P. 1



# OAR Box 1827 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 128)V-A- 1
Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 11/19/2008 12:40:48 PM Sheet 128 of 147P. 2 C - SLZ6Z**~Z&-^' 

### EP A AI R POCKET

ENVIRONMENTA

L PROTECTIO

N AGENC Y 4 0 CF RPart s 51 , 52 , an d6 0 RE Q ~" _ 

# fr-<KHXo

V-fv- i

v l ^ REQUIREMENT S FO

RPREPARATION , ADOPTION , AN

D SUBMITTA

L O F IMPLEMENTATIO

N PLANS;]APPROVA

L AN D PROMULGATIO

N O F IMPLEMENTATIO

N PLANS ; STANDARD S O

F PERFORMANCE FO

RNE W STATIONAR

YSOURCE S 

# -fcTN l VObD-Ahlo'Z AGENCY : Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y (EPA) . ACTION : i Fina l 7&ile . SUMMARY : The applicability o f th e ne w sourc e requirement s o f titl e I o f th

e Clea nAi r Ac t (CAA ) t o physica l o r operationa l change s a t electri c utility generatin

g unit s i s a nissu e o f considerabl e interes t at thi s tim e becaus e o f the recen t passag e o f the 199 0 CA A Amendment s (199 0 i Amendments) . Man

y utilitie s wil l b

e undertakin

g majo r pollutioncontro l project s at thei r unit s i nth e next fe

w years . I nenactin g titl e IV , Congres s di dno t suspen dan y titl e I requirement s fo r thi s work . However , the massive industry-wide undertaking s o f pollutio ncontro l project s warrant s a clarificatio nof th e ne w sourc e revie

w (NSR ) j requirement s o f titl e I . I nparticular , NS Rprovision s shoul dno t inadvertentl y bia s a utility

toward s o

r agains t
an y mean s o f complyin g wit hth

e aci drai nprovisions . The EP A believe s the amendment s adopte dtoda y an dthe j • clarificatio

no f it s curren t policy unde r it s presen t NS Rregulation s provid e adequat e assurance s tha t utilitie s ca n

undertak e titl e I V pollutio n contro l project s withou t uncertaint ya s t o th e applicabilit yo f th e variou s titl e I

i ne wsourc e requirements
. A t th e sam e time , th e applicabilit yo f existin g ne wsourc e regulation s t o modification s ha s bee n th e sourc e o f tw o recen t Federa l appellat e decisions , Wisconsi n Electri c Powe r Co . v . Reillv
. (WEPCO), ; 89 3 F.2 d 90 1 (7th Cir
. 1990) , an d Puert o Rica n Cemen t Co . v . EPA . 88 9 F.2 d 29 2 (1s t Cir
. 1989)
. ' A s a result , EP Ai s todayadopting clarifyin g amendment s t o thes e regulation s tha t con f irmedf policie s regardin g som e o f thes e provision s a s the yappl yt o utilit yprojects
. Th e EPAtodayadopt s a broa d NS R exclusio n fo r utilit y pollutio n contro l projects , adherin g t o it s polic ytha t ne w sourc e regulation s alread ygenerall yexclud e coverag e o f pollutio n contro l project s undertake n a t electri c utilit y units
. Similarly , EPAi s todayadoptin g a n "actua l t o futur e actual " methodologyfo r determinin g whethe r al l othe r nonroutin e physica l o r operationa l change s a t utilitie s (othe r tha n th e replacemen t o f a uni t o r additio n o f a ne w unit ) ar e subjec t t o NS R unde r eithe r preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n (PSD ) o r nonattainmen t provisions
. Fo r thos e utilit yproject s whic h underg o PS D NSR , EPA proposed! a presumptio n tha t fo r EPA-issue d permits , "low-NO x burners",ca n satisf yth e bes t availabl e contro l technology (BACT ) requirements
. Th e EP Aha s determine d no t t o adop t i thi s presumption
.P. 4

-3- ' I n ,addition , EPAi s als o modifyin g it s regulation s implementin g th e modificatio n provision s o f th e titl e I ne w sourc e performanc e standard s (NSPS ) programt o provid e tha t
a utilit yma yus e fo r it s pre-chang e baselin e th e highes t hourl yemission s rat e achievabl e a t an ytim e durin g th e 5 year s prio r t o th e physica l o r operationa l change
. I n addition , EPAi s modifyin g it s regulation s t o reflec t change s mad e b

yCongres s i n th e 199 0 Amendment s t o th e applicabilit yo f ne wsourc e requirement s t o clea n coa l technology(CCT ) an d repowerin g projects , an d t o "ver

y clean " units
. 

### .'vert DATES : Thi s rul e take s effec t o n ffiate o f publicatioiy^Tn" " FEDERAL .REGISTER" }
. Unde r § 307(b)(1 ) o f th e CAA , petition s fo r judicia l revie wmus t b e file d o n o r befor e (6 0 day s afte r th e dat e o f publication ! i n th e U.S . Cour t o f Appeal s fo r th e D.C . Circuit
. ADDRESSES : Materia l relevan t t o thi s rulemakin g mayb e foun d i n Publi c Docke t A-90-06
. Thi s docke t i s locate d i n U.S . EPA' s Centra l Docke t Sectio n (LE-131) , Watersid e Mall , M-1500 , 40 1 M Stree t SW , Washington,
. D.C . 20460
. Th e docke t ma yb e inspecte d betwee n 8:0 0 a.m . an d 3:0 0 p.m . o n weekday s an

d a reasonabl e fe e ma yb e charge d fo r copying
. FOR FURTHE R INFORMATIONCONTACT : Mr. . Davi d A . Solomo n a t (919 ) 541-537 5 o r Mr . LarryElmor e a t (919 ) 541-5433 , Ne w Sourc e Revie wSectio n (MD-15) , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y 

## !0>P. 5

A . -4

- Plannin g an

d Standards , U.S . EPA , Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 27711
.

i
. ' • SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Th e followin g outlin e reflect s th e organizatio n o f today' s notice : ! I . Introductio n II . Background Th e Ne wSourc e Performanc e Standards , Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n an d Nonattainmen t Program s o f Titl e I Th e Two-Ste p Tes t fo r Modification s Ste p One : Physica l o r Operationa l Chang e Ste p Two : Emission s Increase s fo r NSP S Applicabilit y Ste p Two : Emission s Increase s Unde r NS R Requirement s 1
. i Existin g Regulation s 2
. Th e WEPC O an

d Puert o Rica n Cemen t Decision s Th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f 199 0 B . C . D . E .

F . 1
. Ne wSourc e Revie wan d th e Aci d Rai n Provision s 2
. , Repowerin g an

d Clea n Coa l TechnologyProject s I III . Discussio n o f Fina l Actio n o n Proposa l A . Pollutio n Contro l Project s 1
. j Regulator yChange s fo r Pollutio n Contro l Project s 2
. i Additiona l Modelin g Requirement s Representativ e Actua l Annua l Emission s Th e Causatio n Requiremen t B . C . D . Repowerin gP. 6

-5

- E . Clea n Coa l TechnologyDemonstratio n Project s an d Ver y Clea n Unit s i F . Calculatio n o f NSP S Baselin e G . Utilit yBAC T Presumptio n & r K30 < H . Applicabilit yDetermination s I . Limitatio n o f Proposa l t o Electri c Utilitie s III . Miscellaneou s ^

_PVAKV Uf\'\s\-r^\\j^Q-^-\^tr-PM^^s i A . Executiv e Orde r (E.O. ) 1229 1 i B . Paperwor k Reductio n Ac t

i C . Economi c Impac t Assessmen t D . Regulator yFlexibilit yAc t Certificatio n E . Effectiv e Dat e F . Federalis mImplication s
I . Introduction
. Th e EPAtodayamend s it s regulation s implementin g th e

i variou s titl e I ne wsourc e requirement s governin g physica l
o r operationa l change s a t electri c utilit ystea mgeneratin g units
. Specifically , thes e change s ar e bein g issue d t o clarif yth e coverag e o f th e NSPS , PS D an d nonattainmen t preconstructio n revie wrequirement s o f titl e I o f th e CA At o i i project s undertake n a t electri c utilit ystea mgeneratin g units. 1 I

1 Th e regulations-defin e electri c utilit ystea m generatin g unit s a s an ystea melectri c generatin g uni t tha t i s constructe d fo r th e purpos e o f supplyin g mor e tha n one thir d ofiit s potentia l electri c outpu t capacit yan d mor e | (continued.., ) 

## 'I SP. 7

-6

- Th e EP Atodayamend s th e definitio n o f "majo r modification " i n 4 0 CF R part s 5 1 an d 5 2 t o se t fort h th e condition s unde r whic h th e addition , replacemen t o r us e a t existin g electri c utilit ygeneratin g unit s o f an ysyste mo r devic e whos e primaryfunctio n i s th e reductio n o f ai r

i pollutant s (including th e switchin g t o a les s pollutin g fue l wher e th e primarypurpos e o f th e switc h i s th e reductio n o f ai r pollutants ) wil l o r wil l no t subjec t th e sourc e t o preconstructio n review
. Specifically , EP Ai s adoptin g i n PS D an d nonattainmen t area s a regulatoryexclusio n explicatin g it s authorit yunde r th e statutorydefinitio n o f "modification " an

d confirmin g EPA' s curren t practic e tha t pollutio n contro l project s whic h "d o no t rende r th e uni t les s environmentall ybeneficial " ar e no t "physica l o r

i operationa l changes, " an d hence , ar e no t "modifications " fo r th e purpose s o f part s C an d D o f titl e I an

d ar e no t "majo r modifications " fo r th e purpose s o f EPA' s regulation s implementin g thos e provisions
. Th e EPAi s todayals o amending ! it s PS D an d nonattainmen t NS R regulation s (4 0 CF R part s 5 1 an

d 52) 2 a s the yappl yt o utilitie s t o (1 ) clarif y

1 (.i.continued ) tha n 2 5 megawatt s (MW ) o f electrica l outpu t t o an yutilit y powe r distributio n systemfo r sal e [se e e.g. , propose d 4 0 CF R 5i.l65(XX)]
.

2 Fo r th e purpose s o f thi s notice , reference s t o "ne w sourc e review " (or "NSR" ) refe r t o th e preconstructio n revie wrequirement s o f bot h par t C (PSD ) an d par t D (nonattainment ) o f th e CAA , unles s otherwis e indicated
.P. 8

-7

- th e NS R baselin e fo r determinin g whethe r a propose d physica l
o r operationa l chang e wil l subjec t a utilit yt o th e preconstructio n revie wrequirement s o f thes e provisions ; (2 )
se t fort h a n actual-to-future-actua l methodologyfo r determinin g whethe r a physica l o r operationa l chang e i s

i subjec t t o NSR ; (3 ) provid e furthe r clarificatio n o f th e existin g regulatoryrequiremen t tha t onl ythos e increase s i n emission s tha t actuall yresul t fromth e physica l chang e o r chang e i n th e metho d o f operatio n ca n b e considere d i n determinin g whethe r th e propose d chang e subject s th e utilit y t o NS R requirements ; an d (4 ) implemen t § § 40 9 an d 41 5 o f titl e I V

o f th e 199 0 Amendment s whic h creat e specia l NSP S treatmen t fo r certai n repowerin g project s an d limite d NS R exemption s fo r temporaryan d permanen t CC T projects , an d fo r certai n "veryclean " units
. Finally , EPAi s als o amendin g

i i it s NSP S regulation s (4 0 CF R par t 60 ) t o allo wa utilit yt o us e a s it s pre-chang e baselin e it s highes t hourl yemission s rat e achievabl e durin g th e 5 year s prio r t o th e propose d physica l lo

r operationa l change
. Today' s rul e addressin g pollutio n contro l project s an d othe r non-routin e physica l an d operationa l change s a t electri c jUtilityunit s i s timel yfo r severa l reasons .



### i First , th e 199 0 Amendment s establish , i n titl e IV , a ne w contro l schem e fo r addressin g th e aci d rai n proble mwhic h focuse s exclusivel yan d immediatel yo n utilit ypowe r plants
. titl e I V

Jwil l forc e mos t electri c utilit ystea mgeneratin gP. 9

-8

- unit s t o undertak e pollutio n contro l project s an d provide s ful l flexibilit yt o achiev e complianc e withou t a bia s toward s o r agains t an yparticula r pollutio n contro l method
. Second , ;th

e Agenc ybelieve s it s extensiv e experienc e wit h othe r non-routin e physica l an d operationa l change s a t suc h unit s an

d th e uniqu e characteristic s o f th e electri c utilit y industry(e.g. , th e genera l similarit yo f equipmen t withi n th e categoryan

d th e exten t o f publicl yavailabl e information ) suppor t a revisio n t o th e NS R applicabilit y criteri a fo r thi s sourc e category . Further , whil e Congres s di d no t mak e significan t change s i n th e NS R an d NSP S statutorylanguag e i n 1990 , th e conferenc e committe e provide d th e following guidanc e t o EPAi n it s Join t ExplanatoryStatement :

"[T]h e deletio n o f mos t provision s relatin g t o th e WEPC O decisio n i s no t

, intende d t o affec t o r prejudic e i n an y wayth e issue s o r resolutio n o f th e WEPC O matter . A t th e sam e time , th e conferee s urg e a quic k resolutio n o f th e WEPC O matte r b

yEP Aa s appropriate. " Conferenc e Comm. , Join t ExplanatoryStatemen t o f th e Committe e o f th e Conferenc e t o Accompan yS . 16 3 0 , Rep . 101-952 , 101st
. Cong. , 2n d Sess . (1990 ) pp . 344-45
. I n passin g titl e IV , Congres s di d no t suspend an yrequirement s o f titl e I . Howeve r titl e I an d titl e I V

ar e clearl y intende d rulin g i s intende d t o ensur e tha t harmony
.

t o wor k i n concert , no t conflict , an d today' sP.1 0

-9

- I n takin g th e action s announce d today , EPAha s relie d
o n th e writte n comment s provide d t o th e docke t i n thi s matte r a s wel l a s testimon yprovide d a t a publi c hearin g o n th e propose d rul e conducte d b yEPAo n Jul y14 , 1991
. Th e publi c commen t period , originall yschedule d t o clos e o n Augus t 19 , 1991 , wa s extende d unti l Septembe r 18 , 199 1 (5 6 F R 40843 , Augus t 16 , 1991 ) t o receiv e additiona l comments . Th e commen t perio d wa s late r reopene d o n Novembe r 25 , 199 1 (se e 5 6 F R 59238 ) fo r 2 week s t o receiv e , comment s o n th e informatio n containe d i n th e transcrip t o f a congressiona l hearin g conducte d b yth e Subcommitte e o n Healt h an

d th e Environmen t o f th e Hous e Committe e o n Energ y an d Commerc e o n Jul y22 , 1991 , an d othe r relate d information
. I n respons e t o severa l request s t o exten d th e commen t period , th e commen t perio d wa s extende d fo r a n additiona l 7 days , makin g th e fina l deadlin e fo r comment s Decembe r 17 , 199 1 (se e 5 6 FR 65203)
.



### A . II . Background Th e Ne wSourc e Performanc e Standards , Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n an d Nonattainmen t Program s o f Titl e I Titl e I o f th e CA

Aha s thre e program s specificall y designe d t o ensur e tha t n o ne wai r pollutio n —whethe r fro m ne wsource s o r from modification s t o existin g source s —ca n b e emitte d unles s th e sourc e complie s wit h ne wsourc e requirements
.P.1 1

-10

- Th e 197 0 CA

Arequire d EPAt o promulgat e technology

base d NSP S applicabl e t o th e constructio n o r modificatio n o f stationar ysource s tha t caus e o r contribut e significantl yt o

i ai r pollutio n whic h mayreasonabl yb e anticipate d t o endange r publi c healt h o r welfar e [se e CA A§ 111(b)(1)(A) , 4 2 U.S.C . 7411(b)(1)(A)]
. Th e NSP S provision s wer e "designe d t o preven t ne wai r pollutio n problems " b y regulatin g newly-constructe d source s an d change s occurrin g a t existin g source s tha t resul t i n emission s increase s (se e Nationa l Asphal t Pavemen t Assoc , v . Train
. 53 9 F.2 d 775 , 78 3 (D.C
. Cir
. 1976) ; se e als o H.R . Rep . No . 1146 , 91s t Cong. , 2 d Sess . 3 , reprinte d i n 197 0 U.S . Cod e Cong . & Admin
. New s 5356 , 53|58 )
. Congres s define d th e term"modification " a s "an yphysica l chang e in , o r chang e i n th e metho d o f operatio n of , a stationarysourc e whic h increase s th e amoun t
o f an yai r pollutan t emitte d b ysuc h sourc e o r whic h result s i n th e emissio n o f an yai r pollutan t no t previousl yemitted " [se e CA A§ 111(a)(4) , 4 2 U.S.C . 7411(a)(4)]
. I n 1977 , Congres s adopte d additiona l amendment s t o th e CAA . Thes e change s include d preconstructio n permittin g

i requirement s fo r majo r ne wan d modifie d source s unde r tw o programs , preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n (PSD ) an d l nonattainmen t NS R (respectively , part s C an d D o f th e CAA)
. Congres s intende d thes e program s t o appl ygenerall ywher e industria l change s migh t increas e pollutio n i n a n area . Alabama Powe r Co . v . Costle
. 63 6 F.2 d 323 , 40 0 (D.C
. Cir
.P.1 2

-11

- 1979)
. Congres s incorporate d i n part s C an d D th e sam e definitio n o f th e term"modification " se t fort h i n th e NSP S provision s [se e CA A§ 111(a)(4) , 169(2)(C) , an d 171(4)]
. Th e NS R programfor.PS D (CA A§ § 160-169 ) applie s i n attainmen t areas , i.e. , thos e area s whic h hav e attaine d th e nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s (NAAQS)
. T o receiv e a PS D permit , a prospectiv e majo r ne wsourc e o r majo r modificatio n mus t (amon g othe r things ) sho wtha t (1 ) i t wil l
no t caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f th e availabl e ai r qualit y"increment " (designe d t o preven t ambien t ai r qualit y fromdeterioratin g b ymor e tha n certai n specifie d levels) , (2 ) i t wil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f a NAAQS , an

d (3 ) i t wil l us e th e "BACT, " whic h mus t b e a t leas t a s stringen t a s an yapplicabl e NSP S o r hazardou s pollutan t standar d unde r § 11 2 o f th e CAA . Par t D o f th e 197 7 Amendment s applie s t o nonattainmen t
areas , i|.e. , thos e area s whic h hav e no t me t th e NAAQ S unde r § 109
. T o receiv e a permi t i n suc h areas , majo r ne wan d modifie d source s mus t (amon g othe r things ) (l ) obtai n emission s offsets , thereb yassurin g tha t reasonabl e progres s towar d attainmen t o f th e NAAQ S wil l occur , an d (2 ) compl y wit h th e "lowes t achievabl e emissio n rat e (LAER) " (se e CA A § 171-173). 3

3 Th e 197 0 CA

Aals o include d a provisio n applicabl e t o constructio n o r modificatio n o f an ystationarysource . Thi s provisio n i s presentl yse t fort h i n § 110(a)(2)(C)
. Today' s notic e dor s no t propos e t o chang e th e scop e o f th e (continued... )P.1 3

-12

-

B . Th e Two-Ste p Tes t fo r Modification s Th e modificatio n provision s o f th e NSP S an d NS R program s ar e base d o n th e broa d NSP S definitio n o f "modification " i n § 111(a)(4 ) o f th e CAA . Tha t sectio n contemplate s a two-ste p tes t fo r determinin g whethe r activitie s a t a n existin g facilit yconstitut e a modificatio n subjec t t o ne wsourc e requirements
. I n th e firs t step , whic h i s largel yth e same fo r NSP S an d NSR , th e reviewin g authorit ydetermine s whethe r a physica l o r operationa l chang e wil l occur. 4 I f so , th e reviewin g authorit y proceeds!i n th e second ste p t o determin e whethe r th e physica l o r operationa l chang e wil l resul t i n a n emission s increas e ove r baselin e levels
. I n thi s second step , th e applicabl e rule s branc h apart , reflectin g th e fundamenta l distinction s betwee n th e technology-base d provision s o f NSP S
an d th e ai r quality-base d provision s o f NSR . Briefly , th e NSP S programexamine s maximu mhourl y emission s rates , expresse d i n kilogram s pe r hour. 5

3 (...continued ) regulation s implementin g thi s provisio n (se e 4 0 CF R 51.160

- 164)
.

* Thi s i s furthe r describe d i n sectio n III. H below
.

5 An hourl yemission s rat e mayb e determine d b ya stac k tes t o r calculate d fro m th e produc t o f th e instantaneou s emission s rate , i.e. , th e amoun t o f pollutio n emitte d b

ya sourer , afte r control , pe r uni t o f fue l (continued... )P.1 4

, -13

- Emission s increase s fo r NSP S purpose s ar e determine d b y change s li

n th e hourl yemission s rate s a t maximu mphysica l capacity
. O n th e othe r hand , th e NS R regulation s examin e tota l emission s t o th e atmosphere
. Fo r applicabilit y determinatio n purposes , emission s increase s unde r NS R ar e determine d b

ychange s i n annua l emission s a s expresse d i n ton s pe r yea r (tpy), 6 C . Ste p One : Physica l o r Operationa l Chang e Th e EPAha s alway s recognize d tha t th e definitio n o f physical : o r operationa l chang e i n § 111(a)(4 ) could , standin g alone , encompas s th e mos t mundan e activitie s a t a n industria l facilit y(even th e repai r o r replacemen t o f a singl e leak

ypipe , o r a chang e i n th e waytha t pip e i s utilized)
. However , EPAha s alway s recognize d tha t Congres s obviousl ydi d no t inten d t o mak e everyactivit ya t a sourc e subjec t t o ne wsourc e requirements
.

5 (.. ; .continued ) combuste d o r materia l processe d (such a s pound s o f sulfu r dioxid e emitte d pe r to n o f coa l burned ) time s th e productio n rat e (such a s ton s o f coa l burne d pe r hour ) (se e 4 0 CF R 60.14)
. ;

i i 6 Annua l emission s mayb e calculate d a s th e produc t o f th e hourl yemission s rat e time s th e utilizatio n rate , expresse d a s hour s o f operatio n pe r year , o r a s th e produc t o f a n emission s facto r (e.g.
. fro mCompilatio n o f Ai r Pollutan t Emissio n Factors . AP- 4 2 , 4t h Ed
. an d subsequen t supplements ) i n unit s o f mas s emitte d pe r uni t o f proces s throughpu t time s th e annua l throughpu t [se e 4 0 CF R 52.21(b)(21)]
.P.1 5

-14

- A s a result , EPAha s define d "modification " i n th e NSP S
an d NSR;regulation s t o includ e common-sens e exclusion s from th e "physica l o r operationa l change " componen t o f th e definition
. Fo r example , bot h set s o f regulation s contai n simila r exclusion s fo r routin e maintenance , repair , an d replacement ; fo r increase s i n th e hour s o f operatio n o r i n th e productio n rate ; an d fo r certai n type s o f fue l switche s [se e e.g. , 4 0 CF R 52.21(b)(2)(iii ) an d 60.14(e)]
. I n i addition , wit h respec t t o pollutio n contro l equipment , th e NSP S regulation s contai n a n exclusio n for :

i Th e additio n o r us e o f an ysystemo r devic e whos e primaryfunctio n i s th e ^_^
_ reductio n o f ai r pollutants , excep t whe n ' a n emission s contro l systemi s remove d o r i s replace d b

ya systemwhic h th e Administrato r determine s t o b e les s environmentall ybeneficial
. 4 0 CF R 60.14(e)(5)
. A s wil l b e discussed , i n recen t individua l applicabilit ydetermination s EPAha s exclude d pollutio n contro l project s fro mNS R followin g a simila r 

## i "environmentall ybeneficial " test . D . \ Ste p Two : Emission s Increase s fo r NSP S Applicabilit y Th e EPA' s NSP S regulation s defin e th e term "modification " a s an y"physica l o r operationa l chang e t o a n existin g facilit ywhic h result s i n a n increas e i n th e 

### i ' emissio n rat e t o th e atmospher e o f an ypollutan t t o whic h a standar d applies " (se e 4 0 CF R 60. 2 an d 60.14)
. Unde r curren t NSP S regulations , emission s increases , fo rP.1 6

-15

- applicabilit ypurposes , ar e calculate d b ycomparin g th e hourl yemissio n rate , a t maximu m physica l capacity , befor e an d afte r th e physica l o r operationa l change
. Tha t is , t o determin e whethe r a chang e t o a n existin g facilit ywil l increas e th e emission s rate , th e existin g NSP S regulation s authoriz e th e us e o f a n "emission s facto r analysis, " o r a material s balance , continuou s monitoring , o r manua l emission s tes t t o evaluat e emission s befor e an d afte r th e chang e [se e 4 0 CF R 60.14(b)(2)]
. Absen t th e exclusion s fro mmodification s specifie d a t 4 0 CF R 60.14(e) , an yincreas e i n emission s t o th e atmospher e ove r th e previou s emission s rat e wil l subjec t th e uni t t o NSP S [se e 4 0 CF R 60.14(a ) an d (b)]
. I n addition , unde r th e "reconstructio n rules, " physica l o r operationa l change s whic h woul d cos t 5 0 percen t o r mor e o f th e tota l cos t o f a comparabl e ne wfacilit ymayb e classifie d a s reconstruction s (se e 4 0 CF R 60.15 ) an d ar e subjec t t o NSP S a s a ne wsource , eve n i f ther e i s n o emission s increase
. E . Ste p Two : Emission s Increase s Unde r NS R Requirement s 1
. j Existin g Regulation s The 1 EPA' s regulation s implementing th e PS D an d nonattainmen t program s requir e preconstructio n revie wfo r source s undertakin g a "majo r modification, " i.e.
. a physica l chang e o r chang e i n th e metho d o f operation s "tha t woul d resul t i n a significan t ne t emission s increase , o f an yP.1 7

-16

- pollutan t subjec t t o regulatio n unde r th e CAA " [se e 4 0 CF R 52.21(b)(2)(i) , 52.24(f)(5)]. 7 A"ne t emission s increase " i s define d a s th e increas e i n "actua l emissions " fro mth e particula r physica l o r operationa l chang e togethe r wit h an y othe r "contemporaneous " increase s o r decrease s i n actua l emission s [se e 4 0 CF R 52.21(b)(3)(i)]. 8 Applicabilit yo f th e CAA' s NS R provision s mus t b e determine d i n advanc e o f constructio n an d i s pollutan t specific
. I n case s involving existin g sources , thi s require s a pollutant-by-pollutan t projectio n o f th e emission s increases , i f any , tha t wil l resul t fromth e

7 Th e curren t PS D progra mi s se t fort h i n tw o set s o f regulations
. On e o f th e regulation s cite d (4 0 CF R 52.21 ) i s par t o f th e Federa l PS D permi t programwhic h applie s a s par t o f a Federa l implementatio n pla n fo r State s tha t hav e no t submitte d a PS D programmeetin g th e regulatoryrequirement s o f 4 0 CF R 51.16 6 [standard s fo r PS D provision s i n Stat e implementatio n plan s (SIP)]
. I n mos t State s wher e th e Federa l requirement s apply , EPAha s delegate d th e authorit y t o implemen t th e PS D program bac k t o th e State . Roughl y two-third s o f th e State s ar e implementin g thei r ow n PS D programpursuan t t o a n EPA-approve d SIP . Section s 52.2 1 an d 51.16 6 hav e identica l modificatio n provisions
. Th e EPA' s regulation s fo r nonattainmen t area s ar e se t fort h a t 4 0 CF R § 51.165 , 52.2 4 an d i n par t 51 , Appendi x S . Thes e section s contai n applicabilit yprovision s regardin g modificatio n tha t ar e largel yidentica l t o thos e i n th e PS D provisions
.

8 Roughl yspeaking , "contemporaneous " emission s increase s o r decrease s ar e thos e whic h hav e occurre d betwee n th e dat e 5 year s precedin g th e propose d physica l o r operationa l chang e an d th e dat e tha t th e increas e fro mth e chang e occur s [se e 4 0 CF R 52.21(b)(3)(ii)]
. Onc e a modificatio n i s determine d t o b e major , th e PS D requirement s appl yonl yt o thos e specifi c pollutant s fo r whic h ther e woul d b e a significan t ne t emission s increas e [se e e.g. , 4 0 CF R 52.21(j)(3 ) (bes t availabl e contro l technology) ; 4 0 CF R 52.21(m)(1)(b ) (ai r qualit yanalysis)]
.P.1 8

-17

- physica l o r operationa l change
. Specifically , t o determin e whethe r j

a propose d physica l o r operationa l chang e wil l resul t i n a n emission s increase , th e sourc e mus t firs t determin e a baselin e leve l o f actua l emissions
. Th e regulation s defin e actua l emission s o n a particula r dat e a s

i "th e averag e rate , i n tpy , a t whic h th e uni t actuall y emitte d th e pollutan t durin g a 2-yea r perio d whic h precede s th e particula r dat e an d whic h i s representativ e o f norma l
sourc e operation " [se e 4 0 CF R 52.21(b)(21)(ii)]
. Th e

i Administrato r "shall " allo wus e o f a differen t tim e perio d "upo n a determinatio n tha t i t i s mor e representativ e o f
norma l sourc e operation. " Id
. Th e EPAha s typicall yuse d th e 2 year s immediatel yprecedin g th e physica l o r operationa l chang e t o establis h th e baselin e [se e 4 5 F R 52^76 , 52705 , 5271 8 (1980)]
. However , i t ca n allow , th e us e o f a n earlie r 2-yea r perio d tha t i s mor e representativ e o f norma l sourc e operations
. Fo r example , i n WEPCO . EPAfoun

d th e fourt h an

d fift h year s prio r t o th e modificatio n mor e representativ e o f WEPCO' s norma l operations
.

I Becaus e th e applicabilit ydeterminatio n mus t b e
i mad e i n advanc e o f construction , EPA' s NS R regulation s provid e tha t whe n a n emission s uni t "ha s no t begun norma l operations, " actua l emission s equa l th e "potential-to-emi t



### j o f th e unit " [se e 4 0 CF R 52.21(b)(21)(iv)]
. Thi s approac h

i i s referre d t o a s th e actual-to-potentia l methodology
. Thi sP.1 9

-18

- regulatbr yprovisio n mayb e overcom e — an d NS R wil l no t appl y-r

- i f th e sourc e owne r agrees , i n a federally

i enforceabl e instrumen t —no t t o increas e it s actua l emission s abov e baselin e leve l [se e e.g. , 4 0 CF R 52.21(b)(4)]
.

2
. Th e WEPC O an

d Puert o Rica n Cemen t Decision s A s note d above , t o calculat e whethe r a physica l o r operationa l chang e "increases " emissions , EPAregulation s

i requir e i t t o fin

d a n increas e i n actua l emission s [se e 4 0 CF R 52.21(b)(3)(i)(a)]
. Wher e th e emission s uni t ha s no t "begun norma l operations, " EP Aregulation s recogniz e tha t futur e actua l emission s ar e difficul t t o predic t an d emplo y ! futur e "potential " emission s a s a prox y[se e 4 0 CF R 52.21(b)(21)(iv)]
. Th e linchpi n unde r th e curren t regulation s fo r predictin g futur e emission s afte r a modificatio n i s thu s whethe r th e uni t ha s "begun norma l operations. "

Tw o recen t Federa l appellat e cour t decision s hav e
i addresse d EPA' s interpretatio n o f th e phras e "begun norma l operations. " Thes e decisions , Puert o Rica n Cemen t Co. . Inc . v . U S EPA . 88 9 F.2 d 29 2 (1s t Cir
. 1989 ) an d Wisconsi n Elec
. Powe r Co . v . Reillv
. 89 3 F.2 d 90 1 (7th Cir
. 1990 ) ("WEPCO")
. occasio n a reexaminatio n o f EPA' s interpretatio n o f th e phrase,land o f th e usefulnes s o f th e regulatorylanguag e itself. I Th e meanin g o f th e phras e i s highl yfact-dependent , an d thes e decision s hav e create d uncertaint yregardin g it sP.2 0

-19

- application ; thus , a s describe d late r i n thi s notice , EPA todaychange s it s regulation s fo r electri c utilit ystea m generatin g unit s t o emplo ya mor e usefu l criterion
. Bot h case s involve d physica l change s t o existin g emission s units , bu t change s o f differin g extent , natur e an d result
. I n Puert o Rica n Cement , th e owne r o f a cemen t plant 9 wit h severa l kiln s sough t t o conver t on e "wet " kil n int o a "dry " kiln , an d t o combin e tha t kil n wit h anothe r kil n (se e 88 9 F.2 d a t 293)
. Th e cour t observe d tha t th e tota l productio n capacit yo f th e renovate d singl e kil n woul d
excee d th e combine d productio n capacit yo f th e previou s tw o separat e kiln s b

y"abou t 35%. " Id
. I t note d tha t th e renovate d singl e kil n woul d emplo ya differen t "cement
makin g process " tha n th e origina l kil n fromwhic h i t wa s "converted, " id
. And i t sai d tha t th e ne wkil n woul d b e "mor e efficien t [and ] maylead th e fir mt o decid e t o increas e th e leve l o f production. " id
. a t 29 7 (emphasi s i n original)
. I n reviewin g EPA' s interpretatio n o f "begun norma l operations, " th e cour t applie d a highl ydeferentia l standar d o f review , sinc e a n agency' s interpretatio n of
. it s ow n regulatorylanguag e i s typicall ygive n "'controllin g weigh t unles s i t i s plainl yerroneou s o r inconsisten t wit h th e regulation' " [se e 88 9 F.2 d a t 297 , quotin g Udal l v .

9 Puert o Rica n Cemen t involve d a cemen t plant , no t a n electri c utility , bu t th e court' s lega l analysi s o f th e phras e "begun norma l operations " i n th e curren t regulation s i s relevan t t o al l facilities
.P.2 1

-20

- Tallman
. 38 0 U.S . l , 16-1 7 (1965 ) (citatio n omitted)]
. Th e cour t conclude d tha t o n th e fact s o f th e case , EPA' s interpretatio n tha t "norma l operations " ha d no t begu n wa s no t "arbitraryo r irrational, " id
. a t 298 , an d henc e EPA' s applicatio n o f th e actual-to-potentia l tes t t o predic t futur e emission s wa s permissible
. I n WEPCO . 89 3 F.2 d 901 , th e Sevent h Circui t wa s face d wit h a differen t kin d o f modification
. Ther e renovation s wer e propose d fo r severa l olde r (3 5 t o 5 0 yea r old ) coal

fire d electri c utilit yboilers
. Th e physica l change s involve d repai r an

d replacemen t o f turbine-generators , stea m drum s an

d othe r majo r components . Th e EPAcontended , a s i t ha d i n Puert o Rica n Cement , tha t thes e change s wen t beyond "norma l operations " an d thu s warrante d us e o f futur e potentia l emission s a s th e tes t fo r a n emission s increas e ove r pas t actua l emissions
. Her e th e cour t disagree d wit h EPA' s interpretatio n tha t "norma l operations " ha d no t begun
. Th e cour t coine d th e phras e ? • like-kin

d replacement " t o describ e th e typ e o f renovatio n occurrin g a t th e WEPC o plant
. Id
. a t 917
. Th e cour t describe d a "like-kind replacement " a s on e tha t "doe s no t 'chang e o r alter ' th e desig n o r natur e o f th e facility
. Rather , i t merel yallow s th e facilit yt o operat e agai n a s i t ha d befor e th e specifi c equipmen t deteriorated. " Id
. a t 908
. I n determinin g whethe r suc h a "like-kind replacement " ha d "begun norma l operations, " Id
. a t 917 , th e cour t considere d whethe r aP.2 2

-21

- I "realisti c assessmen t o f [the ] impac t [o f th e change ] o n ambien t ai r qualit ylevel s i s possible. 1 " Id
. a t 91 7 [quoting Alabama Powe r Co . v . Costle
. 63 6 F.2 d 323 , 37 9 (D.C
. Cir
. 1979)]
. Th e cour t sai d tha t wher e th e renovation s wer e "like-kin d replacements, " EPAcoul d no t reasonabl yinterpre t it s regulation s t o sa ytha t suc h a uni t
wa s s o differen t tha t i t ha s no t "begun norma l operations. " Thus , i t conclude d tha t th e "actual-to-potential " tes t coul d
no t b e applied , unde r EPA' s regulations , t o unit s simpl y undergoin g "like-kin d replacements." 1 0 Neithe r o f thes e decision s specifie d th e threshol d fo r whe n a uni t ha s "begun norma l operations. " Base d o n thes e decisions , unde r it s curren t regulations , EPAmus t conside r th e fact s o f eac h cas e an d appl yth e actual-to-potentia l tes t onl ywher e th e chang e i s sufficientl ysignifican t t o suppor t a findin g tha t "norma l operations " hav e no t "begun. " A t leas t fo r change s tha t ar e "lik e kind replacements, " "norma l operations " hav e begun , an d th e actual-to-potentia l tes t i s impermissible
. Becaus e th e "begun norma l operations " criterio n i s highl yfact-dependen t an d it s applicatio n i s inherentl y case-by-case , i t mayb e a n uncertai n indicato r o f wha t emission s tes t wil l b e applie d i n a give n instance
.

1 0 Io n remand , EPAemploye d a n actual-to-futur e actua l test , comparin g WEPCO' s representativ e actua l emission s fo r th e baselin e perio d t o estimate d futur e actua l emission s bas»e d on1 al i th e availabl e fact s i n th e record
.P.2 3

i -22

- 

### I However,jEPA' s extensiv e experienc e wit h electri c utilities , an d th e generall ysimila r natur e o f operation s withi n thi s sourc e category , provid e EPAa n adequat e basi s o n whic h t o

i predic t futur e actua l emission s fro msuc h unit s i n mos t i cases . Consequently , a s explaine d below , EPAi s today

j revising'it s regulation s t o appl yth e actual-to-actua l tes t
o n al l physica l o r operationa l change s a t electri c utilit y stea mgeneratin g unit s sav e thos e tha t ar e a n additio n o f a ne wunit!o r constitut e a replacemen t o f a n existin g unit
. F . Th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f 199 0 1
. : Ne wSourc e Revie wan d th e Aci d Rai n Provision s 

### I Th e 199 0 Amendments , Pub L . No . 101-549 , 10 4 Stat . 239 9 (Nov
. 15 ; 1990) , mad e numerou s change s i n th e nonattainmen t provision s o f th e CA Aan d adde d a ne wtitl e t o addres s th e proble mo f aci d rain
. Th e amendment s attac k nonattainmen t
i problem s 'wit

h a broa d arrayo f ne wrequirement s al l designe d t o brin g Jai l area s o f th e countryint o attainmen t wit h th e



### i nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s fo r al l pollutants
. Thes e requirement s includ e traffi c reductio n strategies , us e o f alternativ e clea n fuels , increase d offse t requirement s fo r stationarysources , an d change s i n th e threshol d siz e o f stationarysource s subjec t t o NSR . Aprincipa l them e o f th e

I ' . legislatio n i s th e establishmen t o f categorie s o f 

## i nonattainmen t area s base d o n th e severit yo f th e pollutio n



### i problem , j Th e mor e sever e th e area , th e mor e control s Congres s {require

d b e imposed
.P.2 4

-23

- Th e Amendment s als o establish , i n titl e IV , a ne w contro l schem e fo r addressin g th e aci d rai n problem
. Th e exclusiv e focu s o f thi s programi s o n utilit ypowe r plan t emission s o f sulfu r dioxid e an d nitroge n oxides
. Th e 199 0 Amendment s requir e sulfu r dioxid e emission s fro m utilitie s t o b e reduce d b

yapproximatel y1 0 millio n ton s annuall yi n tw o phase s —th e firs t t o tak e effec t i n 1995 , th e secon d i n 2000
. Atota l o f 11 1 specifi c plant s ar e targete d i n Phas e I , an

d wil l b e require d t o reduc e thei r SO 2 emission s t o specifie d emission s limits
. I n Phas e II , thes e plants , an d almos t al l others , ar e subjec t t o eve n lowe r SO 2 emissions,limits
. Thi s reductio n progra mi s t o b e implemente d through a ne wmarket-base d system unde r whic h emission s allowance s reflectin g th e require d reductio n i n curren t emission s ar e allocate d t o existin g utilit yplants
. Plan t owners , wh o ar e require d t o hol d allowance s equa l t o thei r actua l emissions , ar e the n fre e t o trad e thes e allowances
. Thus , th e emission s o f individua l unit s ma y varyfromth e initia l allocatio n o f allowances , bu t aggregat e emission s ar e alway s hel d t o th e program' s overal l targe t level
. Thi s progra m wil l provid e powerfu l incentive s t o source s t o undertak e pollutio n contro l projects
. Becaus e o f thes e requirements , man yo f th e plant s subjec t t p Phas e I control s mus t mak e complianc e decision s withi n th e nex t yea r i n orde r t o assur e tha t th e complicate d contro l equipmen t tha t mayb e necessaryt o mee t Phas e Ij -24

-

standard s i s i n plac e b yth e 199 5 deadline
. I n enactin g titl e IV , Congres s di d no t suspen d an ytitl e I requirement s fo r thi s work
. However , th e massiv e industry-wid e

i undertaking s o f pollutio n contro l project s warrant s a clarificatio n o f th e NS R requirement s o f titl e I . I n particular , NS R provision s shoul d no t inadvertentl ybia s a utilit ytoward s o r agains t an ymean s o f complyin g wit h th e

i aci d rai n provisions
. Th e EPAbelieve s th e amendment s

I promulgate d todayan d th e clarificatio n o f it s curren t polic yunde r it s presen t NS R regulation s provid e adequat e assurance s tha t utilitie s ca n undertak e titl e I V pollutio n contro l project s withou t uncertaint ya s t o th e applicabilit y o f th e variou s titl e I ne wsourc e requirements
. CKWr tCoa l Xt chinloO f 2
. :Repowerin

g and*GG3^Project s
i I n titl e I V

o f th e 199 0 Amendments , whic h create s th e 

### I aci d rai n program , Congres s mad e change s i n th e

I applicabilit yo f ne wsourc e requirement s t o change s involving repowerin g an d Clea n Coa l Technology(CCT ) projects. 1 Sectio n 40 9 grant s a n extensio n o f th e aci d rai n control s deadlin e t o source s tha t see k t o compl ywit h th e aci d rai n reduction s b yrepowerin g a uni t wit h qualifyin g clea n coa l technology
. Sectio n 402(12 ) define s repowerin g
as : j [The ] replacemen t o f a n existin g coal

fire d boile r wit h on e o f th e followin g j clea n coa l technologies : atmospheri c o r ! pressurize ! fluidize d be d combustion ,P.2 6

-25

- integrate d gasificatio n combine d cycle , magnetohydrodynamics , direc t an d indirec t coal-fire d turbines , integrate d gasificatio n fue l cells , o r a s determine d b

yth e Administrator , i n consultatio n wit h th e Secretaryo f Energy , a derivativ e o f on e o r mor e o f thes e technologies , an d an yothe r technologycapabl e o f controllin g multipl e combustio n emission s simultaneousl ywit h improve d boile r o r generatio n efficienc yan d wit h significantl ygreate r wast e reductio n relativ e t o th e performanc e o f technologyi n widesprea d commercia l us e a s o f th e dat e o f enactmen t o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f 1990
. Notwithstandin g th e provision s o f sectio n 409(a) , fo r th e purpos e o f thi s title , th e term'repowering ' shal l als o includ e an

yoi l and/o r gas-fire d uni t whic h ha s bee n awarde d clea n coa l technologydemonstratio n funding a s o f January1 , 1991 , b yth e Departmen t o f Energy . [se e CA A§ § 402(12 ) an

d 409(a)]
. Congres s provide d tha t repowerin g project s tha t qualif y fo r a Phas e I I complianc e extensio n woul d als o b e exemp t fromNSP S requirements , s o long a s th e repowerin g "doe s no t increas e actua l hourl yemission s fo r an ypollutan t regulate d unde r th e Act " [se e CA A§ 409(d)]
. An operato r ca n qualif y fo r th e 3-yea r extensio n o f th e Phas e I I emission s limitatio n b

ydemonstratin g (b yDecembe r 31 , 1997 ) t o th e permittin g authorit ytha t on e o r mor e unit s wil l b e repowere d wit h a qualifyin g clea n coa l technologyt o mee t th e titl e I V

restrictions
. Th e operato r mus t provide , n o late r tha n January1 , 2000 , additiona l documentatio n o f th e repowerin g projec t including a preliminarydesig n an dP.2 7

-26

- engineerin g effor t fo r th e projec t an d a bindin g contrac t fo r th e majorit yo f th e equipmen t needed , a s wel l a s an y additiona l informatio n th e reviewin g authorit yrequires
. Today' s amendment s als o implemen t a n exemptio n from ne w sourc e requirement s fo r CC T demonstratio n project s create d b yCongres s i n § 41 5 o f titl e I V o f th e 199 0 Amendments
. I n thes e provisions , CC T i s define d a s an ytechnologyno t i n widesprea d us e o n th e dat e o f enactmen t tha t achieve s significan t reduction s i n S0 2 o r nitroge n oxide s (NO x ) 

### i emission s associate d wit h burnin g coa l i n th e generatio n o f electricity , proces s steam , o r industria l product s [se e CA A § 415(a)]
. ACC T "demonstratio n project " i s a project^
.
i funde d unde r DOE' s CC T progra mo r a simila r projec t funde d b yEPA. 11 | Repowerin g project s tha t ar e awarde d funding fromth e Departmen t o f Energ y(DOE ) a s permanen t CC T demonstratio n project s (or simila r project s funde d b yEPA ) ar e exemp t from NSP S an d PS D requirement s s o long a s potentia l emission s (se e 4 0 CF R 52.21(b)(4) ) fro m th e uni t d o no t increas e a s a resul t o f th e projec t [se e CA A§ 415(b)(3)]
. Thes e funde d project s ma ystil l b e require d t o compl ywit h th e

1 1 Sectio n 415(b)(1 ) define s a CC T projec t a s a a projec t "using fund s appropriate d unde r th e headin g 'Departmen t o f Energy-Clea n Coa l Technology' , up t o a tota l amoun t o f $2,500,000,00 0 fo r commercia l demonstratio n o f clea n coa l technology , o r simila r project s funde d throug h appropriation s fo r th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency. "P.2 8

-27

- nonattainmen t NS R provision s o f titl e I o f th e CAA , unles s

i the yar e exclude d a s pollutio n contro l projects
. Th e installation , operation , cessation , o r remova l o f a temporar yCC T demonstratio n projec t tha t i s operate d fo r 5 year s or;les s i s exemp t fro mNSP S an

d bot h PS D an

d nonattainmen t ne wsourc e requirement s [se e CA A415(b)(2)]
. However , th e facilit ystil l mus t compl ywit h th e applicabl e SI P an d othe r requirement s necessaryt o attai n an d maintai n i th e NAAQS . Finally , i n § 415(c) , Congres s provide d a n exemptio n fromNSP S an

d PS D fo r th e reactivatio n o f "ver yclea n units " otherwis e i n complianc e wit h th e CA Atha t ha d bee n shu t dow n fo r a t leas t th e 2 year s prio r t o enactmen t o f th e 199 0 Amendment s an

d that , prio r t o th e shutdown , ha d bee n equippe d wit h pollutio n control s wit h a remova l efficienc y o f a t leas t 8 5 percen t fo r sulfu r dioxid e an d 9 8 percen t fo r particulates , an

d ha d bee n equippe d wit h low-NO xburners
.

III . Discussio n o f Fina l Actio n o n Proposal
. A . Pollutio n Contro l Projects
. 1
. Regulator yChange s fo r Pollutio n Contro l Projects , a . Background
. Th e EPApropose d t o amen d it s PS D an

d nonattainmen t regulation s a s the ypertai n t o utilit ypollutio n contro l project s b

yexercisin g it s authorit yunde r th e statutory definitio n o f "modification " an d confirmin g th e Agency' sP.2 9

! -28

- curren t polic ytha t suc h project s ar e no t subjec t t o NS R unles s the yrende r th e uni t les s environmentall ybeneficial
. Generally , pollutio n contro l project s a t existin g stationary source s ar e no t majo r modification s subjec t t o NS R requirement s fo r th e simpl e reaso n tha t the yd o no t resul t i n a n increas e i n actua l emissions
. I n addition , EP Aha s alway s recognize d tha t Congres s di d no t inten d tha t every activityia 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 NSR. 1 2 Th e EPApropose d t o adop t revision s t o it s PS D an d nonattainmen t regulation s fo r th e addition , replacemen t o r us e a t a n existin g electri c utilit ystea mgeneratin g uni t o f
an ysyste mo r devic e whos e primaryfunctio n i 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 primarypurpos e o f th e switc h i s th e reductio n o f ai r pollutants)
. Unde r th e proposal , a utilit ypollutio n contro l projec t woul d no t b e treate d a s a physica l o r operationa l chang e unles s th e projec t render s th e uni t les s environmentall ybeneficial
. Th e ke yt o thi s additio n t o th e lis t o f exclusion s fro m th e termphysica l o r operationa l chang e i s EPA' s judgmen t tha t Congres s di d no t inten d tha t pollutio n contro l project s

1 2 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 operatio n [se e 4 0 CF R 52.21(b)(2)(iii) , 52.24(f)(5)(iii) , 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(1) , 51.166(b)(2)(iii) , an d 60.14(e)(1)]
.P.3 0

-29

- b e considere d th e typ e o f activit ytha t shoul d trigge r NSR . Th e EPApropose d regulatorylanguag e t o explicat e an d formaliz e it s statutoryauthorit yt o exclud e pollutio n contro l project s unde r th e NS R provisions
. I n 1977 , whe n Congres s enacte d th e NS R provision s o f th e CAA , i t provide d tha t thejterm

"modification " i n NS R shal l hav e th e sam e meanin g a s th e term "modification " unde r NSP S [se e § § 169(2)(c) , 171(4)]
. A t th e time , regulation s promulgate d unde r th e NSP S provision s definin g "modification, " provide d tha t the i term

"modification " doe s no t include : | Th e additio n o r us e o f an ysystemo r i devic e whos e primaryfunctio n i s th e reductio n o f ai r pollutants , excep t whe n a n emission s contro l systemi s remove d o r i s replace d b

ya systemwhic h th e Administrato r determine s t o b e les s environmentall ybeneficial
. [se e 4 0 CF R 60.14(e)(5)]
. I n 1978 , EP Anote d tha t "i n
i addin g § 169(2)(c ) t o th e CAA , Congres s indicate d tha t i t intende d t o conform th e meanin g o f 'modification ' t o 'usag e i n othe r part s o f th e Act ' [se e 12 3 Congr . Rec . H11955 , 1195 7 (Nov
. 1 , 1977) " als o se e 4 3 F R 2639 6 (Jun e 19 , 1978)]
. Thus , jus t a s EPAha d th e statutoryauthorit yt o exclud e pollutio n contro l project s b yregulatio n fromNSPS , th e statutoryauthorit yexist s fo r EPAt o explicat e b y i regulatio n a n exclusio n fo r pollutio n contro l project s from

i part s C lan

d D o f titl e I . ' Thi s exclusio n unde r NS R reflect s th e existin g regulatoryexclusio n fo r pollutio n contro l activitie s unde rP.3 1

| -30

- NSP S regulations , an d severa l recen t case-specifi c nonapplicabilit ydetermination s unde r th e NS R programs . Th e NSP S regulatoryexclusio n contain s th e provis o tha t th e replacemen t o f a pollutio n contro l systemo r devic e canno t b e les s "environmentall ybeneficial " t o qualif yfo r th e exclusio n [se e 4 0 CF R 60.15(e)(5)]
. Wit h respec t t o NSR , th e proposa l adopte d a simila r regulatoryexclusio n fo r pollutio n contro l project s i n th e PS D an d nonattainmen t i i context . Th e majo r differenc e i n th e propose d NS R exclusio n i s tha t i t woul d appl yth e "no t les s environmentally

beneficial " tes t t o th e additio n an d use , a s wel l a s th e replacement , o f a pollutio n contro l system o r device
. Thi s chang e reflect s th e distinc t ai r qualit ycomponen t o f th e PS D an d nonattainmen t programs . B yfocusin g o n whethe r a pollutio n contro l projec t i s a physica l o r operationa l chang e withi n th e meanin g o f th e NS R regulations , th e proposa l avoid s th e nee d t o undertak e a quantitativ e emission s increas e calculatio n i n everycase , a s woul d b e necessar yi f suc h project s wer e deeme d t o b e physica l o r operationa l changes
. Th e EPAexpect s tha t most , i f no t all , pollutio n contro l project s wil l reduc e ne t actua l emissions
. Nevertheless , th e Administrator' s authorit yt o conside r individua l pollutio n contro l project s provide s a n adequat e opportunit yt o determin e tha t a pollutio n contro l projec t woul d someho wresul t i n a n advers e environmenta l impac t an d thu s conclud e tha t th e projec t render s th e uni t les sP.3 2

! -31

- environmentall ybeneficial , an d i s therefor e a physica l o r operationa l chang e tha t mayb e subjec t t o NSR . A s proposed , a pollutio n contro l projec t refer s t o a j projec t undertake n a t a utilit yuni t fo r purpose s o f reducin g emission s fro msuc h unit
. Thes e change s ar e i limite d t o th e installatio n o f conventiona l o r innovativ e emission s contro l equipment , including , bu t no t limite d to , installatio n o f conventiona l an d advance d flu e ga s desulfurization , sorben t injectio n fo r sulfu r dioxid e (SO2 )
1 an d N0 Xcontrols , electrostati c precipitators , an d project s 1 undertake n t o accommodat e switching t o a les s pollutin g

1 fuel , including natura l ga s o r coa l re-burning , co-firin g o f

i natura l ga s an

d othe r fuel s fo r th e purpos e o f controllin g SO 2 an d N0 Xemissions
. i Likewise , 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 n contro l project
. I n som e instances , thi s ma yinvolv e change s t o th e pollutio n generatin g equipmen t (e.g. , boiler) , bu t onl yi f th e change s ar e necessaryt o maintai n th e norma l operatin g capabilit yo f th e uni t a t th e

i tim e o f th e project , wher e th e capabilit ywoul d otherwis e b e

i impaired ^ a s a resul t o f th e fue l switch
. Fo r example , a n electri c utilit ystea mgeneratin g uni t tha t switche s froma highe r sulfu r bituminou s coa l t o a low-sulfu r subbituminou s coa l may ' nee d t o mak e certai n change s t o th e boile r i n orde r t o avoid ! deratin g th e unit
.P.3 3

| -32

- i Change s tha t ar e intende d primaril yt o restor e origina l capacity)o r t o improv e th e operationa l efficienc yo f th e facility'ar e no t considere d t o b e par t o f a pollutio n contro l projec t fo r purpose s o f today' s rule
. Also , th e
i sourc e stil l mus t compl ywit h al l applicabl e SI P limit s an d requirements , permi t condition s an d applicabl e NAAQ S o r PS D j incremen t limits
.

j A s proposed , thi s pollutio n contro l projec t exclusio n di d no t extend t o sourc e categorie s othe r tha n electri c utilit ystea

m generatin g units
. Th e EPAs o limite d thi s provisio n because , i n contras t wit h a genera l lac k o f experienc e wit h othe r industries , EPAha s extensiv e experienc e i n addressin g ne wsourc e applicabilit yissue s 

# I regardin g pollutio n contro l project s i n th e utilit y

I industry;
. Tha t experienc e led EPAt o conclud e tha t

i i pollutio n contro l project s i n th e utilit yindustryar e
i generall yenvironmentall ybeneficial
.

i A s note d above , generall ypollutio n contro l project s a t existing ! stationarysource s ar e no t majo r modification s subjec t t o NS R becaus e the yd o no t usuall yresul t i n a n



### I increase , i n actua l emissions , an d EPAbelieve s that , i n general , i pollutio n contro l project s wer e no t intende d b y Congress ! t o b e considere d physica l o r operationa l change s fo r purpose s o f NSR . The ' EPAapplie s it s PS D regulation s i n harmon ywit h it s NSP S regulations , whic h exclud e mos t pollutio n contro lP.3 4

j -33

- project s [se e 4 0 CF R 60.14(e)(5)]
. I n 1977 , Congres s incorporate d th e NSP S definitio n o f modificatio n int o th e PS D an d nonattainmen t statute s [se e CA A§ § 111(a)(4) , 

### i 169(a)(c) , 171(4)]
. I n addition , th e legislativ e histor y reflects!that , a s a genera l matter , Congres s intende d t o conformth e meanin g o f "modification " fo r PS D purpose s t o 

## i th e usag e unde r th e NSP S progra m [se e 12 3 Cong . Rec . HI195 7 (Novembe r 1 , 1977)]
. Th e EP Areiterate d thi s vie wi n 197 8

i (se e 4 3 F R 26396 , Jun e 19 , 1978)
. Subsequently , EPA 

### i interprete d it s NS R regulation s t o incorporat e th e NSP S pollutio n contro l projec t exclusion. 1 3 Th e EPAlate r voice d concer n abou t incorporatin g th e precis e NSP S pollutio n contro l languag e i n th e NS R contex t absen t
i i explicatio n through notice-and-commen t rulemakin g largel y



### i becaus e o f th e ambien t ai r qualit ycomponen t o f NS R tha t i s absen t fromth e NSP S program. 1 4 I n recen t year s however ,

i EP Aha s consistentl yexclude d pollutio n contro l project s fromNSR|provide d tha t th e propose d projec t woul d b e environmentall ybeneficial , takin g int o accoun t ambien t ai r

1 3 Memorandu

mfro mEdwar d Reich , Director , Stationary Sourc e complianc e Divisio n an d Willia

mF . Pedersen , Actin g Associat e Genera l Counsel , Air , Noise , an d Radiatio n Divisio n t o Ally

n M . Davis , Regio n I V (Apri l 21 , 1983)
. 1 4 Se e Memorandu

mfro mGeral d A . Emison , Director , OAQPS , t o Regiona l Divisio n Director s (Jul y7 , 1986)
.P.3 5

-34

- quality. 1 5 I n ligh t o f th e titl e I V requirement s an

d othe r provision s o f th e 199 0 Amendments , EPAconfirm s tha t i t wil l 

# I continu e t o conside r th e overal l environmenta l consequence s

i o f pollutio n contro l project s fo r NS R applicability
. B yit s i nature , j a determinatio n o f whethe r o r no t a projec t render s

i a uni t les s environmentall ybeneficia l involve s case-by-^cas e assessmen t o f it s ne t emission s an d overal l impac t o n th e environment
. I n makin g suc h assessments , EPAmus t conside r th e overal l emission s befor e an d afte r th e project , a s wel l
a s an yothe r relevan t environmenta l factors
. A s a result , n o singl e facto r ca n b e identifie d i n advanc e fo r purpose s o f makin g thi s determination
. b
. Comment s Generall yFavoring th e EPAProposal
. I n general , comment s fro mindustrysupporte d th e
t proposa l t o exclud e pollutio n contro l projects
. Commenter s supportin g th e provisio n note d tha t th e exclusio n i s consisten t wit h th e CA Aan d EPA' s earlie r determination s regardin g suc h projects
. Indeed , severa l commenter s

i expresse d th e vie wtha t n o chang e i n EPA' s rule s wa s necessary . On e commente r note d tha t Congres s indicate d it s inten t no t t o appl yNSP S o r NS R requirement s t o pollutio n

1 5 Se e Letter , WilliamG . Rosenber g Assistan t Administrator , EPA , t o Andre wAitken , Vic e President , Ne w England ! Powe r Servic e Co. , Marc h 26 , 1991 ; Letter , Rosenber g t o Patric k M . McCarter ( Senio r Vic e President , Publi c Service ! Co . o f Colorado , Jul y23 , 1990 ; Letters , Davi d Kee , Director , Ai r an

d Radiatio n Division , EPARegio n V , t o Timothy ! J . Method , Assistan t Commissioner , Indian a Dept . o f Environmenta l Management , January30 , 199 0 an d Marc h 8 , 1990
. |P.3 6

j -35

- contro l project s b

yadopting th e NS R definitio n o f "modification. " Anothe r commente r pointe d ou t tha t becaus e o f th e numbe r o f project s tha t wil l shortl yb e spawne d b yth e aci d rai n provision s o f th e CAA , i f permittin g wer e require d fo r everyutilit yoperato r tha t plan s a fue l switc h o r th e

i installatio n o f pollutio n contro l equipment , EPAwoul d b e overwhelme d wit h applications
. Thi s coul d affec t th e reliabilit yo f th e electri c utilit yindustryan d delay complianc e wit h titl e IV . On e commente r note d tha t a utilit yshoul d no t b e prevente d fromqualifyin g fo r th e pollutio n contro l exclusio n i f tha t utilit ytake s step s t o restor e diminishe d capacit yo f a powe r plan t a t th e sam e tim e tha t th e utilit yundertake s a pollutio n contro l projec t
suc h a s repowering
. Severa l commenter s supporte d flexibilit yfo r utilitie s o n strategie s fo r SO 2 control
. Tw o commenter s note d tha t i f th e nationa l SO 2 emission s cap i s maintained , plan t modification s tha t mayincreas e SO 2 emission s a t on e uni t 

## i shoul d no t trigge r NS R o r NSP S requirements
. Anothe r commente r suggeste d tha t i n ligh t o f th e SO 2 emission s caps , utilitie s shoul d b e permitte d t o undertak e pollutio n contro l project s o r mak e nonroutin e changes , eve n thoug h suc h change s increas e SO 2 emissions , withou t bein g force d t o instal l technology(such a s scrubbers ) t o contro l S0 2 .P.3 7

-36

- c. , Comment s Generall yOpposin g th e EPAProposal
. Commenter s oppose d t o th e exclusio n o f pollutio n contro l project s fromNS R provision s dispute d EPA' s authorit yt o creat e suc h "exemptions " an d disagree d tha t Congres s intende d t o exclud e pollutio n contro l project s fro m NSR . On e commente r state d tha t th e pollutio n contro l projec t exclusio n i s illega l an d conflict s wit h § 182(e)(2 )
o f th e CAA , notin g tha t whil e § 182(e)(2 ) provide s limite d NS R relie f fo r some pollutio n contro l projects , i t i s no t a blanke t "exemption " fro mNSR , becaus e th e requiremen t t o achiev e th e lowes t achievabl e emissio n rat e (LAER ) remain s effective , whic h demonstrate s congressiona l inten t t o preven t |EP

Afro mgrantin g broade r exclusions
. Opponent s t o th e exclusio n fo r pollutio n contro l project s als o pointe d ou t tha t effort s b yutilitie s t o reduc e on e pollutan t ca n ofte n increas e emission s o f another
. Suc h efforts , a s wel l a s project s tha t reduc e pollutio n i n on e are a bu t increas e i t i n another , shoul d no t b e "exempted " fromNS R o r PS D provisions
. Severa l commenter s provide d example s o f ho winstallatio n o f pollutio n contro l equipmen t o r fue l switchin g aime d a t reductio n o f SO 2 als o ha d th e effec t o f increasin g emission s o f N0 Xan

d particulat e matter , an d ho winstallatio n o f low

N0 Xburner s increase d VO C emissions
. Som e opponent s t o th e exclusio n fo r pollutio n contro l project s sai d tha t th e definitio n o f pollutio n contro lP.3 8

-37

- projec t i s overl ybroad , an d tha t EP Alack s authorit yt o appl ysuc h a broa d definition
. d
. Comment s Suggestin g Revision s t o th e Proposal
. Severa l commenters , bot h fo r an d agains t th e exclusion , suggeste d specifi c regulator ychange s t o th e pollutio n contro l exclusion
. Fo r instance , numerou s commenter s requeste d a clarificatio n o f th e environmentall ybeneficia l test . I n addition , th e followin g suggestion s wer e mad e wit h regar d to ! th e definitio n o f "pollutio n contro l project" : (1 ) ! includ e anyupgrad e o f th e pollutio n contro l efficiencie s o f existin g devices ; (2 ) i includ e "pollutio n prevention " change s suc h ,as-'
- lea k detectio n an d repai r program s an d th e attendan t sit e changes ; (3 ) clarif ytha t th e pollutio n contro l projec t nee d
no t b e a permanen t change ; (4 ) includ e boile r alteration s involvin g natura l ga s cofiring , reburn , o r rebur n wit h sorben t injectio n eve n thoug h ther e ar e benefit s othe r tha n pollutio n control ; an d (5 ) includ e impact s o n othe r Clas s I are a ai r qualit y i relate d value s a s wel l a s visibilit yi n determinin g whethe r

i a projec t tha t woul d increas e emission s i s nevertheles s environmentall ybeneficial
.

i e . JTh e EP AAnalysis
. Base d o n a revie wo f th e comments , EP Aha s determine d t o adop t a forma l pollutio n contro l projec t exclusio n fo rP.3 9

j -38

- electri c utilit ystea mgeneratin g units
. Thu s EPAi s today adoptin g revision s t o it s PS D an d nonattainmen t regulation s ! : fo r th e addition , replacemen t o r us e a t a n existin g electri c utilit ystea

m generatin g uni t o f an ysystemo r devic e whos e primary.functio

n i 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 primarypurpos e o f th e switc h i s th e reductio n o f ai r pollutants)
. Unde r th e regulation s a s adopte d today , a utilit yundertakin g a projec t qualifyin g fo r th e pollutio n contro l projec t exclusio n wil l no t b e subjec t t o NS R unde r

l eithe r PS D o r nonattainment
. I n th e propose d rule , EP Adi d no t provid e an yspecifi c j definitio n o f th e environmentall ybeneficia l standard
.

! Numerou s commenter s note d th e lac k o f a specifi c standar d 

## i fo r th e environmentall ybeneficia l tes t an d requeste d tha t EPAprovid e a definitio n fo r thi s ne wter man d guidanc e a s t o ho wi;t wil l b e applied
. O f course , a s note d above , pollutio n contro l project s a t existin g stationarysource s ar e generall yno t subjec t t o NS R requirement s fo r th e simpl e reaso n tha t the yd o no t usuall yresul t i n a n increas e i n

I actua l emissions
. I n addition , a s als o note d above , EPAha s determine d tha t Congres s di d no t inten d tha t pollutio n contro l project s b e considere d th e typ e o f activit ytha t shoul d trigge r NSR .



### i O n th e othe r hand , severa l commenter s pointe d ou t tha t
a projec t tha t reduce s on e pollutan t shoul d no t b e allowe dP.4 0

-39

- i t o increas e emission s o f anothe r pollutan t i f tha t increas e wil l caus e o r exacerbat e a differen t pollutio n problem
. Mor e specifically , a n environmenta l commente r suggeste d tha t EPAha d endorse d a t th e Congressiona l hearin g a vie wtha t increase s woul d no t b e allowe d i n nonattainmen t area s absen t
a "compellin g showing. " First , a s discussed , nothing i n today' s actio n authorize s an

yemission s increas e tha t woul d caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f th e NAAQS , PS D incremen t o r 

### i visibilit ylimitation. 1 6 Second , th e propose d an d fina l rul e provid e a n appropriat e wayo f enablin g utilitie s t o

i undertak e pollutio n contro l project s i n a n expeditiou s manne r whil e protectin g ai r quality
. Althoug h a pollutio n

i contro l projec t coul d theoreticall ycaus e a smal l collatera l

i increase ) i n som e emissions , i t wil l substantiall yreduc e i emission s o f othe r pollutants
. I n recognitio n o f this , th e rul e provide s fo r a case-by-cas e assessmen t o f th e pollutio n 

### i contro l project' s ne t emission s an d overal l impac t o n th e i environment
. Third , a s discusse d i n th e followin g section ,

1 6 Th e NS R regulation s defin e a "majo r modification " subjec t t o revie wa s an yphysica l o r operationa l chang e a t a majo r stationarysourc e tha t woul d resul t i n a "significan t ne t emission s increase " i n an yregulate d pollutan t [se e e.g. , 51.166(a)(1)(v)(A)]
. I n nonattainmen t area s "significant, " i n referenc e t o a ne t emission s increase , i s define d a s a rat e o f emission s tha t woul d equa l o r excee d a specifie d amount . Fo r example , unde r th e curren t regulation s a rat e o f 4 0 tpyo r mor e i s "significant " fo r SO2
. Thi s doe s no t addres s th e questio n o f whethe r a significan t increas e i n emission s wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f th e NAAQS , PS D incremen t o r visibilit y limitation
.P.4 1

-40

- th e permittin g authorit yca n requir e additiona l modelin g unde r certai n circumstance s t o evaluat e th e ai r qualit y

i impac t o f a pollutio n contro l project , thereb yhelpin g t o assur e protectio n o f ai r quality
. Th e EPAconsider s thes e safeguard s t o b e adequat e t o addres s ai r qualit yconcern s i n bot h attainmen t an d nonattainmen t areas . Severa l commenter s challenge d th e nee d fo r a regulatory exclusion , noting tha t EPAhad alread yexclude d numerou s i individua l pollutio n contro l project s pursuan t t o it s existin g regulatoryauthority
. However , whil e EPAha s i n

i fac t mad e case-by-cas e determination s excludin g pollutio n

i contro l project s fro mNSR , i t ha s neve r provide d a i comprehensiv e statemen t o f it s polic yi n thi s regar d no r formall yinclude d thi s exclusio n i n it s NS R regulation s governin g SIP' s o r it s ow n NS R regulations
. Becaus e o f th e l enormous:surg e i n project s tha t utilitie s ca n b e expecte d t o undertak e i n respons e t o th e aci d rai n provisions , EPA 

### ' i believe s tha t a forma l rulemakin g spellin g ou t th e exac t

i parameter s o f th e exclusio n i s necessary . A t leas t on e commente r cautione d EP Aagains t requirin g source s t o submi t "applications " t o secur e th e pollutio n contro l projec t exclusion , les t source s fac e excessiv e paperwor k burden s an d length

ydelay s everytim e the ychang e thei r pollutio n contro l equipment
. Unde r today' s rule , an d ! consisten t wit h th e othe r NS R applicabilit ydecisions , 

### i source s remai n responsibl e i n th e firs t instanc e fo r

iP.4 2

! -41

- determinin g wha t permittin g requirement s appl yt o thei r activities
. Beyond issuing an yconstructio n o r operatin g permit s tha t mayb e needed , th e permittin g authorit yi s no t necessaril yinvolve d unles s a sourc e seek s a determinatio n o f NS R applicabilit yo n it s ow n o r a modelin g analysi s i s required
.

i Severa l commenter s requeste d tha t thi s exclusio n b e extende d it

o nonroutin e repair s tha t ar e undertake n b yth e utilit yi n conjunctio n wit h th e pollutio n contro l project
.

i However , titl e IV' s overal l nationa l SO 2 ceilin g an d emissio n tradin g progra md o no t allo wEPAt o simpl yignor e th e loca l ai r qualit yimpac t o f SO 2 increase s a t individua l titl e IV-covere d facilities
. Th e nationa l emission s cap s establishe d b

ytitl e I V

ar e no t designe d t o protec t plant

specifi c consideration s o f loca l ai r quality , th e focu s o f titl e I' s NS R requirements
. Thi s argumen t i s als o refute d

1 b yth e pljai

n languag e o f titl e I V whic h b

yit s term s doe s no t supersed e titl e I [se e § § 403(f ) an d (g) , 413]
. Severa l opponent s o f th e exclusio n poin t ou t tha t certai n pollutio n contro l technologie s ca n actuall yincreas e emissions ! o f othe r pollutant s an d tha t th e installatio n o f a pollutio n contro l projec t mayresul t i n increase d utilizatio n o f th e unit , an d thereb

yresul t i n a n increas e i n actual ! emissions
. A s note d above , EPAexpect s tha t pollutio n contro l project s wil l decreas e actua l emissions
. Moreover, ! eve n thoug h emission s increase s ar e possibl e i nP.4 3

! -42

- som e cases , EPAi s no t preclude d fro m creatin g thi s exclusion
. Th e mer e fac t o f a n emission s increase , standin g alone , doe s no t rende r th e exclusio n inconsisten t wit h th e CAA . Fqr instance , EPAregulation s hav e long exclude d emission s increase s associate d wit h routin e maintenanc e

i repair s an

d replacement , a s wel l a s increase s i n th e operation s o f a uni t i n respons e t o fluctuation s i n th e marke t [jsee , e.g. , 4 0 CF R 52.21(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (a ) , (f)]
. Give n th e modelin g safeguar d an d th e overal l benefi t t o th e environmen t o f pollutio n contro l project s a s wel l a s th e relevan t statutoryprovisions , EP Ai s confiden t tha t th e regulator yclarificatio n o f thi s exclusio n i s a lawfu l an d appropriat e exercis e o f it s powers . I t wa s als o suggeste d tha t th e pollutio n contro l projec t exclusio n i s inconsisten t wit h § 182(e)(2 ) o f th e CAA . Sectio n 182(e)(2 ) provide s tha t i n extrem e ozon e nonattainmen t area s (th e Lo s Angele s are a i s th e onl yone) , an yphysica l o r operationa l chang e "whic h result s i n an y increase ! i n emissions " wil l b e considere d a modification
. Th e sourc e ca n avoi d th e offse t requirement s (bu t no t th e res t o f NSR ) b

yinternall yoffsettin g (i.e. , netting ) an y increase:i n emission s a t a rati o o f a t leas t 1. 3 t o 1
. Th e

• j provisio n als o provide s tha t th e extrem e are a offse t provision s (bu t agai n no t th e res t o f NSR ) d o no t appl yt o th e installatio n o f equipmen t require d t o compl ywit h "th e applicabl e implementatio n plan , permit , o r thi s Act. "P.4 4

-43

- Th e EPAdoe s no t agre e tha t thi s nonattainmen t provision , whic h applie s t o onl yon e area , someho wpreclude s EPAfromadoptin g a n exclusio n t o it s genera l NS R rule s regardin g pollutio n contro l projects
. Whil e ther e mayb e som e overlap (i.e. , utilit ycomplianc e project s undertake n i n th e Lo s Angele s are a tha t qualif yunde r thi s rul e a s pollutio n contro l projects) , i n genera l th e tw o provision s ar e quit e different
. Today' s rul e i s limite d t o utilitie s bu t applie s t o al l area s o f th e country , whil e § 182(e)(2 ) applie s t o al l sourc e categorie s bu t onl yt o th e Lo s Angele s area . Sectio n 182(e)(2 ) als o appear s t o appl yt o a broade r categoryo f changes
. Ther e i s n o evidenc e tha t Congress, , intende d thi s limite d provisio n t o preemp t EPAfro madoptin g a broa d pollutio n contro l projec t exclusion
. O n th e othe r hand , th e CA

Aconferee s di d specificall ydirec t EPAt o fin d
a n administrativ e resolutio n o f th e WEPC O issue s (se e Conferenc e Comm. , Join t ExplanatoryStatemen t o f th e Committe e o f th e Conferenc e t o Accompan yS . 16 3 0
. Rep . 101-951 , 101s t Cong . 2n d Sess . (1990 ) pp . 344-45)
. Fo r thes e reasons , EPAdoe s no t believ e tha t § 182(e ) directl y o r indirectl ylimit s EPA' s authorit yhere
. 2
. Additiona l Modelin g Requirements
. a . * Background
. Apropose d pollutio n contro l projec t o r physica l o r operationa l chang e canno t resul t i n a n emission s increas e tha t wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f a NAAQS , PS DP.4 5

-44

- increment , o r visibilit ylimitatio n [se e CA A § § 110(a)(2)(c) , 165 , 169A(b) , 173]
. Th e pollutio n contro l projects j exclusio n doe s no t authoriz e an ysignifican t ne t increas e i n emission s tha t woul d hav e thi s proscribe d impact
. I t i s possibl e tha t a pollutio n contro l project , whil e no t causin g an yincreas e i n maximu mhourl yemissions , wil l caus e a significan t ne t increas e i n actua l emissions , whic h i n tur n coul d caus e o r contribut e t o th e violatio n o f
a NAAQS , incremen t o r visibilit ylimitation
. Fo r thi s reason , a s proposed , th e reviewin g authorit ymayrequir e a sourc e t o performa n ai r qualit yimpac t analysi s (modeling ) wheneve r 1 ) i t ha s reaso n t o believ e tha t a propose d chang e wil l resul t i n a significan t ne t increas e i n actua l emission s o f an

ycriteri a pollutan t ove r level s use d fo r tha t sourc e i n th e mos t recen t ai r qualit yimpac t analysi s an d 2 ) i t ha s reaso n t o believ e tha t suc h a n increas e woul d
caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f a NAAQS , incremen t o r visibilit ylimitation
. I f thi s modelin g indicate s tha t thi s increas e i n emission s wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f an

yambien t standard , PS D incremen t o r visibilit ylimitation , th e pollutio n contro l exclusio n doe s

i no t apply
. b
. Comment s o n th e EP AProposal
. Man ycommenter s viewe d th e modelin g requiremen t a s ensuringitha t th e pollutio n contro l projec t exclusio n wil l
no t hav e a n advers e impac t o n loca l ai r qualit ybecaus eP.4 6

j -45

- i source s mus t stil l compl ywit h al l applicabl e emissio n 

## i limit s necessaryt o protec t NAAQS , PS D increments , an d

. ,... L visibility . However , severa l commenter s expresse d concer n ove r th e adequac yo f EPA' s ai r qualit yimpac t analysi s requiremen t a s a safeguar d du e t o th e methodologypropose d t o calculat e actua l emissions
. Specifically , a n environmenta l group pointe d pu t tha t using increase s i n "representativ e actua l
annua l emissions " a s th e tes t fo r determinin g whethe r a pollutio n contro l projec t result s i n unacceptabl e impact s o n ai r qualit yca n exclud e rea l emission s increase s (e.g. , du e

: t o demand growth) , an d thu s fail s t o accoun t fo r th e ful l impac t o t th e project
. Thi s commente r asserte d tha t

i increase s i n "actua l emissions " shoul d b e th e ke yt o us e o f th e pollutio n contro l projec t exclusion
. Som e commenter s als o objecte d du e t o th e fac t tha t th e

i proposal ! relie s o n Stat e an d loca l agencie s t o b e awar e o f th e projec t an

d reques t th e analysis
. On e commente r adde d tha t i t i s unclea r ho wa violatio n o f th e NAAQ S ca n b e avoide d befor e th e fac t an d ho wth e permittin g agenc ycoul d requir e ia

n ai r qualit yanalysi s i f th e pollutio n contro l projec t i s no t subjec t t o NSR .

! Finally , a governmen t agenc yquestione d wh yth e safeguar d provisio n protecte d "visibilit ylimitations " whe n th e PS D program

i s designe d t o protec t al l "ai r qualit y relate d values' ' i n Clas s I areas . A n environmenta l grou pP.4 7

j

• j -46 - commente d tha t th e propose d rul e doe s no t provid e fo r



### . . i notificatio n t o Federa l Lan d Manager s s o tha t the yca n fulfil l jtheir responsibilitie s t o protec t Clas s I areas . c . iTh e EP

AAnalysis
. Afte r carefu l revie wo f th e proposa l an d th e comments , i EP Aha s determine d t o promulgat e th e modelin g provisio n a s j proposed!
. Th e EPAdoe s no t believ e th e objection s t o thi s provisio n t o b e well-founded
. Althoug h th e proposa l doe s no t explicitl yrequir e source s t o infor m th e permittin g authorit yo f pollutio n contro l projects , EPAanticipate s tha t i n most , i f no t all , circumstance s involving pollutio n contro l projects , permittin g authoritie s wil l b e awar e o f

i th e source' s intentions
. Fo r instance , Stat e permittin g requirement s mayrequir e th e sourc e t o bring th e projec t t o th e permittin g authorit yo r th e sourc e maywis h t o d o s o t o



### i secur e emissio n reductio n credit s fo r pollutant s tha t will
. b e decreased
. I n addition , mos t project s a t utilitie s ar e typicall ysubjec t t o publi c scrutin yi n a variet yo f forum s a s a resul t o f filing s mad e wit h Publi c Utilit yCommission s an d othe r local , Stat e o r Federa l agencies
. Consequently , i t i s unlikel ytha t a utilit ycoul d procee d wit h a pollutio n contro l projec t withou t some typ e o f revie wregardin g CA Ao r othe r requirements
. Thi s will"b e especiall ytru e o f pollutio n contro l project s undertake n fo r th e purpos e o f complianc e wit h titl e IV .P.4 8

-47

- Th e EPAdisagree s wit h th e environmenta l grou p commen t tha t i t i s inappropriat e t o hing e us e o f th e pollutio n contro l projec t exclusio n o n increase s i n "representativ e actua l annua l emissions " rathe r tha n increase s i n "actua l emissions. " Nothin g i n today' s rule s woul d authoriz e pollutio n contro l project s tha t resul t i n a violatio n o f a NAAQS , PS D incremen t o r visibilit ylimitation
. Th e commente r i s correc t tha t th e rul e a s propose d woul d i n certai n circumstance s no t subjec t t o revie wsignifican t increase s i n actua l emission s fro ma sourc e tha t follo w completio n o f th e pollutio n contro l project
. However , th e rul e i s clea r tha t thi s coul d occu r onl ywher e th e increas e i n questio n i n fac t doe s no t resul t fro mth e pollutio n contro l project , bu t rathe r fro ma n independen t facto r suc h
a s demand growth
. A s discusse d above , i t i s no t th e purpos e o f th e NS R programt o subjec t al l emission s increase s t o permittin g requirements , onl yincrease s tha t resul t froma nonroutin e chang e a t a n existin g plant
. Th e Stat e ma y alway s revis e it s SI P t o correc t NAAQ S violation s tha t i t

i conclude s ar e cause d b yincrease d utilizatio n bu t d o no t resul t froma pollutio n contro l projec t a t tha t plant
. Th e governmen t agenc ycommente r i s correc t tha t PS D permittin g requirement s ar e intende d t o preven t a majo r ne w sourc e o r majo r modificatio n fro mcausin g a n advers e impac t
o n ai r qualit yrelate d value s i n Clas s I areas . However , th e agenc yighore s th e fac t that , i n general , existin gP.4 9

-48

- facilitie s tha t hav e no t bee n modifie d ar e no t subjec t t o ambien t requirement s relate d t o ai r qualit yrelate d values
. Th e EPAbelieve s tha t today' s rul e wil l allo wreviewin g authoritie s sufficien t flexibilit yt o protect , t o th e exten t require d unde r existin g law , Clas s I area s fro m possibl e advers e impact s fro mpollutio n contro l projects
. Moreover , a s note d above , pollutio n contro l project s reduc e emission s o f targete d pollutants
. Whil e emission s o f othe r pollutant s coul d i n theoryincreas e i n a fe wcases , EPAdoe s no t expec t thi s t o resul t i n significan t impact s o n Clas s I areas . Wher e prospectiv e project s mayb e caus e fo r concern , permittin g agencie s hav e th e authorit yt o requir e modelin g t o preven t incremen t o r visibilit yviolations , an d likewis e ma ysolici t th e view s o f other s i n takin g an yothe r appropriat e remedia l step s deeme d necessaryt o protec t Clas s I areas . I n decidin g t o adop t th e rul e a s proposed , EPAemphasize s tha t al l environmenta l impacts , includin g

i thos e o n Clas s I areas , ca n b e considere d i n evaluatin g whethe r a utilit yuni t i s "les s environmentall ybeneficial " afte r control s tha n i t wa s befor e controls
. Accordingly , th e fina l rul e allow s consideratio n o f al l environmenta l impact s —beneficia l an d advers e —i n makin g a determination
.

B . Representativ e Actua l Annua l Emissions
.
^ 4iU

- Background
.



### •sP.5 0

-49

- i The | EPApropose d t o clarif yit s methodologyfo r calculatin g emission s increase s a t electri c utilit ystea m generatin g source s tha t ha d begun norma l operations
. Th e

i EPApropose d t o compar e actua l emission s befor e an d afte r change s fo r al l physica l o r operationa l change s a t a n 

### I existin g electri c utilit ystea mgeneratin g uni t othe r tha n i th e additio n o f a ne wuni t o r th e replacemen t o f a n existin g

i unit
. Th e EPApropose d t o conside r a uni t t o b e replace d i f i t would j constitut e a reconstructe d uni t withi n th e meanin g o f 4 0 CF R 60.15
. Sinc e ther e i s n o relevan t operatin g historyfo r wholl yne wunit s an d replace d units , i t i s no t possibl e t o reasonabl yprojec t post-chang e utilizatio n -to r

i thes e units , an

d hence , thei r futur e leve l o f "representativ e annua l actua l emissions. " Fo r othe r changes , jpas t operatin g history , an d othe r relevan t information , provide s a basi s fo r reasonabl e projections
. A s proposed , th e "representativ e actua l annua l emissions " methodologyrequire s th e utilit yt o compar e it s

i
. . baselin e I emission s wit h it s futur e actua l emission s t o i determin e i f th e propose d chang e wil l increas e actua l emissions
. Th e EPA' s existin g regulation s defin e baselin e emission s a s "th e averag e rate , i n tpy , a t whic h th e uni t actuall yemitte d th e pollutan t durin g a 2-yea r perio d whic h precede s th e particula r dat e an d whic h i s representativ e o f 

### i norma l sourc e operation " (see , e.g. , 4 0 CF R 52.21)
. Th e Administrato r "shall " allo wus e o f a differen t tim« i perio dP.5 1

-50

- "upo n a determinatio n tha t i t i s mor e representativ e o f
norma l sourc e operation. " Id
. Althoug h no t require d b yth e regulations , EPAha s historicall yuse d th e 2 year s immediatel yprecedin g th e propose d chang e t o establis h th e baseline ' [se e 4 5 FR 52676 , 52705 , 5271 8 (1980)]
. However , i n som e case s i t ha s allowe d th e us e o f earlie r periods
. Fo r example , i n WEPCO . EP Afoun d th e fourt h an

d fift h year s prio r toi th e modificatio n mor e representativ e o f WEPCO' s norma l operation s sinc e th e source' s capacit ywa s reduce d du e t o physica l problems
. Th e EPApropose d t o retai n thi s regulator ylanguage , bu t t o adop t a ne wpresumptio n

i regardin g it s implementation
.

i Unde r th e propose d action , th e Administrato r woul d presum e tha t an

y2 consecutiv e year s withi n th e 5 year s prio r t o th e propose d chang e i s representativ e o f
norma l sourc e operation s fo r a utility
. Thi s

i presumptio n i s consisten t wit h th e 5-yea r perio d fo r

i "contemporaneous " emission s increase s an d decrease s i n 4 0 CF R 52.21(b ) (3 ) (i ) (b). 1 7 Sourc e owner s o r operator s desirin g jt

o us e othe r tha n a 2-yea r perio d o r a baselin e perio d prio r t o th e las t 5 year s maysee k th e

1 7 Thi s presumptio n doe s no t appl yt o pas t modification s a t a n emission s uni t fo r th e purpos e o f determinin g contemporaneou s emissio n change s a t a sourc e an d canno t b e use d t o extend th e 5 yea r perio d specifie d i n tha t provisio n [se e 4 0 CF R 52.21(b)(3)(1)(b)]
.P.5 2

-51

- Administrator' s specifi c determinatio n tha t suc h perio d i s mor e representativ e o f norma l operations. 1 8 Th e futur e actua l projectio n i s th e produc t of : (1 ) th e hourl yemission s rate , whic h i s base d o n th e unit' s physica l
an d operationa l capabilitie s following th e chang e an d federally-enforceabl e operationa l restriction s tha t woul d affec t th e hourl yemission s rat e following thi s change ; an d (2 ) projecte d capacit yutilization , whic h i s base d o n (a ) th e unit' s historica l annua l utilization , an d (b ) al l availabl e informatio n regarding th e unit' s likel ypost
chang e capacit yutilization. 1 9 Th e projectio n o f post
chang e capacit yutilizatio n fo r applicabilit ypurpose s shoul d b e base d o n a projectio n o f utilizatio n fo r a perio d afte r th e physica l o r operationa l change
. Specifically , EPA propose d t o allo wsource s t o bas e th e projectio n o f utilizatio n o n th e 2 year s afte r th e change , o r a differen t

1 8 Th e leve l o f baselin e emission s selecte d mus t b e consisten t wit h curren t assumption s regardin g th e source' s emission s tha t ar e use d unde r th e SI P fo r plannin g o r permittin g purposes . Thus , th e sourc e mayno t selec t a leve l o f baselin e emission s highe r tha n tha t use d b yth e permittin g authorit yi n issuing a PS D o r othe r constructio n permi t t o a sourc e i n th e area , i f suc h highe r leve l woul d resul t i n a NAAQ S o r incremen t violation , o r violat e a visibilit ylimitation
.

1 9 I n projectin g futur e utilizatio n an d emission s • factors , th e permittin g authorit ymayconside r th e company' s historica l operationa l data , it s ow n representations , filing s wit h Federal , Stat e o r loca l regulatoryauthorities , an d complianc e plan s develope d unde r titl e I V o f th e 199 0 Amendments
. .P.5 3

-52

- consecutiv e 2-yea r perio d withi n th e 1 0 year s afte r th e change , wher e th e Administrato r determine s tha t suc h perio d i s mor e representativ e o f norma l sourc e operations
.

^ t ^ , Comment s Generall yFavorin g th e EP AProposal
. 3 i # Severa l commenter s favore d th e expansio n o f th e tim e perio d fo r establishin g th e pre-chang e emission s baseline
. Suggestion s included : (1 ) allo wth e us e o f any2 consecutiv e year s withi n th e las t 5 year s o f operatio n t o allo wfo r a mor e representativ e baselin e fo r unit s tha t hav e bee n shu t down ; (2 ) allo wutilitie s t o reques t t o us e period s o f representativ e hig h utilizatio n outsid e th e 5 yea r tim e period ; (3 ) ad d th e "any2 ou t o f th e prio r 5 yea r baselin e period " discusse d i n th e preambl e t o 4 0 CF R part s 51 , 52 , an d 60 ; j (4 ) allo wutilitie s t o us e th e maximu mutilizatio n i n
an y1 yea r withi n a t leas t th e las t 1 0 years , sinc e 1 0 year s i s a mor e relevan t capacit yinvestmen t plannin g horizo n tha n 5 years ; I (5 ) clarif ytha t th e sourc e wil l b e abl e t o selec t th e relevant ! 2-yea r perio d with.approva l o f th e reviewin g authorit yrequire d onl ywhe n th e pre-chang e baselin e i s outsid e b f th e 5-yea r perio d proceedin g th e change ; (6 ) expan d th e baselin e calculatio n perio d fro m 5 year s t o 1 0 year s t o b e consisten t wit h th e after-chang eP.5 4

-53

- calculatio n perio d an d t o addres s a mor e representativ e tim e period ; 

### i (7 ) i allo wth e us e o f an y2 year s (rathe r tha n 

## i consecutiv e years ) du e t o lon g reserv e shutdown s an d becaus e maintenanc e plannin g require s tha t utilit yboiler s b e operate d i n "abnormal " condition s fo r lon g durations ; an d (8 ) requir e source s t o bac k u p th e choic e o f whic h 2 year s t o us e wit h a short-ter mstandar d usin g a n hourl y rate , us e th e sam e 2-yea r perio d fo r determinin g th e shor t ter m an d annua l rates , an d codif yth e 2 year s use d fo r th e limit
. Severa l comment s tha t recommende d expandin g th e proposa l t o includ e industria l source s i n th e NS R exemption ! als o note d tha t a "5-yea r window " i s no t satisfactor yfo r industria l source s whic h d o no t alway s hav e representativ e period s p f emission s immediatel ybefor e a physica l change
.

i On e industria l commente r suggeste d th e us e o f any2-yea r perio d b e allowed
. Commenter s i n favo r o f th e futur e actua l emission s calculatio n metho d note d tha t i t wil l alleviat e uncertaint y fo r nonroutin e repair , replacement , an d maintenanc e project s 

# I whil e stil l protectin g loca l ai r quality ; th e future-actua l metho d reduce s speculatio n an d allow s mor e relianc e o n factua l data ; an d th e actual-to-future'-actua l emission s compariso n i s mor e appropriat e t o loo k a t th e operatin g histor yan d projecte d capacit yo f a n existin g uni t t oP.5 5

-54

- determin e whethe r a chang e wil l increas e emissions
. On e commente r state d tha t th e actual-to-potentia l metho d discourage d environmentall ybeneficia l modifications , bu t suggeste d tha t th e mos t appropriat e polic ywoul d b e t o adop t
a potential-to-potentia l test . i On e commente r note d tha t th e actual-to-future-actua l tes t woul d en

d wha t wa s fel t t o b e th e "unlawfu l an d unfai r i practice " o f usin g th e NS R progra mt o "arbitraril yreduc e allowabl e hour s o f operatio n o r rate s o f productio n fo r existin g sources. " Counterin g th e argumen t tha t th e actual

to-future-actua l tes t coul d creat e publi c healt h problems , tw o commenter s note d tha t utilitie s mus t compl ywit h al l Federal , Stat e an

d loca l ai r qualit yrestriction s regardles s o f th e test s used
. Als o supportin g th e actual-to-future

actua l test , on e commente r pointe d ou t tha t sourc e owner s wil l b e motivate d b yincentive s i n th e CAA , propose d regulations , an

d marke t force s t o financ e an d enginee r economic)and efficien t physica l an d operationa l change s a t plant s s o a s t o achiev e excellen t environmenta l control
. On e commente r favore d calculatin g futur e emission s ove r a representativ e 2-yea r perio d withi n a 5-yea r perio d afte r th e change
. 0> i%? I Comment s Generall yOpposin g th e EPAProposal
. On e opponen t o f th e propose d method s state d tha t

i emission!increase s a t powe r plant s woul d no wb e fostere dP.5 6

-55

- sinc e th e proposa l wil l allo wutilitie s t o choos e thei r ow n definition s fo r whe n emission s hav e increased
. I n general , opponent s o f th e proposa l regardin g th e pre-chang e baselin e note d tha t th e chang e i s arbitraryan d capriciou s an

d tha t ther e i s n o analysi s i n th e docke t
i suggestin g tha t an

y2-yea r perio d i s mor e representativ e o f pre-chang e maximu

m emissions
. Commenter s note d tha t unde r th e proposal , source s coul d selec t th e year s i n whic h the y ha d th e highes t emission s i n a n attemp t t o minimiz e th e appearanc e o f a n increas e an d escap e NSR . On e commente r note d tha t th e chang e i n baselin e calculatio n methodology woul d giv e utilitie s suc h flexibilit yi n refurbishing , repowering , an

d lif e extensio n project s a s t o bia s competitiv e powe r market s toward s th e continue d us e o f existin g ol d unit s rathe r tha n th e constructio n o f ne wones . Opponent s t o th e us e o f futur e actua l emission s state d tha t ther e i s n o reasone d basi s fo r a n unenforceabl e representativ e actua l emission s approach , an d applicatio n o f thi s tes t t o electri c utilitie s i s no t consisten t wit h EPA' s establishe d polic ytowar d othe r sources . Othe r comment s contende d tha t th e futur e actua l tes t ignore s al l pas t precedent s an

d that , i n determinin g whethe r a chang e trigger s NSR , EPAshoul d compar e actua l emission s fo r th e curren t uni t t o potentia l emission s fro mth e altere d source ; th e futur e actua l tes t doe s no t guar d agains t artificiall y lowestimate s mad e b ysource s t o escap e NSR , no r doe s i tP.5 7

-56

- protec t agains t substantia l increase s mad e immediatel yafte r th e 2-yea r period ; an d th e futur e actua l emission s calculatio n procedur e amount s t o self-regulatio n an d i s easil ysubjec t t o abuse.
.

i Stat e an

d loca l ai r agencie s generall yoppose d th e futur e actua l metho d o f calculatin g post-chang e emissions
. On e note d tha t th e appropriat e emissio n increas e tes t shoul d b e determine d o n a case-by-cas e basis
. On e agenc ynote d tha t th e actual-to-futur e actua l approac h result s i n a significan t relaxatio n o f titl e I NS R requirement s an d woul d allo wutilitie s t o upgrad e equipmen t whic h ma yhav e los t significan t generatin g capacit ywithou t th e equipmen t bein g subjec t t o NSR , hamperin g loca l ai r qualit yattainmen t an d maintenanc e efforts
. Ther e wer e severa l comment s tha t

i i futur e emission s canno t b e reasonabl ydetermine d solel yo n pas t operatin g history
. On e Stat e note d tha t directio n i s neede d o n ho wactua l versu s potentia l emission s ar e estimated
. Afe wcommenter s addresse d th e 2-yea r perio d afte r th e propose d chang e whic h i s th e basi s fo r calculatin g th e futur e actua l emissions
. Opponent s o f th e futur e acta l concep t sate d tha t us e o f suc h a provisio n wol d resul t i n unrealisticall ylowfutur e emission s projection s an d shiel d
a compan

yagains t effort s t o enforc e NS R requirement s a t a sourc e tha t increase d emission s 3 year s afte r makin g physica l changes
.P.5 8

-57

- A n environmenta l grou p an d severa l Stat e agencie s note d tha t th e projecte d post-chang e emission s shoul d becom e a n enforceabl e permi t conditio n i n orde r t o commi t a sourc e t o limi t it s futur e emission s t o a specifi c amoun t an d t o provid e assuranc e tha t thes e projection s ar e reasonabl e estimate s o f expecte d emissions
. I f a sourc e wil l no t accep t suc h a permi t condition , the n th e sourc e shoul d hav e t o us e potentia l post-chang e emissions
.
* f $. Comment s Suggestin g Revision s t o th e Proposal
. Thre e commenter s suggeste d a mor e flexibl e tes t fo r ascertainin g SO 2 increase s fo r determinin g applicabilit yo f NS R an d NSP S requirements , namel ya measur e o f pollutio n pe r

I uni t o f electrica l output .
1 ft. Commenter s mad e th e followin g specifi c suggestion s fo r change s surroundin g th e futur e actua l calculatio n method : (1 ) : develo p guideline s t o assis t State s i n makin g like-kin d determinations ; (2 ) requir e like-kin d replacement s t o us e th e i representativ e actua l annua l emission s fo r calculatio n o f actua l emissions ; (3 ) defin e "like-kin d replacement " t o includ e complet e replacemen t o f a n existin g emission s unit ; (4 ) (5 ) defin e "routin e repai r an d replacement; " appl yth e actual-to-actua l tes t t o like-kin d replacemen t o f a n entir e emittin g unit ;P.5 9

-58

- (6 ) allo wne wunit s o r greenfiel d plant s t o rel yo n futur e actua l emission s i f the yca n reliabl yprojec t futur e emissions ; an d (7 ) conside r a n alternativ e wa yt o mak e th e NS R accountin g syste m consistent , suc h a s basin g i t o n pas t allowabl e t o futur e allowabl e emissions
. Othe r suggestion s include d th e following : (1 ) provid e guidanc e o n routin e repai r an d replacemen t
an d maintenanc e activitie s t o includ e placin g unit s o n col d
reserv e an d bringin g the mbac k o n line , an d (2 ) us e a 2-yea r perio d othe r tha n immediatel yafte r

i th e chang e onl ywhe n th e EP Acanno t clearl ydemonstrat e tha t th e 2-yea r perio d immediatel yfollowin g th e chang e i s no t representative
. j > QS Th e EP AAnalysis
. Th e EP Aha s decide d t o promulgat e th e propose d "representativ e actua l annua l emissions " methodolog yfo r calculatin g emission s change s a t electri c utilit ystea m generatin g unit s wher e th e change s d o no t involv e th e constructio n o f a new , "greenfield " uni t o r th e replacemen t
o f a n existin g one . Afte r a thoroug h revie wo f th e comments , EP Aconclude s tha t th e compariso n o f "actua l emission s before " t o a projectio n o f "actua l emission s after " a physica l o r operationa l chang e a t a n existin g utilit ystea m

generatin g uni t i s workabl e and , wit h th eP.6 0

-59

- adde d safeguar d discusse d below , i s th e mos t suitabl e metho d fo r evaluatin g emission s change s a t suc h sources . Man ycommenter s questione d EPA' s propose d presumptio n tha t source s ma yuse , a s th e baseline , emission s fro man y2 consecutiv e year s withi n th e 5 year s prio r t o th e propose d chang e withou t regar d t o norma l sourc e operations
. A s discusse d i n th e proposal , thi s presumptio n i s consisten t wit h EPA' s decisio n i n WEPC O an d th e 5-yea r perio d fo r "contemporaneous " emission s increase s an d decrease s i n 4 0 CF R 52.21(b ) (3 ) (i ) (b )
. 2 0 Moreover , EP

Ai s no t readin g "norma l sourc e operations "
ou t o f th e regulatio n a s charged
. Rather , th e presumptio n recognize s th e natur e o f utilit yoperation s withou t compromisin g th e existing regulatorylanguag e whic h require s tha t the:pre-chang e 2-yea r perio d use d i n definin g baselin e emission s b e representativ e o f "normal " operations
. Fo r example , a s a systema utility' s "normal " operation s mean s directly:respondin g t o a demand fo r electricity
. Acol d winte r o r ho t summe r wil l resul t i n high level s o f "normal " operation s whil e a relativel ymil d yea r wil l produc e lowe r "normal " operations
. B ypresumabl yallowin g a utilit yt o us e an y2 consecutiv e year s withi n th e pas t 5 , th e rul e bette r take s int o consideratio n tha t electricit ydemand an d

2 0 A s discussed , thi s presumptio n doe s no t appl yt o pas t modification s a t a n emission s uni t fo r th e purpos e o f determinin g contemporaneou s emissio n change s a t c sourc e an d canno t b e use d t o extend th e 3-yea r perio d specifie d i n tha t provisio n [se e 4 0 CF R 52.2l(b;(3)(i)(b)]
.P.6 1

-60

- resultan t utilit yoperation s fluctuat e i n respons e t o variou s factor s suc h a s annua l variabilit yi n climati c o r economi c condition s tha t affec t demand , o r change s a t othe r plant s i n th e utilit ysystemtha t affec t th e dispatc h o f a 

# i particula r plant
. B yexpandin g a baselin e fo r a utilit yt o an yconsecutiv e 2 i n th e las t 5 years , thes e type s o f 

### s fluctuation s i n operation s ca n b e mor e realisticall y

i considered , wit h th e resul t being a presumptiv e baselin e mor e clos|el

yrepresentativ e o f norma l sourc e operation
. Th e EPAdisagree s wit h comment s seekin g t o allo wth e us e o f an

y2 consecutiv e year s withi n th e las t 5 year s o f a ! unit' s "operation " rathe r withi n tha n th e 5 year s directl y precedin g th e propose d change
. Ashiftin g o f th e 5-yea r perio d woul d b e difficul t t o harmoniz e wit h definition s o f contemporaneou s containe d i n th e regulation s [see , e.g. , 4 0 CF R §42.21(b)(3)(iii)]
. Thi s typ e o f open-ende d provisio n woul d eve n credi t a uni t whic h ha s bee n inoperativ e fo r 2 0 o r 3 0 year s o r longe r wit h a high leve l
o f emissions
. Th e EPAnotes , however , tha t a s ha s alway s bee n th e bas e unde r th e prio r regulations , an ysourc e owne r o r operato r mayreques t a determinatio n tha t anothe r baselin e perio d i s mor e representativ e o f th e unit' s "normal " operations
. Severa l commenter s opposin g today' s regulatorychange s charge d tha t withou t appropriat e assurance s utilitie s coul d deliberatel yunderestimat e futur e operation ? (an d thu s 

# V£P.6 2

I -61

- emissions ) fo r th e purpos e o f avoidin g revie wo r tha t eve n wher e a forthrigh t estimat e i s made , th e forecas t mayprov e



### i inaccurate
. Th e EPAi s concerne d tha t withou t appropriat e safeguard s increase s i n futur e actua l emission s tha t i n fac t resulted:fro m

th e physica l o r operationa l chang e coul d g o unnotice d an

d unreviewed
. Fo r thi s reason , EPAha s adde d i
. th e safeguar d explaine d below
. The'EP Adoe s not , however , agre e wit h comment s tha t 

### i post-chang e emission s estimate s mus t alway s b e mad e int o permanen t federally-enforceabl e permi t conditions
. T o d o s o woul d permanentl yrestric t a utility' s legall yallowabl e emission'limit s t o it s pre-chang e actua l emission s leve l



### I unles s i t subsequentl yunderwen t NSR , an d woul d fai l t o accoun t fo r th e veryrea l possibilit ytha t emission s migh t increas e ;over baselin e level s i n th e futur e fo r reason s unrelate d t o th e physica l o r operationa l chang e i n question
. A s discusse d mor e full yi n th e following section , NS R applie s onl ywher e th e emission s increas e i s cause d b yth e change
. jThu

s th e issu e shoul d b e viewe d mor e a s on e o f
. trackin g an

d monitorin g post-chang e utilizatio n and/o r emission s level s a t th e uni t t o confirmtha t baselin e emissio n llevel s ar e no t exceede d a s a resul t o f th e change
.

I T o guar d agains t th e possibilit ytha t significan t increase s i n actua l emission s attributabl e t o th e chang e may

! occu r unde r thi s methodology , EP Ai s clarifyin g i n th e fina l regulation s tha t an yutilit ywhic h utilize s th e iP.6 3

-62

- "representativ e actua l annua l emissions " methodologyt o determin e tha t i t i s no t subjec t t o NS R mus t submi t fo r 5 year s afte r th e chang e sufficien t record s t o determin e i f th e chang e result s i n a n increas e i n representativ e actua l
annua l emissions. 2 1 Utilitie s mayus e continuou s emission s

i monitorin g data , operationa l levels , fue l usag e data , sourc e tes t result s o r an

yothe r readil yavailabl e dat a o f sufficien t accurac yfo r th e purpos e o f documentin g a unit' s post-chang e actua l annua l emissions
. Wher e th e chang e doe s no t increas e th e unit' s emission s factor , i.e. , th e amoun t o f pollutio n emitte d b ya sourc e afte r contro l pe r uni t o f fue l combuste d (such a s pound s o f SO 2 emitte d pe r to n o f coa l burned) , th e utilit ymaysubmi t
annua l utilizatio n data , rathe r tha n emission s data , a s a

i metho d o f trackin g post-chang e emissions
. I f annua l utilizatio n dat a sho wtha t th e uni t increase d utilizatio n abov e baselin e levels , th e permittin g authorit yshoul d determin e whethe r th e increas e resulte d fro mth e change
. Wher e a causa l lin k exist s betwee n th e chang e an d th e increas e i n utilization , th e permittin g authorit yshoul d the n determin e whethe r emission s hav e als o increase d a s a resul t o f th e change
.

2 1 Thi s i s th e onl ysubstantiv e chang e fro mth e regulation s a s proposed"
. However , EP Aha s als o mad e mino r change s t o th e wordin g o f some o f th e regulation s t o addres s problem s wit h clarit yan d syntax . Sinc e thes e change s ar e no t intende d t o alte r th e meanin g o f th e regulations , thpy ar e no t individuall ydiscusse d i n thi s preamble
.P.6 4

-63

- Change s tha t coul d increas e a unit' s emission s facto r typicall yinvolv e change s t o th e boile r itself
. (Such change s d o no t includ e activitie s tha t qualif ya s pollutio n contro l project s unde r today' s rule. ) Wher e thes e type s o f change s exist , th e utilit yshoul d submi t annua l emission s dat a t o th e permittin g authority
. I f thes e dat a suggest s

i tha t th e utilit yha s increase d annua l emission s ove r baselin e levels , th e permittin g authorit yshoul d inquir e whethe r th e increas e resulte d fro mth e physica l o r operationa l change
. Th e utilit ymaydemonstrat e tha t an y increas e wa s cause d b ya n independen t factor , suc h a s demand growth
. , Appropriat e record s ar e t o b e submitte d t o th e permittin g agenc yo n a n annua l basi s fo r a perio d o f 5 year s fromth e !dat e th e uni t begin s operation s (i.e. , post-chang e operation s afte r a n initia l shakedow n period)
. Alonge r period , no t t o excee d 1 0 years , mayb e require d b yth e permittin g agenc ywher e i t ha s determine d tha t n o perio d withi n th e firs t 5 year s following th e chang e i s representativ e o f sourc e operations
. Sinc e i t i s expecte d tha t utilitie s wil l submi t th e sam e dat a normall yuse d t o repor t emission s o r operationa l level s unde r existin g Federal , Stat e o r loca l ai r pollution , contro l agenc yrequirements , EP Adoe s no t expec t tha t documentatio n o f post-chang e actua l annua l emission s wil lP.6 5

| -64

- impos e ah

yadditiona l dat a collectio n burde n o n th e par t o f
a utility
. The j purpos e o f thi s provisio n i s t o provid e a reasonabl e mean s o f determinin g whethe r a significan t increase ; i n representativ e actua l annua l emission s resultin g froma propose d chang e a t a n existin g utilit yoccur s withi n th e 5 year s following th e change
. Thu s th e inten t i s t o confirmth e utility' s initia l projection s rathe r tha n annually!revisitin g th e issu e o f NS R applicability
. If , however,ith e reviewin g authorit ydetermine s tha t th e source'sjemission s hav e i n fac t increase d significantl yove r baseline I level s a s a resul t o f th e change , th e sourc e woul d becom e subjec t t o NS R requirement s a t tha t time
. Th e EPA ha s adopte d thi s approac h an d th e tim e perio d becaus e i t i believesithat , i n mos t cases , an yemission s increas e resultin g fro

ma physica l o r operationa l chang e a t a utilit y ! uni t woul d occu r withi n th e firs t 5 year s o f norma l operatio n o f th e uni t afte r th e change
. Thus , EPAwil l presum e tha t an

yincreas e i n emission s level s mor e tha n 5 year s afte r th e chang e ha s occurre d i s no t relate d t o th e physica l jo

r operationa l change
. I n respons e t o comment s regardin g "like-kind " replacements , EPAnote s tha t today' s regulation s recogniz e
n o distinctio n betwee n "like-kind " replacement s an d othe r nonroutin e physica l o r operationa l change s a t a utilit y stea mgeneratin g unit
. Th e "actual-to-future-actual "P.6 6

-65

- methodologypromulgate d todayfo r calculatin g emission s change s applie s t o al l type s o f change s a t utilit yunits , includin g th e replacemen t o f "like-kind " component s a t a n existin g unit
. However , th e "like-kind " replacemen t o f a



### I whol e uni t i s fo r al l practica l purpose s a replacemen t uni t and , therefore , i s treate d a s a ne wunit
. Althoug h severa l commenter s suggeste d tha t EPAshoul d expand th e representativ e actua l emission s tes t t o ne wan d reconstructe d units , EP Aha s decide d no t t o d o so . Sinc e ther e i s n o relevan t operatin g historyfo r ne wo r reconstructe d units , i t woul d no t b e possibl e t o accuratel y projec t operation s o r emission s fo r thes e units
. Consequently , th e EPAha s lef t unchange d th e regulation s whic h requir e tha t fo r an yuni t whic h ha s no t begun norma l operations , actua l emission s ar e considere d equa l t o th e unit' s potential-to-emit
. Afe wcommenter s requeste d tha t EP Adefin e o r provid e i guidanc e o n "routin e repair , replacemen t an d maintenance " activities
. Th e Jun e 1 4 proposa l di d no t dea l wit h thi s

i aspec t o f th e regulations , no r d o th e regulatorychange s promulgate d today
. However , th e issu e ha s a n importan t bearin g o n today' s rul e becaus e a projec t tha t i s determine d t o b e routin e i s exclude d b yEPAregulation s fro mth e definitio n o f majo r modification
. Fo r thi s reason , EPA plan s t o issu e guidanc e o n thi s subjec t a s par t o f a NS R regulatoryupdat e packag e whic h EPApresentl yintend s t oP.6 7

-66

- propos e b

yearl ysummer . I n th e meantime , EPAi s today clarifyin g tha t th e determinatio n o f whethe r th e repai r o r



### I replacemen t o f a particula r ite mo f equipmen t i s "routine " unde r th e NS R regulations , whil e mad e o n a case-by-cas e basis , mbs t b e base d o n th e evaluatio n o f whethe r tha t typ e o f equipmen t ha s bee n repaire d o r replace d b ysource s withi n th e relevan t industria l category .

C . Th e Causatio n Requirement
. X tf. I Background
.

i Th e NS R regulatoryprovision s requir e tha t th e physica l
o r operationa l chang e "resul t in " a n increas e i n actua l emission s i n orde r t o conside r tha t chang e t o b e a
i modificatio n [se e e.g. , 4 0 CF R 52.21(2)(i)]
. I n othe r words , NS R wil l no t appl yunles s EPAfind s tha t ther e i s a
causa l lin

k betwee n th e propose d chang e an d an ypost-chang e increas e i n emissions
. Th e EP Apropose d t o amen d it s rule s t o clarif ythi s provisio n i n th e contex t o f modification s a t



### i electric]utilit ystea m generatin g units
. Unde r th e propose d regulations , an yemission s increas e attributabl e t o a physica l o r operationa l change , suc h a s a j physica l o r operationa l chang e tha t significantl yalter s th e efficienc yo f th e plant , (see , Puert o Rica n Cement . 88 9 F.2 d

i a t 297-8) , mus t continu e t o b e include d i n th e post-chang e emission s calculation
. Th e proposa l clarifie d tha t wher e increase d operation s ar e i n respons e t o independen t factors , cuc h a s system-wid e demand growth , whic h woul d hav e occurre dP.6 8

-67

- an d affebte d th e unit' s operation s eve n i n th e absenc e o f th e physica l o r operationa l change , suc h increase s d o no t resul t from

th e chang e an

d shal l b e exclude d fro mth e projectio n o f futur e actua l emissions
. Thus , i n assessin g whethe r th e propose d chang e wil l resul t i n a n increas e i n actua l emissions , utilitie s nee d no t includ e i n thei r projectio n o f post-chang e utilizatio n tha t portio n o f th e increase d rat e o f utilization , i f any , du e t o factor s unrelate d t o th e physica l o r operationa l change , suc h a s a n increas e i n projecte d capacit yutilizatio n du e t o th e rat e o f electricit ydemand growt h fo r th e utilit ysystem(o f whic h tha t sourc e i s a member ) a s a whole
. Unde r today' s rule , durin g a representativ e baselin e perio d (se e supra) , th e plan t mus t hav e bee n abl e t o accommodat e th e projecte d demand growt h physicall yan d legall yeve n absen t th e particula r change
. Increase d operation s (an

d resultan t increase s i n actua l emissions ) tha t coul d no t physicall yan d legall yb e accommodate d durin g th e representativ e baselin e perio d bu t fo r th e propose d physica l o r operationa l chang e shoul d b e considere d t o resul t fromth e change
.

Comment s Generall yFavoring th e EPAProposal
. Severa l utilit yrepresentative s supporte d th e propose d demand growt h exclusio n an d th e causatio n requirement
. Man y commenter s requeste d clarificatio n o f certai n point s o r expansio n o f certai n provisions
. On e commente r note d tha t| -68

-

ther e shoul d b e a specifi c exclusio n fo r emission s increase s a t a generatin g statio n resultin g fro mgeneratio n shift s an d decrease d plan t efficiencie s cause d b yoperatio n o f pollutio n contro l systems . Anothe r note d tha t th e

i discussio n o f th e criteri a fo r recognizin g "factor s unrelate d t o th e physica l o r operationa l change " shoul d b e improve d upo n becaus e th e propose d requirement s tha t a facilit ymus t hav e bee n physicall yabl e t o accommodat e th e



### i projecte d growt h durin g a "representativ e baselin e period " coul d hav e a negativ e impac t i n utilit ycapacit yplannin g an d investmen t decisions , dependin g upo n ho wsuc h a perio d i s determined
. On e jcommente r note d tha t EP Ashoul d specificall y recogniz e a n exceptio n fo r unit s whic h hav e bee n inactive , becaus e a uni t shoul d no t hav e t o includ e al l o f it s

i emission s du e t o demand growt h merel ybecaus e i t wa s i n nee d
o f repai r o r maintenanc e whil e inactive
. Commenter s aske d tha t EPAbette r defin e "independen t factors " i n th e contex t
o f th e demand growt h exclusion
. Lastly , on e commente r state d tha t th e fina l rul e shoul d reconcil e th e "deman d growt h exclusion " wit h th e existin g "hour s o f operation/rat e o f production " exclusio n b yconfirmin g tha t increase s attributabl e t o system-wid e demand growt h ar e alread y exclude d unde r th e already-existin g exclusio n and ,

j therefore! , th e "deman d growt h exclusion " onl yapplie s wher eP.7 0

! ~ 6 9

- ther e isj a federally-enforceabl e permi t ter mlimiting hour s o f operatio n o r productio n rate .

Comment s Generall yOpposin g th e EPAProposal
. i Opponent s o f th e exclusio n o f emission s attributabl e t o demand growt h contende d tha t ther e i s n o rationa l basi s fo r ignoring 'suc

h emissions
. Whe n increase d capacit yo r i utilizatio n i s th e immediat e goa l o f a projec t an d a n ! increas e .i

n emission s occurs , th e projec t mus t b e subjec t t o NS R regardles s o f th e underlyin g reason s fo r th e increase d capacit yjo

r utilizatio n an

d correspondin g emissio n increase
. i Contraryt o th e lette r an d purpos e o f th e statute , th e j demand growt h exclusio n coul d resul t i n majo r increase s i n

! actua l emission s going unreviewe d an d unregulated , woul d
i creat e seriou s loca l pollutio n problems , an d woul d j discriminat e agains t companie s tha t wer e successfu l i n

I implementin g energ

yefficienc yprograms . On e loca l agenc y 

## i pointe d ou t tha t i t i s virtuall yimpossibl e t o determin e wit h an ydegre e o f certaint ywha t portio n o f a unit' s emissions ' ar e attributabl e t o a n increas e i n projecte d capacit yutilization
.

! • I n addition , commenter s note d tha t th e exclusio n wil l hav e a n advers e effec t o n loca l agencies ' abilit yt o contro l emissions!and tha t th e tim e o f constructio n o f a projec t i s th e mos t efficien t an d effectiv e tim e t o addres s suc h emissions : On e commente r state d tha t th e exclusio n fo r



### I demand growt h mayfurthe r bia s competitiv e powe r market si -70

-

towar d existin g units , an d tha t EPAfaile d t o conside r th e I impac t o f th e causatio n requiremen t o n utilit yoperations , emission s o r competitio n i n powe r markets
. ^f.* ^ ! Th e EPAAnalysis
. Afte r carefu l consideratio n o f th e comment s receive d
an d furthe r analysi s o f th e issue s involved , EPAha s decide d

i t o promulgat e th e causatio n provisio n a s proposed
.

i Commenter s argue d tha t an ypost-chang e emission s

• increase! , regardles s o f it s origin , shoul d subjec t a sourc e t o NSR . I However , thes e argument s ignor e th e relevan t 

### I statutoryan

d regulatorymodificatio n provisions
. N o I commenter s challengin g th e provisio n hav e suggeste d tha£--th e statut e an

d implementing regulation s d o no t contai n a causatio n provision
. Rather , theyargu e tha t i n th e proposed;rul e EPAha s misconstrue d thi s requirement
. I n conjunctio n wit h developin g th e representativ e actua l annua l emission s methodology , EPArecognize d tha t th e

i ' • • analysi s ,of th e causatio n requiremen t maydisclos e tha t a n emission s increas e tha t follow s a nonroutin e physica l o r operationa l chang e i s merel ycoincidental , an d i n fac t ! result s fromindependen t factor s suc h a s demand growth
. I t i s importan t t o emphasize , however , tha t thi s doe s no t amoun t t b a pe r s e exclusio n o f demand growt h fro mth e 

# i - emission s increas e calculation
. Rather , demand growt h ca n onl yb e exclude d t o th e exten t i t — an d no t th e physica l o r operationa l chang e —i s th e caus e o f th e emission s-71

- i increase
. Th e EPAbelieve s tha t thi s i s a reasonabl e interpretatio n o f th e statutoryprovisio n i n question , o f EPA' s ow

n regulations , an

d o f judicia l precedents
. Consequently , wher e projecte d increase d operation s ar e i n respons e t o a n independen t factor , suc h a s demand growth , whic h coul d hav e occurre d an d affecte d th e unit' s operation s durin g th e representativ e baselin e perio d eve n i n th e absenc e o f th e physica l o r operationa l change , th e increase d operation s canno t b e sai d t o resul t fro mth e chang e an

d therefor e mayb e exclude d fro m th e projectio n o f th e unit' s futur e actua l emissions
. Conversely , wher e th e increas e coul d no t hav e occurre d durin g th e representativ e baselin e perio d bu t fo r th e physica l o r operationa l change , tha t chang e wil l b e deeme d t o hav e resulte d i n th e increase
. Th e EP Adi d receiv e numerou s comment s regardin g th e difficult yo f applying thi s ne winterpretation
. However , EPAbelieve s i t i s possibl e t o distinguis h betwee n emission s increase s tha t ar e relate d t o a physica l o r operationa l chang e fromthos e tha t ar e not . Thi s issu e i s a fact

dependen t determinatio n tha t mus t b e resolve d o n a case-by

cas e basis
. A s discussed , EPAconsider s emission s increase s du e t o increase d operation s tha t coul d no t b e physicall yo r legall yaccommodate d durin g th e representativ e baselin e perio d bu t fo r th e propose d physica l o r operationa l change , t o resul t fromth e change
. Th e preambl e t o th e proposa l als o mad e clea r tha t an yemission s increas e a'ctriLutabl e t oP.7 3

-72

- a physica l o r operationa l chang e tha t significantl yalter s th e efficienc yo f th e plant , (se e Puert o Rica n Cement . 88 9 F.2 d a t 297-8) , mus t continu e t o b e include d i n th e post
chang e emission s calculations
. However , EPAi n n o way intend s t o discourag e physica l o r operationa l change s tha t increas e efficienc yo r reliabilit yo r lowe r operatin g costs , o r improv e othe r operationa l characteristic s o f th e uni t an d doe s s o b

yfocusing o n th e effec t o f an ynonroutin e change s o n th e operatin g characteristic s o f th e uni t durin g th e representativ e baselin e period
. Th e EP Arecognize s tha t improvement s suc h a s thes e ar e desirabl e fo r economi c reason s an

d t o assur e a reliabl e suppl yo f electricity
. Thus , physica l o r operationa l change s tha t improv e operationa l characteristic s wil l b e treate d i n th e sam e manne r a s an

yothe r changes
. Thi s mean s tha t wher e a n improvemen t involve s a routin e change , i t i s exclude d from th e NS R definitio n o f "majo r modification. " Alternatively , wher e a n improvemen t i s no t routin e an d a n emission s increas e result s fro mth e improvement , tha t portio n o f th e emissions ' increas e resulting fro mth e improvemen t wil l b e considere d i n determinin g whethe r th e propose d chang e subject s th e uni t t o NS R requirements
. Severa l commenter s requeste d a clarificatio n concernin g a unit' s abilit yt o accommodat e demand growt h i n it s pre-chang e configuration
. I n EPA' s view , suc h a clarificatio n i s no t warranted
. A s discusse d above ,P.7 4

-73

- operationa l level s tha t a uni t coul d no t hav e achieve d durin g th e representativ e baselin e perio d bu t fo r th e physica l o r operationa l chang e ar e considere d t o resul t fro m th e change
. Post-chang e emission s increase s associate d wit h
suc h operationa l level s must , therefore , b e considere d t o resul t from

th e chang e an

d b e take n int o accoun t fo r NS R applicabilit ypurposes . Numerou s commenter s pointe d ou t tha t i t mayb e very difficul t t o determin e whe n an increas e i s cause d b y independen t factor s an d whe n i t i s cause d b yth e physica l change
. Also , a n environmenta l commente r argue d tha t thi s causatio n questio n mus t alway s b e resolve d i n favo r o f including al l post-chang e emissio n increase s tha t follo wa chang e whic h improve s a unit' s efficiency , sinc e i n it s vie w a n efficienc ygai n wil l alway s b e th e primarydeterminan t o f th e utility' s us e o f a generatin g unit , notwithstandin g th e presenc e o f othe r necessary—bu t no t o f themselve s sufficien t —factor s suc h a s demand growth
. However , a s s o formulated , th e commen t answer s itself
. I f efficienc y improvement s ar e th e predominan t caus e o f th e chang e i n emission s an

d demand growt h i s not , th e exclusio n doe s no t apply
. Bu t thi s i s a questio n o f fac t whic h mus t b e resolve d o n a case-by-cas e basi s an d i s dependen t o n th e individua l fact s an d circumstance s o f th e chang e a t issue
. EPAdecline s t o creat e a presumptio n tha t everyemission sP.7 5

-74

- i increas e tha t follow s a chang e i n efficienc yi s inextricabl y

l linke d t o th e efficienc ychange
. I n calculatin g demand growth , utilitie s mayconside r th e company' s historica l operationa l data , it s ow n representations , filing s wit h Federal , Stat e o r loca l regulatoryauthorities , an d complianc e plan s develope d unde r titl e I V

o f th e 199 0 Amendments
. Th e EPAdisagree s wit h comment s tha t thi s provisio n coul d resul t i n majo r increase s i n actua l emission s goin g unreviewe d wit h th e potentia l t o creat e seriou s loca l ai r pollution 1 problems
. First , th e NS R majo r modificatio n provision s d o no t appl yt o al l increase s i n emissions , jus t emissio n increase s whic h resul t fro ma nonroutin e physica l
o r operationa l chang e a t a n existin g majo r source . Second , a s ha s alread

ybee n observed , thi s provisio n doe s no t amoun t t o a pe r s e exclusio n o f demand growth
. Finally , thi s ne w provision'doe s no t diminis h th e scop e o f th e coverag e o f EPA' s NSR ; regulations
. Rather , i t merel yincorporate s int o th e actual-to-future-actua l methodologya requiremen t o f th e pre-existin g statutoryan d regulatoryscheme
. Moreover , i n respons e t o thos e concern s tha t a demand growt h exclusio n coul d lea d t o seriou s loca l ai r pollutio n problems , EPAnote s th e restriction s i t place d o n th e overal l futur e projectio n i n th e proposal : th e leve l o f emission s th e sourc e claim s tha t i t wil l operat e a t shoul dP.7 6

-75

- b e consisten t wit h curren t assumption s regardin g th e source' s emission s tha t ar e use d i n th e relevan t SIP . Finall yth e EPAdoe s no t agre e wit h th e commente r requestin g tha t th e fina l rul e confirmtha t increase s attributabl e t o system-wid e demand growt h ar e alread y exclude d unde r th e existin g exclusio n fo r increase s i n hour s o f operatio n and , therefore , th e "deman d growt h exclusion " onl yapplie s wher e ther e i s a federally-enforceabl e permi t termlimiting hour s o f operatio n o r productio n rate . Th e commenter' s statemen t i s no t correct . Althoug h a sourc e may varyit s hour s o f operatio n o r productio n a s par t o f it s everydayoperations , a n increas e i n emission s attributabl e t o a n increas e i n hour s o f operatio n o r productio n rat e whic h i s th e resul t o f a construction-relate d activit yi s no t exclude d fro

m revie w(se e WEPCO . 89 3 F.2 d a t 91 6 n.ll ; Puert o Rica n Cement . 88 9 F.2 d a t 298)
. D . Repowering
. Background
. A s previousl ymentioned , titl e I V o f th e 199 0 Amendment s grant s specia l treatmen t t o utilitie s tha t see k t o compl ywit h th e mandate d aci d rai n reduction s b y repowerin g a uni t wit h qualifyin g clea n coa l technology[se e 199 0 Amendment s § § 402(12) , 409(a)]
. Specifically , repowerin g project s tha t qualif yfo r a Phas e I I complianc e extensio n wil l als o b e exemp t fro m NSP S requirements , s oP.7 7

-76

- long a s th e repowerin g "doe s no t increas e actua l hourl y emission s fo r an

ypollutan t regulate d unde r th e Act " [se e § 409(d)]
. Th e EPAinterpret s th e requiremen t tha t th e repowerin g no t lead t o a n increas e i n "actua l hourl y

i emissions " a s a n expressio n o f Congressiona l inten t tha t wit h respec t t o repowerin g projects , EPAshoul d us e th e sam e genera l approac h t o determinin g applicabilit ya s i t ha s fo r othe r physica l o r operationa l changes , discusse d above
.

• Accordingly , EPApropose d rule s provide d tha t a repowerin g projec t whic h result s i n a n increas e ove r baselin e i n a unit' s post-modificatio n hourl yemission s wil l no t b e eligibl e fo r thi s limite d NSP S exemption
. t ^~~- Th e propose d NSP S exemptio n applie d t o repowerin g o f ! existin g unit s a t existing sources , s o long a s th e projec t qualifie s fo r th e Phas e I I extensio n an d satisfie s th e "actua l hourl yemissions " increas e test . Becaus e o f thi s provision , th e reconstructio n limitation s specifie d i n 4 0 CF R 60.1 5 ar e no t applicabl e t o qualifyin g repowerin g projects. ! However , n o specia l treatmen t ca n b e afforde d t o a ne wuni t whic h i s locate d a t a differen t sit e tha n th e existin g uni t i t replace s [se e CA A§ 409(d)]
. Pursuan t t o § 409(e) , EP Awil l provid e expedite d NS R processin g fo r repowerin g project s an d wil l encourag e Stat e permittin g authoritie s t o d o th e same .

Publi c Comment . 

# r9.P.7 8

j -77

- Th e EPAdi d no t receiv e an ycomment s opposin g th e repowerin g proposa l whil e severa l industryan d Congressiona l commenter s supporte d it
. Th e Congressiona l commenter s requeste d clarificatio n o f EPA' s interpretatio n o f ter m "repowering. " Th e Congressiona l commenter s state d tha t th e propose d definitio n o f "repowering " ca n b e interprete d a s limiting qualifyin g repowerin g technologie s t o thos e tha t onl yinvolv e th e replacemen t o f th e boiler , disqualifyin g highly-promising , multi-pollutan t technologie s tha t d o no t

I involv e boile r replacement
. 3.'^ ' Th e EPAAnalysis
. I n ligh t o f th e lac k o f negativ e comments , EP Ai s today promulgatin g th e CC T provision s a s proposed
. Thi s include s
n o chang e i n th e definitio n o f "repowering. " However , EPA wil l follo wa n expansiv e interpretatio n o f th e term repowering , whic h shoul d addres s man yo f th e concern s expresse d b

ysom e o f th e commenter s whil e remainin g consisten t wit h statutoryterm s an d Congressiona l intent
. Th e EP Anote s tha t thi s interpretatio n i s currentl ysubjec t t o commen t a s par t o f th e rulemakin g implementin g th e aci d rai n proyision s o f th e 199 0 Amendment s an d EPAmayaddres s thi s issu e furthe r i n th e contex t o f tha t proceeding
. Sectio n 402(12) , i n relevan t part , define s "repowering "
a s follows : Replacemen t o f a n existin g coal

fire d boile r wit h on e o f th e followin g s*n clea n coa l technologies : atmospheri c o r > ' pressurize d fluidize d be d combustion ,P.7 9

. -78 - integrate dgasificationcombine dcycle , magnetohydrodynamics , direc t and indirec t coal-fire dturbines , integrate d gasificatio nfue l cell s o r a s determine d b y th e Administrator , i nconsultatio n wit hth e Secretar y o f Energy , a derivativ e o f on e o r mor e o f thes e technologies , andan y othe r technolog y capabl e o f controllin g multipl e combustio nemission s simultaneousl y wit h improve dboile r o r generationefficienc y andwit hsignificantl y greate r wast e reductionrelativ e to th e performanc e o f technolog y

i nwidesprea dcommercia l us e a s o f th e dat e o f enactmen t o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f 199 0 * * * 2 2

3 UTh e definitio nthu s provide s fo r thre e majo r categorie s
o f repowerin g technologies : (1 ) Technologie s specificall y liste di nth e statute ; (2 ) derivative s o f on e o r mor e o f thes e liste d

i technologies ; and (3 ) technologie s which : (a ) Ar e capabl e o f controllin g multipl e combustio n emission s simultaneously ; (b ) wit himprove dboile r o r generationefficiency ; an d (c ) wit hsignificantl y greate r wast e reductionthan technologie s i nwidesprea dcommercia l us e a s o f th e dat e o f enactmen t o f th e CA A (Novembe r 15 , 1990) .

2 2 Th e las t sentenc e i nth e definitiono f "repowering " i n§ 402(12 ) o f th e CA A refer s t o a specifi c CC T projec t i n Tallahassee , Florid a (ArvahB . Hopkin s Statio nUni t 2 Circulatin g Fluidized-Be dRepowerin g Project ) awarde d Novembe r 30 , 1990 .P.8 0

-79 - I naccordanc e wit hth e language o f th

e statutor

y definitiono f repowering , th e fina l rul e provide s tha t a qualifyin

g repowerin

g technolog

y mus t involv

e "replacement "
o f a nexistin

g boiler . Th

e language o f S 402(12) , thoug h ambiguou s i

nman y significan t respects , wil l no t suppor t a n interpretatio

nwhichfail s t o recogniz e tha t repowerin g require s us e o f a

nappropriat e ne

w technolog

y instea do f th e existin g boiler . j The EP A considere

dwhethe r th

e referenc e t o boile r replacemen t in§ 402(12 ) coul db e rea da s referrin

g t o onl y the firs t categor

y o f technologies . However , suc ha n approachwoul drequir e readin g th e provisio

na s i f th

e recita l o f th

e thre e alternativ

e technologie s bega n immediatel y

afte r th

e phras e "repowerin g means, " rathe r tha n afte r the phras e "repowerin g mean s replacemen t o f a n existing ! coal-firedboile r wit hone o f the followin g clean i coa l technologies:. " Sucha readin

g i s inconsisten t wit hthe structur e o f the provision , i

nwhichth

e colon , whichi s "use dchiefl y

t o direc t attentio

nt o matte r tha t follow s (as a list , explanation , or quotation) " [se e Webster' s NinthNe w Collegiat e Dictionar y 26 6 (1985)] , follows rathe r tha n precede s the referenc e t o boile r replacement . Moreover , al l

! thre e categorie s o f technologie s woul db e properl y

described
a s "th e followin

g clea ncoa l technologies:. "P.8 1

-80 - Whil e i t i s true tha t the lis t followin g the colon , lik e the phras e "th

e followin

g clea ncoa l technologies: " coul db e rea dt o refe r exclusivel y t o th e sevennamed i technologie s (o

r t o thos e technologie s an dthei r approved derivatives) , suc

ha ninterpretatio

nwoul dstil l fai l t o provide a satisfactor y explanatio

no f the grammatica l structur e o f th

e provision . Eithe r o f thes e tw o reading s woul dfai l t o explai nho w th e technologie s that , accordin g t o those ; reading s d o no t conside r boile r replacement , relat e t o the ter

m "repowering. " Inothe r words , i f th e concep t o f boile r replacemen t wer e removedfro m eithe r the thir

d categor y o f technologie s or fro m boththe secon

dan dthir d categories , th

e provisio

nwoul dread , wit hrespec t t o thos e categories : The ter m "repowering " mean s * * * a derivativ

e o f one o

r mor e o f (th

e seven ) technologies , an

dan y othe r technolog

y capabl e o f (meetin

g th e thre e performanc e criteria) .

The difficulty

wit hthi s readin

g i s tha t "repowering, " whateve r the precis e scop e o f it s definition , clearl y mean s doin g somethin

g wit ha derivativ e technolog

y or a multipollutan t contro l technology , rathe r thansimply thos e i technologie s themselves . Requirin g boile r replacemen t fo r al l thre e categorie s avoid s thi s particula r infirmity . The EP A als o consideredanothe r textua l argumen t tha t coul db e advance

dt o suppor t a

ninterpretatio

no f S 402(12 )P.8 2

-81 - tha t boile r replacemen t i s no t requiredfo r th e thir d categor y o f technology , but i t als o i s unpersuasive . I t simpl y doe s no t follo

w fro m th e fac t tha t th

e categor

y o f multipollutan t contro l technologie s alone ha s expressl y enumeratedperformanc e criteri a tha t thos e criteri a ar e mean t t o b

e the exclusiv

e tes t for qualifyin g technologie s of thes e types . Becaus e th e thir dcategor

y o f technolog

y wa s intende

dt o encompas s type s o f technologie s whichwer e unknow no nthe dat e o f enactmen t (an dthus , unlike the prior categories , no t susceptibl e t o bein g enumeratedi

nth e statute ) tha t categor y woul dnecessaril y

hav e t o include explici t definin

g criteria , whethe r o r no t the boile r replacemen t criterio napplie

dt o it . B

y th e sam e token , th

e fac t tha t the latter tw o categorie s ar e subjec t t o EP A approva l i

nconsultatio

nwit hDO E doe s no t imply tha t thi s i s th e onl y criterio

napplicabl e t o them . Eac hi s subjec t t o additiona l criteri a (i.e. , th e requiremen t of derivatio n inthe cas e o f th

e secon dcategory , an

dth e thre e performanc e criteri a inthe cas e o f the thir dcategory) . The pivota l phras e "replacemen t o f a nexistin

g coal-firedboiler " i s undefinedi nth e statute , an

dit s scope i s no t clearl y delineatedb

y it s context . Som e o f th e sevenliste

dtechnologie s ma

y no t requir e tota l boile r replacement , althoug hal l requir e suc

hextensiv

e change s t o th e boile r tha t the

y are tantamoun t t o boile r replacement . Unde r the principl e o f eiusde m generis , therefore , theP.8 3

I -82 - Agency clearl y

has , at a minimum , ampl e discretiont o trea t
a s functiona l boile r replacemen t an y change s broadl y

simila r inscope t o thos e involve di ninstallin

g th e seve nname d technologies . Suc

ha definitio

nwoul dclearl y

represen t th

e lower , nbt th

e upper , limi t o

nth e Agency' s discretio nt o give meanin

g t o th e ter m "replacement" . Accordingly , the statut e confer s o

nEP A th e additiona l discretiont o define boile r replacemen t i na functiona l manne r tha t take s int o ! accoun t achievemen t o f th e specifiedperformanc e criteri a a s wel l a s the degre e o f change s t o the boiler . B y wa y o f example , elsewher e i ntoday' s fina l rul e the Agency consider s a uni t t o b e "replaced " i f i t woul d"constitute"" a reconstructeduni t withi nth e meanin

g o f 4 0 CF

R60.15. " I

n i accordanc e wit hthe abov e language EP

A wil l us e the 4 0 CF R60.1 5 tes t fo

r "reconstruction " a s genera l guidanc e i ndeterminin

g whethe r eac

hindividua l applicatio nunde r § 40 9 involve s sufficien t replacemen t t o qualif y fo r a repowerin

g extensio

nan dhence , a

nNSP S exemption . I nshort , becaus e "Congres s ha s no t directl y spoke nt o the precis e questionat issue, " Chevron . U.S.A . v NRDC . 46 7 U.S . 837 , 842-4 3 (1984) , EP A enjoys a significan t measur e o f discretio nt o determine t o wha t exten t replacemen t o f les s tha n10 0 percen t o f the part s o f a n existin g boile r coul db

e deemedreplacemen t fo r purpose s of S 402(12 ) an

dthi s rule . Fo

r the reason s discussedabove , EP A believe s th

e proposedregulator y language regardin g-83 -

repoweriiji g i s reasonable . Tha tproposa l i s toda y i promulgatedwithou t change .



### i E . Cleja

nCoa l Technolog

y Demonstratio

nProject s an

dVer y ! Clea nUnit s i Background . The!EP A als o proposedrule s implementin g th e ne w CC T l exemptio

ncreate

db y th e 199 0 Amendments . I nthi s proposal , temporar

y CC T demonstratio

nproject s ar e defineda s thos e CC T demonstratio

nproject s lastin

g 5 year s o

r less . Titl e IV,give s thes e project s a nexemptio

nfro m NSPS , PS D i i i an dnonattainmen t requirements . Id. , § 415(b)(2) . However , the facility

woul dstil l b

e subjec t t o an

y applicabl e SI P i an dmust ! comply

wit han

y othe r requirement s necessar y t o attai nan

dmaintai nNAAQS . The EP A proposedt o implement thi s provisionan

dclarif y

tha t EP

A consider s th

e 5 yea r perio dai s startin

g o nth e dat e o f startu

p(a s definedi

n 4 0 CF R60.2) . A

temporar

y demonstratio

nprojec t ma

y b e convertedt o a permanen t statu s at an y time , providedi t meet s al l the requirement s tha t appl y t o a permanen t CC T i projec t briteri a a t th e tim e o f conversion . i Further , EP

A proposedtha t a t th e en do f a temporar

y project, ! the facility mus t b e returnedt o pre-demonstratio n condition s an

dhourl y

emissio

nrate s (o

r lower) . Th

e retur n i o f the facility

t o it s pre-demonstratio nphysica l an

d operationa l conditio nwoul dno t resul t inthe los s o f the I actua l emission s margi nbetweenpre-demonstrationactua l

i i 

## "< ?P.8 5

-84 - emission s rat e an

dSlP-allowabl e emission s rate s fo r tha t facility . Rather , th e facility

woul db

e treateda s i f th e temporar

y demonstratio

nprojec t ha

dneve r occurred. 2 3 Thi s proposa l di dno t exten dt o emission s increase s i tha t are ' unrelatedt o th e conduc t o f temporar y demonstration j projects; . The EP

A consider s emission s increase s (abov e the i i pre-demonstrationlevels ) tha t ar e attributabl e t o physica l
or operationa l changes , othe r tha nthos e necessar

y t o restor e tha t uni t t o it s pre-demonstratio ncondition , t o b

e beyon dth e scope o f th

e Congressiona l exemption . The ! EP A als o proposedt o implement a nexemptio

nfro m NSP S and ] PS D requirement s fo r repowerin

g project s whichar e awardedfundin

g fro m th e DOE a s permanen t CC T demonstratio n ; project s (o

r simila r project s funde db y EPA ) s o lon

g a s potentia l emission s [se e 52.21(b)(4) ] fro

m th e uni t d

o no t increas e a s a resul t o f th e projec t [se

e § 415(b)(3)] . However , repowerin g project s tha t qualify a s pollut i O^C^

- ! vji U_bj-i.T r ~ v contro l project s wil l be^treateda s othe r pollutioncontro l

2 3 \ Thi s woul db

e th e cas e eve

ni f ther e wer e smal l difference s i

nth e post-demonstratio nphysica l an

d operationa l condition s du e t o a technica l inability t o restor e Ith

e uni t t o it s precis e pre-demonstratio ncondition , o r due t o norma l variability i nth e coa l used . Thus , EP A woul dno t seek t o appl y NSP S o r NS Rbecaus e o f a post demonstrationemission s increas e attributabl e solel y t o a n increas e i

nth e hour s o f operatio no r productionrat e of th e uni t (subjec t t o th e NSP S limitatio

ntha t the production rat e increas e mus t b e accomplishe

dwithou t a capita l expenditure) . 

### IGP.8 6

! -85
- projects;fo r th

e purpose s o f th

e nonattainmen t provision s of 

### i titl e I o f the CAA .

; Finally , the proposa l implemente dth e statutor

y exemption s i

nS 415(c) . I ntha t section , Congres s provided
a nexemptio

nfro m NSP S an

dPS D fo

r th e reactivationo f "ver y i clea nunits " otherwis e i ncomplianc e wit hth e CA A tha t ha

d beenshut dow

nfo r at leas t th

e 2 year s prior t o enactmen t
o f the 199 0 Amendment s an dthat , prior t o th e shutdown , ha

d beenequippedwit hpollutio ncontrol s wit ha remova l efficiency

o f at leas t 8 5 percen t fo r sulfu r dioxide an

d9 8 percen t for particulates , an dha dbeenequippedwit hlow-NO x burners. ; Thi s exemptio nappear s t o hav

e bee nnarrowl y tailoredan

di s no t expecte

dt o hav

e widespread applicability . o £ T i Comment s Generall y Favorin

g th e EP A Proposal . Som e commenter s specificall y mentionedtha t CC T demonstrationproject s shoul dno t be subjec t t o NS R provisions .

Comment s Generall y

Opposin

g the EP

A Proposal . Som e commenter s di dno t suppor t the proposedblanke t i inclusio

no f al l CC T project s a s pollutioncontro l projects . One commente r suggestedtha t eachCC T projec t be reviewedo n a case-by-cas e basi s and , i f the projec t result s i nhighe r emissio nlevels , i t shoul dno t b e considereda pollution contro l project . Anothe r commente r gav e a nexampl e o f a CCT projec t I tha t convert s a noil-fireduni t t o a highe r emittin g 

## -fl ?-86 - coal-fire dunit , notin g tha t thi s projec t shoul dno t b e considere da pollutioncontro l project . On e commente r oppose dt o th e pollutio ncontro l projec t exemptio nquestione dth e ver y narrow

exemptio nfro

m NSPS and PS D fo r th e reactivationo f well-controlled , ver y clea n unit s tha t ha dbee nshu t dow nfo r a t leas t 2 year s prio r t o th e enactmen t o f th e 199 0 Amendments . I f suc hexemption s
ar e granted , th e commente r urge dEP A t o includ e a conditio n tha t an

y reactivate dsource s perform a nai r qualit y

impac t
assessmen t anddemonstrat e tha t the y woul dno t caus e o r contribut e t o a violationo f NAAQS , PS D increments , o r visibilit y

standards . *- f £ L Comment s Suggestin g Revision s t o th e Proposal . 4 i Th e followin g suggestion s wer e mad e wit hregar dt o th e

i definitio no f "pollutio ncontro l project" :

i (1 ) includ e al l element s o f CC T demonstratio nproject s
a s a nexclude dproject ; (2 ) addth e word s "clea ncoa l technology " i nth e example s o f pollutio ncontro l project s i n4 0 CF R51.165 , 51.166 , 52.21 , and53.24 ; an d (3 ) us e th e statutor y definitiono f CC T demonstratio n projec t i n60.14(j)(l) . Th e statutor y definitio nomit s th e requiremen t tha t a t leas t 2 0 percen t o f th e fundin g fo r a CC T demonstratio nprojec t come fro m th e Federa l government . C T ^ T Th e EP A

Analysis .

- $-87 - Afte r revie

w o f th e publi c comment s an dfurthe r analysi s o f th

e subjec t provision , EP A ha s decidedt o promulgat e th

e proposedrule s implementin g th e CC T an

dver y cleanuni t exemptio ncreate

db y th e 199 0 Amendments . The EP A views thi s actio

na s merel y

incorporatin

g int o it s existin g regulator

y framework statutor y exemption s tha t wer e immediatel y

effectiv

e upo npassag e o f th

e 199 0 Amendments .



### / hSd-^-^ i 4'ST(C ) 

### +t AonoJthar^^ UfMS (o^

_beer) 

## dide+td'. F . Calculatio no f NSP S Baseline Background . ,.— — A s discussedi

nth e proposal , "an

y physica l or operationa l change t o a nexistin

g facility

whichresult s i

n a nincreas e i

nth e emissio

nrat e t o th

e atmospher e o f an

y pollutan t t o whic ha standar dapplies " i s a modificationfo r NSP S applicability purpose s [se

e 4 0 CF R§ 60.14(a)] . The NSP S regulation s implementin g thi s genera l definitio nfocu s o nincrease s inhourl y emissions , expressedi nkilograms o f pollutan t dischargedpe r hour . T o determine i f a nincreas e i nhourl y

emission s ha s occurre dat a unit , a pre-chang e baseline mus t b

e established . Unde r curren t regulations , j the emission s rat e befor e an dafte r a physica l o r operationa l change i s evaluate da t eac

huni t b

y comparin

g the curren t hourl y potentia l emission s a t maximu m operatin

g capacity

t o hourl y

emission s a t maximu m capacity

afte r the 

# v LOP.8 9

-88

- change
. I n thi s calculation , th e reviewin g authorit y disregard s th e unit' s maximu m desig n capacity. 2 4 Th e origina l desig n capacit yo f a unit , t o th e exten t i t differ s

i fromactua l maximu

mcapacit ya t th e tim e tha t th e baselin e i s establishe d du e t o physica l deterioratio n o f th e

! facility , i s immateria l t o thi s calculation
. Th e EPApropose d that , fo r a n existin g electri c utilit y stea mgeneratin g unit , th e pre-chang e baselin e fo r NSP S applicabilit ypurpose s shal l b e calculate d usin g th e highes t hourl yemission s rat e achievabl e a t an ytim e durin g th e 5 year s prio r t o th e change
. Th e proposa l retaine d th e ke y concep t i n existin g regulation s tha t th e baselin e b e determine d durin g a perio d tha t i s roughl ycontemporaneou s wit h th e propose d chang e a t th e affecte d facility
. Th e EPA believe s tha t th e propose d revision , whil e modest , i s stil l
necessar yt o avoi d th e curren t regulation' s undu e emphasi s o n th e physica l conditio n o f th e affecte d facilit y immediatel yprio r t o th e change
. Th e proposal' s mor e flexibl e provisio n enable s unit s t o establis h a baselin e tha t i s representativ e o f it s physica l an d operationa l capacit yi n recen t years , whil e stil l precludin g th e us e o f

2 4 [Se e 3 9 F R 36,94 8 col
. 1 (propose d rule)]
. I n WEPCO . th e utilit ycontende d tha t baselin e capacit yfo r th e purpos e o f determinin g whethe r a n increas e i n emissio n rat e occur s fo r purpose s o f a n NSP S modificatio n i s th e origina l desig n capacit yo f th e facility
. However , th e cour t rejecte d WEPCO' s argumen t tha t origina l desig n capacit yo r pas t "representative " capacity , n o longe r achievabl e a t th e plant , i ha d t o b e use d fo r th e baselin e emission s rate .P.9 0

-89 - a baseline tie

dt o origina l desig ncapacity , whicha s noted abov e ma y bea r n o relationshi pt o th e facility' s capacity i n recen t years . Withou t thi s revision , th e NSP S regulation s ma y undul y burdenutilitie s undertakin g physica l o

r operationa l change s i nconjunctio

nwit hth

e aci drai nprogram . For instance , i f
a uni t ha s brokendow nan di s i nnee do f repairs , th

e utility' s baseline wil l b e artificiall y

low . The proposed change woul dallo

w utilitie s t o demonstrat e tha t a nearlier , highe r capacity

wa s mor e representativ e o f th e unit' s maximu m hourl y emission s rate . £ © ^ !Comment s Generall y Favorin

g th e EP A Proposal . Severa l commenter s note dtha t EPA' s proposa l wil l provide neede

dflexibility

an dalleviat e uncertainty fo r i nonroutine repair , replacement , an dmaintenanc e project s whil e stil l protectin g loca l ai r quality . One commente r supportedretentio

nof th e ke y concep t o f equatin g contemporaneou s emission s withrepresentativ e emissions .

_Gt. Comment s Generall y Opposin

g th e EP A Proposal . On e commente r opposin g th e proposa l notedtha t th e provisionfo

r the maximu

m hourl y emission s achievabl e durin g the las t 5 year s woul dresul t i na significan t relaxatio no f NSP S requirement s an dwoul dallo

w utilitie s t o upgrade equipmen t whic hma

y hav e los t significan t generatin g capacity

withou t the equipmen t bein g subjec t t o NSPS . Source s tha t hav

e beenoperatin

g belo w thei r maximu

m 

## T OP.9 1

-90 - achievabl e emissio

nrate s fo

r th e 5 year s prio r t o th e chang e ca

ncaus e increase s i nactua l hourl y

emissio

nrates , inconsisten t wit hthe intent o f th e NSP S program . I n addition , th

e change i

nth e baseline wil l allo w utilitie s sucha extensiv

e ability

t o mak e unregulatedchange s suc ha s refurbishment , repowerin g o r life-extensio

na s t o interfer e wit hcompetitio

nbetweenexistin

g unit s an

dne w units . £ f £T . Comment s Suggestin g Revision s t o th

e Proposal . The mos t frequent comment o nthi s par t of th

e proposa l
wa s tha t th

e rul e shoul db

e clarifiedt o sa

y tha t th

e baseline shoul dreflec t th e las t 5 year s o f operation , t o addres s unit s tha t hav e no t beenoperating . Inthi s regard , commenter s wer e concernedabou t whethe r th e approachwil l
ensur e the establishmen t o f pas t emissio nlevel s tha t ar e trul y representativ

e o f norma l sourc e operation s fo r utility j unit s incol dstorage fo r mor e tha

n5 years . One commente r aske

dtha t th

e NSP S baseline i [4 0 CF R60.14(h) ] b

e made consisten t wit hth e NS Rpre-chang e baseline [4 0 CF

R52.21(b)(21)(ii) ] b y addin g th e phrase , "o

r othe r perioddeemedb y th e Administrato r t o b e mor e representativ

e o f norma l operation. " One commente r remarked tha t i f the rul e canno t b e change

dt o allo

w consideratio

no f the pas t 5 year s o f operation , thenEP A shoul dselec t a

n alternativ

e tha t woul dreflec t a mor e representativ e baseline . Inaddition , som e commenter s aske

dfo rP.9 2

-91 - clarificationtha t a uni t ma y "ne t out " o f NSP S requirement s b y switchin

g t o lo w sulfu r coal . C. Q. The EP

A Analysis . Afte r carefu l consideratio no f the comment s received
an dfurthe r analysi s o f th e subjec t provision , EP A ha s decidedt o promulgat e th e proposedrevise

dmethodolog

y fo r calculatin

g th e pre-chang e baseline fo r NSP S applicability purpose s for a

nexistin

g electri c utility stea m generatin

g unit . The amende

dmethodolog

y wil l us e the highes t hourl y emission s rat e achievabl e at an y tim e durin g th e 5 year s prio r t o the change . The revisedmethodolog y retain s the ke

y concep t in existin g regulation s tha t th e baseline b

e determineddurin

g i a perio dtha t i s roughl y

contemporaneou s wit hthe proposed . chang e at th

e affectedfacility . The EP A believe s tha t thi s decisiont o revis e the curren t regulatio nwil l allo

w utilitie s flexibility regardin

g the schedulin

g o f nonroutine repair , replacement , an dmaintenanc e projects . Also , th e EP A believe s tha t withou t thi s revision , the NSP S regulation s ma

y undul y burdenutilitie s undertakin g physica l
or operationa l change s i nconjunctio

nwit hthe aci drai n i program . Thi s change wil l allo w utilitie s t o demonstrat e tha t anearlier , highe r capacity wa s mor e representativ e o f the unit' s maximu

m hourl y emission s rate . The EP A di dno t agre e wit hcomment s tha t the us e o f th e maximu m hourl y emission s achievabl e durin g th e las t 5 year sP.9 3

-92

- woul d resul t i n a significan t relaxatio n o f NSP S

I requirement s an

d allo wutilitie s t o upgrad e equipmen t whic h
ma yhavejlos t significan t generatin g capacit ywithou t th e equipmen t bein g subjec t t o NSPS . Th e promulgate d chang e provide s a mor e flexibl e provisio n enablin g unit s t o establis h a baselin e tha t i s representativ e o f thei r physica l an

d operationa l capacit yi n recen t years , whil e stil l precludin g th e us e o f a baselin e tie d t o origina l desig n capacity , whic h maybea r n o relationshi p t o th e facility' s capacit yi n recen t years . The]EP Adi d no t agre e wit h th e commen t tha t degre e o f flexibilit ygrante d utilitie s t o mak e unregulate d change s

i suc h a s refurbishment , repowerin g o r life-extensio n project s a s a resul t o f rul e change s woul d interfer e wit h competitio n betwee n existin g unit s an d ne wunits
. Th e prio r regulation s allowe d refurbishment , repowerin g o r life-extensio n projects , provide d emission s d o no t increas e abov e th e unit' s curren t maximu mhourl yemission s rate . Bot h th e prio r an

dnewl ypromulgate d regulation s requir e a uni t tha t undergoe s a refurbishment , repowerin g o r life-extensio n projec t whic h increase s emission s abov e th e unit' s actua l
curren t maximu

mhourl yrat e t o b e subjec t t o NSPS . Th e promulgate d regulatio n simpl yallow s mor e flexibilit yi n definin g a unit' s curren t capacity
. Th e EP Acanno t agre e wit h comment s tha t th e methodology fo r computin g th e NSP S baselin e reflec t th e las t 5 year s o fP.9 4

-93 - operatio

nrathe r tha

nth e 5 year s prior t o th e change . A s discussedi

nconjunctio

nth e NS Rbaseline , th e us e o f suc

ha baseline woul dcredi t a uni t whichha s beeninoperabl e for 2 0 or 30

1 years , o

r longer , an

di nnee do f extensiv

e nonroutine changes , wit ha emission s baseline tha t doe s no t reflec t jcurren

t achievabl e level s o f operations . The EP A notes , hbwever , tha t th e NSP S regulation s hav e alway s allowe da dorman t uni t t o demonstrat e it s curren t capacity i inorder ! t o determine it s emission s baseline . Thu s a n operable ! unit , or one innee do f onl y

routine maintenanc e or i repair , whic hha s bee ndorman t fo

r a nextendedperio

do f tim e ca nstil l demonstrat e it s achievabl e capacity and , * i associatedemission s leve l b y operatin

g fo r a relativel y shor t perio

do f time . i A commente r requestedtha t th e NSP S baseline b

e revised t o be consisten t wit hth e NS Rpre-chang e baseline b y addin g the phrase , "o

r othe r perio

ddeemedb

y the Administrato r t o b e mor e representative of norma l operation. " The EP A di d i i i no t gran t thi s reques t becaus e i t woul dchang e the emphasi s o f the NSP S program . A s a technology-basedprogram , the

i NSP S progra

m examine s maximu

m hourl y emission s rates , i expressedinkilograms pe r hour . Thus , emissio nincrease s for NSP S purpose s ar e determinedb y change s i

nthe hourl y i emission s rate s a t maximu m physica l capacity , regardles s o f ho w the!uni t ha s actuall y operated . I ncontrast , i nlight ! o f the ai r quality

plannin

g component o f th

e NS Rprogram ,P.9 5

I -94

- th e NS Rregulation s examin e tota l actua l annua l emission s t o th e atmosphere
. Consequently , norma l operation s ove r a perio d o f tim e i s considere d fo r purpose s o f determinin g a source' s impac t o n ambien t air
. Fo r NS R applicabilit y determinatio n purpose s emission s increase s ar e determine d b y change s i n actua l annua l emission s a s expresse d i n tpy . Som e commenter s requeste d clarificatio n o n "nettin g out " o f NSP S requirement s b yswitchin g t o lowsulfu r coal
. Th e propose d regulatorychange s wer e specificall ylimite d t o addressin g th e maximu machievabl e emission s a t a specifi c poin t i n tim e (i.e. , immediatel yprio r t o th e chang e versu s achievabl e ove r th e las t 5 years ) an d no t th e parameter s use d i n quantifyin g maximu mhourl yemissions
. Today' s rul e doe s no t alte r curren t NSP S regulation s o n thi s point
. Unde r thos e presen t NSP S regulations , onl yphysica l

i limitation s o n maximu mcapacit yar e considere d i n ; determinin g potentia l emission s a t powe r plants
. Thus , an y prospectiv e change s i n fue l o r rawmaterial s accompanyin g th e physica l o r operationa l chang e ar e no t considere d i n determinin g maximu mcapacity
. i G . Utilit yBAC T Presumptio n fo r N0 X . 

# 1 / Background
. Th e EPApropose d t o adop t a presumptio n that , i n th e cas e o f PS D permit s issue d b yEP Aunde r 4 0 CF R 52.21 , BAC T fo r emission s o f NO xfro mexistin g coal-fire d electri cP.9 6

-95 - utility stea m generatin

g unit s undergoin

g a modificationi s the technolog

y requiredunde r S 40 7 o f the CAA . Comment s Generall y

Favorin

g th e EP A Proposal . Supporter s o f th

e low-NO

xburne r BAC T presumptio n pointedt o stron

g Congressiona l polic y judgemen t favorin g the us e o f "low-NO xburne r technology. " The BAC T presumptio

nshoul dprovide greate r certainty an dconsistenc

y t o utilities , ye t on e supporte r thought i t woul dno t limi t the permittin

g authority' s ability or obligatio

nt o conside r othe r factors . One commente r notedtha t th e BAC T presumptionestablishe s tha t low-NO xburner s constitut e reasonabl e availabl e contro l technolog y (RACT ) a s wel l a s BACT . T 9?. Comment s Generall y Opposin

g th e EP A Proposal . Concludin

g tha t th

e presumptio

ni s unwarranted , misguided , an

dpossibl y

illegal , severa l opponent s of th e BAC T presumptio

nnote dtha t i t foreclose s consideratio no f othe r NO

xcontro l technologie s an dignore s the demonstrated trac k recordan

dcost-effectivenes s o f othe r technologie s sucha s selectiv

e catalyti c reductio n(SCR ) or selectiv e noncatalyti c reduction . Commenter s note dtha t SC

R technolog

y i s i nus e i nmor e tha

n20 0 powe r plant s i nsi x nation s an

dca nachiev

e twic e the NO xreductio

nachievabl e b y low-NO

xburners . The SC

Ro r othe r technologie s mor e effectiv

e tha nlow-NO

xburner s ma

y b e neededa s retrofi t requirement s t o attai nth e ozone standard .-96 - Anothe r comment voicedb y opponent s o f th

e low-NO

x burne r BAC T presumption , wa s tha t i t canno t b e reconciled wit hthe statutor

y comman dfo r case-by-cas e decisions . The ; EP A doe s no t hav

e the right t o mak e suc ha presumptio

nan d
severa l instance s wer e cite dwher e EP

A ha s uphel dth

e case- : by-cas e BAC T determinatio nprocess . The BAC T presumptio n fail s t o recogniz e tha t ther e ar e site-specifi c consideration s tha t wil l affec t th e selectio

no f BACT . Opponent s o f th

e BAC T presumptio

nals o note

dtha t suc

h
a presumptio

nimproperly

shift s th

e burdeno f technolog y analysi s t o State s at a tim e whenthe

y ar e overburdened . In addition , i t wil l hav e a nadvers e effec t o nthe ability

Of ! Stat e an

dloca l agencie s t o contro l emission s t o the degre e necessar

y becaus e i t limit s a nagency' s attainmen t strategies . Som

e o f th e northeasternState s expressed
concern s 

# t tha t sucha presumptio nmigh t interfer e wit h effort s t o attai nth e ozon e standard . The EP A Analysis . Basedupona consideratio no f the comment s received , an da reexaminatio

no f th

e relevan t fact s an dstatutor

y provisions , EP

A ha s determinedno t t o promulgat e the presump t io

nregardin

g BAC T fo

r N0 X . The EP

A i s concerned tha t thi s presumptio nwoul dsugges t preemptio no f th

e exercis e o f Stat e discretio nan dcase-by-cas e decisionmakin g whic hCqngres s envisioneda s fundamenta l t o the BAC T process .P.9 8

-97 - I nlight o f it s decisio nno t t o adopt a BAC T low-NO x presumption , EP

A wil l no t respon

dt o othe r objection s an d suggestion s raise

db y commenters. 2 5 H . Applicability

Determination s A s note di nth e proposal , sourc e owner s o r operator s ir

i
mos t instance s ar e abl e t o readil y ascertai nwhethe r NS R requirement s appl y

t o them . Consequently , i nadministerin

g thes e requirements , EP A doe s no t requir e source s t o obtai na forma l applicability determinatio

nbefor e proceedin g wit h construction . Inkeepin g wit htha t practice , EP A wil l no t requir e utilitie s t o see k applicability

determination s unde r eithe r th

e revise

dregulation s promulgatedtoda y or th e interpretation s o f existin g regulation s containedi nthi s preamble . Utilitie s i nmos t case s ca

nreadil y

ascertai nho

w thi s notic e wil l affec t them . Th e EP A anticipates , however , tha t question s wil l aris e regardin g certai naspect s o f thi s proposal. ; Becaus e som e instance s involv e discret e judgments , utilitie s ma y wis ht o obtai ndetermination s o f applicability . Th e EP A wil l provide suc

hdetermination s uponrequest . Suc hrequest s shoul db e submittedtogethe r wit happropriat e documentatio nt o th

e appropriat e permittin g authority .

2 5 Thi s include s comment s o nth e environmenta l impact s o f the low-NO xburne r presumption , elaboratio no nwha t constitute s low-NO xburne r technology , an dthe merit s an

d curren t us e o f othe r N0 Xcontro l technologie s a s BACT .P.9 9

-98 - Comment s regardin

g applicability

determination s hav e

i previousl y

beenaddressedi

nothe r section s o f thi s rulemaking . I . Limitatio

no f th e Rul e t o Electri c Utilities . 1 . Background . Consisten t wit hth e proposedrule , the regulator y provision s promulgatedtoda y ar e limite

dt o electri c utility stea m generatin

g units . Suc

hunit s ar e defineda s an y stea m electri c generatin

g uni t tha t i s constructedfo r th e purpos e o f supplyin

g mor e tha

none-thir

do f it s potentia l electri c outpu t capacity

an dmor e tha t 2 5 megawatt s o f electrica l outpu t t o an

y utility

powe r distributio

nsyste m fo r sale . I nthe proposal , EP A indicate

dtha t i t wa s limitin g thi s rulemakin

g t o electri c utility stea m generatin

g unit s fo

r tw o reasons . First , titl e I V o f th e CA A addresse s aci d precipitationan

dfocuse s exclusivel y o nutility

powe r plants , i Today' s rulin g ensure s tha t th

e titl e I an

d titl e I V programs wil l no t impos e conflictin g requirement s fo r thos e plants . The secon dreaso ntha t th

e provision s wer e limite

dt o utilitie s i s tha t EPA' s extensiv e experienc e wit helectri c utilities , th e genera l similarity o f equipmen t withi nth

e category , an

dth e particula r exten t o f publicl y availabl e information , indicat e tha t a revisio nt o th e NS R applicability

criteri a fo

r thi s sourc e categor y i s I warranted . 2 . Publi c Comments .p. 1

-99 - Severa l commenter s note dtha t limitatio

no f the proposa l t o electri c utilitie s lack s rationa l justificatio n a s wel l a s lega l an dtechnica l support . Severa l note dtha t the limitatio

ni s unfair , arbitrary , an dcapricious . Typica l o f severa l letters , on e commente r note

dtha t EP

A offeredn

o qualitativ

e evidenc e o f underlyin g assumptions , an danothe r note

dtha t EP

A violate s th

e Administrativ

e Procedure s Ac t b

y limitin

g th e proposa l t o electri c utilities * T o thi s commenter , th e limitatio

ndiscriminate s agains t industria l source s an di s no t inlin

e wit hth

e intention s o f the legislation . One commente r note dtha t the WEPCO cour t di dno t bas e it s analysi s o nan y particular^ —

* characteristic s o f th e utility

industry . Numerou s commenter s counteredEPA' s clai m an d justificatio

nfo r th e limitatio

ntha t th

e Agenc y ha s mor e experienc e wit helectri c utilitie s tha nothe r industries . Illustratin

g tha t EP

A ha s extensiv

e experienc e wit hothe r industries , commenter s mentionedchemica l manufacturing , cemen t plants , refineries , pape r mills , aut o assembl y plants , the 6 5 NSP S sources , an dsource s covere

di nnumerou s guideline document s an dRAC T guidance . Inaddition , severa l notedtha t the lack o f understandin g i s a poo r excus e fo r no t applyin

g the proposa l t o al l industries . Commenter s als o note dtha t othe r industrie s fac e th e sam e problems tha t utilitie s d o whenattemptin

g t o instal l pollutio

ncontro l equipment . Lik e electri c utilities ,P. 2

-100 - pollutioncontro l project s i nothe r industrie s ar e generall y i environmentall y

beneficial , bu t the limitatio no f the exclusio

nt o electri c utilitie s a s proposedwoul ddiscourag e the othe r sourc e categories , fro m installin

g pollution contro l projects . Severa l commenter s note dtha t othe r industrie s wil l b e 

### I equall y impacte

db y extensiv

e regulation s unde r title s I , III , an d|v , jus t a s electri c utilitie s wil l b e affectedb

y titl e IV. ; For example , pharmaceutica l plant s wil l underg o physica l an

doperationa l change s t o mee t reasonabl y availabl e contro l technolog y (RACT ) and/or maximu m achievabl e contro l technology , an dthes e project s shoul dno t b e subjec t t o NS Ror NSPS . The y not e tha t th

e burdenan

d supportiv

e reason s fo

r makin g th e proposedchange s ar e jus t
a s grea t fo

r othe r categorie s o f source s a s the y ar e fo r electri c (utilities . Som e commenter s pointedout tha t EP A presentl y

applie s th e pollutioncontro l projec t exemptio nfro m NSP S t o al l industrie s an

dtha t existin

g NS Rrule s ar e no t industry specific . 3 . JTh e EP A Analysis . The|EP A doe s no t believ

e tha t thi s rul e shoul db e expanded;a t thi s tim e but wil l addres s thi s issu e i na separat e rulemaking . Specifically , EP A currentl y

ha s underwa y a separat e rulemakin g whic hwil l conside r the desirability

o f adoptin

g fo r othe r sourc e categorie s the NS RP. 3

-101 - i pollutioncontro l projec t exclusio nan dth e change s t o th

e methodolog

y fo r determinin

g whethe r a sourc e chang e i constitute s a modificationtha t hav e beenadoptedtoda y fo r i utilities . Thi s rulemakin g wil l als o discharg e EPA' s obligatio

nt o propos e an

dtake fina l actio no na potential i to-potentia l methodolog y a s requiredb

y Exhibi t B o f th

e settlemen t agreemen t i nChemica l Manufacturer s Associatio n
v . EP A (D.C . Cir. , No . 79-1112) . The EP A presentl y

intend s t o propos e thes e NS Rrevision s b y earl y summer . Prior t o proposa l o f thi s rule , EP A consideredgoin

g i forwar dwit ha rul e tha t applie dt o al l sourc e categories . However , th

e complexity

o f tha t tas k mean t tha t a rul e coul d
no t b e developedina shor t tim e frame , a fac t tha t posed unique an

dseriou s difficultie s fo r one sourc e category , utilities . Whil e th e commenter s favorin g expansio

no f thi s rul e t o al l sourc e categorie s ar e accurat e inthei r claim s i tha t source s outside utilitie s fac e CAA-mandatedpollutio n contro l 'projects , utilitie s alone ar e single dou t t o I participat e inthe 199 0 Amendments ' ne w aci drai nprogram . i Thi s progra

m require s tha t unit s subjec t t o phas e I o f the i progra m jmee t SO 2 reductio

nlimit s b

y 1995 . Giventh

e size , complexity , an

dexpens e o f scrubber s an dothe r SO

2 pollutio

n contro l 'technologies , the affectedutilitie s nee dguidanc e toda y a s t o th

e titl e I implication s o f thei r contro l strategies . Whil e othe r source s ma y soo nhav e ne w contro l requirement s impose do nthem , utility

source s fac e th

e mos tP. 4

-102 - immediat e nee

dfo r clarificatio

no f thei r NS R responsibilities . I naddition , EP

A als o ha

dhig hconfidenc e tha t a workabl e "future-actual " methodolog y coul db

e developedfo

r the utility

industr

y fo r al l change s tha t di dno t involv e constructiono f a ne w unit.o r replacemen t o f a nexistin

g unit . The sourc e populatio ni s relativel y

smal l an

dth e technolog

y i nus e i s relativel y uniform . Moreover , utility source s ar e largely regulatedb

y PUC' s whichevaluat e anticipatedutility growtha s par t o f th e regulator

y oversigh t process . The fac t o f Publi c Utility Commissio

n (PUC ) revie

w help s ensur e th

e reliability

o f utility projection s o f futur e operatin g conditions . The EP A anticipate s tha t NS Rpermittin g authoritie s wil l b e abl e t o dra w uponPU

C proceeding s i

nevaluatin

g utility

claim s o f futur e utilization . I naddition , th

e emission s monitorin g provision s of titl e I V require s tha t continuou s emission s monitorin g dat a or othe r highl y

accurat e method s fo r reportin

g actua l emission s wil l b

e use dfo r al l affectedsources . Thi s wil l
assur e tha t actua l emission s dat a wil l b e readil y

availabl e fo r utility

source s subjec t t o today' s rule . I nth e rulemakin

g whic hEP

A intend s t o undertake b y earl y summer , EP A wil l addres s the precis e applicability o f the pollutio

n contro l projec t exclusio nan do f th e actua l t o futur e actua l methodolog

y t o non-utility

sourc e categories .P. 5

III . Miscellaneous ^ Ci-etv/*- , v

<>'&• ' A . A(E.O. ) 12291 . Unde r E.O . 12291 , EP A mus t judge whethe r a regulatio n i s a "major rule " an dtherefor e subjec t t o th e requiremen t for preparationo f a Regulator y Impac t Analysis . Thi s rulin g i s no t a majo r rul e becaus e i t wil l reduc e th e economi c cost s o f meetin g th e requirement s o f th e CAA . However , thi s rulin g wa s submitte

dt o th e Offic e o f Managemen t an

dBudge t (OMB ) fo

r review . Writtencomment s fro m OM B t o EP A an dan y EP A respons e ar e include din Docke t A-90-06 . B . Paperwork Reductio nAct . The proposa l packag e state dtha t n

o additiona l publi c reportin

g burdenwil l resul t fro m thi s ruling . Tha t i s i stil l th

e cas e despit e fina l rul e requirement s fo r reportin

g certai ndat a t o agencie s fo r 5 year s followin

g a chang e an

d for documentin

g excludeddeman

dgrowth , becaus e thi s informatio

ni s alread

y require

db y othe r provision s o f th e la w an dthe fina l rul e i ndoin g s o i s providin

g exclusion s fo r the affectedsource s an dth e ne t resul t i s a decreas e i n thes e source' s publi c reportin g burden . Al l informatio n collectionrequirement s of th e Federa l NS Ran

dNSP S regulation s hav

e beenapprove

db y OM B unde r the provision s o f the Paperwork Reductio nAct , 4 4 U.S.C . 3501 , e t seq. , an d hav e beenassignedOM B contro l number s 2060-000 3 fo r NSR , an d2060 T 002 3 2060-002 6 an d2060-007 2 fo

r NSPS . The effec t 

# A 

# GP. 6

-104 - o f thi s rul e woul db e a reductio

ni npaperwork relatedt o complyin

g wit hNS Ran

dNSP S requirements , sinc e thi s rulin g provide s additiona l clarificatio na s t o physica l an d operationa l change s tha t ma y be excludedfro

m thes e requirements . C . Economi c Impac t Assessmen t The requiremen t fo r performin

g a nEconomi c Impac t Assessmen t unde r § 31 7 o f the CA A (4 2 U.S.C . 7617) , doe s no t appl y t© ! th e amendment s EP

A i s promulgatin

g today . Sectio n|31 7 applie s only

t o "revision s whichth e i Administrato r determine s t o be substantia l revisions. " The promulgatedamendment s ar e no t substantia l revision s becaus e the y reliev e curren t regulator y burdens .

• - i D . Regulator

y Flexibility

Ac t Certification . A s notedinthe proposa l notice , thi s actio ni s no t subjec t t o th

e certificatio

nprovision s o f § 605(b ) o f th e Regulator

y Flexibility

Ac t becaus e thi s rul e wil l resul t i n a reductio

no f administrativ

e cost s an

dn o increas e i

n contro l costs , therefor e havin g n o significan t impac t o n industry .

i E . Effectiv e Date . A s state

dearlie r i

nthi s notice , thi s rul e i s effectiv

e immediatel y

uponpublicationinthe FEDERA L REGISTER . The EP

A ha s conclude

dthat , unde r S 307(d)(1 ) of the CAA > the requiremen t o f sec . 4(d ) o f the Administrativ e Procedure s Act , 5 U.S.o . 553(d) , fo r a 30-da

y waitin g perio dP. 7

i -105 - befor e makin

g a rul e effectiv

e i s no t applicable . F . Federalis

m Implications . Unde r E.O . 12612 , EP A mus t determine i f a rul e ha s federalis

m implication s (i.e. , substantia l direc t effect s o n the States , o

nthe'relationshi pbetweenthe nationa l governmen t an

dthe States , or o nth e distributiono f powe r an dresponsibilitie s amon g the variou s level s o f government) . For thos e rule s whichhav e federalis

m implications , a Federalis m Assessmen t i s t o b e made . The EPA' s determinatio

ni s tha t ther e ar e n o federalis

m implications ; thes e ar e relativel y mino r change s t o existin g Federa l la

w an dregulations . ' The executiv

e orde r als o require s tha t agencies , t o th e exten t possible , refrai nfro m limitin

g th e Stat e polic

y options , consul t wit hState s prior t o takin g an y action s tha t woul drestric t Stat e policy options , an

dtake such action s onl y

whenther e i s clear constitutiona l authority an dthe presenc e o f a proble m o f nationa l scope . The executiv

e orde r provide s fo r preemptio

no f Stat e law , however , i f ther e i s a clear congressiona l intent fo r the agenc y t o do so . An

y suc hpreemption , however , i s t o b e limite dt o the exten t possible * Sinc e th e rul e i s a direc t effor t t o ensur e implementatio no f the 199 0 Amendments , EP A consider s al l o f th e abov e requirement s t o be met .



## M OP. 8

-106 - Listflfo f

Subject s tn. 4 0 CF R0art 5 51 , Zl, ^ 6& Administrativ e procffrtur e an d piaitiiet( , Intergovernmenta l relations , Ai rpollutio n control , NSR , Clea n Coa l Technolog y projects , Sulfu roxides , Nitroge n dioxide , Particulat e matter , Carbo n monoxide , Hydrocarbons , Lead ^ Ozone , Re f ^•+'^* ) ^ -fcco/OteefM cC^fe/ntA-H , 

### VobK\ e or^io'i ct>rv\ P 

### ow*s t 

### Led j Repou,e^«^ 5 > K>sPS .
4 0 CF Rpar t5 2

Ai r pollutio

ncontrol , NSR , Clea nGoa l Technolog

y projects , Repowering , Sulfu r oxides , Particulat e matter , Nitrogendioxide , Carbo nmonoxide^Hydrocarbons , Lead .

4 0 CF Rpar t 6 0 Ai r poll)>*fclo

ncontrol , NSPS , Clea nCoa l Technolog

y projects<*lepowering , Sulfu r oxides , Particulat e matter , Nitrogendioxide , Carbo nmonoxide , Hydrocarbons , Lead . Authority : 4 2 U.S.C . 7401(b)(1) , 741£T"T411 , 7470 - 7479 , 7491 , 7501-7508 , 760 1 andJ-Gtf ^ a s amendedb y the 199 0 Amendments , Pub . L . No^l-flri-549 , 10 4 Stat . 239 9 (Nov . 15 , 1990) ; 402 , 409^<1 5 o f the CA A a s amended , 10 4 Stat . 2399 ; 4 2 U.S.C^^-T^Ol-764 2 a s amende db y the 199 0 Amendments , L . No . 101-549 , 10 4 Stat , 239 9 (NOV . 15 , 1990) ;P. 9

-107

- 4 2 U.S.C. I 7401 , 7411 , 7414 , 7416 , an d 760 1 a s amended-bV^he Z 199 0 Amendments , Pub
. L . 101-^43r-"TU T Stat . 239 9 (Nov
. 15 , th e CA Aa s amended , 10 4 Stat . 2399 , /
>s s otherwis e not.Pi i 

# 9 9 

# ^

WilliamK . R e

Administrato r

\ \ y)yAJi 

# Mv e jy\hP.1 0

-108 - 

## **&*>?, * - 

### kc / Fo rth e reason s se tfort h i n th e preamble , 5fart$5l(o f v/*^ - /Chapte rI of'fitl e 4

0 of th e 'ood

e of Federal Regulation s i s proposed •XcAak amended a s follows :

Par t 5 1 - REQUIREMENT S FO R PREPARATION , ADOPTION , AN D j SUBMITTA

L OF IMPLEMENTATIO

N PLANS .
1
. ' Th e authorit ycitatio n fo r par t 5 1 i s -aaendet P t o i rea d a s follows :

j Authority : 4 2 U.S.C . 7401(b)(1) , 7410 , 7411 , 7470

- 7479 , 7491 , 7501-7508 , 760 1 an d 7602 , a s amende d b yth e 199 0 Amendments , Pub
. L . No . 101-549 , 10 4 Stat . 239 9 (Nov
. 15 , 1990) ; 402 , 409 , 41 5 o f th e CA Aa s amended , 10 4 Stat . 2399 ,

• unles s otherwis e noted
.
ende d t o rea dP.1 1

-108a

2
. Sectio n 51.16 5 i s amende d b yrevisin g paragrap h (a)(1)(xii)(D )



## j

an d b yadding ! paragraph s (a ) (1 ) (v ) (C ) (8 ) , (a ) (1 ) (v ) (C ) (9, ) , (a)(1 ) (xii ) (E) , (a)(1)(xx) , • (a)(1)(xxi) , (a)(1)(xxii) , (a)(1)(xxiii) > (a ) (1)(xxiv) , (a)(1)(xxv ) t o rea d a s follows :

j
. i
. \{{^551.16 5 Permi t requirements
.

(a ) * * * (1 ) * * * (v ) * * * (C ) * * *P.1 2

i -109 - 

### (8 ) ^ e addition , replacemen t o r us e o f a pollutio ncontro l projec t a t a nexistin g electri c utilit y stea m generatin g unit , unles s th e -Administrato r determine s tha t suc haddition , replacement , o r us e render s th e uni t les s

, environmentall y

beneficial , o r except :
(i ) whe nth e Adminiotrato r ha s reaso nt o believ e tha t th e pollutio ncontro l projec t woul dresul t i na significan t ne t increas e i n i representative actua l annua l emission s o f an y criteri a pollutan t ove r level s use dfor^tjiat sourc e i nth e mos t recen t ai r qualit y impac t analysi s i nth e are a conducte dfo r th e purpos e o f titl e I , i f any , and (ii ) t.h e Adminiotrato r determine s tha t th e l increas e wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a i violatio no f an y nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standar do r PS Dincrement , o r visibilit y limitation .
(9 ) Th e installation , operation , cessation , o r remova l o f a temporar y clea ncoa l technolog y demonstratio nproject , provide dtha t th e projec t complie s with : 

# <?P.1 3

(1 ) J:h e -SK I fo r the Stat e i nwhic hthe projec t i s located , an

d
(ii ) othe r requirement s necessar y t o attai nan

d maintai nth

e nationa l ambient ai r quality standard s durin g th e projec t an

dafte r i t i s terminated .

-H n ) Th e reactivatio

no f a ver

y elea ncoal-fired^ — electri c utility

stea m generatin

g unit. —

* * * *
(xii ) *
(D) j For an

y emission s uni t (othe r thana

nelectri c utility st e I ( cx^l){<Aj

(E ) ! o f thi s utility stea m generatin

g uni t specifiedinparagrap h ection ) -te-hat

f ha s no t begu

nnorma l the . operation s o

n^--particula

r date , actua l emission s shal l il^to^emi t o f th

e uni t o

ntha t date . equa l th

e potentia l
(E);Fo r a nelectri c utility

stea m generatin

g uni t I (othe r thana ne

w uni t o r the replacemen t o f a n existin g unitjz-tfactua

l emission s o f th

e uni t followin

g the|physica l or operationa l chang e shal l equa l the representativ

e actua l annua l emission s o f th e unit , provided m the # sourc e # -owne r t or m operato r # maintain s t an d
i f&JU-l'.iAv'l/.-S.' l • , .. . submit s # t o # theparmiffiTm > authority, e o n # a n # annual # basi s 

# ittiffi

. SP.1 4

-111 - for # a

mperiod # o f # 5 m years # fro m m the # dat e # th e ^ uni t # resume s regular # operation , # inf9-nnatio n > demonstratin

g # tha t > th

e physical # o r # operational ^ change # di d # no t m result # i n # a n emission s increase. # k t I9nger.peri9d.n9t £ 9 exceed # 1 0 f ^'It'VjUVf
. years , t may t be t reguired t by t the t pcrait t jjro^authority t i f i t # determine s # suc h# a #period # t o # b e > roor e # representative o f # normal # sourc e # post-chang e # operations . yi t , < X < y (xx ) "Electri c utility stea m generatin

g unit " mean s an

y stea m electri c generatin g uni t tha t i s constructedfo r the purpos e bf supplyin g mor e tha

none-thir

do f it s potentia l
i electri c outpu t capacity an dmor e tha

n2 5 M W electrica l outpu t t o an

y utility

powe r distributio

nsyste m fo r sale . An y stea m supplie

dt o a stea

m distributio

nsyste m fo r th e purpos e o f providin g stea m t o a steam-electri c generato r tha t woul dproduc e electrica l energ y fo r sal e i s als o consideredi

ndeterminin

g th e electrica l energ

y outpu t capacity

o f the affecte

dfacility . (xxi ) "^Representativ e actua l annua l emissions ^ mean s the averag e rate , i nton s pe r year , at whichth e sourc e i s projectedt o emi t a pollutan t fo r th e ^yea r perio

dafte r a i physicaljchang e or change i nth e metho do f operatio

nof a unit , (o

r a differen t consecutiv e -^-yea r perio dwithi n 1 0 year s afte r tha t change , wher e th e parmirfct-i-tvg ' authority determine s tha t suc hperio di s mor e representativ e o f norma l

^•AP.1 5

-112 - sourc e operations) , considerin g the effec t an

y suc hchang e wil l hav

e o nincreasin

g or decreasin

g th e hourl y

emission s rat e an do nprojectedcapacity utilization . I nprojectin g j ("iiA^.^^s futur e emission s th e pormittt w

authority

shall : 

# r

, (A ) conside r al l relevan t information , includin g i but no t limite

dto , historica l operationa l data , ! the company' s ow

nrepresentations , filing s wit h 

### i i th e Stat e o

r Federa l regulator y authorities , an

d i complianc e plan s unde r titl e I V o f the Clea

nAi r 1 Act ; an

d j (B ) exclude , i

ncalculatin

g an y increas e i

n 1 emission s tha t result s fro m th e particula r 

### j •physica l change o

r change i

nth e metho do f i ioperatio

nat a nelectri c utility

stea m generatin

g lunit , tha t portio

no f th e unit' s emission s ! followin

g th e change tha t coul dhav e been j accommodate

ddurin

g th e representativ

e baseline lperio dan di s attributabl e t o a nincreas e in projectedcapacity utilizatio

na t the uni t tha t i s I unrelatedt o th

e particula r change , includin g an y i increase

dutilizatio

ndue t o the rat e o f electricity

deman dgrowt hfo

r th e utility

syste m i a s a whole . \ \ .(xxii ) -^Temporar y clea ncoa l technolog

y demonstration project"mean s a &t¥ demonstratio

nprojec t tha t i s operated for a perio

do f 5 year s or less , an dwhic hcomplie s wit hth e A StP fo r the Stat e i

nwhichthe projec t i s locate dan dothe r requirement s necessar y t o attai nan

dmaintai nth

e nationa l ambient ai r quality standard?durin

g th e projec t an

dafte r i t i s terminated .
(xxiii ) (TClea

ncoa l technology " mean s an y technology , includin

g technologie s applieda t the precombustion , combustion , o

r pos t combustio

nstage , a t a ne

w o r existin

g facility

whichwil l achiev e significan t reduction s i nai r emission s o f sulfu

r dioxide o

r oxide s o f nitrogenassociated 1 wit hth e utilizatio

no f coa l i

nthe generatio

no f electricity , o

r proces s stea

m whichwa s no t i

nwidesprea

d
us e a s o f Novembe r 15 , 1990 . 

# A 

# y (xxiv ) *cleancoa l technolog y demonstratio

nproject ^
mean s a projec t usin g fund s f£ 7 appropriatedunde r th e headin g 'Department o f Energy-Clea nCoa l Technology, • u pt o a tota l amoun t o f $2,500,000,00 0 fo r commercia l demonstrationo f clea ncoa l technology , o r -{2 1 similar project s funde

dthroug

happropriation s fo r the Environmenta l ProtectionAgency . The Federa l contributio nfor a qualifyin

g projec t shal l be at leas t 2 0 percen t o f the tota l
cos t o f the demonstratio nproject . •r \hP.1 7

-114 - (xxv ) (^Reactivatio

nb f a ver y clea ncoal-siredelectri c utility stea m generatin

g unit o mean s an

y physica l chang e o r changeNi hthe metho do f operatio

nassociatedwit hthe commencemen t o f commercia l operation s b y A coal-fired utility uni \ afte r a perio do f discontinuedoperatio nwher e the unit :
(i ) ha s no t b^eni

noperatig-nfo

r the 2-year perio

d prio r t o th

e enactmen t of the Clea nAi r Ac t 199 0 Amendments , an

dthe \ emission s fro m suc huni t continue t o b e carrie

di nth e permittin

g authority' s emission s inventor

y at th e time / o ^ enactment ;
(ii ) wa s equipped/prior t o shut-dow nwit ha continuou s syste m o f emission s contro l tnfc t achieve s a remova l efficienc

y toy sulfu

r dioxide of\n

o les s tha

n8 5 percen t and/ a remova l efficienc y r^ r particulate s of n o les s than.0

8 percent ;
(lltf ) / s equippe

dwit hlow-NO xburner s pruor t o the time/o f commencemen t o f operation s followin g reactivation ; an

d
(iv ) i s otherwis e i ncomplianc e wit hthe requirement s o f the Clea

nAi r Act .
^P.1 8

-115 - (xxyfij ) ^Pollutioncontro l project " mean s an y activity or projec t a t a

nexistin

g electri c utility stea m generatin

g i uni t for purpose s o f reducin g emission s fro

m suchunit . Suchactivitie s o

r project s ar e limite dto : 

# (A. the installatio no f conventiona l or innovativ e pollutioncontro l technology , includin g bu t no t limite

d t o advance

dflu e ga s desulfurization , sorben t injectio n fo r !sulfu r dioxide an

dnitrogenoxide s control s an d electrostati c precipitators ;
(J3 / {&) a

nactivity

o r projec t t o accommodat e switchin g tb
a fue l whichi s les s pollutin g tha nth e fue l use

dprior t o t!h e activity

o r project , including , but no t limite d t o natura l ga s o

r coa l re-burning , o r th e co-firin

g b f

i natura l ga s an

dothe r fuel s fo

r th e purpos e o f controllin

g emissions ;
Vp V *&£&) a . permanen t clea ncoa l technolog

y demonstratio

n projjec t conductedunde r titl e II , sec . 101(d ) o f th e Furthe r Continuin

g Appropriation s Ac t o f 198 5 (sec . 5903(d ) o f titl e 4 2 o f th e UnitedState s Code) , i
or subsequen t appropriations , u pt o a tota l amoun t o f $2,5;00,000,00 0 fo

r commercia l demonstratio no f clea

n coa l technology , or similar project s funde dthroug

hP.1 9

i -116 - appropriation s fo

r th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency ; or i

( 0) H^iT a permanen t clea ncoa l technolog

y demonstratio

n i i
. . . . projec t tha t constitute s a repowerin g project .3
. Sectio n 5 1

an d b yaddin g P.2 0

-116a

16 6 i s amende d b

yrevisin g paragrap h (b)(21)(iv ) paragraph s (b ) (2 ) (iii ) (h ) through (Jc ) , (b ) (21 ) (v ) , an d (b)(30 ) throug h (37 ) t o read a s follows :



## -4 VP.2 1

^

^51.16 6 Preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n o f ai r

quality
. *•,** • (b ) (2 ) ( m ) -

Aphyoioa l ehang e o r chang e i n th o metho d
n f nprrnfinn ihnl l nnt
- .nn.nHo-

v*- »

(h ) th e addition , replacemen t o r us e o f a pollutio n contro l projec t a t a n existin g electri c utilit ystea

mgeneratin g unit , unles s th e Administrato r determine s tha t suc h addition , replacement , o r us e render s th e uni t les s environmentall ybeneficial , o r except :P.2 2

-117

- whenth e reviewin

g authority

ha s reaso

n t o believ

e tha t th

e pollutio

ncontro l projec t woul dresul t ina significan t ne t increas e i n representativ

e actua l annua l emission s o f an y criteri a pollutan t ove r level s use dfo r tha t
sourc e i

nth e mos t recen t ai r quality impac t analysi s i

nth e area conductedfo r th e purpos e o f titl e I , i f any , an d 

# A) 4&) the reviewin g authority

determine s tha t th e increas e wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio

no f an y nationa l ambient ai r quality standar do r PS D increment , or visibility limitation .
(i ) an y physipa-iTchang

e or change i

nth e metho d
o f oper^rCio

nat a nexistin

g electri c u£iTity sneratin

g uni t (othe

r tha nthe^a-daitio

no f a ne

w uni t or the replacemen t of^-tf nexistin

g unit ) th

i woul dno t resul t ina-^ignifican t ne t in$yr^as e in representative^efctua l annua l emissip-rf s o f a regulatedpollutan t at th e u i
\j- >\ (4 ^ The installation , operation , cessation , or remova l o f a temporar y clea ncoa l technolog

y 

# - c *P.2 3

-118 - demonstratio

nproject , providedtha t th e projec t complie s with :
( ^) <(&r^ th

e Stat e implementatio nplanfo

r th e Stat e i nwhichth

e projec t i s located ; an d
(^ / rf^f

n+.r\f>rrequirement s necessar y t o attai n an dmaintai nthe nationa l ambien t ai r quality standard s durin

g th e projec t an

dafte r i t i s terminated . (j ) (4-H P The installatio

no r operatio

no f a permanen t cleancoa l technolog y demonstratio

nprojec t tha t constitute s repowering , providedtha t th e projec t doe s np t resul t i

na nincreas e i

nth e potentia l totfemi t o f an

y regulatedpollutan t emitte db y the unit . Thi s exemptio nshal l appl y

o na pollutant by-pollutan t basis . 

# U l •fi-F-Th

e reactivatio

no f a ver

y clea ncoal-fired electri c utility

stea m generatin

g unit .

* * *

(21 ) 

# T S-119 - (iv ) For an

y emission s uni t (othe r tha na nelectri c utility stea m generatin

g uni t specifiedi nparagrap

h (_b)-v£*}(v) i o f thi s s*Ssection ) -feha- pha s no t begu

nnorma l operation s o

nt( particula r date , actua l emission s shal l ilyto^e i equa l the potentialytofeemi t o f the uni t o ntha t date .
(v ) For a

nelectri c utility

stea m generatin

g uni t (othe r tha na ne w uni t o r the replacemen t o f a n existin g unit),*/actua l emission s o f the uni t followin g th e physica l o

r operationa l change shal l equa l th e representativ

e actua l annua l emission s o f th e uni t followin

g th e physica l o

r operationa l change,provided the e sgurc e # gwne r # g

r e operatg r t

maintains # an

d # submit s # t g the permijttJjnp<iuthority . o na nannua l basi s fo

r a perijgd

m gf # 5 #year s _frgm m th e # dat e # th

e tunit # resume s regula r m gperatign, # infgrmatign.demgnstratin g # tha t # the physical m g r # gperatignal # chang e # di d # ng t # resul t # in < a n emissigns # increase . # # A # longe r perigd,,.ng t tg.exceed < 1 0 years , # may m be < reguired# b

y # th e -.peadjttjdw . authority # i f i t # determine s .suc

h# a _perig

d # t g # b e # mgr e # representativ e g f e ngrma l # sourc e # pgst-chang e # operations . 

### •*• < * • j * * r (30 ) ^Electri c utility stea m generatin

g unit o mean s an

y stea m electri c generatin g uni t tha t i s constructedfo r the purpos e o f supplyin g mor e tha

none-thirdo f it s potentia l electri c outpu t capacity an dmor e tha

n2 5 M W

A-120 - electrica l outpu t t o an y utility

powe r distributio n syste m fo r sale . An

y stea m supplie

dt o a stea

m distributionsyste

m fo r the purpos e o f providin g stea m t o a steam-electri c generato r tha t woul dproduc e electrica l energ

y fo r sal e i s als o consideredi n determinin

g th e electrica l energ

y outpu t capacity

o f the laffecte

dfacility .
il ) ©Pollutioncontro l project " m e (31 ) (9Pollutio

ncontro l project " mean s an y activity

o r projec t undertakenat a nexistin

g electri c utility stea m generatin

g uni t fo

r purpose s o f reducin g emission s fro

m suc hunit . Suc

hactivitie s o

r project s ar e limite

dto :

' (i ) th

e installatio

no f conventiona l o r innovativ

e pollutio

ncontro l technology , includin g bu t no t limite

dt o advance

dflu e ga s desulfurization , sorbent injectio nfor sulfu

r dioxide an

dnitrogenoxide s control s an d electrostati c precipitators ; i • (ii ) anactivity

o r projec t t o accommodat e

i switchin

g t o a fue l whichi s les s pollutin g tha n ; the fue l use

dprior t o th

e activity

o r project , i includin

g but no t limite

dt o natura l ga s o r coa l re-burning , or the co-firin g o f natura l ga s an d

^-121

- othe r fuel s fo r th e purpos e o f controllin g emissions ;
(iii ) a.permanen t clea n coa l technology demonstratio n projec t conducte d unde r titl e II , sec . 101(d ) o f th e Furthe r Continuin g Appropriation s Ac t o f 198 5 (sec
. 5903(d ) o f titl e 4 2 o f th e Unite d State s Code) , o r subsequen t appropriations , up t o a tota l amoun t o f $2,500,000,00 0 fo r commercia l demonstratio n o f clea n coa l technology , o r simila r project s funde d through appropriation s fo r th e Environmenta l • Protectio n Agency , o r
(iv ) a permanen t clea n coa l technolog y demonstratio n projec t tha t constitute s a repowerin g projec t • »

(IfRe r (32 ) ^Representativ e actua l annua l emissions" " mean s th e averag e rate , i n ton s pe r year , a t whic h th e sourc e i s I -hi e projecte d t o emi t a pollutan t fo r th e £-yea r perio d afte r a physica l chang e o r chang e i n th e metho d o f 

### I -r t 

### - ' - operatio

no f a unit , (o

r a differen t consecutiv e ^yea r perio dwithi n1 0 year s afte r tha t change , wher e the reviewin

g authority

determine s tha t suc hperio di s mor e representativ

e o f norma l sourc e operations) , 

### ~e ?P.2 7

I . -122 - considerin

g th e effec t an

y suchchange wil l hav e o n 

### I . increasin

g or decreasin

g th e hourl y

emission s rat e an d
o nprojectedcapacity utilization . I nprojectin g futur e emission s th e reviewin

g authority

shall :
! ' f L ) I *&T

conside r al l relevan t information , includin g

'bu t no t limite

dto , historica l operationa l data , I th e company' s ow

nrepresentations , filing s wit h th e Stat e o

r Federa l regulator y authorities , an

d i ,complianc e plan s unde r titl e I V o f th e Clea nAi r !Act ; an

d

& ) 

## me

exclude , incalculatin g an y increas e in emission s tha t result s fro m th e particula r physica l change o

r change i

nth e metho do f operatio

na t a nelectri c utility

stea m generatin

g unit , tha t portio

no f th e unit' s emission s followin

g th e change tha t coul dhav e been I accommodateddurin g the representativ e baseline perio dan di s attributabl e t o a nincreas e i

n i i 1 iprojecte

dcapacity

utilizatio

nat th

e uni t tha t i s unrelatedt o the particula r change , includin g an y i iincrease

dutilizatio

ndue t o the rat e o f 'electricit

y deman dgrowt hfo

r th e utility

syste m i a s a whole .P.2 8

tfcie -123

- (33 ) ^Clea ncoa l technology^imean s an y technology , includin g technologie s applie dat the precombustion , combustion , or pos t combustio

nstage , a t a ne

w or existin

g facility whic hwil l achiev

e significan t reduction s i nai r emission s o f sulfu

r dioxide or oxide s o f nitrogen associatedwit hth e utilizationo f coa l i nth e generatio

nof electricity , or proces s stea m whichwa s


### no t i nwidesprea

dus e a s o f Novembe r 15 , 1990 .
(34 ) p Clea ncoaJ

_ f prrhnn i ^g y demonstratio

nproject" 1 'mean s a projec t usin

g fund s -^^appropriate dunde r th e headin

g 'Department o f Energy-Clea nCoa l Technology' , u pt o a tota l amount of $2,500,000,00 0 fo r commercia l j demonstrationo f clea ncoa l technology , or 43fsimila r project s funde

dthroug

happropriation s fo r th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency . The Federa l contributionfo

r a qualifyin

g projec t shal l b

e a t leas t 2 0 percen t o f th

e tota l cos t o f th e demonstration project . 

# A ®Te i (35 ) '"Temporar

y clea ncoa l technolog

y demonstrationproject '
mean s a clea

ncoa l technolog

y demonstratio

nprojec t tha t i s operatedfo r a perio

do f 5 year s o

r less , an

d whic hcomplie s wit hth e Stat e implementatio nplanfo

r i the Stat e i

nwhichthe projec t i s locate dan dothe r requirement s necessar y t o attai nan

dmaintai nth

e 

# ZP.2 9

ifi- -124 - natibri*ambien

t ai r quality

standard s durin

g an dafte r the projec t i s terminated .
•^ReDowerina* * m

e (36 ) (i ) ffRepowerinqP mean s replacemen t o f a nexistin

g ! coal-firedboile r wit hone o f th e followin

g clea n i coa l technologies : atmospheri c or pressurized j i fluidize

dbe dcombustion , integrate dgasification l j combine

dcycle , magnetohydrodynamics , direc t an d i indirec t coal-firedturbines , integrate d gasificationfue l cells , or a s determinedb y the Administrator , i

nconsultatio

nwit hthe Secretar y o f Energy , a derivativ e o f on e or mor e o f thes e technologies , an

dan y othe r technolog

y capabl e o f controllin

g multipl e combustio nemission s simultaneousl y

wit himprove

dboile r or generation efficienc

y an dwit hsignificantl y greate r wast e ; reductionrelativ e t o th e performanc e o f i j technolog

y i nwidespreadcommercia l us e a s o f j Novembe r 15 , 1990 . (ii j Repowerin

g shal l als o include an y oi l and/b

r gas i | fire duni t whicha s beenawarde dcleancoa l i j technolog

y demonstratio

nfundin

g a s o f Januar

y 1 , ! 1991 , b

y the D0E > ^ '
- * -P.3 0

-125 - ! (iii ) The reviewin g authority

shal l giv

e expedited

, consideratio

nt o permi t application s fo r an y ; sourc e tha t satisfie s th e requirement s o f thi s

, subsectio

nan di s granteda

nextensio

nunde r >crt-.^uivx j -^40 9 o f the Clea nAi r Act . ! (37 ) u>: Reactivationo f a vgr v clea ncoal-firedelectri c utility $tea m generatin

g unitjTmean s an

y physica l change o r chang e inthe metho do f operatio

nassociatedwit hth e commencemen t o f commercia l operation s b y a coal-fired utility uni t afte r a perio do f discontinuedoperatio nwher e th e unit :

+-U. V (i ) ha s no t bee

ni noperatio

nfo r th e $-yea r perio

d prior t o th

e enactment o f th

e Clea nAi r Ac t Amendment s o f 1990 , an

dth e emission s fro

m suc huni t continue t o b e carriedinthe permittin g authority' s emission s inventor

y at th e tim e o f enactment ; (ii ) wa s equippe

dprior t o shut-dow nwit ha continuou s syste m o f emission s contro l tha t achieve s a remova l i efficiency

fo r sulfu r dioxide o f n

o les s tha

n8 5 percen t an

da remova l efficienc y fo r particulate s o f n o j i les s than9 8 percent ;P.3 1

-126 - (iii ) i s equippe

dwit hlow-NO xburner s prio r t o the time | o f commencement o f operation s followin g reactivation ; an

d
(iv) j i s otherwis e i ncomplianc e wit hthe requirement s
o f th e Clea nAi r Act .P.3 2



### tfr. se t fort h i n th e preamble,Jpar t 5 2 o f .itl e 4 0 o f th e Cog»-'6 r Federa l Regulation s -i-s—- ^ p-repeco

d t o br f amende d

Par t 52-APPROVA

L AN D PROMULGATIO

N O F IMPLEMENTATIO

N PLAN S 

### i c&u&ec) 1
. Th e authorit ycitatio n fo r par t 5 2 i s amendedt o rea d a s follows :
Authority : 4 2 U.S.C . 7401-764 2 a s amende d b yth e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f 1990 , Pu b L. * No . 101-549 , 10 4 Stat . 239 9 (Nov
. 15 , 1990) , unles s otherwis e noted
. ^P.3 3

-127a

2
. Sectio n 52.2 1 i s amende d b yrevisin g paragrap h (b)(21)(iv )
an d b yaddin g iparagraph s (b)(2 ) (iii)(h ) through (k) , (b ) (21 ) (v) , an d paragraph s (b ) (3-1 ) through (b ) (38 ) t o rea d a s follows :

_£52.2 1 Preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n o f ai r quality
.

* * * * * (b ) * * * (2 ) * * *P.3 4

|iii ) j^ A

physica l ihamj^ 1 o r a change i

n a f operatio

nshal l ne t include

(h ) th e addition , replacemen t o r us e o f a pollutio

ncontro l projec t a t a nexistin

g electri c utility stea m generatin

g unit , unles s the Administrato r determine s tha t suchaddition , replacement , or us e render s the uni t les s environmentall y

beneficial , or except : (J.) 4$) whenth

e Administrato r ha s reasont o believ e tha t th

e pollutioncontro l projec t woul dresul t i

na significan t ne t increas e i n representativ

e actua l annua l emission s o f an y criteri a pollutan t ove r level s use dfo r tha t sourc e i

nth e mos t recen t ai r quality impac t analysi s i

nth e area conductedfo r the purpos e o f titl e I , i f any , an d 

# U) G&) the Administrator determine s tha t th e increas e wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio

no f an y nationa l ambient ai r quality standar do r PS D increment , o r visibility limitation .-129 - (i ) Th e installation , operation , cessation , or remova l o f a temporar y clea ncoa l technolog

y demonstratio

nproject , provided tha t the projec t complie s with :
( | ) < ^5 Jthe Stat e implementatio nplanfor the Stat e i

nwhichthe projec t i s located , an

d
(_2. ) (-A^T

" othe r requirement s necessar y t o attai nan

dmaintai nth

e nationa l ambient ai r quality

standard s durin

g the projec t
an dafte r i t i s terminated . (j ) The installatio nor operatio

no f a permanen t clea

ncoa l technolog

y demonstratio

nprojec t tha t constitute s repowering , providedtha t th e projec t doe s no t resul t i

na nincreas e i

nth e potentia l t o emi t o f an y regulated pollutan t emitte

db y th e unit . Thi s exemptio

nshal l apply

o na pollutant-by pollutan t basis .
(k ) The reactivatio no f a ver

y cleancoal-fired electri c utility

stea m generatin

g unit . 

# y-P.3 6

-130 -
(21 )
(iv ) For an

y emission s uni t (othe r tha na nelectri c utility stea m generatin

g uni t specifiedi nparagrap

h (_b)( 3 0( v ) O f thi s SA*esection ) tha* . ha s no t begu nnorma l i -re

operation s o

na^particula r date , actua l emission s shal l equa l th

e potentia l t o emi t o f th e uni t o

ntha t date .
(v ) For a

nelectri c utility

stea m generatin

g uni t (othe r thana ne

w uni t o r th e replacemen t o f a

n existin g unitj-jfactua l emission s o f th e uni t followin

g the physica l o

r operationa l chang e shal l equa l th e I representativ

e actua l annua l emission s o f the unit,providedthe sourc e owne r o r operator maintain s and # 'submits ^ tg

m the # permitting t authority 1 ' , # on

m an # annu

a 1 basi s # f g

r # a # perig

d # o f # 5 #year s ^ frgm # the # dat e # th

e # uni t resume s m regular t gperatign, < infgrmatign #demgnstrating tha t m the # physical # g r m gperatignal # change # di d # ng t # resul t in # a nemissign s increase. # Algnge r perigd , ngtt g exceed # 1 0 # years , #

may e b e # reguired # b

y > the # pefmitt-arfrg

^ -authgrit^i f ;-±^determine s # suc h# a tperigd # t g # b

e # mgr e representativ

e t gf # ngrmal # sgurc e # post-chang e # gperatigns . 

### V 

### Xl yx x 

# 4 ?

# y 

# ~ 131 

# " ^ (31 ) -yElectri c utility stea m generatin

g unit " mean s an

y stea m electri c generatin g uni t tha t i s constructedfor th e purpos e o f supplyin g mor e tha

none-thir

do f it s potentia l electri c outpu t capacity an dmor e than2 5 M

W electrica l outpu t t o an y utility

powe r distribution syste m fo r sale . An

y stea m supplie

dt o a stea

m distributionsyste

m fo r th e purpos e o f providin g stea m t o a steam-electri c generato r tha t woul dproduc e electrica l energ

y fo r sal e i s als o consideredi n determinin

g th e electrica l energ

y output capacity

o f the affectedfacility . 

### <g£ 0 

### - - • • • - -^ (32 ) TSPollutio

ncontro l project s mean s an y activity

or projec t undertakenat a nexistin

g electri c utility stea m generatin

g uni t fo

r purpose s o f reducin g 

### i emission s fro

m suc hunit . Suc

hactivitie s o

r project s ar e limite

dto :
(i ) ^h e installatio no f conventiona l or innovativ e pollutio

ncontro l technology , includin g bu t no t limite dt o advance

dflu e ga s desulfurization , : sorben t injectio

nfo r sulfu r dioxide an

dnitrogen i | oxide s control s an delectrostati c precipitators ;
(ii ) a nactivity

or projec t t o accommodat e switchin

g t o a fue l whichi s les s pollutin g tha n 

# 1 *P.3 8

-132 - the fue l i

nus e prior t o the activity o r project , including , but no t limite dt o natura l ga s o r coa l re-burning , o

r the co-firin

g o f natura l ga s an d othe r fuel s for the purpos e o f controllin g emissions ;
(iii ) a permanen t clea ncoa l technolog

y demonstratio

nprojec t conducte dunde r titl e II , S bch^rr, j -se-ff ? 101(d ) o f th

e Furthe r Continuin g Appropriation s Ac t o f 198 5 (sec . 5903(d ) o f titl e 4 2 o f th

e Unite dState s Code) , o

r subsequen t appropriations , u

pt o a tota l amoun t o f ' $2,500,000,00 0 fo

r commercia l demonstratio no f cleancoa l technology , or simila r project s funde d throug happropriation s fo r th e Environmenta l Protectio

nAgency ; or
(iv ) a

_permanen t clea

ncoa l technolog

y demonstratio

nprojec t tha t constitute s a repowerin

g project . tfp* B m i (33 ) "'Representativ e actua l annua l emissions " mean s th e

i averag e rate , i

nton s pe r year , at whichth e sourc e i s projectedt o emi t a pollutan t fo r th e ^f-yea r perio d afte r a physica l change o r change i

nthe metho

do f operatio

no f a unit , (o

r a differen t consecutiv e f-year

*

?P.3 9

j -133 - periodwithi n1 0 year s afte r tha t change , wher e th e Administrato r determine s tha t suc hperio di s mor e representativ

e o f norma l sourc e operations) , i considerin

g th e effec t an

y suc hchange wil l hav

e o n increasin

g o r decreasin

g th e hourl y

emission s rat e an d
o nprojectedcapacity utilization . I nprojectin g futur e emission s th e Administrato r shall :
(i ) gonside r al l relevan t information , includin g bu t no t limite

dto , historica l operationa l data , th e company' s ow

nrepresentations , filing s wit h th e Stat e or Federa l regulator y authorities , an

d complianc e plan s unde r titl e I V o f th e CleanAi r Act ; an d
(ii ) exclude , i

ncalculatin

g an y increas e i

n emission s tha t result s fro m the particula r physica l change or change i nth e metho do f operatio

na t a nelectri c utility

stea m generatin

g unit , tha t portio

no f the unit' s emission s followin

g th e change tha t coul dhav e bee n accommodateddurin

g th e representativ

e baseline perio dan di s attributabl e t o a nincreas e in projectedcapacity utilizatio

na t the uni t tha t i s unrelatedt o th

e particula r change , includin g an y increase

dutilizatio

ndue t o the rat e o f-134 - electricity

deman dgrowt hfo

r the utility

syste m a s a whole .

(34 ) (fClea

ncoa l technologyjy mean s an

y technology , includin g technologie s applie dat the precombustion , combustion , ! o r p'os t combustio

nstage , at a ne

w o r existin

g facility whichwil l achiev

e significan t reduction s i nai r emission s o f sulfu

r dioxide or oxide s o f nitrogen associatedwit hth e utilizatio

no f coa l i

nth e

i generationo f electricity , o r proces s stea

m whichwa s , 

### no t i nwidespreadus e a s o f Novembe r 15 , 1990 .
(35 ) ^Clea ncoa l technolog y demonstratio

nproject ^ mean s a projec t usin

g fund s ^appropriate dunde r th e headin

g 'Department o f Energy-Clea nCoa l Technology' , u pt o a tota l amoun t o f $2,500,000,00 0 fo r commercia l demonstrationo f clea ncoa l technology , o r <-§ P simila r project s funde

dthroug

happropriation s fo r th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency . The Federa l contributionfo

r a qualifyin

g projec t shal l b

e at leas t 2 0 percen t o f th

e tota l cos t o f th e demonstratio

n project .
(36 ) (i>Tempor*ar

Y^i*-** " -"-"fr

i technolog

y demonstratio

nproject-^ "
mean s a cleancoa l technolog y demonstrationprojec t A}P.4 1

-135 - tha t i s operatedfo r a perio

do f 5 year s o

r less , an

d whic hcomplie s wit hthe Stat e implementatio nplan s for i the Stat e inwhichth e projec t i s locate dan dothe r requirement s necessar y t o attai nan

dmaintai nthe nationa l ambient ai r quality standard s durin

g th e projec t an

dafte r i t i s terminated . (37 ) (i ) 0Repowering 4 * mean s replacemen t o f a nexistin

g

' coal-firedboile r wit hone o f th e followin

g clea n
i coa l technologies : atmospheri c o r pressurized fluidize

dbe dcombustion , integrate dgasification , combine dcycle , magnetohydrodynamics , direc t an d indirec t coal-firedturbines , integrate d gasificatio

nfue l cells , o

r a s determinedb

y th e
: Administrator , i

nconsultatio

nwit hth

e Secretar

y | o f Energy , a derivativ e o f on e or mor e o f thes e technologies , an

dan y othe r technolog

y capabl e o f controllin

g multipl e combustio nemission s simultaneousl y

wit himprove

dboile r or generatio n efficienc

y an dwit hsignificantl y greate r wast e reductio

nrelativ

e t o th e performanc e o f ! technolog

y i nwidespreadcommercia l us e a s o f Novembe r 15 , 1990 .
(ii ) Repowerin

g shal l als o include an y oi l and/o r gas Tire duni t whichha s beenawarde dclea ncoa lP.4 2



### -136 -

(iii ) technolog y

demonstratio nfundin g a s o f Januar y 1 , 1991 , b y th e Betf 5 

### . ' J



### '

T h e Administrato r shal l giv e expedite d consideratio nt o permi t application s fo r a n y sourc e tha t satisfie s th e requirement s o f thi s subsectio nan di s 5 C.-C.+T.A 

### grante da nextensio nunde r -t f 40 9 o f th e Clea nAi r Act .
tlRe , (38 ) ^Reactivatio no f a ver y clea ncoal-fire delectri c utilit y stea m generatin g unit<^mean s an y physica l chang e o r chang e i nth e metho do f operatio nassociate d wit hth e commencemen t o f commercia l operation s b y a coal-fire dutilit y

uni t afte r a perio do f discontinue d operatio nwher e th e unit : 

### A^°. (i ) h_a s no t bee ni noperatio nfo r th e ^?-yea r perio d prio r t o th e enactmen t o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t Amendment s o f 1990 , an dth e emission s fro m suc huni t continu e t o
i 

### b e carrie di nth e permittin g authority' s emission s inventor y

a t th e tim e o f enactment ; (ii! ) wa s equippe dprio r t o shut-dow nwit ha continuou s syste m o f emission s contro l tha t achieve s a remova l efficienc y

fo r sulfu r dioxid e o f n o les s tha n8 5P.4 3

-137 - percen t an

da remova l efficienc y fo r particulate s o f n o les s than9 8 percent ;

i (iii ) 2 s equippedwit hlow-NO xburner s prior t o th e tim e o f commencemen t o f operation s followin g i reactivation ; an

d
(iv ) i s otherwis e i ncomplianc e wit hth e 

### i » requirement s o f th e Clea nAi r Act . 3 . Sectio

n52.2 4 is-jMg-^-posad-nt o )c(a- amende

dt o rea

da sP.4 4

•137a

3
. Sectio n 52.2 4 i s amende d b yrevisin g paragrap h (f ) (13 ) (iv )
an d b yaddin g paragraph s (f)(5)(iii) (h) an d (ij , (f)(13)(v ) an d paragraph s (f)(19 ) through (24 ) t o rea d a s follows :
*5-52.2 4 Statutoryrestrictio n o n ne wsources .

**** *

* * * (f ) (5 ) (iii ) * * * * * *P.4 5



### -138 - (h ) th e addition , replacemen t o r us e o f a pollutio n contro l projec t a t a nexistin g electri c utilit y steam generatin g unit , unles s th e Administrato r determine s tha t suc haddition , replacement , o r us e render s th e uni t les s environmentall y beneficial , o r except :

i 

### (1 ) whe nth e Administrato r ha s reaso nt o believ e tha t th e pollutio ncontro l projec t woul dresul t i na significan t ne t increas e i n representativ e actua l annua l emission s o f any criteri a pollutan t -ove r level s use dfo r tha t sourc e i nth e mos t recen t ai r qualit y impac t ! analysi s i nth e are a conducte dfo r th e purpos e o f titl e I , i f any , an d

! 

### (2 ) th e Administrato r determine s tha t th e increas e wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a ''violatio no f any nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standar do r PS Dincrement , o r visibilit y limitation . (i ) Th e installation , operation , cessation , o r remova l o f a temporar y

clea ncoa l technolog y demonstration , project , provide dtha t th e projec t complie s with :

AR-139

- (1 ) the Stat e implementatio nplanfor the Stat e in whichth

e projec t i s located , an d

(2 J othe r requirement s necessar y t o attai nan

d maintai nth

e nationa l ambient ai r quality standard s durin

g the projec t an

dafte r i t i s terminated . | (j ) The reactivationgX-a - verycTea hcoal-fired i elec-fer±e""~utilit

y stea m generatin

g unit .

(13 )
(iv ) For an

y emission s uni t (othe r tha na nelectri c utility stea m generatin

g uni t specifie

di nparagrap

h (- t \ \ 1} (v ) o f thi s subsection ) -feho-^ha s no t begu

nnorma l opetation s on<£-particula r date , actua l emission s shal l equa l the potentia l t o emi t o f the uni t o ntha t date .
(v ) For a

nelectri c utility

stea m generatin

g uni t (othe r tha na ne w uni t o r th e replacemen t o f a

n .existin g unit) * actua l emission s o f the uni t followin g the physica l or operationa l chang e shal l equa l the representativ

e actua l annua l emission s o f the uni t ..provide

dth e sourc e owne r or operato r maintain s _.

... / 1

• / ?-140 - f-ij- i •„-.->. - - i V r "ft:- — an dsubmit s t o th

e pormittin

g authority , o

na nannua l basi s for a perio

do f 5 year s fro

m the dat e the uni t
resume s regula r operation , informatio ndemonstratin

g .

~ - ~ t ~ i raat-T- * i " " i l i i — i ••••'•••••iiaaw a ^ 1 • i » . T tha t th e physica l o

r operationa l change di dno t resul t i na nemission s increase . A longer period , no t t o a T » _ a a ; • • i—i— r T • t T I— r • • t - i • T ~-"TT*T~T*I—i— i T^^ I i-* t t r * -

• -——*—*—*—————* - — » •

» exceed1 0 years , ma y be requiredb

y the permitting—

M

-.-»--- , ,gp||IT*ii>ii^tiat--|-|*--T-~ - " 1 - ~ ~ i i*t i I i i i • i g f ^ \ authorit y

i f ar e determine s suc

ha perio

dt o b e mor e representativ

e o f norma l sourc e post-chang e operations . , \ \ y kr^Z ffl^lectric utility stea m generatin

g unitc V mean s an

y stea m electri c generatin g uni t tha t i s constructedfo r the purpos e o f supplyin g mor e tha

none-thir

do f it s potentia l electri c outpu t capacity an dmor e tha

n2 5 M W electrica l outpu t t o an

y utility

powe r distributio nsyste m fo r sale . An y stea m suppliedt o a stea m distributio

nsyste m fo r th e purpos e o f providin g stea m t o a steam-electri c generato r tha t woul dproduc e electrica l energ y fo r sal e i s als o consideredindeterminin g th e electrica l energ

y outpu t capacity

o f the affectedfacility .

i fe*) <-*£)-(yRepresentativ e actua l annua l emissions-ffi"mean s th e averag e rate , i

nton s pe r year , at whichthe sourc e i s •+•0- 0 projectedt o emi t a pollutan t for the a^yea r perio dafte r a physica l chang e or change i nthe metho

do f operatio

no f a unit , (o

r a differen t consecutiv e 2^year perio

dwithi n 1 0 year s afte r tha t change , wher e th e Administrato r 

# A

/ \ .• :P.4 8

-141 - i determine s tha t suc hperio di s mor e representativ e o f norma l
sourc e operations) , considerin g th e effec t an

y suc hchang e wil l hav

e o nincreasin

g or decreasin

g th e hourl y

emission s i rat e an do nprojectedcapacity utilization . Inprojectin g futur e emission s the Administrato r shall : (i ) _consider al l relevan t information , includin g but not!limitedto , historica l operationa l data , th e company' s ow

nrepresentations , filing s wit hth e Stat e or Federa l regulator y authorities , an

dcomplianc e plan s unde r titl e I

V o f th e Clea nAi r Act ; an

d
(ii ) exclude , i

ncalculatin

g an y increas e i

nemissions : tha t result s fro

m th e particula r physica l chang e o r chang e inthe metho do f operatio

nat a nelectri c utility stea m generatin

g unit , tha t portio no f th e unit' s emission s followin g th e chang e tha t coul dhav e beenaccommodate

ddurin g th e representativ

e baseline i perio dan di s attributabl e t o a nincreas e i

nprojected capacity

utilizatio

nat th e uni t tha t i s unrelatedt o the particula r change , includin g an y increase

d utilizationdue t o th e rat e o f electricity deman d growt hfo

r th e utility

syste m a s a whole . (-?\\ *&& (temporary clea n7-"-*

1 ^-"ghnolog

y demonstration projectc^fmeans a clea ncoa l technolog

y demonstrationprojec t 

# Z--

### -142 -

tha t i s operate dfo r a perio do f 5 year s o r less , andwhic h complie s wit hth e Stat e implementatio nplan s fo r th e Stat e i nwhic hth e projec t i s locate dandothe r requirement s necessar y

t o attai nan

dmaintai nth e nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standard s durin g th e projec t an dafte r i t i s terminated .

' " ttttrnf, 

### (J? 1.) A2&L ffcieancoa l technology * mean s an y technology , includin g technologie s applie da t th e precombustion , combustion , o r pos t combustio nstage , a t a new o r existin g facilit y whic hwil l achiev e significan t reduction s i nai r emission s o f sulfu r dioxid e o r oxide s o f nitroge nassociate d wit hth e utilizatio no f coa l i nth e generatio no f electricity, o r proces s stea m whic hwa s no t i nwidesprea d us e a s o f Novembe r 15 , 1990 . ^2*) -frclea

ncoa l technolog y

demonstratio nproject* ? mean s a projec t usin g fund s ^f appropriate dunde r th e headin g 'Departmen t o f Energy-Clea nCoa l Technology' , u pt o a tota l

i 

### amoun t o f $2,500,000,00 0 fo r commercia l demonstratio no f clea ncoa l technology , o r @5 ) simila r project s funde d throug happropriation s fo r th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . Th e Federa l contributio nfo r a qualifyin g projec t shal l b e a t leas t 2 0 percen t o f th e tota l cos t o f th e demonstratio nproject .

-1 7 •-143 - 

### \ge o r

(23 ) deactivatio no f a , ver y clea nrgaj-f-ir ^ oio^-h-r

utilit y stea mgeneratin g unifrflmean s an y physica l ch < 

## I - chang e inth

e metho do f operatio

nassociatedwit hyti e commencemen t of/commercia l operation s b y a coal-/ i 

## i / utility uni t X f te r a perio do f discontinuedoperatio nwher e th e unit : rire d

(f ) !ha s no t bee

ni noperatio

nfo r Jfch e 2-year perio

d prio r t o th

e enactment o f th

e CVea nAi r Ac t Amendment s o f 1990 , an

dth e emission s frcft

nsuc huni t continue t o be carriedi

nth e permitting authority' s emission s inventor

y at th e tim e of^enactment ;
(ii ) wa s equippedprior t o shut-dow nwit ha conti/fuou s syste m o f emission s contro l tha t achieve s a rejriova l efficiency

fo r sulfu r dioxide o f n

o les s thaf

i 8 5 

### i / / percen t an

da .removal efficienc y fo r particulate s o f n o les s tha

n9a/percent ;

i / i / (iii! ) is/equippe

dwit hlow-NO xburner s prior t o th e time 1 o f commencemen t o f operation s followin g reactivation ; an

d
(iv) i i s otherwis e i ncomplianc e wit hth e requirement s o f the CleanAi r Act .P.5 1

-144 - V^- 4 ) 42M

Pollutio ncontro l project^mean s an y activity

or projec t undertakena t a nexistin

g electri c utility stea m generatin

g uni t for purpose s o f reducin g emission s fro

m suc h unit . Suc

hactivitie s o

r project s ar e limite dto :
(i),th e installatio

no f conventiona l o r innovativ

e i pollutioncontro l technology , includin g but no t limite

d t o advance

dflu e ga s desulfurization , sorben t injectio n for sulfu

r dioxide an

dnitrogenoxide s control s an d electrostati c precipitators ;
(ii j a nactivity

or projec t t o accommodat e switchin g t o a fue l whichi s les s pollutin g tha nth e fue l i

nus e prio r t o th

e activity

o r projec t including , but no t limite dt o natura l ga s o r coa l re-burning , co-firin g o f natura l ga s an

dothe r fuel s fo

r the purpos e o f controllin

g emissions ;
(iii ) a permanen t cleancoa l technolog y demonstration projec t conductedunde r titl e II,"<s*e . 101(d ) of th e Furthe r Continuin

g Appropriation s Ac t o f 198 5 (setr ? 5903(d ) o f titl e 4 2 o f th e UnitedState s Code) , or subsequen t appropriations , u pt o a tota l amoun t o f $2,500,000,00 0 fo

r commercia l demonstratio no f clea

n coa l technology , or similar project s funde dthroug

hP.5 2 1 r

-145 - appropriation s fo

r th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency ; or
(iv ) a permanen t clea ncoa l technolog

y demonstration projec t tha t constitute s a repowerin g project .

## >l t -146

-

ro r th u leasun a ac t fort h i n th e proamblc , part e G O o f ^ , Chapte r I of^itl e 4 0 o f th e Cod o o f Fodora l Rogulati w propeei J U

u liC^amende

d a s follows :

PAR T 60-STANDARD S OF PERFORMANCE FO RNE W STATIONAR

YSOURCE S 

## revts W 1
. Th e authorit ycitatio n fo r par t 6 0 i s amawdad^t o rea d
a s follows : Authority : 4 2 U.S.C . 7401 , 7411 , 7414 , 7416 , an d 760 1
a s amende d b

yth e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f 1990 , Pub
. L . 101-549 , 10 4 Stat . 239 9 (Nov
. 15 , 1990 ; 402 , 409 , 41 5 o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t a s amended , 10 4 Stat . 2399 , unles s otherwis e noted
.

2
. Sectio n 60. 2 i s proposedt o ho ' amende d b yaddin g th e followin g definitions ^ « * ^P^U^ J w4* r *> C>0 .2. .fta£fi.'ho/.s. ^Clea n coa l technologydemonstratio n project " mean s a projec t usin g fund s appropriate d unde r th e headin g 'Departmen t o f Energy-Clea n Coa l Technology' , up t o a tota l
amoun t o f $2,500,000,00 0 fo r commercia l demonstration s o f clea n coa l technology , o r simila r project s funde d throug h appropriation s fo r th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . 4 k f-r**#

- 

## J<L

< $te*E 

### -147 - f 

### Electri c utilit y

steam generatin g unit* ^ mean s any steam electri c generatin g uni t tha t i s constructe dfo r th e purpos e o f supplyin g mor e tha none-thir do f it s potentia l electri c outpu t capacit y

andmor e tha n2 5 M

W electrica l outpu t t o an y utilit y powe r distributio nsystem fo r sale . An y

steam supplie dt o a steam

distributio nsystem fo r th e purpos e o f i 

### providin g steam

t o a steam-electri c generato r tha t woul d

i 

### produc e electrica l energy fo r sal e i s als o considere di n i
. 

### determinin g th e electrica l energ y outpu t capacit y

o f th e affecte dfacility . ,* *r*- * * ~ . : 

### — —

T«fm o 

### -J'Repowering* ^ mean s replacement ^ a nexistin g coal-fire d boile r w|it

hon e o f th e fjetflowin g clea ncoa l technologies : atmospheri c o r pressurize dfluidize dbe dcombusti c integrate djjj-aTsificatio ncombine dcycle , magnetofiydrodynamics , direc t andindi^er6 t coal-fire d frbines , integrate dgasificatipj-r'tue l cells , o r a s determine db

y th e Administrator , i nconsultatio nwit ht>- ^ Secretar y

o f Energy , Jfaerivativ e o f on e o r mor e o f thes j technologies , ancKany othe r technolog y

capabl e o f controll!ing>a(ultipl e combustio nemission s simultaneousl y wit himprove dboile r o r generatio nefficienc y an dwit h significantl y

greate r wast e reductip nrelativ e t o th e performanc e o f technolog y i nwidesprea dcommercia l us e a s o f Novembe r 15 , 1990 . Repowerin g shal l als o includ e an y oi l and/o r gas-fire duni t wKic hha s bee nawarde dclea ncoa l 

# A
4-

^ y 

# -A3P.5 5

-148 - teetfnolog y demonstratio n pxftdinq a s o f Januar y 1 , th e Departmen to f

E n •gy -

</R e Reactivatio no f a ver y clea ncoal-fire delectri c utilit y stea m generatin g unit"mean s an y physica l chang e o r chang e \ i nth e metho do f operatio nassociate dwit hth e commencemen t
i o f commercia l operation s b y a coal-fire dutilit y uni t afte r
a perio d o f discontinue doperatio nwher e th e unit :

-^-w o ^ \) G-i

r -ha s no t bee ni noperatio nfo r th e 2-yea r perio d prio r t o th e enactmen t o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t Amendment s
o f 1990 , andth e emission s fro m suc huni t continu e to : b e carrie di nth e permittin g authority' s emission s inventor y

a t th e time o f enactment ;

( <? J 1&3L;) wa s equippe dprio r t o shut-dow nwit ha continuou s j C' ! system o f emission s contro l tha t achieve s a remova l efficienc y

fo r sulfu r dioxid e o f n o les s tha n8 5 percen t anda remova l efficienc y fo r particulate s o f n o les s tha n9 8 percent ;

•^-Hrf ) i s equippe dwit hlow-NO xburner s prio r t o th e tim e o f commencemen t o f operation s followin g reactivation ; an

dP.5 6

I -149

- (i) ^ T i s otherwis e i n complianc e wit h th e requirement s

// o f th e Clea n Ai r Act .

- y A 0 •te a ba r amende d t o rea d a s

(h) j N o physica l change , o r chang e i n th e metho d o f I yA operation , a t a n existing elaexri c utilit ystea mgeneratin g uni t shal l b e treate d as/f l modificatio n fo r th e purpose s o f 

## i X thi s sectio n provided/tha t suc h chang e doe s no t increas e th e maximu mhourl yemission s o f an ypollutan t regulated-bunde r thi s seqtionyabov e th e maximu mhourl yemission * achievabl e
a t thatyuni t durin g th e 5 year s prio r tO/tn e change
. (i ) Repowerin g project s tb-a t ar e awarde d funding fro m i A th e Departmen t o f Energ yas/permanen t -.lea n coa l technolog

y demonstratio n projectsyfo r simila r project s funde d b y Environmenta l Protectio n Agoncy ) ar e exemp t fromth e requirement s o^thi s sectio n provide d tha t suc h chang e ^*6e s no t increas e th e maximu mhourl yemission s o f an ypollutan t regula-^ef

d unde r thi s sectio n abov e th e maximu mh-burl y emission s achievabl e a t tha t uni t durin g the/tiv e year s prio r t o th e change
.



# - £''Electri c utility stea m generatin

g unit* ' mean s an

y stea m electri c generatin

g uni t tha t i s construct^d-^o r the purpos e o f supplyin

g mor e tha

none-thir

dof^-rtt

s potentia l electri c yA j itpu t capacity

an dmor e than^-Sf

B M W electrica l output/t o an y utility(powe r distributio nsyste m fo r sale . Anyystea

m i y\ suppliedt o a steam^distributio hsyste m for^-th

e purpos e o f providin

g ste^ m t o a steam-electri c generato r tha t woul d produc e hefectrica l energ y fo r sal e i s als o considere di n determinin

g th e electrica l energ

y output capacity

of th e affectedfacility . .



# - e /



# / \ y ^Repowering " mean s replacemen t o f a nexistin

g coal-fired 

### I boile r wit hon

e of th e followin

g clea ncoa l technologies : j atmospheri c o

r pressurizedfluidize dbe dcombustion , i integrate

dgasificatio

ncombine

dcycle , i magnetohydrodynamics , direc t an dindirec t coal-fired turbines , integrate dgasificatio

nfue l cells , o

r a s determinedb

y th e Administrator , i nconsultatio

nwit hthe Secretar

y o f Energy , a derivativ e of one o

r mor e o f thes e technologies , an

dan y other technolog

y capabl e o f controllin

g multipl e combustio nemission s simultaneousl y i wit himprove

dboile r o

r generatio

nefficienc

y an dwit h significantl y

greate r wast e reductio nrelativ

e t o th e
i performanc e of technolog y i nwidesprea

dcommercia l us e a s of Novembe r 15 , 1990 . Repowerin g shal l als o include an y oi l and/or Igas-fire

duni t whichha s bee nawarde

dclea ncoa l-140 ^

technolog

y demonstratio

nfundin

g a s o f Januar

y 1 , 1991 , b

y the Departmen t o f Energy .

•**:**- < -^Reactivatio

no f ay^r y

clea ncoal-£*fedelectri c utility steam , generatin

g unit^mean s ^ny

physica l change o r change i nthe mithodof operatiof T associate dwit hthe commencemen t of/commercia l operajferfon s b y a coal-fire

dutility

UA-irfafte

r
a perio do f discontinuedoperatio nwher e theyunit :

-^-w o ha s no t bee

ni noperatiop<for th e 2-year perio

d prio r t o th

e enactment jzith

e Clea nAi r Ac t Amendment s o f 1990 , an

dth e emission s fro

m suc huni t continue t o b e carriedinyth

e permittin

g authority' s emission s inventory/a t th

e tim e of enactment ; 

# xrf

{ . ?)/&&) ya s equippe dprior t o shut-dow nwit ha continuou s syste m o f emission s contro l tha t achieve s a remova l efficiency

fo r sulfu r dioxideyo f n

o les s tha

n8 5 percen t an

da remova l efricienc y fo r particulate s p

t n o les s than9 8 percent ;
(_2 J t^i-il! ) i s equipp^f Q withlow-NO xburner s prio r t o th e ! * time ! o f commencemen t o f operation s followin g reactivation ; an

dP.5 9

-•MO * ^

3
. Sectio n 60.1 4 i s amende d b yaddin g paragraph s (h ) through (1 ) t o rea d as | follows : 5 60.1 4 Modification
.P.6 0

(h ) N o physica l change , o r chang e i n th e metho d o f operation , a t a n existin g electri c utilit ystea m generating : uni t shal l b e treate d a s a modificatio n fo r th e purpose s o f thi s sectio n provide d tha t suc h chang e doe s no t increas e th e maximu mhourl yemission s o f an ypollutan t regulate d unde r thi s sectio n abov e th e maximu m hourl yemission s achievabl e j
a t tha t uni t durin g th e 5 year s prio r t o th e change
. 

### (i ) Repowerin g project s tha t ar e awarde d funding fro m th e Departmen t o f Energ ya s permanen t clea n coa l technology demonstratio n project s (or simila r project s funde d b y 

## I « e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency ) ar e exemp t fromth e 

### I • ' l requirement s o f thi s sectio n provide d tha t suc h chang e doe s no t increas e th e maximu mhourl yemission s o f an ypollutan t j
| i regulate d unde r thi s sectio n abov e th e maximu mhourl y emission s achievabl e a t tha t uni t durin g th e fiv e year s prio r t o th e change
.

'%P.6 1

i -150 - (j)(1 ) Repowerin

g project s tha t qualif y fo r a n extension , unde r * 409(b ) o f the Clea nAi r Ac t ar e exempt fro m the requirement s o f thi s section , providedtha t suc h chang e doe s no t increas e th e actua l hourl y

emission s o f an

y pollutan t regulatedunde r thi s sectio nabov e th e actua l hourl y emission s achievabl e at tha t uni t durin g the 5 year s prio r t o th

e change .
i (2 ) Thi s exemptio nshal l no t appl y

t o an y ne w uni t that :

v (L) @J

i- s designateda s a replacemen t fo&-*rtT * existin g unit ;
U <vV-

### f.o ^ 4&j qualifie s unde r % 409(b ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t fo

r a nextensio

no f a nemissio

n limitatio

ncomplianc e dat e unde r & 40 5 o f th e Clea nAi r Act ; an

d 

## (tu ) ®r^i

i s locate

dat a differen t sit e thanth e existin g unit .
(k ) The installation , operation , cessation , o r remova l
o f a temporar

y clea ncoa l technolog

y demonstrationprojec t i s exemp t fro

m the requirement s o f thi s section . A (^temporar

y clea ncoa l contro l technolog y demonstrationP.6 2

-151 - project1 * 7 , for th

e purpose s o f thi s sectio ni s a clea

ncoa l technolog

y demonstratio

nprojec t tha t i s operatedfo r a perio do f 5 year s or less , an dwhic hcomplie s wit hth e Stat e implementatio

nplanfo

r the Stat e inwhichthe projec t i s locate dan dothe r requirement s necessar y t o attai nan

d j maintai nthe nationa l ambient ai r quality standard s durin

g j th e projec t an

dafte r i t i s terminated . 

## ( D electri c The reactivatio no f a ver

y clea ncoal-fired utility stea m generatin

g uni t i s exempt fro m the requirement s o f thi s section .