p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

254) IV-B-1 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:03 AM Sheet 254 of 276 
ft-^o-CC, ^V-B-J^ . 

P.2 

* 

USE 

**-

**< PBO^ ' 

^ 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

JUN I 2 I99& 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

l^AIRDOCKET 

OFFICE OF 

AND RADIATION 

Concurrence on Corrections Made to the WEPCO Final Rule 

Prior to Publication in the Federal Register 

William G. Rosenberg 

Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation (ANR-443) 

TO: The Administrator 

It has come to our attention that there are errors in the 

regulations in the WEPCO final rule that you signed on May 20, 

1992. The errors in the rulemaking package are minor in nature 

and involve issues of consistency and clarification. They do not 

change the intended scope of the rule as signed. The following 

is a description of the individual corrections made: 

Section 415.c) of the Clean Air Act 

Congress created a limited exemption from new source 

performance standards (NSPS) and prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) for the reactivation of an idle coal-fired 

utility unit which meets certain conditions [see 'Clean Air Act 

§ 415(c)]. This exemption was apparently tailored to allow a 

specific source to start up again after a prolonged shut down 

without facing any new source review constraints. In the WEPCO 

rulemaking, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed 

changing its regulations to reflect this new exemption. However, 

while the preamble accurately describes the exclusion as applying 

to NSPS and PSD, the regulatory language was inadvertently added 

to the nonattainment new source review (NSR) regulations as well. 

This error was inadvertently made in the proposal and carried 

into the final regulatory package that you signed. 

To rectify the problem, we have deleted the exemption 

language as inappropriately applied to the nonattainment NSR 

regulations from the final regulations, as shown in the attached 

pages. We also have added the following sentence to the end of 

the first paragraph of page 87 of the preamble to the final rule: 

"Please note that language inadvertently included in the proposed 

regulations which purported to extend the exemption in § 415(c) 

to nonattainment areas is inconsistent with the statute and has 

been deleted from the final rules." 
P.3 

Representative Actual Annual Emissions 

The EPA revised its methodology for calculating emission 

increases at electric utility steam generating sources by 

comparing actual emissions before and after changes at such 

sources (i.e., the "representative actual annual emissions" 

methodology). The WEPCO rule incorporates this methodology into 

the new source review regulations for the purpose of determining 

if a change would be considered major. This concept was 

correctly discussed in great detail in the preambles to both the 

proposed and final rules and is reflected in the final rule. 

In the rule, however, redundant language applying a 

"representative actual annual emissions" test also appears at 

40 CRF 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(i). The inclusion of this paragraph in 

the rule was mistakenly carried over from the proposal. The 

preambles to both the proposal and final rules neither discuss 

nor refer to this paragraph as being part of the rulemaking. To 

correct this error, we have deleted the paragraph from the 

regulations. Its removal does not in any way change the effect 

or scope of the final rule as the use of the "representative 

actual annual emissions" method is also included in the 

appropriate place in both the proposed and final regulations. 

Other Minor Clarifications and Corrections 

In addition, certain sections of the rule incorrectly 

reference the "Administrator" or "reviewing authority." These 

sections have been corrected to reference the appropriate 

authority. Other minor corrections to the rulemaking, reflecting 

typographical or format changes consistent with the requirements 

of the Federal Register office, have also been made. 

All of the above corrections have been reviewed by the 

Office of General Counsel. As all the discussed corrections are 

clarifying in nature and in no way alter the scope of the 

rulemaking, they have not been subject to interagency review. A 

copy of this memorandum will be placed in the rulemaking docket. 

I request that you concur with the attached corrected parts of 

the preamble and final regulations addressing the first two items 

discussed above made to the WEPCO rule signed on May 20, 1992. 

Attachments 

CONCUR: 

DATE: LdSl 
P.4 

y 

-87-

After review of the public comments and further 

analysis of the subject provision, EPA has decided to 

promulgate the proposed rules implementing the CCT and very 

clean unit exemption created by the 1990 Amendments. The 

EPA views this action as merely incorporating into its 

existing regulatory framework statutory exemptions that were 

immediately effective upon passage of the 1990 Amendments. 

P.r?a£e r\*it ^KAT U^O^ C {(.a^o-hrMy i^du^Ji '^ 'rtvJL. 

Ocopafccl rule* tJii&h p^/porW +* J^te-j-W fh&, d^Ci^fh^ 

/h s£c>^ -4'Srt) ±t <\Qn<tfu.*<"€*J- areas ln*s been 

F. Calculation of NSPS Baseline 

V 

\ «T Background. ,-_—----•' 

As discussed in the proposal, "any physical or 

operational change to an existing facility which results in 

an increase in the emission rate to the atmosphere of any 

pollutant to which a standard applies" is a modification for 

NSPS applicability purposes [see 40 CFR § 60.14(a)]. The 

NSPS regulations implementing this general definition focus 

on increases in hourly emissions, expressed in kilograms of 

pollutant discharged per hour. To determine if an increase 

in hourly emissions has occurred at a unit, a pre-change 

baseline must be established. Under current regulations, 

the emissions rate before and after a physical or 

operational change is evaluated at each unit by comparing 

the current hourly potential emissions at maximum operating 

capacity to hourly emissions at maximum capacity after the 

. 

0 
P.5 

A 

(i) -the -Sifl for the State in which the project is 

located, and 

(ii) other requirements necessary to attain and 

maintain the national ambient air quality standard* 

during the project and-after it is terminated. 

(10) The reactivation of a very clean coal fired ^ L 

alectaric utility cteaa generating unit.— 

**** * 

(xii) 

(D) For any emissions unit (other than an electric 

utility steam generating unit specified in paragraph 

i^A^l) (x ^ ) (E) of this -su&Section) -fehatf has not begun normal 

operations on ©^particular date,, actual emissions shall 

equal the potentialetoeemi Lfrtodei t of the unit on that date. 

(E) For an electric utility steam generating unit 

(other than a new unit or the replacement of an 

existing unitJ^actual emissions of the unit following 

the physical or operational change shall equal the 

representative actual annual emissions of the unit, 

\ Vt P*f?YJ'?f's-.$?e.??¥-???.?wn?*F.?-T.?PeT

a£?:?.,PaJn£?4n?.?n£ 

? \i$ fu!??j-£s.£?.tr-frf .PS-Fffi^tJ-ffi.au£fr?Tf£Y< .?n.

an.ann¥a3-.-!?af if 

~a 
P.6 

-114-

(xxv) (^Reactivation of a very clean coal-ftired electric 

utility steam generating unitO means any physical change or 

change Nin the method of operation associated with the 

commencement of commercial operations by/a coal-fired 

utility unit; after a period of discontinued operation where 

the unit: 

Al 

(jl) has not been in operation for the 2-year period 

prior to the enactment of the Clean Air Act 1990 

Amendments, and the\emis/ions from such unit continue 

to be carried in the permitting authority's emissions 

inventory at the time'ofc enactment; 

(ia) was equipped/prior to shut-down with a continuous 

system of emissions control thVt achieves a removal 

efficiency toy sulfur dioxide of\no less than 85 

percent and A removal efficiency r*or particulates of no 

less than p8 percent; 

(ill) /s equipped with low-NOx burners prdor to the 

time/of commencement of operations following 

reactivation; and 

(iv) is otherwise in compliance with the requirements 

of the Clean Air Act. 
P.7. 

-117-

( /) («£- when the reviewing authority has reason 

—*~ *_». 

to believe that the pollution control project 

would result in a significant net increase in 

representative actual annual emissions of any 

criteria pollutant over levels used for that 

source in the most recent air quality impact 

analysis in the area conducted for the 

purpose of title I, if any, and 

( "2- \ "{&) *_.ne reviewing authority determines that 

the increase will cause or contribute to a 

violation of any national ambient air quality 

standard or PSD increment, or visibility 

limitation. 

£l'^ < X#'/ "

i e installation, operation, cessation, or 

removal of a temporary clean coal technology 
P.8 

-118-

demonstration project, provided that the project 

complies with: 

the State implementation plan for the 

State in which the project is located; and 

{.}.' ^^f other requirements necessary to attain 

and maintain the national ambient air quality 

standards during the project and after it is 

terminated. 

O) (-^

 Tn e installation or operation of a permanent 

clean coal technology demonstration project that 

constitutes repowering, provided that the project 

does not result in an increase in the potential 

to-5emit of any regulated pollutant emitted by the 

unit. This exemption shall apply on a pollutantby-pollutant basis. 

•9' 

(jC) [1), The reactivation of a very clean coal-fired 

electric utility steam generating unit. 

(21) 

l£ 
P.9 

-139-

(1) the State implementation plan for the State in 

which the project is located, and 

(2) other requirements necessary to attain and 

maintain the national ambient air quality 

standards during the project and after it is 

terminated. 

(j) The reactivation^f__^_-^ery~^eiean coal-fired 

eJ^Gfcrio'utility steam generating unit. 

**** * 

(13) * * * 

(iv) For any emissions unit (other than an electric 

utility steam generating unit specified in paragraph 

•r .-"V \ . . \*>\yidr\ 

\A I * v (v*-

 o f *£*-s subsection) --tehe*^ has not begun normal 

operations on JBUparticular date, actual emissions shall 

equal the potential to emit of the unit on that date. 

(v) For an electric utility steam generating unit 

(other than a new unit or the replacement of an 

existing unit)* actual emissions of the unit following 

the physical or operational change shall equal the 

representative actual annual emissions of the 

unit.provided mthe # source #owner #or moperator #maintains 
P.10 

-143-

(23) ^Reactivation of a very clean coal-fired electri 

utility, steam generating unit^means any physical change or 

change in the method of operation associated with the 

commencement of commercial operations by a coal 

utility unit after a period of discontinued operation where 

the unit: - Z _•—- C 

\ 

L-fired 

[ the unit: 

(i) has not been in operation for the 2-year period 

prior to the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments 

of 1990, and the emissions frefm such unit continue to 

be carried in the permitting authority's emissions 

inventory at the time of/enactment; 

(ii) was equipped prior to shut-down with a continuous 

system of emissions control that achieves a removal 

efficiency for sulfur dioxide of no less than 85 • 

percent and a .removal efficiency, for particulates of no 

less than Sly percent; 

(iii) if equipped with low-NOx burners prior to the 

time of commencement of operations following 

reactivation; and 

(iv) is otherwise in compliance with the requirements 

of the Clean Air Act.