THE TEXT YOU ARE VIEWING IS A COMPUTER-GENERATED OR RETYPED VERSION OF A
PAPER PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL. ALTHOUGH CONSIDERABLE EFFORT HAS BEEN
EXPENDED TO QUALITY ASSURE THE CONVERSION, IT MAY CONTAIN TYPOGRAPHICAL
ERRORS. TO OBTAIN A LEGAL COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, AS IT
CURRENTLY EXISTS, THE READER SHOULD CONTACT THE OFFICE THAT ORIGINATED
THE CORRESPONDENCE OR PROVIDED THE RESPONSE.
4.12
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR 11 1980
SUBJECT: Exemptions from PSD Permit Requirements
for Coal Conversions Resulting from DOE Prohibition Orders
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Howard R. Heim, Chief
Air Programs Branch - Region 3
This in response to your memo of March 6, 1980, regarding the
applicability of PSD to Delmarva's Edge Moor Power Station which must begin
burning coal in response to a prohibition order from DOE. As stated in your
memo, there is an apparent discrepancy between Section 169 of the Act and
Section 52.21(b) (2) (ii) of the June 19, 1978 PSD regulations as concerns
the applicability to DOE ordered fuel conversions.
Section 169 of the Act indicates that for PSD purposes the term
"modification" shall be defined as it is in Section 111 of the Act. Section
111 provides that, "A conversion to coal (A) by reason of an order under
Section 2(a) of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974
or any amendment thereto...shall not be deemed to be a modification... "
These two sections of the Act seem to indicate that certain DOE-ordered
conversions should be exempt from the PSD regulations. However, Section
52.21(b) (2) (ii) attempts to limit that exemption in effect by modifying it
with the phrase, "unless previously limited by enforceable permit
conditions."
The modifying phrase says that if a source holds a SIP permit which
prohibits it from burning coal, it will not be eligible for the exemption,
even if the state plans to amend the SIP permit.
In view of the discrepancy between Section 169 and Section 111, this
Office, OGC, and OAQPS plan to recommend that the final Alabama Power
rulemaking delete the limiting phrase. I suggest that you advise Delmarva
of our intent. As I understand it, Delmarva will not begin the fuel
conversion until late this year. By that time it is hoped that the PSD
rules proposed on September 5, 1979 will be finalized. Deletion of the
limiting phrase would exempt Delmarva from PSD review requirements.
Three questions about increment consumption were raised by your memo
and by a subsequent telephone conversation between Bob Blaszczak and Libby
Scopino. The three questions and my responses to them are as follows:
- Q. - What is the mechanism for evaluating increment consumption by
a source which is exempt from PSD review?
A. - Increment consumption is evaluated by the next major source
or modification that applies for a permit in the area, or by the permitting
authority during its periodic increment assessment. There is no mechanism
available to stop an exempt source from constructing or modifying even if it
would violate the increment. However, as soon as a violation is discovered,
the State would be required to restore the increment through a revision to
the SIP. I agree that the DCO process is not an adequate mechanism for
considering increment consumption.
- Q. - What portion of Delmarva's emissions should be counted into
the baseline?
A. - Delmarva's actual emissions, as of the baseline date, should
be counted into the baseline. In calculating actual emission levels, the
hours of operation, Capacity utilization, and types of materials combusted,
processed or stored should be based on the preceding year of operation
unless another previous year would be more representative.
Assuming the baseline has been triggered around the Edge Moor Plant,
Delmarva's baseline emissions would be based on oil because it has been
burning oil since 1971.
- Q. - What portion of Delmarva's emissions consume increment?
A. - The increment consumption is calculated by modeling the
difference between Delmarva's baseline emissions and its allowable emissions
after the switch to coal. See 43 FR 26400&1 for discussion on increment
consumption.
If you would like to discuss these issues further, please contact me or
Libby Scopino of my staff at 755-2564.
Edward E. Reich
cc: David Hawkins
Walter Barber
Richard Rhoads
Michael James
Notebook Entries: 13.3; 6.9 |