p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

274) IV-C-20 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:04 AM Sheet 274 of 276 
P.2 

j , \ 

W~C'2JD 

\mj 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

FILE COt>Y 

Honorable Michael G. Oxley 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Oxley: 

OCT 7 - 1991 EJ UJ.JtfSV< 

('•Ml 

5 APR ! 'rWZ '•'*/ 

l _ 

EPA AIR ! X ' T 

This is in response to your letter of September 5, 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, 

[/«/ Michael H. Shapiro (fop) 

William G. Rosenberg 

Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation 

CONCURRENCES 

SYMBOL ~tzWT F^^V10-j-
j-^fflCE BUILOING 

^ f 225-2676 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

NARCOTICS ABUSE AND CONTROL 

CONGRESSIONAL RURAL CAUCUS 

"7-

P.3 

Congress of the United States 

House of 'Representatives 

Washington, © £ 20515 

September 5, 1991 

?/3V/y 

DISTRICT OFFICES: 

3121 WEST ELM PLAZA 

LIMA. OH 45809 

(419)999-6455 

100 EAST MAIN CROSS 

FINOLAY. OH 45840 

{4191423-3210 

24 WEST THIRD STREET 

ROOM 314 

MANSFIELD. OH 44902 

(419)522-5757 

TOLL-FREE IN OHIO: 

1-800-472-4154 

The Honorable William Reilly 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

401 M St., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Mr. Reilly: 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has drafted a proposed rule to 

implement the "repowering" provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Section 

402(12). 

As I understand the proposed rule recently passed by the 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 mean that promising multi-pollutant clean coal technologies will not 

qualify for the repowering extension. This makes no sense, from either an energy 

policy or environmental standpoint. 

The proposed rule to implement Section 402(12) is particularly confusing and 

disturbing in view of a letter from Department of Energy Secretary Watkins to 

Congressman Ralph Regula, dated July 2, 1990. In the letter, Secretary Watkins said: 

"The Administration worked closely with the Senate leadership in developing the 

definition of repowering which was adopted in S. 1630 and was thereafter incorporated 

in H.R. 3030. The intent of the language is to include in the definition of 

repowering any technology capable of controlling multiple combustion emissions 

simultaneously...For this class of technologies, boiler replacement is not intended to 

be a precondition to being considered a repowering technology." Secretary Watkins 

also indicated that his letter expressed the Bush Administration's position with 

respect to this issue. I have enclosed Secretary Watkins' letter"for your review. 

I am particularly interested in the repowering definition because a variety of 

promising technologies that do not require boiler modifications are currently being 

demonstrated in Ohio, and they use high sulfur Ohio coal. I would appreciate hearing 

from you as to whether the Administration's position on this issue, as clearly 

articulated in Secretary Watkins' July 2, 1990 letter, has changed, and if so, what 

prompted the change. 
4 

^norable William Reilly 

a-eptember 5, 1991 

If the Administration's position has not changed, I hope you will work to ensure 

that the final rule reflects that position. 

Yo<Ws/£rj^ 

MGO/bkm 

Enclosure 
P.5 

— 

,V i 

EXHIBIT 1 

THS SSJJKilXKT OT ENERGY. 

WaahmvtoTL DC. Juiv 2. 1320. 

Hon. RALTK RBGTTLA. 

Ha-jeofJte-arsentizLiiies, 

Wasltinvtam. DC 

DEAR CONGRESSMAN RALPH: Than* you far 

apprising me cf your Intent to clarify ia the 

Clear Air Act amendments that clean -coal 

tP-rhnnlogiBs which .simultaneously control 

multiple pollutants are eligThle for the ex-

tension of the Phase II compliance deadline. 

You specif ically focused -on the «hglbflity of 

technologies -not requiring boiler replace-

ment tor consideration as repowering tech-

nologies. 

The Adsunistration worked cloaeiy with 

the Snout* .leadership in developing tJhe definition of repowering which was adopted in S. L630 and was thereafter Incorporated into 

BLR. 3030. The intent of the language Is 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. Ac-

cordingly, the Administration does not be-

lieve that further clarification of the defini-

tion is required. 

The Department is aware of two projects 

in the Clean Coal Technology Program 

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 NOi/SO,. 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 NOj 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 HJR. 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, 

JAMZS D. WATKINS. 

Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired).