8-1 8.0 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Requirements

As mandated by 40 CFR Section 51.308(e) , the State of New York, along with other states, is required to submit an implementation plan containing emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with BART for each BART-eligible source that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any Class I Federal area. BART requirements are intended to reduce emissions specifica lly from large sources that, due to age, were exempted from new source perfo rmance standards (NSPS) requirements of

the Clean Air Act. BART controls mu st be implemented unless the Department

demonstrates that an emissi ons trading program or other alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions.

New York State, with the help of the MANE-VU Regional Planning Organization, has developed a strategy to implement the requirements of BART that includes the adoption of a state rule that will contain the requirements for BART controls. BART-eligible sources and the associated control requirements will be identified as a result of the promulgat ion of this rule, which will also define the applicability of BART controls, include provisions fo r a schedule by which controls must be installed, and provide for t he establishment of enforc eable permit conditions and limits to ensure compliance.

8.1 BART and the Clean Air Interstate Rule

The BART-eligible electricity generating uni ts (EGUs) in MANE-VU represent the largest emissions reduction potential am ong the various BART-eligible source categories. The population of BART-Elig ible EGUs within the MANE-VU domain can be broadly divided into four groups.

• CAIR States (year-round): Those in stat es eligible for participation in the EPA Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAI R) program on a year round basis (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania for SO2 and NOx), and • CAIR States (seasonal): Those in st ates that participate in the seasonal CAIR program only (Connecticut and Ma ssachusetts for summertime NOx),

and • Opt-out States: Those in states that are not eligible to participate in the annual CAIR program and choose not to participate in the seasonal CAIR program (Rhode Island and New Hampshire), and

• Non-CAIR States: Those in states which are not eligible to participate in the CAIR program (Maine and Vermont).

EPA determined that the application of CAIR will satisfy BART for those EGUs in states that participated in the CAIR pr ogram. The reason for this is that EPA8-2 contends that CAIR will achieve reducti ons that are “better-than-BART.” EPA supported this position in the final BART rule, detailed in Appendix O: Supplemental Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), May 2004 . This applied for all BART-eligible EGUs in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Mary land, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York. Those EGUs located in Connecticut and Massachusetts were also included in the CAIR program, but only with respect to their emissions

of ozone season NOx.

Though New York implemented (CAIR) thr ough the promulgati on of 6 NYCRR Parts 243, 244 and 245, it is requiring BART-eligible EGU’s to undergo a BART

determination in accordance with the provisions of t he federal BART Rule (see Section 8.3). Given that EPA will be require d to revise its rules to respond to the CAIR remand, performing the BART determinat ions at this time will complete this requirement and not make it subject to another BART review after EPA responds

to the CAIR remand.

The BART Guidelines (40 CF R Appendix Y) provide crit eria for determining if other programs will produce reductions equi valent to BART. These criteria,

sometimes referred to as the “ better-than-BART-test,” consist of:

$ A determination if the geogr aphic distribution of emissions reductions from the two programs is expected to be similar, the comparison can be made based on emissions alone, or

$ If the distribution of emissions reducti ons is anticipated to be significantly different, then a two-pronged visibility im provement test is employed. The first prong is that the alte rnative program must not re sult in a degradation of visibility at any Class I area. The se cond prong is that the alternative program must result in greater visibi lity improvement overall, based on an average across all affected Class I areas.

Section (e)(2) of the Regional Haze Ru le provides that a state may opt to implement an emissions trading program or other alternative m easure rather than to require sources subject to BART to in stall, operate and maintain BART. To do so, the State must demonstrate that th is emissions trading program or other alternative measure will achieve gr eater reasonable progr ess than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART. To make this demonstration, the State must submit an implementation pl an containing the elements listed in Section (e)(2).

8.2 Large Electrical Generating Units

Under 40 CFR §51.308(e)(1)(i)( B) of the Regional Haze Rule, the determination8-3 of BART for fossil fuel fired power plant s having a total generating capacity of greater than 750 megawatts must be made pursuant to the guidelines of Appendix Y of this part of the CFR (Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule). The EPA adopted those guidelines on July 6, 2005. The guidelines provide a process for ma king BART determinations that States can use in implementing the regional haze BART requirement s on a source-bysource basis, as provided in 40 CFR 51. 308(e)(1). States must follow the guidelines in making BART determinations on a source-by-source basis for power plants of greater than 750 megawatts (MW) but ar e not required to use the process in the guidelines when making BA RT determinations for other types of

sources.

8.3 The Federal BART Rule

The EPA finalized the federal BART fac ility-by-facility requi rements of the Regional Haze Rule on June 15, 2005. The BART program requires states to develop an inventory of sources within each state or tribal jurisdiction that would be eligible for controls as described abov e. The rule contains elements that:

• Outline methods to determine if a sour ce is eligible for the application of

controls

• Outline methods to determine if thes e sources are “reasonably anticipated to

cause or contribute to haze”

• Define the methodology for conducting BART control analysis

• Provide presumptive limits for electric ity generating units (EGUs) larger than 750 Megawatts, and

• Provide a justification for the use of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) as

BART for CAIR affected EGUs.

The first step in the BART process is identif ying sources that are “BART-eligible.” BART-eligible sources are those that:

$ Fall into one of 26 specific source ca tegories identified in the Clean Air Act;

$ Have units that were in existence on August 7, 1977, but had not been in operation for more than fifteen years as of that date (prior to August 7, 1962);

and

$ Have a potential to emit (PTE) 250 tons per year (TPY) or mo re of any single visibility impairing pollutant. These pollutants include SO 2 , NOx, VOCs,

PM 10 and ammonia. States are allowe d flexibility in addressing ammonia

and VOC sources. New York State has chosen not to include controls for ammonia and VOC’s as a part of it s BART and regional haze programs.

Many facilities in the MANE-VU region t hat were potentially BART-eligible were8-4 relatively small emission sources wit h potential emissions that exceed the statutory threshold of 250 t ons per year or more, but with actual emissions of visibility impairing pollutants of well under 250 tons in any year. Facilities such as these can accept a permit limitation, restricting their emissions to less than 250 tons per year. Any otherwise BART-eligib le facility may “cap-out” of BART. New York will provide for this through the placement of emission restrictions in each facility’s Title V permit. Figure 8- 1 shows tentative NYS BART sources.

According to 40 CFR §51.308(e)(1)(ii)(C) of the Regional Haze Rule, states are not required to make a determination of BART for SO2 or for NOx if a BART eligible source has the potential to em it less than 40 tons per year of such pollutants, or for PM10 if a BART eligible source emits less than 15 tons per year of such pollutant.

As allowed by 40 CFR §51.308(e)(1)(iii) of the Regional Haze Rule, if it is determined in establishing BA RT that technological or economic limitations exist on the applicability of meas urement methodology to a particular source which would make the imposition of an em ission standard infeasible, a design, equipment, work practice, or other operati onal standard, or co mbination thereof, requiring the application of BART may be pr oposed by the facility owner. Such standard, to the degree possible, is to set forth the emission reduction to be achieved by implementation of such design, equipment, work practice or operation, must provide for complianc e by means which achieve equivalent results, and must be appr oved by the Department.

Once a source is found to be “eligible ” under the BART program, states must determine if that facility causes or contri butes to the formati on of haze at any

Class I area. Three methods can be used to determine if a source reasonably causes or contributes to regional haze in any Class I area, including:

$ Individual source assessment (Exe mption Modeling) – This assessment uses CALPUFF or other EPA approv ed modeling methods. Results of modeling would be compared to natur al background conditions. The EPA defined “cause” as an impact of 1.0 deciv iew or more and “contribute” as an impact of 0.5 deciview or more. Howeve r, states have the discretion to set

lower thresholds for contribution.

$ Cumulative assessment of all BART "eligible sources” – Under this approach, all eligible sources can be determined to be subject to BART. This method could also be used to analyze an area’s contribution to visibility impairment and demonstrate that no sources are subject, based on cumulative modeling.

$ Assessment based on model plants – Th is assessment allows states to8-5 exempt sources with common characteri stics that are det ermined not to impair visibility at Class I areas.

The EPA provided the states with a great de al of flexibility in implementing the BART program. The Departm ent’s BART rule will provi de for the assessment of individual source contributions (Option 1 above). New York has preliminarily

identified several sources that are c onsidered to be “BART-eligible” based on modeling conducted by MANE-VU. However, New York’s BART rule is expected to provide source owners with the opportunity to conduct “exemption modeling”

that demonstrates that t he candidate sources do not cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas. The cr iteria (i.e., threshold by deciview) by which a source may be shown to cause or contribute are also a part of New

York’s draft rule.

Owners of sources that have been identified as BART-eligible, and have been

found to cause or contribute to haze in a Class I area, must conduct an engineering review to determine if the inst allation of new control requirements is appropriate. This review must take into consideration five factors:

$ Cost

$ Energy and non-air environmental impacts

$ Existing controls at the source

$ Remaining useful life of source

$ Visibility improvement reasonabl y expected from the technology

Once this assessment has been completed, BART controls for each source are identified. In some cases, the installati on of controls or other emission reduction measures may need to be undertaken. Anot her possibility is that controls already in place may be determined to qualif y as BART, due, in most cases, to a higher-than-reasonable cost associated with in stalling additional controls. Other outcomes may include a determination that the source may be shutting down or that the impact of controls would be in sufficient to require the reduction of

emissions.

8.4 New York State’s BART Rule (6 NYCRR Part 249)

The Department is in the process of adopting a regulation to codify the BART requirements. As provided in 40 CF R §51.308(e)(1)(iv), BART must be in operation for each applicable source as ex peditiously as practicable but in no event later than five years after approval of the Regional Haze SIP revision by the EPA. The Department’s BART rule will require that each source subject to

BART must submit its plan detailing how it will comply with the BART requirements by October 1, 2010. The plan must show that the required BART controls will be installed by a July 1, 2013 deadline. July 1, 2013 is also the date8-6 by which sources that wish to avoid BART controls must “cap out” or shut down. The requirement to implement BART by July 1, 2013 is within the 5-year requirement for the insta llation of controls.

Requirements for implementi ng BART controls or achieving emission reductions from a BART-eligible source, along with compliance schedules, will be placed in each source’s air quality permit. Most of these sources operate under Title V permits per 6 NYCRR Part 201 and 40 CFR Pa rt 70. Under New York’s Title V permitting program, conditions placed in permits must have a basis in a regulation containing the requirements for BART controls, necessitating the promulgation of a BART rule as menti oned above. State-level BART rulemaking will provide New York with the necessa ry authority to require BART analyses, install controls, develop complianc e schedules, recordkeeping, reporting and other elements required under the federal haze program. The rule mirrors the federal BART regulation except as it pertains to certain CAIR sources, and will require that cost, energy and non-air envir onmental impacts, existing controls at the source, remaining useful life of sour ce and visibility improvement reasonably expected from the technology be considered in the BART analysis.

The area in which New York’s BART rule will vary from the federal rule is that

CAIR sources that meet the criteria for being “BART eligible” will not be exempted from the BART rule. Those sour ces meeting these criteria that cause or contribute to haze in Class I areas will be required to conduct a review to

determine if the installation of new control requirements is appropriate.

As provided in 40 CFR §51.308(e)(1)(v), the Title V operating permits for BART sources must include a requirement that each source maintain the control equipment and establish procedures to ensure such equipment is properly operated and maintained. This requirement will be included in the Title V operating permit for each sour ce subject to BART.

The projected schedule for completing this rulemaking is as follows:

Proposal in the NY State Register: October, 2009 Package to Environmental Board: February, 2010 File Regulation with the Secr etary of State: April, 2010 Regulation Effective Date: May, 2010

This schedule is included in the compr ehensive rulemaking timeline that appears

in Table 10-5 of this document.

After the rulemaking is comp lete, the final list of BART- eligible facilities will be identified and the applic ability of BART controls determined. During this period, FLMs will be provided a 60-day review period for the BART determinations,8-7 including any BART exemption modeling demonstrations. The permits for these

facilities will be modified to include the installation of the necessary controls and a schedule for the operation of any requir ed control equipment developed. The installation of controls, the shutdown of the affected sour ces, or the imposition of an emission cap accepted by the facility to avoid the need for BART controls will be required to be in place within five years of the EPA’s approval of New York’s

Haze SIP.

Figure 8-1 Tentative NYS BART Sources

The non-EGU sources the are potentially subject to BART requirements are located at the following facilities:

Alcoa Massena Operations (West Plant) Massena, NY8-8 Kodak Park Division Rochester, NY

Lafarge Building Materials Inc Ravena, NY

Lehigh Northeast Cement Company Glens Falls, NY

Owens-Corning Delmar Plant Feura Bush, NY

St Lawrence Cement Corp-Catskill Quarry Catskill, NY

International Paper Ticonderoga Mill Ticonderoga, NY

EGU sources that are potent ially subject to BART requ irements are located at the following facilities:

Arthur Kill Gener ating Station Staten Island, NY

Bowline Point Generating Station West Haverstraw, NY

Con Ed-59th St Station New York, NY

Danskammer Generating Station Newburgh, NY

Roseton Generating Station Newburgh, NY

EF Barrett Power Station Island Park, NY

Northport Power Station Northport, NY

Oswego Harbor Power Oswego, NY8-9 Poletti Power Project Astoria, NY

Port Jefferson Energy Center Port Jefferson, NY

Ravenswood Generating Station Queens, NY

Samuel A Carlson Generating Station Jamestown, NY

Trigen Syracuse Energy Corporation Syracuse, NY

8.5 Anticipated Visibility Improv ement as a Result of BART

MANE-VU conducted modeling analyses of BART-eligible sources using CALPUFF in order to provide a regionally consistent foundation for assessing the degree of visibility improvem ent which could result fr om installation of BART controls. It is anticipated that, once BART analyses as required by New York's regulation have been conduct ed, and the applicable emission controls are installed, a significant reduction in emissi ons of visibility impairing pollutants will occur. Although New York has no Class I areas, the emissions from its sources are contributory to regional haze in several states that contain Class I areas. Through the collaborative effort described in Section 9, these Class I states have

identified control measur es that should be applied in order to meet the Reasonable Progress Goal s out until 2018. These measures include the application of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) to eligible facilities to

which New York State is committed thr ough this SIP. The implementation of these measures will, according to t he analyses conducted by the Class I areas that developed the "Ask", provide the necessa ry visibility improvement to meet the Reasonable Progress Goals that will allo w the required visibility level for the initial period (i.e., 2018) to be achieved, as well as the natural visibility levels in

2064.