Date: 1990-04-02
Speaker: TIMOTHY J. METHOD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Assistant Commissioner. Office of Air Management. Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Indianapolis. IN. DEaR MR. METHOD: Please be advised that my January 30. 1990. letter to your regarding the Clean Coal Technology (CCT) project at Northern Indiana Public Service Companys (NIPSCO) Bailly Generating Station. should be modified. While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to agree with the State that Clean Air Act (CAA) provisions for new source performance standards (NSPS) and new source review (NSR) do not apply if the conditions outlined in my January 30. 1990. letter are met. some revisions are necessary. On Page 8. the section on "Conditions for Permanent Controls or Devices to Be Considered Not Less Environmentally Beneficial" should be changed as follows: In first paragraph. second sentence (change underlined)"At this time. EPA anticipates that it ruling will include a presumption that such pollution controls will not result in an environmental harm. with respect to permanent controls. if the source demonstrates that:" In the second condition (change underlined)"2. There will be no environmental harm resulting from the proposed activities. This includes conditions that the proposed change would not be itself: (a) I * 0 (no change) 0 * 0. (b) increase the annual emissions of any pollutant regulated under the CAA." (delete the phrase "as a result of increased capacity utilization rate). Insert new paragraph after condition 2d"Changes which are expected to increase emissions to the atmosphere. such as changes which increase a sources hourly operating capacity (e.g.. eliminating a bottleneck. hourly emissions rate (e.g.. on pollutant decreases but another increases). or utilization rate (e.g.. an anticipated increase in hours of operation resulting from the installation of controls) would not be affected by this interpretation and would continue to be potentially subject to NSR and NSPS. The EPA will presume. however. that the addition of a control device will not. by itself. result in an increase in capacity utilization. However. this presumption will be overcome if there is a clear likelihood that operating hours of production rates will increase because of the installation of the device. On page 10. a corresponding change should also be made to amend the first full paragraph as follows (change underlined): "The EPA anticipates that its interpretative ruling will ... In assessing whether any netincrease in actual emissions of any pollutant. over representative actual emission rates. is likely to occur as a result of the addition of controls. the reviewing agency should consider the economic incentives to increase production rates or hours of operations associated with the installation and use of the control device. Where increased emissions due to increased utilization of the facility are clearly a likely result from addition of the device. the change should not be considered environmentally beneficial." (Delete last sentence of paragraph starting with "The authority ...). If you have any further questions. please contact Mr. Ron Van Mersbergen at (312) 8866056. Sincerely yours.