p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

90) ll-C-32 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:55 AM Sheet 90 of 276 
P.2 

II-C-32 

JUL 1 5 1987 

Terry A. Svettzer, P. r. 

-anagtr, Pewit Section 

Illinois Emrlroiwntal Protection Aoency 

Division of Air Pollution rontrol 

??nn Churchill 9oad 

P.O. Wot \9?7H 

Sprlnofleld, Illinois <>?7Q<UQ?7« 

Infil l A;>;:; 

•?-.• ^nouest f-ir 'KPT

 Tr,t-*rT>r«»?^f1nn5 

^«flr »'r. .Sweltyer: 

WP have reviewed your letter '•at**'* ''ay *, ic-7?, in wMch vou rentes to** 'or**! 

Oulflance on *ew Source P-i»rfor«*»j.ficf»

 c.tan<,

..ards.(,?pa

;K) interpretations relate* 

to electric arc furnace ".ndfflection*., %r responds to your o.u«»st1ons ar** 

listed helov. In the sa»-.e ori*er AS In vr»y letter. s 

(1) As defined 1n *n TFP #•.!<(*}, -i nodi Meat loo i* **ny ohyylci' or one»pxtfonal channe to an existing facility which, results in an increase 1n the 

enlsslon rate to the at^osoher.*", ".ased on tho infr>rr"*t>on provi<**<* 1n vour 

letter, the hn«jrly emission rate'as well AS THP production rate, *111 Se 

Increased as a consequence of the propns»<i wyMf Icat Ion, nearly ,

 fhe ornposer* 

modlfleitlon falls Into the category of any "cnanqe* as use*} 1 * the definition. 

However, 41 C^P -5n.I4(e)(?) states fa t an Increase In production rate of an 

existing facility , 1 * that Increase can he accnroHshed vlthoot a capital 

expenditure on that facility , s*all not, hy 1tse1f,

 K<° considered a ^edification. 

Capital expenditure" 1s highlighted hrrr* hecaijse 1t is specifically define** 

in 40 CFP 60.?, wf 1s f.hp najor fac'nr In deterHMe-s if the oropos-e-1 «od1f1-

catlon 1s within the scope

 nf **•&>. 

In accordance with its definition, a capital expenditure 1s *r> expenditure 

which exceeds the product of the "annual asset iu1 feline, reoalr allowance 

percentage" specified 1n Internal Prvenm* "".prvlce (T^ l Publication 5K .inn* 

the existing facility' s hasls, as defined by Section l^l? of the ?nt*»roa! 

Peven-ie Code. Pased on luHance fro* the T^ and *Wted

 ?t.5tes revironweetal 

Protection Actency (",5.

 r?-») In '••'asMnrjton, the *etem1 nation nf whether * 

capital expenditure votild nccur ts ".ade 1n tMs case, hy conperlnrr the •Instable*' 

cost of the oxy-fuel burners, in current dollar?, to the allowed oeTr-ntace 

of the Installed cost of »./>; «»leetr1c arc *•.maces (r»',.t",s>, also in crrent 

dollars, \ccord1nc t o Y^tes anr* M Kprlv , t*-"1 consulting 'ir- ' retained for 

the project, the installed cost o' top o»roers (f*r ryn rsr' O is ^".n^ono. 

further, the currpnt installed cost for two n»w r.ir't u tc#r. -mion , Thp 

latter cost includes only r»>a b.isic eniiio-'»,t, ,is r^in.-"1 in •*"

 rr:> *n.?71a 

fi.C. furnace, furnace roof an* •r^f.s'r.r-prO.

 rro." P* °:iM 1c.»Mon f'1

-*. 

(l^ 0 4 -'), the percreta or Tn '-p >IS*»" i s I"* ,

 T| >or?'w.| r ^ <.<">?''^or.''' i s rinrunx ' 

t n :aootono (10* nf

 ft i . ^ «*inion>, ^fn c •"**» -"'Ht of f^e r'rnoose-'* '"'n^i fir.atlen 

1s less , t'>" »•*••-* .'-ipr, nnr iipp'v. 
P.3 

•W 

-?-

(2) With respect to your reference to transformer upgrades, the definition at 

40 CFR 60,271a, which defines a furnace to include the transformer, supersedes 

?5PS Interpretation AA-5(h) cited 1n your letter. In any event, this Issue 

1s not relevant given our response in item (1) above. 

Since the interpretation 1n this case is that the modification 1s not within 

the scope of NSPS, the issues you raised in items (3) and (4) do not apply 

here. Nonetheless, we will respond to them for the record. 

(3)(a) In cases where furnace modifications cause the furnace to become 

subject to "SPS, 40 CFR 60.11(e) clearly indicates that eligibility for an 

adjusted opacity standard 1s limited to those emission points where there 1s 

both a mass standard and an opacity standard, Since your question focuses on 

40 CFR 60.272a(a)(3) which addresses opacity from the building openings, for 

which there 1s no associated mass standard, the modified facility would nor 

be eligible for an adjustment of this opacity standard, 

(3)(b) The requirements for the type of information needed for an alternative 

opacity standard can be found in 4f) CFP 60.8, "Test Methods and Procedures" 

in the applicable NSPS subpart and in 40 CFR 60.11. 

(3)(c) As you know, 40 CFR 60,?72(a)(3)(i) specifies a?} opacity standard for 

the building openings. Again, there is no associated rtass standard. Therefor**, 

an adjusted opacity standard cannot he considered. 

(4)(a) and (b) Although there are no regulatory means that specifically 

consider technical feasibility or economic impact, as they relate to applicable 

NSPS standards, waivers may be granted by the Administrator, under limited 

circumstances, in accordance with Section lll(j) of the Clean Air Act. 

We hope that all of your concerns have been addressed. If you have aoy Questions, 

please call Edward Uojciechowski, of my staff, at (31?) PRfi-67S5. 

Very truly yours, 

_jfwrr.TV*T. SICBBP BY _ 

• KERTCHEB 

Larry F. Kertcher, Chief 

A1r Compliance Branch (5AC-2M 

a n n7iroTT"TeTrord, Engineer 

Permit Section 

Illinoi s Environmental Protection Agency 

John Yates 

Chief Executive Officer 

Yates and Alherly 

bcc: Spyropoulos 

Czerniak/Pak 

MacOowel1/VanMersherqen/Peyer *-i.)ii.nVr*. wil iuuu*