P. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1787 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 68 ) ll-C-2 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200810:22:19AM

Sheet 68of 147P. 2 /V'lo- 3 / TJC-OZ 6

^ £ 0sr <> * UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y Offic e o fAi rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1

Apri l 19 , 199 4

Mr . BarryGarelic k Environmenta l Regulation s Sola r Turbine s Incorporate d Pos t Offic e Bo x8537 6 San Diego , Californi a 92186-537 6 Dea r Mr . Garelick : 

# BJJJJJ L AP R 2 5199 4 EP AA1BDOCKET ,

Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r Apri l 7 , 199 4 lette r regarding th e Marc h30 , 199 4 draf t Innovative Contro l Technology an d Pollutio n Preventio n Subgrou p recommendations . You r lette r addresse d th e example s o f possibl e currently-demonstrate d pollutio n preventio n bes t availabl e contro l technology(BACT ) an d lowes t achievabl e emissio nrat e (LAER ) project s provide d i nth e Subgroup' s draf t recommendations . I naddition , yo u requeste d tha t th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y(EPA ) revie wyou r interpretatio n o f th e Subgroup' s recommendations . Yo u indicate d tha t sinc e drylowoxide s o f nitroge n (NOx ) combustio n technolog ywa s no t include d i nth e examples , a decisio n ha d bee n mad e tha t i t woul d therefor e no t qualif ya s a pollutio n preventio n process . I d o no t believ e tha t th e omissio n o f a particula r proces s fro mth e Subgroup' s recommendation s (i.e. , drylo wNO , combustio n technology ) shoul d b e interprete d a s a decisio n that , sinc e i t ha s no t bee ninclude d i nth e Subgroup' s lis t o f pollutio n preventio n typ e processes , i t coul d neve r qualif ya s pollutio n preventio nprocess . Rather , i t i s fay understanding tha t th e example s o f currently-demonstrate d pollutio n preventio n BAC T an d LAE Rproject s liste d i n th e Subgroup' s recommendation s ar e fo r th e purpos e o f providing illustrativ e examples , an d d o no t represen t a definitiv e lis t o f pollutio n preventio n processes . I n regard s t o you r reques t fo r anAgencyrespons e t o you r interpretatio n o f th e Subgroup' s recommendations , th e EP Ai s currentl yevaluating th e variou s recommendation s t o come ou t o f eac ho f the . Subcommittee' s Subgroups . Thi s i s a nongoing and evolving process . Consequently , i t woul d b e prematur e a t thi s time t o provid e an Agencypositio no nth e issu e yo u hav e raised . You r comments , however , wil l b e take nint o consideratio na s EPAP. 3

prepare s it s rulemakin g o nne wsourc e revie w(NSR ) reform . Th e rulemaking , currentl yschedule d fo r proposa l i nearl y1995 , wil l contai n a ful l discussio n o f EPA' s view s o nal l th e recommendation s t o com e ou t o f th e NS RRefor mSubcommittee' s deliberations . W e als o pla n o ndiscussing th e draf t o f th e propose d rul e wit hth e Subcommitte e prio r t o proposa l i nth e Federa l Register . A s yo u ma yb e aware , LarryElmor e o f m ystaf f ha s th e lead o n NS Rreform

pertainin g t o th e permitting o f pollutio n preventio n and innovativ e technologies . I f yo u hav e an y additiona l questions , pleas e fee l fre e t o contac t hi ma t (919 ) ;541-5433 .

David [ Solomon , Chie f Ne wSourc e Revie wSectio n Permit s Program s Branc h cc : M . Barr , Pillsbury , Madiso n& Sutr o D . Aldorfer , Genera l Motor s B . Bankoff , Siemen s Corporatio n