionall yequivalen t replacemen t project—l:u"be-T:..n&idere d RMR&R,—ther-a-ff-ecte Ufacilit ymus t continu e t o -complywit h al i Glean
- Ai r Ac t ei^rgsi-ons
- -limit-tiun b aii d stun Ja r d s afte r th e prujg- L i&—implemented—(i.e,—aa-RMR& R pruvisiun fur ' functionally ' equivalen t replacemenLb wuul d JIU L KMUS K complianc e wit n Clea n Ai r Ac t ^^mmf^MmmMm^&
applicabl e requirementSTr|§ §



# tf. frit I nadditio nt o solicitin g commen t o nth e approache s describe dabove , w e ar e als o solicitin g commen t o nwhethe r thgs e approache s shoul d"be-adopted'-a-I^an g with—the 1 annua l maintenanc e aiftrwanrje 1 -opti-o-n-dtfscribe d-earlier• • in-thi- s preamble.

—Morc'Spgcifxc-l'Iy,—shoul dai l approache s appl y o r bhoul' d•• ' tng y • b e • entirel y independent?—Fo r e?:amplefeeg»i|t e

8 4P.2 6

NOU-06-200 2 15:2 3 P.22/2 2



# >ifct»*+*<^<^^ Draft : deliberativ e an dprivileged ; do , no t cite , quote , o r

distribute . Octobe r 23,200 2 

### _iii___§___i_____i__i__ii_ii______________l_l_ii_i i ij^iiii^i , i f

we assum e tha t

th e urujec Lcub t

Lb&lllil l approach-i^^^^ K

adopted , ho w shoul dsuch r <xn approach
- wurk i ntonUei u wit hth e aimua l maintenanc e ollucatio noptiuu|j||| | mmmmmmM? Shoul da nRMR& Ractivit y tha t

i s exclude d. unde r th e mo'iec Lcus LLeb LappruaclJ^^ilillMl^B ^ Wikk als o coun t

agains t

you r annua l maintenanc e allocation ? W e ar e solicitin g commen t o nwhethe r

t o adop t

an y o r al l o f thes e approache s an dho w the y migh t fi t together . Lastly , EP

Astrongl y support s effort s t o improv e energ y efficienc y a t

existin g powe r

plants . Thes e activitie s ngt C .LL__l____i-j*1 1 hii'i . Un . ifliliiinit , n f grmmnhnn"! * g a __? c pm1 't-^ M pp r "*-£<_. , r?f n. lart-.ir

i iri t y prnrinrpd i hvA als ^ reduc e th e amoun t o f 

### I 

### Pe r criteri apollutants—J§|S0 2an dNOx
- '""•' ' " : ' |s_« ! pe r ' " ^X4r

* * ' uni t o f electricit ygenerated / During ou r stud yo f th e ** * . impac t o f NS R o n the energ ysector , w e receive d informatio n concernin g a numbe r o f instance s wher e project s tha t woul d hav e improve d energ yefficienc ywer e no t implemente d becaus e theywoul d hav e resulte d i n significan t annua l emissio n increase s tha t woul d hav e triggere d NSR . Some hav e commente d tha t an

yprojec t tha t produce s an yimprovemen t i n energ yefficienc yshoul d b e exemp t from NSR . However , give n the continuing improvemen t i n material s an d design , almos t 8 5

TOTA L P.2 2iNUV-0b-2k30 2 l b = 2 7 P.02/1 5

Draft : deliberativ e an dprivileged ; d o no t dte , quote , o r

distribute . Octobe r23,200 2 an ycomponen t replacemen t ca n b e expecte d t o hav e some beneficia l -impac t o n th e energ yefficienc yo f th e uni t and , lef t unbounded / thi s approac h coul d resul t i n th e replacemen t o f a n entir e boile r wit h a new , mor e efficien t boile r withou t stat e o f the ar t pollutio n controls . § § 

# Q&
^ c

#__fc&ift&s^_8#5 ^ -;A&M|^2J___S____J

_

_____ Thes e issue s promp t EPAt o solici t commen t i n severa l

_• , ___.___.___.*___._ +. . & : _fc!fc#&i^&'&k'&^ ^ areas . T o th e exten t tha t L-nebe
- proie^t-&|4%||^^^ffeiiMg^l M

.' f S^*S? t i&t M $K t r ? functiona l purpos^'gl^llUf f a s th e component s the yreplac e grrtt_j__^^^Ma^^^!:W l do g no t alte r th e basi c design parameter s o f th e unit , the ywoul d aupgar—Lu b e eKemp t underifilpiill l ou r proposed , pe r projec t cos t test , describe d

B S 

## * ssg 

## ___§ _ I s ther e anee df\ r aseparat e *stand-alone " fo r project s tha t

imprW e eneie, y e f

ficiency|ffi| § IMIllili ? I f

so , shoul dther e b \grryggjjg l limitation ! o n 8 6 MSt i 

## t3$k,**AP.2 8

NOU-06-200 2 15:2 8 P.03/1 5

Draft : deliberativ e an dprivileged ; d o no t cite , quote , o r

distribute . Octobe r23,200 2 th e scop e o f

mmmMfflfflffiBBffi&LS

cr-J-.u. ? IT.,U . ..i,,,m, v em^4*v_ 3 BPA-treat - proj-fct&g_gf__ff l tha t resul t i n a mino r improvemen t i n efficienc ybu t a ver ylarg e increas e i n annua l emissions ? P^gj^SW^^^ii^^gW^S^ P ^^i^ii^fi^iii^fp^MMIife ^ Toda yw e solici t comment broadly on th e impac t o f th

e NSR progra

mon decision s t o proceed with project s tha t produc e ne t benefit s t o huma n health an

d th e environment, , including but , no t limited t o energ y efficienc

yprojects , /^ e als o solici t comment / o n th e exten t t o whic h ou r proposal s ca

n promot e energ

yefficienc

ywhil e w e (/ preservin g th e benefit s o f th e NS Rprogram . /.aLnjjjJjrj " w r) .diffe r

enfc__

_• • U a •fc v# ^'_ft_I(''X:ijy

y f ' •! solici t comment s o nwhethe r wr e nee^^g_^_§ ^ to^e^ineT-Tdrb h specificity , basi c desig nparameter s f A industries . /yhc^AgdBfflf r bo-liovoi i thatWajg x Ip'approacho c fo r

estabL. i vhiTii

j •ji.^j.k.
- a deaiy npa r

ame . te r a , • bu t we acrlici Lcummonti.o nfehoc5^QiiduLh_j5 p tha t i-Ts^provid e th e necessar y certaint y t o / .Definin g "Proces s Unit " fo r Evaluatin g Projec t Cos t Percentag e ^Proces s -unit " i s no t atgn u currentl y use dunde r Lhe NS Rr-ggu-i-ati-oms- . The-N3R--regulation s d c provid e a 8 7P.2 9

NOU-06-200 2 15:2 8 P.04/1 5

Draft : deliberativ e an dprivileged ; do , no t cite , quote , o r

distribute . Octobe r 23 , 2002 definitio no f

'cmib-ru^ huniL "

, huwgvai.,—Lhia , ten nia . nu Lbrua denoug hJJoiW^t^^^^^^^X
__$3$f€3i_B%_£g3@ ^ , , . , ^^L^^is^^m^^^^^tm^^^^mk th e equipmen t replacemen t approac hpropose dhere.

—Changes , t u nuii-aiul-tLXn g unit s ma y resul t i ncullatera l .mi-biun . l^creabe s -at»-utfa. i emittin g . unit s a t

afacility;—therefore , a - tes:m—tha t

wuuld"includ e bot hauritt-iriy-arid— i run-giui t tin g un i L

b is_beirTg-'Cori.iderisd. — Th . definitiu ntha t w e al e relyin g o ni s tha t u f "proces s 

# t^^^mm^^^m^&m ^

u U K QJ.-M . W

_

# h U 

# u U

# m muuu u J:ha t _de£anlti__} , t n accommodat e ch c intende d oovorage ^ ( f^fV " *" ' nr " " v "* lia l i <m'I-IIJI I i|».i.iWT*.. i M |. l J. I un._..f c • f p• • • • \£jf^1 ~ i th'vft . pi^p^fcr

c -u~"iib

e the
- foli-Win g definitiu n fu r this-rule :

Proces s uni t mean s an ycollectio n o f structure s and/o r 8 8P.3 0

NOU-06-200 2 15:2 9 P.05/1 5

. Draft : deliberative an

d privileged ; d

o notcite , quote , o rdistribute . October23,200 2 equipmen t tha t processes , assembles , applies , blends , o r otherwis e use s materia l input s t o produc e o r stor e a n -ntermedraL e o r txnal^^msm^m product . Asingl e facilit yma ycontai n mor e tha n on e proces s unit. . EndOf-Mose d Tex t ' ""^^fJ^L ^ W e inten d fefjj^lti_#ll_^^ thi s ter mjg_ft o £&&+kL •focus--o

n thei^i^P^I ^ integrate d manufacturin g operation s tha t produc e an-intermediat e en - •& fina l product.—We
- d o no t intend , t o split--u p intggg-ytw

d •pfuu^b-grgb",—an

d d u nu L prupus w t o distinguis h amun yprucea s unit s that-pr-oduc e fina l products-tha t "ar e sold-irr-c'CTfln.g i et a vwi_u

_pruceb b un i La tha t produc e "intermediates " whic h ma yb u ustrd-aL uLlig r pruccs s uiTit-s--wTth-rrr-th

e sam e plant-or—fcyan s far rwd
- J?OT—fuithgj . processin g t o anothe r caramo n l yuwne d plant.— ASOCM I plant ? ftn—g.iample,—mdry-prvrahree--severa l intermedi-ates—„t—-dr-pi-tni-f c site,—sctrvc—cl " whic h ai e piucebbe d f u r Lhe r a t th e plan t "an d uLhe-b—Lha L ar e sol d ab inLeriimdiat e products- . -I f th e intermediate s remaine d a t th e SOCM I plan t fo r processing;-w e wuul d appl ycuumu n s.Ub c L u gv>aludt e n»heLlier M, th e continue d prucessin u .o. f "thirst ; chemical s -constitute d th e sam e piucea s uni t J X whgLhwr—thg yshoul d b e walle d ol f ab a bepaiaL e process.— Ake ydeterminin g facto r i s whethe r th e yive n op e r a t-i-on

- i s a s i n g l e,—integrate d uiodactio n -uni'tTJ I 8 9P.3 1

NOU-06-200 2 15:2 9 P.06/1 5 i_03 0

Draft : deliberative an

d privileged ; d

o no tcite , quote , o rdistribute . October23,200 2

T o hel p illustrat e thes e concepts , w e trie d t o ^JLCU^~ I ifitiMtfiWfti 1 

### JeLeiatiTn

gho wtliis|__^_j_MJPEii__^_ i caea-specifi c

...."»_ ——« . ............. . ._ •'imi.i l •* f trvaluatioiv-would pla yuu t d n defining wha t equipmen t an d

a fe wselecte d industrycategories*
- electri c utilities , refineries , cemen t manufacturers , pul p an d pape r producers , and incinerators . Thes e examples , provide d belrmr,—dr r no t p.ovi. g absuluL e answers , bu t offe r reasonabl e guidav.ee i n deLerminin g wha t upci_Lion s woul d represen t th e proces s uni t (-S1—for—Lhub

e laeiliticb . I n eac h cas»e , fmB

associate d pollutio n contro l equipmen t woni'd^^B P typicall yno t b e considere d par t o f th e proces s

9 0P.3 2

NOU-06-200 2 15:3 0 P.07/1 5

j ' Draft : deliberative an d privileged ; d o no tcite , quote , o rdistribute . October23,200 2 Fo r a stea

melectri c generatin g facility , th e proces s uni t woul d mos t likelyconsis t o f thos e portion s o f the plan t whic h contribut e directl yt o th e productio n o f electricity . Fo r example , a t a pulverize d coal-fire d facility , the proces s uni t woul d generall yb e the combinatio n o f thos e system s fromth e coa l receiving equipmen t throug

h the emissio n stack , including the coa l handling equipment , pulverizer s o r coa l crushers , feedwate r heaters , boiler , burners / turbine-generato r set , ai r preheaters , and operatin g contro l systems . Eac h separat e generating uni t woul d b e considere d a separat e proces s unit . Component s share d betwee n two o r mor e proces s unit s woul d b e proportionatel y allocate d base d o n capacity . Fo r a pMgPl^refinery , each-o f th e ke y'operatin

g units—(e:'g",—FCCl , iefurn.gr , alky l plant , MTB E plant , riydr-ocrackcr , dihLillaLiui i unit,—cuker,—etc . )—and-it s associ-Le d supporting units—(e.g.,—furnaces , pipinu , cuinprebsou-S, " cooling;—etc
- )—xoul d Lypicall yb e considere d a proces s uuiLJ_S^j^^^^gi^SI^^^^ | 

# mmmmmmusam' 9 1P.3 3

NUV-06-200 2 15:3 1 P.08/1 5

.Draft : deliberative an

d privileged ; do notcite , quote , o rdistribute . October23,200 2

' i ^^^^__^_^^^^i^_tW_W_^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Fo r a cemen t plant , th e proces s uni t woul d generall y includ e '^^__^^^^^^^^^_^__l^_l^__^^^^^_W^^_^_W^_W^^^^ l^^^^^^al l component s tha t proces s o r stor e raw materials , preheaters , kilns1 , - an d processe s tha t proces s o r stor e product s fromlip i kilns , an d associate d emissio n stacks . Fo r a pul p an

d pape r mill , ther e ar e typicall y twc^ s ttg^ffl-waa-M»ag^^| proces s units . Tu e fir s Lfi i i s the system tha t processe s woo d products , - f | H th e digeste r an

d it s associate d hea t exchanger , blo w tank , pul p filter , accumulator , oxidatio n tower , an d evaporators . Th e -gcond^^^H i i s th e chemica l recover ysystem , whic h include s th e recoveryfurnace , lim e kiln , storag e vessels , an d associate d oxidatio n processe s feeding regenerate d chemical s t o the digester . Fo r an incinerator , th e proces s uni t woul d includ e al l component s from-th e fee d pi t o r refus e pi t t o the stack , including conveyors , combustio n devices , hea t 9 2P.3 4

NOU-06-200 2 15=3 1 P.09/1 5



### . Draft : deliberative andprivileged ; dono t cite , quote , or

distribute . Octobe r 23,2002 exchanger s an dstea mgenerators , quenc htanks' , an d fans . W e solici t

commen t o nwheLJUgi

i thi s -genera l definiLiu n crf__ H * proces s unit " i s "a " ife aAunabl e «uppruaeflj r c r lfjfi& i 

### A anothe r approac h if l mor e effectiv e give n tl^a t a 'routine " determinatio n coul d ne whinu e u n ho wbroadl yo i narrowl yth e pruces s uni t i s defined . W e als o solici t commen t o n whethe r thi s approac h wmul d presen t an yuniqu e problem s fo r LuplKinenliug thes e ne wprupusais ; ii " so,—wha t ac.Liun b shoul d w e take---to

1 minimiz e Lh e uccu r renee-o r -erTec L u f thes e ptoblentb ?
Te.iL Mu'Jg

d Here:— 2

l^Mi S today' s proposed
- approache s fo r replacemen t o f existin g equipmen t with , identical , o r functionall yequivalen t equipmen t rel yo n th e concep t o f a proces s unit , thes e approache s ma ynu L bu suitabl e "fo r determinin g whethe r a 

### change made a

L a.^^^^^^^^^^&^^mmm^^m^^

9 3P.3 5

NOU-06-200 2 15:3 2 P.10/1 5

Draft : deliberative an

d privileged ; do , notcite , quote , o rdistribute . October23,200 2

#9 iitl i forthcoming propose d NS R rule s fo r futur e project s

involving aggregatio n an d debottlenecking wil l alleviat e L_„i.grjjh--wiL

h reboec t Lo^mUm^si^^m^d'^em^M. change s mad e a t non-emitting unit s tha t affec t emission s a t othe r proces s unit s a t Lhui'

__cij»i_y r However , w e reques t commen t o n limiting today' s propose d approache s t o change s mad e a t prucesallillSii l units- : -fr-EPA-decide s L u exten d today' s approache s to^l^||^^_iiil^i^g^ig^gi ^ JMli^^^l^»^ilij^^r^M»ffi^^ i non-emitting units T ho wshoul d EPAJe-tin g the " entity-fromwhic h the percentay e o f leplacemen L cus L ih d-teiu.in-d ? Sn d Q f Move d Textf | :i . Othe r Option s Considere d ^ v£l . Othe r Option s Co^ s 

# *Tft * 9 4P.3 6

NOU-06-200 2 15:3 3 P.11/1 5

. Draft : deliberative an

d privileged ; do no

tcite , quote , ordistribute . October23,200 2 I n additio n t o th e cos t base d approac h discusse d above , w e ar e considering two additiona l option s fo r addressing RMR&R . Thes e option s ar e discusse d below , and w e ar e requestin g commen t o n thes e options . W e ar e als o intereste d i n othe r possibl e alternatives . A . Capacity—^Base d Optio n W e hav e considere d th e alternativ e optio n o f developing a n RMR& R exclusio n base d o n capacit yo f a process.unit . Unde r suc h a n approach , a n owner/operato r coul d undertak e an yactivit ytha t di d no t increas e the capacit yo f th e proces s unit . Suc h a n approac h woul d requir e safeguard s simila r t o thos e i n the propose d cost- i §jbasej i approac h i n orde r t o ensur e tha t pu uJti5N*Ahat shoul d b e subjec t t o th e NS R programar e no t inappropriatel yexcluded . Thes e safeguard s woul d exclud e th e installatio n o f a ne wproces s unit , th e replacemen t o f a n entir e proces s unit , an d
§ § emissio n rate s o f a regulate d ffro mus e o f th e exclusion . Basin g RMR& R o n capacit yi s appealing for . severa l reasons . Th e primaryobjectiv e o f RMR& R i s t o keep a uni t operatin g a t u

u 1 c i ffifcapacityand/o r availability-, 1 -not t o



### 9 5P.3 7

NOU-06-200 2 15=3 3 P.12/1 5

. Draft : deliberative an

d privileged ; do no

tcite , quote , o rdistribute . October23,200 2 ineyggs e the cunen t capacit yand/o r availabilit yo f a uniL . I n addition , the linkag e betwee n capacit yan d environmenta l impac t i s mor e apparen t tha n cos t an d environmenta l impact . Finally , unlik e the propose d coa t based-approaeli,—thi s typ e o f approac h reould al-l*uw " for ai&ife^ll ^ ^__H_ i preconstructio n deteuuinatio n u l applicability .

9 6P.3 8

NOU-06-200 2 15:3 4 P . 13/1 5

Draft : deliberative an

d privileged ; do no

tcite , quote , o rdistribute . October23,200 2

BBa_BBflffl«fffl«iSfl M
Th e difficulty\(it h using a capacit ybase d approac h i s \ definin g th e capacit yo f a proces s unit . Capacit ymaybe define d base d o n i^pu t o r output . Nameplat e capacit yo f a proces s uni t mayvai ygreatl yfro mth e capacit ya t whic h th e proces s uni t mayb e abl e t o operate . I t ma yb e mor e appropriat e i n som e industrie s t o measur e capacit ybase d on inpu t whil e i n other s OB . output . A s a n example , i n a review o f promulgate d an

d propose d Maximu

mAchievabl e Contro l 

# V Technologystandards , sixVp f eleve n standard s measure d capacit ybase d o n uni t outpfai t whil e fiv e base d capacit yo n input . I n fact , the NSP S exclusio n fo r increase s i n productio n rat e a t 4 0 CF R 60.14(e ) originall ywa s dependen t upo n th e "operating design capacity " o f a n affecte d unit . I n propose d revision s t o th e N^f S program publishe d o n Octobe r 15 , .1974 , w e stat e (3 9 j_

_36948 ) : Th e exemptio n o f increase s I n productio n rat e i s n o longe r dependen t upo n the "operating desig n capacity. " Thi s ter

mi s no t easil ydefinVd , an d fo r certai n 

### 9 7P.3 9

NOU-06-200 2 15:3 5 P.14/1 5

- Draft : deliberative an

d privileged ; d

o no tcite , quote , o rdistribute . October23,200 2 indu^irie s the *design capacity " bear s littl e relationshi p t o th e actua l operating capacit yo f th e f a c i 1 i t y•^Q

- * ^ * W e ar e requesting commen t o n thi s capacit ybase d optio n a s wel l a s comment s o n possibl e method s t o addres s an yo f th e issue s relating t o implementatio n o f suc h a n option . B . Age d Base d optio n Unde r a n ag e base d approach , an yproces s uni t unde r a specifie d ag e coul d underg o an yactivit ytha t doe s no t increas e th e capacit yo f a proces s uni t o n a maximu mhourl y basi s withou t triggering the requirement s o f th e NS R program . However , th e change s coul d no t constitut e reconstructio n as , define d a t 4 0 Crf l G0.1_fflfflS_W&%B_W8_W 

# ^pi^^S.^S^^^ISi^iSl^^_iii^P^ii_iii^^SI^ H ^^^___i^^i^^_p % 

### mmmmmm. Th e ag e of th e proces s uni t woul d likel yb e i n th e rang e o f 25-5 0 year&,-•- • ui in 1 the cabg-o f electri c utilitybLectin 1 •generatin

g unitb , Lypicall y30'4 0 years . A n owner/operato r woul d hav e the choic e o f returning t o th e curren t case-by-cas e approac h fo r eac h physica l or . operationa l chang e o r o f becoming. a Clean Uni t a s define d a t 4 0 CFR 51.165(c)(3) , 51.16 6 (t ) (3) , an d 52.21(x)(3) , onc e th e ag e o f a proces s uni t exceed s th e ag e threshold . 

### 9 8P.4 0

NOU-06-200 2 15:3 5 P . 15/15 .



### - Draft : deliberativ e andprivileged ; do not cite , quote , o r

distribute . Octobe r23,200 2 

### Suc ha napproac hwoul dprovid e a nowner/operato r a clea r understandin g o f

RMR& Rfo r a nextende dperio do f time . I t als o ma

y provid e th e owner/operato r greate r

flexibilit y tha nunde r

th e curren t

syste mfo r

alimite dperio do f time . Lik e th e capacit y base dapproach , thi s approac hwouldltl S HHI S ^lo w fo r BmMUmm preconstructio n determinatio no f

applicability . W e se e thre e marn,t;%^^| i difficultie s mdevelopin g thi s typ e o f

approach . . Th e firs t i s definin g capacity . The secon di s establishin g th e ag e cut-of f fo r th e exclusion . The usefu l lif e o f

equipmen t

i s difficul t

t o establis han d ma y var y greatly . irarra*lr7l» » th e Lvuet . o x • chanaesPi^i@Sii l tha t woul db e exclude dab RMR& R befur e th e ay e threshol dcuul dfar—exceed ' th e seup e u f change s w

e cuii-^tl y believ e bhuuthJ-b^ ; (.^Jf j s i digge dm^MJ.-MAJJ



### W e ar e requestin g commen t o nthi s ag e base doptio na s 9 9

TOTAL P.1 5