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 specifically from large sources that, due to age, 

were exempted from new source performance standards (NSPS) requirements of 

the Clean Air Act. BART controls must be implemented unless the Department 

demonstrates that an emissions 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 promulgation of this rule, which will also define the applicability 

of BART controls, include provisions for a schedule by which controls must be 

installed, and provide for the establishment of enforceable permit conditions and 

limits to ensure compliance. 

8.1 BART and the Clean Air Interstate Rule

The BART-eligible electricity generating units (EGUs) in MANE-VU represent the 

largest emissions reduction potential among the various BART-eligible source 

categories. The population of BART-Eligible EGUs within the MANE-VU domain 

can be broadly divided into four groups. 

• CAIR States (year-round): Those in states eligible for participation in the 

EPA Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 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 states that participate in the seasonal 

CAIR program only (Connecticut and Massachusetts 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 program. The reason for this is that EPA 
8-2 

contends that CAIR will achieve reductions 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, Maryland, 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) through the promulgation 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 the federal BART Rule (see 

Section 8.3). Given that EPA will be required to revise its rules to respond to the 

CAIR remand, performing the BART determinations 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 CFR Appendix Y) provide criteria for determining if 

other programs will produce reductions equivalent to BART. These criteria, 

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

$ A determination if the geographic 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 reductions is anticipated to be significantly 

different, then a two-pronged visibility improvement test is employed. The 

first prong is that the alternative program must not result in a degradation of 

visibility at any Class I area. The second prong is that the alternative 

program must result in greater visibility improvement overall, based on an 

average across all affected Class I areas. 

Section (e)(2) of the Regional Haze Rule provides that a state may opt to 

implement an emissions trading program or other alternative measure rather than 

to require sources subject to BART to install, operate and maintain BART. To do 

so, the State must demonstrate that this emissions trading program or other 

alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would be 

achieved through the installation and operation of BART. To make this 

demonstration, the State must submit an implementation plan 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 determination 
8-3 

of BART for fossil fuel fired power plants 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 making BART determinations that States 

can use in implementing the regional haze BART requirements 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 are not required to use the 

process in the guidelines when making BART determinations for other types of 

sources. 

8.3 The Federal BART Rule

The EPA finalized the federal BART facility-by-facility requirements 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 above. The rule contains elements that: 

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

controls 

• Outline methods to determine if these sources are “reasonably anticipated to 

cause or contribute to haze” 

• Define the methodology for conducting BART control analysis 

• Provide presumptive limits for electricity 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 identifying sources that are “BART-eligible.” 

BART-eligible sources are those that: 

$ Fall into one of 26 specific source categories 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 more of any single 

visibility impairing pollutant. These pollutants include SO2, NOx, VOCs, 

PM10 and ammonia. States are allowed 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 its BART and regional haze programs. 

Many facilities in the MANE-VU region that were potentially BART-eligible were 
8-4 

relatively small emission sources with potential emissions that exceed the 

statutory threshold of 250 tons 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-eligible 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 emit 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 BART that technological or economic limitations exist 

on the applicability of measurement methodology to a particular source which 

would make the imposition of an emission standard infeasible, a design, 

equipment, work practice, or other operational standard, or combination thereof, 

requiring the application of BART may be proposed 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 compliance by means which achieve equivalent 

results, and must be approved by the Department. 

Once a source is found to be “eligible” under the BART program, states must 

determine if that facility causes or contributes to the formation 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 (Exemption Modeling) – This assessment 

uses CALPUFF or other EPA approved modeling methods. Results of 

modeling would be compared to natural background conditions. The EPA 

defined “cause” as an impact of 1.0 deciview or more and “contribute” as an 

impact of 0.5 deciview or more. However, 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 – This assessment allows states to 
8-5 

exempt sources with common characteristics that are determined not to 

impair visibility at Class I areas. 

The EPA provided the states with a great deal of flexibility in implementing the 

BART program. The Department’s BART rule will provide for the assessment of 

individual source contributions (Option 1 above). New York has preliminarily 

identified several sources that are considered 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 the candidate sources do not cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in Class I areas. The criteria (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 installation 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 reasonably expected from the technology 

Once this assessment has been completed, BART controls for each source are 

identified. In some cases, the installation of controls or other emission reduction 

measures may need to be undertaken. Another possibility is that controls 

already in place may be determined to qualify as BART, due, in most cases, to a 

higher-than-reasonable cost associated with installing additional controls. Other 

outcomes may include a determination that the source may be shutting down or 

that the impact of controls would be insufficient 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 CFR §51.308(e)(1)(iv), BART must be in 

operation for each applicable source as expeditiously 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 date 
8-6 

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 installation of controls. 

Requirements for implementing 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 Part 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 mentioned above. State-level BART rulemaking 

will provide New York with the necessary authority to require BART analyses, 

install controls, develop compliance 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 environmental impacts, existing controls at 

the source, remaining useful life of source 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 sources 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 source 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 Secretary of State: April, 2010 

 Regulation Effective Date: May, 2010 

This schedule is included in the comprehensive rulemaking timeline that appears 

in Table 10-5 of this document. 

After the rulemaking is complete, the final list of BART-eligible facilities will be 

identified and the applicability 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 required control equipment developed. The 

installation of controls, the shutdown of the affected sources, 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, NY 
8-8 

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 potentially subject to BART requirements are located at 

the following facilities: 

Arthur Kill Generating 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, NY 
8-9 

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 Improvement 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 improvement which could result from installation of BART 

controls. It is anticipated that, once BART analyses as required by New York's 

regulation have been conducted, and the applicable emission controls are 

installed, a significant reduction in emissions 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 measures that should be applied in order to meet the 

Reasonable Progress Goals out until 2018. These measures include the 

application of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) to eligible facilities to 

which New York State is committed through this SIP. The implementation of 

these measures will, according to the analyses conducted by the Class I areas 

that developed the "Ask", provide the necessary visibility improvement to meet 

the Reasonable Progress Goals that will allow the required visibility level for the 

initial period (i.e., 2018) to be achieved, as well as the natural visibility levels in 

2064.