Alternative Fuels Exclusion
|PSD Applicability for Ashland Chemical's Maleic Anhydride Plant in Neal, West Virginia
|Relates to whether a switch in feedstock materials from benzene to butane at Ashland Chemical's maleic anhydride plant should be subject to PSD review since the facility was capable of accommodating butane as an alternate feedstock before January 6, 1975.
|PSD Applicability - Public Service Electric and Gas Company
|Finds that a project that would supplement the use of normal fuel (Number 6 oil) with ECO-Fuel II with no changes made to the boiler is eligible for the alternative fuels exemption since it could accommodate this alternative fuel prior to January 6, 1975.
|Request for Clarification of EPA Guidance on the Alternative Fuels Exemption under the PSD Program
|Clarifies EPA’s interpretation of the term “capable of accommodating” as it applies to the alternative fuels exemption in light of two past letters issued by EPA Regions 2 and 5.
|N.Y. State Electric and Gas Jennison Station Use of Tire-Derived Fuel
|Addresses the exemption in 40 CFR Part 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(d) for the use of an alternative fuel that is generated from municipal solid waste (MSW).
|Tire Derived Fuel Classified as Municipal Solid Waste for PSD Exemption
|Addresses whether the combustion of a fuel consisting solely of TDF does not qualify for the exemption in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(d) which applies to the “use of an alternative fuel at a steam generating unit to the extent that the fuel is generated from MSW.”
|PSD Guidance, 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(2)(d) - Definition of "Capable of Accommodating"
|Explains whether a new source would be treated as being “capable of accommodating” a fuel if it had been designed, and had "commenced" construction under PSD before 1/6/75, and if the design of the source allowed firing of the fuel.
|Response to Memo Regarding Reasons Why Waste Tires Should be Given an Exemption from EPA's Requirements for PSD
|Pertains to the use of tire-derived fuel (TDF) as an alternative fuel does not qualify for a PSD exemption under 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(d).
|Response to Letter Requesting the EPA Repeal the Alternative Fuels Exemption in the PSD Regulations
|Concerns the use of the alternative fuels exemption for a project that would blend petroleum coke with the coal burned at Florida Power Company’s Crystal River units 1 and 2.
|PSD Applicability to Coal Conversions
|Addresses the applicability of the alternative fuels exemption to coal conversions.
|Bridgeport Harbor Coal Conversion
|Relates to whether a project that would convert United Illuminating Company (UI)’s Bridgeport Harbor Unit #3 from burning oil to burning coal is exempt under 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(e)(1) because UI’s Bridgeport Harbor Station was capable of accommodating the alternative fuel prior to January 6, 1975.
|Fuel Conversion from Natural Gas to Distillate Fuel Oil - Chemplex
|Regards whether Chemplex boilers can switch from natural gas to a vaporized mixture of two-thirds distillate fuel oil and one-third fuel gas without making any modifications to the boilers themselves given that they are considered to have been capable of burning oil prior to January 6, 1975.
|Follow-up on Request for EPA's Headquarters to Review Region V's Previous Determination that the Proposed Fuel Conversion was a "Major Modification" for PSD Purposes
|Concerns exemption from PSD review for Detroit Edison’s project that would convert an oil-fired unit to dual capacity for oil and gas firing given that the source was not capable of accommodating natural gas prior to January 6, 1975 and there was evidence to demonstrate that the source as a whole had, or at any time initiated construction on, the equipment necessary to deliver natural gas to the combustion unit.
|KPL Applicability Determination
|Regards whether Kansas Power and Light Company’s (KPL) boilers were considered capable of accommodating petroleum coke as an alternative fuel given that the boilers had never had the physical capability of handling bottom ash and the design specifications also did not contain any such provisions. Also addresses whether petroleum coke is a fossil fuel.
|Applicability of NSPS and PSD Requirements to a Proposed Fuel Conversion
|Addresses whether the conversion of two steam generators burning No. 6 fuel oil to coal are subject to BACT applicability given that they were capable of accommodating the alternative fuel prior to January 6, 1975, and they were not prohibited from switching as a result of a permit condition.
|Entergy Arkansas Independence and White Bluff Stations, Request for PSD Determination for Lignite Combustion
|Discusses whether Entergy’s proposal to combust lignite coal in a blend in their existing steam boilers qualifies for the alternative fuels exemption.
|Exemption for Certain Fuel Conversions from PSD Review
|Transmits Region IV’s policy concerning applicability of coal conversions to EPA PSD regulations.
Related Topics: Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement
The “Relevant Guidance” index includes a collection of documents issued by EPA organized by topic area. These documents include memoranda, letters, orders, and other types of EPA actions that may provide guidance in one or more forms, such as an adjudication, statement of policy, interpretation of statutes or regulations, or technical information. Each collection is intended to be representative of EPA statements on the topic, but it may not be a complete listing of such statements. The collection does not reflect topic-specific statements that have been expressed by EPA though published rule preambles and Title V petition orders, nor does it include EAB decisions. Each document in the collection speaks for itself, and the inclusion or exclusion of a document in the collection is not intended by EPA to communicate anything more than what is expressed within each document. EPA makes no independent representations on this website as to the extent to which any document in the collection reflects EPA’s current views on the topic, is a final action by EPA, or has any legal effect or precedential weight. Readers are advised to review the documents in the collection and conduct their own assessment of such considerations based on the content of each document and other documents in the collection. Some of the information or views included in the documents may be affected by subsequent changes to the referenced statutory or regulatory language or by court decisions. In addition, many of the statements in these documents are based upon the federal regulations which may differ from rules that govern federally-approved programs. Permitting authorities are advised to consult with their EPA Regional Offices if there is a question as to the relevance of a particular statement to their NSR program.