p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

63) II-C-5 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:54 AM Sheet 63 of 276 
P.2 

y*°!'4'* 

3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

\ S 1931 II-C-5 

AIR ANI* H.*|ii'. i ION 

Mr. A. W. Hadder 

Air Quality Manager 

Virginia Power MAY - 7 |QQ| 

Innsbrook Technical Center 

Glen Allen, Virginia • 2306.3. 

Dear Mr. Hadder: 

I am responding to your March 8, 1990 letter in which you 

provided additional information on the Clean Coal Technology (CCT) 

project at the Virginia Power Yorktown Station Unit 2. In your 

May 18, 1989 letter to the Administrator you requested an 

assurance from the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) not to enforce New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations at 

Yorktown Power Station Unit 2 during the project or when the unit 

returns to its pre-demonstration condition following completion of 

the project. 

This project will demonstrate technology for reducing sulfur 

dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions through the use of the 

technique known as Limestone Injection Multistage Burner (LIMB). 

According to your letter, the project will also result in an 

increase in particulate emissions from the injection of sorbent 

material. Consequently, you have decided to pursue PSD permitting 

from the Virginia Department of Air Pollution Control to cover the 

expected increase in particulate emissions if the system continues 

to operate after the demonstration. 

We have evaluated the merits of Virginia Power's Yorktown 

Station Unit 2 CCT project with regard to applicability to the 

Agency's November 16, 1984 Policy Against "No Action" Assurances. 

As a result, we believe a "no action" assurance is appropriate in 

this case because the project appears to be "clearly necessary to 

serve the public interest" and it is expected to provide 

"important information for research purposes," and there is a need 

"which no other mechanism can address adequately." 
P.3 

-2-

EPfi supports this demonstration of LIMB technology as a means 

of potentially reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide 

emissions from utility boilers. If this technology is successful 

' and- emission reductions are demo ns t rat edr-the- cont inued...use of 

this technology would be strongly encouraged by. EPA. 

» 

Based on the representations made in your March 8, 1990 

letter, EPA provides an assurance not to enforce against civil 

violations of NSPS and PSD requirements that may apply, pursuant 

to 40 CFR 60.14 and 52.21 (b)(2), as a result of emission 

increases which may occur during the LIMB technology demonstration 

and emission increases that^-may occur from removing the LIMB 

project at the Yorktown Station Unit 2. This assurance does not 

apply to emission increases above pre-demonstration levels that 

are attributable to physical or operational changes other than 

those necessary to restore the unit to its pre-demonstration 

condition or which result from physical or operational changes 

that are unrelated to the conduct of the demonstration project. 

Furthermore, this "no action" assurance only applies to Yorktown's 

Unit 2, where the LIMB demonstration is being conducted. 

Over the past several months, the EPA has held several 

internal meetings to discuss the Clean Air Act regulatory issues 

raised by the CCT program. As a result of these discussions, the 

Agency has decided to issue an interpretive ruling as soon as 

possible to provide guidance on the definition of a physical or 

operational change as it applies to new source requirements. 

Essentially, this ruling would clarify that if a source only 

adds or enhances systems or devices whose primary function is the 

reduction of air pollution (e.g., LIMB), and that are determined 

to be environmentally beneficial, then those activities would not 

constitute a physical or operational change triggering new source 

requirements. Consequently, neither NSPS, PSD or nonattainment 

new source review would apply to these types of activities. This 

interpretative ruling would include most permanent as well as 

temporary projects under the CCT program. However, it would not 

extend to projects that primarily extend the life of a plant or 

increase capacity. Until the interpretative ruling is issued, EPA 

will continue to issue "no action" assurances for temporary CCT 

projects'. 
P.4 

-3-

Please keep U.S. EPA's Regional Office in Philadelphia 

notified of the status and significant results of this project. 

Your contact there will be Mr. Thomas Maslany who can be reached 

at (215) 597-9390. - • 

Sincerely, 

>C-/3t^-« 

v^y 

William"G. Rosenberg 

Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation 

cc: Thomas Maslany, Region III 

Michael Alushin, OE 

Alan Eckert, OGC 

Brian Mclean, OAIAP