p. 1



# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 71 ) ll-C-1 3 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/20089:50:54AM Sheet 71 of 276P. 2 

## W tr^AL a 

### II-C-1 3 v

i



### NOTE : Thi s ite mi s missin g attachments
.P. 3

a.1* 0 ST *rX S,^ / WASHINGTON

. D.C

. 20450 

## /\-40yo_

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y •IGTON . D.C . APR I 9 1989

TH E ADMINISTRATO R y^ \ 

## JU N

# 1 ? ®M 

# P Honorabl e Joh nD . Dingel l Chairman , Subcommitte e o nOversigh t an d Investigation s _,^ , \\\\' Committe e o nEnerg yan d Commerc e Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D.C . 2051 5 I ; ^:^5i©Ot£ l Dea r Mr . Chairman : Thi s i s i nrespons e t o you r Decembe r 21 , 198 8 lette r t o Le e M . Thomas , forme r Administrato r o f th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y(EPA) , regardin g th e applicabilit yo f th e Clea n Ai r Act' s preventio no f significan t deterioratio n(PSD ) an d ne w sourc e performanc e standard s (NSPS ) provision s t o th e propose d lif e extensio nprojec t a t th e fiv e coal-fire d steam-electri c generatin g unit s a t th e Por t Washingto npowe r plant , whic hi s owne d an d operate d byWisconsi nElectri c Powe r Compan y(WEPCO) . O nFebruar y15 , 1989 , EP Aissue d a revise d fina l determinatio nt o WEPC O regardin g th e applicabilit yo f th e PS D and NSP S regulation s t o th e Por t Washingto nproject . Th e revise d determinatio nsupplement s th e determinatio nse t fort hi nEPA' s Octobe r 14 , 198 8 lette r t o WEPC O fro mLe e M . Thoma s o nth e subject . I nit , EP Areaffirme d it s initia l decisio no nth e questio no f PS D an d NSP S applicabilit yan d provide d a furthe r detaile d discussio no f th e issues . Consequently , a numbe r o f you r inquirie s regardin g th e statu s o f EPA' s positio no nWEPCO' s Por t Washingto nprojec t ar e containe d i nth e Februar y15 , 198 9 determination . Acop yi s enclose d fo r you r reference . Regardin g WEPCO , yo u als o aske d abou t EPA' s offe r t o wor k wit hth e compan yi ndeterminin g PS D an d NSP S requirements . Ther e ar e a variet yo f option s availabl e t o WEPC O fo r legall ymeetin g th e PS D an d NSP S requirements , som e o f whic har e likel yt o b e les s costl ytha nothers . I nofferin g t o discus s measure s tha t coul d minimiz e th e cos t o f compliance , EP Awa s simpl yindicatin g a willingnes s t o expeditiousl yrevie wwit hWEPC O th e appropriate

nes s o f an yoption s tha t WEPC O migh t wan t t o conside r fo r complyin g wit hth e Clea nAi r Ac t requirements . Th e Decembe r 1 , 198 8 dat e wa s a targe t fo r completio no f thes e discussion s base d o nWEPCO' s reques t fo r a timel yresponse ; i t ha d n o othe r significance .P. 4

\ Yo u hav e aske d abou t th e meanin g o f certai nterm s use d t o describ e th e natur e o f th e wor k propose d byWEPCO . Th e PS D an d NSP S regulation s d o no t defin e th e term s "renovation " o r "lif e extension. " Th e regulation s recogniz e an d defin e essentiall ytw o action s a t a nexistin g facilit ytha t coul d subjec t tha t sourc e t o PS D o r NSP S review . Thes e ar e "modification " (bot hth e PS D an d NSP S rules ) an d "reconstruction " (NSP S rul e only) . "Renovation " an d "lif e extension " ar e term s whic hWEPC O use d i nreferrin g t o th e Por t Washingto nproject , bu t thes e term s ar e no t use d i nth e Clea nAi r Ac t o r EPA' s regulations . Aprojec t describe d i nthes e term s can , however , qualif ya s eithe r a modificatio no r a reconstruction , dependin g o nth e specifi c wor k planned . I nyou r letter , yo u ha d severa l question s an d requeste d informatio nregardin g EPA' s "informa l survey " o f simila r projects . Specifically , yo u aske d fo r a summar yo f th e survey , wh ysom e surveye d project s ha d no t bee nbrough t t o EPA' s attentio nsooner , wha t th e statu s o f thos e project s wa s relativ e t o Clea nAi r Ac t requirements , an d wha t step s ma yb e necessar yt o addres s thi s situation . Th e EP Aconducte d a ninforma l telephon e surve yo f th e EP A Regiona l Office s las t yea r t o fin d ou t i f thes e office s wer e awar e o f anymodificatio no r reconstructio nproject s a t powe r plants , o r i f the yha d receive d anyapplication s fo r permit s o r request s fo r applicabilit ydetermination s fo r modification s o r reconstructio nproject s a t powe r plants . Seve no f th e te n Regiona l Office s answere d affirmatively , an d a tota l o f te n source s wit hsuc haction s wer e identified . Th e surve ydi d no t resul t i nth e detectio no f anyviolations . Regardin g th e Duk e Powe r an d Texa s Utilitie s powe r plants , w e ar e i nth e proces s o f determinin g i f permi t application s wer e required . Memorand a hav e bee nsen t t o th e Regiona l Office s responsibl e fo r thes e sources , instructin g the mt o mak e a ful l investigation , bu t w e ar e no t awar e o f anyviolation s a t thi s time . Th e EP Awa s no t awar e o f an yproject s othe r tha nthos e include d i nth e survey . You r questio nabou t wh yEP Awa s no t awar e o f thes e permit s involve s th e appropriat e rol e o f State s an d EP Ai npermi t review s an d approvals . I nmos t cases , enforcemen t authorit yfo r th e NSP S an d PS D program s ha s bee ndelegate d o r transferre d t o th e State j an d th e Stat e ha s primar yresponsibilit yfo r implementin g an d enforcin g thes e programs . Th e EP Aact s a s a partne r wit hth e State , givin g guidanc e an d technica l an d financia l assistance , an d providin g oversigh t o f th e Stat e programs .P. 5

; # •

Althoug hth e EP Aoversee s th e States ' revie wo f ne wsourc e

permi t applications , EPA' s rol e i s designe d i nsuc ha wa ya s no t t o duplicat e th e States ' work . State s ar e require d t o sen d EP A copie s o f thei r PS D permi t application s an d provid e notic e o f ever yactio nrelate d t o consideratio no f th e permit . Also , al l propose d decision s fo r ne wmajo r sourc e permit s ar e require d t o g o throug hpubli c notice . Th e EP Apolic ydirect s Regiona l Office s t o revie wal l majo r sourc e permit s an d certai nmino r sourc e permit s issue d b yStat e an d loca l agencies . Th e abov e review s appl yonl yt o majo r (and certai nminor ) permits . State s ar e no t require d t o notif yEP Ao f ever y constructio nprojec t (e.g. , mos t mino r modifications) ; thus , i t i s no t necessaril ya n"oversight " fo r EP At o b e unawar e o f a constructio nproject . Th e EPA' s biannua l audi t o f Stat e program s (whic hinclude s fil e review s an d inspection s o f a portio no f th e source s alread yinspecte d byth e States ) provide s a vehicl e fo r discoverin g a State' s failur e t o properl yclassif ya nactio no r initiat e permittin g procedure s fo r a particula r source . I nrespons e t o th e Utilit yWee k article , i t i s importan t t o not e tha t th e potentia l applicabilit yo f NSP S an d PS D revie wt o anytyp e o f propose d constructio na t a powe r plan t (o r an ymajo r sourc e o f ai r pollution ) i s a case-by-cas e determinatio nan d i s a functio no f numerou s factors . Fo r example , th e wor k (regardles s o f it s timing ) coul d b e routin e i nnatur e o r coul d resul t i nn o emission s increase , eithe r o f whic hcoul d exemp t th e sourc e fro m review . Th e Departmen t o f Energ y(DOE ) lette r yo u aske d fo r i s enclosed . I believ e EPA' s positio na s se t fort hi nth e Octobe r 14 , 198 8 an d Februar y15 , 198 9 letter s t o WEPC O provide s ou r positio no nth e matter s addresse d i nth e DO E letter , a s wel l a s th e contention s raise d b yth e Utilit yAi r Regulator yGrou p i n th e Utilit yWee k article . You r interes t i nthi s matte r i s greatl yappreciated . Sincerel yyours , 

## Willia mE.Belll y Willia mK . Reill y 2 Enclosure s cc : Genera l Accountin g Offic e

\