P.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

ument Number: 

') IV-C-22 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:04 AM Sheet 276 of 276 
P.2 

•^ ' J ' 1V-C-Z2. 

->• • 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

I v^ 7 I 2 °! ^ Qua,it y Plannin 9 and Standards 

V*ilfc*y Research Triangle Park, North Carolina [2771 

FXH. E COP Y 

OCT 24 1991 

Honorable Bob McEwen 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. McEwen: 

This is in response to your letter of September 11, 1991, 

regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 

interpretation of the definition of "repowering." 

Section 402(12) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 defines 

repowering as the "replacement of an existing coal-fired boiler" 

with one of several specified clean coal technologies. The 

definition also includes, as qualifying technologies, other 

technologies which are derivatives of "one or more of the 

[specified] technologies, and any other technology capable of 

controlling multiple combustion emissions simultaneously with 

improved boiler or generation efficiency and with significantly 

greater waste reduction relative to the performance of technology 

in widespread commercial use." As you have correctly pointed 

out, this definition, as written, could be interpreted as 

limiting technologies which would be considered repowering 

projects to those that only involve the replacement of the 

boiler. 

As you may know, as part of the rulemaking process, EPA is 

currently taking comments on its proposal to amend regulations 

implementing new source requirements governing modifications at 

electric utility generating units. The proposed rule 

incorporates the statutory definition of repowering without 

change. Your comment is being given careful consideration, and 

EPA will be addressing this issue in the final rulemaking. 

I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust 

that this information will be helpful to you. 

Sincerely, 

/9/Mtoto©alH. Shapiro (for) 

William G. Rosenberg 

Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation 

Jel/cji 

li~W 
- . . .' J 

- "-• •'V»- ' • 

. 

' 

Cot 

Adams 

Athens 

Brown 

Clermont 

Clinton 

Fayette 

Highland 

Hocking 

\ 

^<ict 

Ohio 

nties: 

Jackson 

Montgomery 

Pike 

Ross 

Scioto 

Vinton 

Warren 

P.3 

•1 

(KongrEBB of tlje Snitch l&ates 

House of iRcprcBEntatiuEB 

©aBtjtngton, S.(E. 2D515 

September 11, 1991 

Committees: 

Rules 

Legislative Process 

Subcommittee 

Select Committee . 

on Children. Youth 

and Families 

Public Works 

and Transportation 

(on leave) 

Chairman. Study Committee 

Task Force on Energy 

Chairman. Research Committee 

Task Force on Tax Policy' 

and Job Creation 

Mr. William K. Reilly 

Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M St., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Mr. Reilly: 

It has come to my attention that the EPA has drafted a 

proposed rule to implement the "repowering" provisions of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Section 402(12)). 

It is my understanding that in the proposed rule recently 

released by EPA, boiler replacement or substantial boiler 

modifications would be required for technologies to qualify as 

repowering technologies. The effect of such a restrictive 

interpretation of Section 402(12) would likely mean that promising 

multi-pollutant clean coal technologies will not qualify for the 

repowering extension. 

Mr. Reilly, because a variety of promising technologies that 

do not require boiler modifications are currently being 

demonstrated in Ohio, I would greatly appreciate knowing the 

Administration's position on the definition of repowering. In 

light of the attached letter from Secretary of Energy James D. 

Watkins, I believe a clarification of this matter would be most 

helpful. 

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and attention to 

this issue. If I may provide any additional information necessary 

to you, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

With warmest personal regards, 

Sine 

BM:cpp 

Enclosure 

EN 

of Congress 

PLEASE REPLY TO: 

D WASHINGTON OFFICE: 

2431 RAYBURN HOUSE BUILDING 

f?n?i ??«.s7n«; 

D DISTRICT OFFICE: 

POST OFFICE BUILDING 

HILLSBORO. OH 45133 

n DISTRICT OFFICE: 

WILLIAM H. HARSHA 

POST OFFICE BUILDING 
P.4 

EXHUHT1 

THE SUJLE'IAKT or ENERGY. 

Wtafungton, DC Juty 2,1930. 

Hon. RALPH RBGTJLA. 

JioaseefMepmaentotioea, 

WasMnitan. DC 

DEAR CONGRESSMAN RAUE Thank Ton far 

apprising .mc of your intent to clarify in the 

Clear Air Act amendments that clean coal 

tprhnningiHK which simultaneously control 

multiple pollutants are eligible lor the ex-

tension of the Phase II compliance deadline. 

You specifically focused -en the eligibility of 

technologies oot requiring boder replace-

ment _x consideration as repowering tech-

oologies. 

The Adaainirtration worked doaeiy with 

the Senate Jeadexship in -developing the definition oi repowering which was .adopted in S. 1630 and was thereafter incorporated into 

SLR. 3030. The intent of the language 1s to 

include in the definition of repowering any 

technology capable of controlling multiple 

combustion emissions simultaneously, so 

long as the two criteria specified (i.e.. in-

creased boiler efficiency and significantly 

greater waste reduction) are met. For this 

class of technologies, boiler replacement is 

not intended to be a precondition to being 

considered a repowering technology. Accordingly, the Administration does not believe that further clarification of the definition is required. 

The Department is aware of two projects 

in the Clean Coal Technology Program 

r

 which control multiple pollutants and 

which may meet the remaining two precon-

ditions described above. These projects, nei-

ther of which requires boiler replacement, 

are the Low NO1/SC4. Burner Retrofit for 

Utility Cyclone Boilers Project and the Ad-

vanced Slagging Combustor Utility Demon-

stration Project. Both involve replacement 

of burners with sophisticated slagging com-

bustors for NO* control and use of alkaline 

reagents for SO, control. Data for these two 

technologies responsive to the questions in 

your letter are included In the enclosed fact 

sheets. Please note that the definition of 

repowering in both BLR. 3030 and S. 1630 

prescribes that final determinations regard-

ing the applicability of the repowering defi-

nition to technologies like these will be 

made on a case-by-case basis by the Environ-

mental Protection Agency in consultation 

with the Department of Energy. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has advised that there is not objection to 

the submission of this report from the 

standpoint of the President's program. 

Thank you for your inquiry on this impor-

atn matter. 

Sincerely. 

JAMES D. WATKINS. 

Admiral U.S. Navy (Retired!.