P. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 83 ) IV-B- 7 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/200810:46:21 AM Sheet 83 of 142P. 2

• *

• ; •

i »«* 0Sr « A ONITE O STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y RESEARC H TRIANGL E PARK . N C 2771 1

AP R 1 4 

# A-^o-vi OFFIC E O F M R QUALIT

Y PLANNIN G AN D STANDARD

S



### MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Ne w Sourc e Revie w Progra m PROM : 

### TO : John S . Seitz , Directo r C^-J^-fa-.

Offic e o f Ai r Qualit

y Plantin g an

d Sta n Se e Addressee s idards^uO-10 ) EP A AI R DOCKF. T

Th e purpos e o f

thi s memorandu

m i s t o aler

tyo u t o som e concern s w e hav e regardin g par t o f di e Ne w Sourc e Revie w (NSR ) program , i.e. , th e Preventio n o f Significan tDeterioratio n (PSD ) program , an

d t o as k you r assistanc e i n determinin g di e true exten to f any problem . Th e concer n focuse s o n whethe r o r no tth e PS D progra m i s bein g implemente d appropriately i n al l area s o f di e country . Th e PS D progra m i s a n importan

tpar to f ou r ai r qualit

y management program , an

d i s on e o n whic h w e pla n t o rel y heavil y a s w e mov e towar d implementin g th e ne w ozon e standar

d i n transitiona

l areas . W e wil l nee d you r suppor ti n gatherin g additiona

l dat a dia t wil l allo w u s t o bette r asses s dii s situation . I f thi s furthe

r study confirm s diatdi e PS D progra m i s no tbein g implemente d appropriately , correctiv e actio n wil l b e required . Ou r concern s gro w ou to f

conversation s wit h personne l from th e Offic e o f Enforcement an d Complianc e Assuranc e (OECA) , th e lette r t o Administrato r Carol Browne r from Pete r Hamlin , Chie f

o f th e Iow a Ai r Qualit

y Bureau , an

d a revie w o f

informatio n submitte d to m y staf f b y di e National Par

k Servic e (NPS) . Base d o n these , I a m concerne d tha

ta number o f

problem s related t o progra m implementatio n may exist , a s w e discusse d a tou r meetin g i n La s Vegas . Give n di e importance o f

th e PS D progra

m t p managin g ou r national ai r qualit y program , i ti s critica l fo r u s t o tak e step s t o game r additiona l informatio n o n thi s issue . I n addition , I believ e dia tmer e ar e severa l step s w e shoul d tak e t o bette r monito r th e PS D progra m a s w e implemen ti t ove r di e nex tyear , an

d t o addres s th e kind s o f

issue s dia

thav e bee n raised . •f. First , I a m askin g each Regional Offic e t o revie w an d commen to n di e specifi c permit s describe d i n di e NP S memorandu m whic h wa s sentt o you r staf f i n earl y Januar

y (se e attached) . B y May 7,1999, 1 as k tha tyo u respond witi i a memorandu m describin g whethe r yo u agre e o r d::2g-c c v.it

h th e conclusion s reached i n th e NP S memorandu m a s i trelate s t o th e permit s issue d b y State s i n you r Region . I f problem s ar

e identified , you r memorandu m shoul d als o recommend any specifi c action s tha

tyo u believ e shoul d b e taken .P. 3

Second , I ask

tha t you obtai n fo

r revie w th e preliminar

y an d final determination s fo r al l PS D permit s issue d b y th e State s in you r Regio n o r thos e currentl y undergoin g revie w withi n th e Regio n sinc e Januar

y 1,1997 . We ar

e awar e tha t thi s reques t

ma y requir e obtainin g acop y o f th e document s from aState o r loca l agenc y i n thos e case s where copie s hav e no t alread y bee n provide d to th e Region . Given th e concern s expresse d about th e resource s suc h arevie w woul d entail , w e ar

e willin g t o provid e on-site assistanc e t o eac h Regio n to assis t i n th e compilatio n o f thes e data . In orde

r t o schedul e suc h assistance , you shoul d hav e thes e determination s availabl e fo r revie w b y Jun e 1,1999 . Onc e th e determination s ar e collected , w e inten d t o extrac t th e following information : 1 . facilit y name , permi t

ID , sourc e type , locatio n an d Standar d Industria

l Classificatio n (SIC ) code(s) ; 2 . projec t descriptio n (boiler , dryer , etc.) , emissio n uni t number , operatin g limit/units , siz e or,• ; capacity/units , fue

l type ; 3 . di e contro l technolog y selecte d a s Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y (BACT) ; 4 . whethe

r th e cos t analysi s followed EP

A guidanc e an d whethe

r th e documentatio n wa s adequate ; 5 . m e pollutant s emitted ; 6 . th e permitte d emissio n rates ; 7 . m e distanc e to th e Clas s I are aan d whethe r th e Federa

l Land Manage

r (FLM ) wa s notifie d appropriately ; 8 . whetiie

r th e Regiona

l Office commente d o n th e permi t and , i f so , whether

th e permittin g authorit y incorporate d th e Regiona l Office comments ; 9 . whethe

r th e BAC T determinatio n i s mor e stringen t tha n th e applicabl e Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS ) and , i f so , th e numbe

r o f ton s pe r yea r o f emission s tha

t wer e prevented ; 10 . wher e ther e wa s n o applicabl e NSPS , whethe r BAC T wa s mor

e stringen t tha n th e applicabl e Stat e Implementatio n Pla

n (SIP ) limit ; th e numbe

r o f ton s pe r yea r o f emission s whic h wa s prevente d b y applyin g BACT ; [Thi s ste p wil l require tha

t acop y o f each State/loca

l SIP rul e b e available. ] 11 . th e monitoring , recor

d keepin g and reportin g requirement s tha t were applied , suc h a s continuou s emissio n monitoring , averagin g times , etc . If yo u d o no t require assistanc e in developin g thi s information , w e wil l provid e yo u wit h a commo n forma t spreadsheet

o n whic h th e datashoul d b e entered . In thos e case s wher e w e assis t i n th e compilation , w e wil l provid e you wit h acop y o f

your Region' s dat afo

r your review .P. 4

Though th e PS D progra

mi s th e primar

y focu s o f thi s effort , w e are als o intereste d in gatherin g som

e dat ao n th e nonattainment NS Rprogram . Du e t o th e resourc e constraint s w e al l have , I recommend w e d o thi s prospectivel y b y conductin g aclose r revie w o f NS Rpermi t applications , preliminar

y determinations , final determination s an d trackin g th e permit s tha

t finally ar e issue d fo r application s receive d sinc e Januar y 1,1999 . Fo r

nonattainment

NS R permits , th e informatio n need s ar e somewha

t different . Sinc e th e Clas s I are aan d FL M statu s ar e no t applicable , and th e Lowes t Achievabl e Emissio n Rate (LAER ) i s neede d i n lie u o f

BAC T fo r th e nonattainmen

t NS Rpermit s pleas e substitut e th e following informatio n fo r item s 3,4 , 7 , 9 , an d 1 0 above : 3a . th e emissio n limi t

and contro l technolog y selecte d a s LAER ; 4a . whedie

r cos t (or other factors ) wa s a

n issu e i n determinin g wha t technolog y wa s selecte d a s LAER ; 7a . whethe

r th e offsets were appropriately obtaine d an d documented ; 9a . whedie

r th e LAE Rdeterminatio n wa s more stringent tha n th e applicabl e NSP S leve l o f contro l and , i f

so , th e estimate o f

th e additiona

l ton s o f emission s reduction s tha

t were obtained ; 10a . wher e there i s n o applicabl e NSPS , whether LAE Rwa s mor

e stringen t tha n th e applicabl e SI P limit ; i f so , th e numbe

r o f additiona l ton s per yea r prevente d fromenterin g th e environment . I n additio n to th e informatio n gatherin g step s describe d above , som e additiona

l wor k wil l b e necessar

y includin g activitie s tiiat

coul d require reprogrammin g o f resources . First , fo

r th e F Y 2000-0 1 progra

mguidance , w e are requirin g more reportin g fromth e Regiona l Office s fo

r PS D an d nonattainment

NS Rpermit s whic h wil l b e reviewe d durin g th e upcomin g years . Second , w e ar

e coordinatin g closel y wit

h OECA i n thei r

enforcemen

t initiativ e relatin g t o th e PS D an d nonattainmen

t NS Rprograms . Finally , w e are als o considerin g re-institutin g th e annua l conferenc e amon g Headquarters , Regiona l Office , an d State an d loca l agenc y staf

f fo r trainin g purposes , and to help promote nationa l consistenc y i n matter s pertainin g t o tiiese programs . I expec t t o b e communicatin g wit

h our colleague s fromth e State and loca l agencie s abou t thi s matte r in th e nea r future . I n developin g thi s plan , w e hav e worke d closel y wit h Regio n VU , th e sub-lea

d regio n fo

r permits . I look

forwar d t o hearin g fromyou , an d urg e your cooperatio n in making thi s ahig h priority . I f you hav e an

y questions , pleas e contac t

Karen Blanchar

d a t (919 ) 541-5503 . Attachmen

tP. 5

I * /

Addressees: "

Director , Offic e o f

EcosystemProtection , Regio n I Director , Divisio n o f

Environmenta

l Plannin g an d Protection , Regio n I I Actin g Director , Air

Protectio n Division , Regio n U I Director , Air , Pesticide s and Toxic s Managemen t Division , Regio n I

V Director , Ai

r an d Radiatio n Division , Regio n V Director , Multimedi aPlannin g and Permittin g Division , Regio n V I Director , Air , RCR

A an d Toxic s Division , Regio n VJ J Assistan t Regiona l Administrator , Office o f

Pollutio n Prevention , State and Triba l Programs , Regio n VTJ

I Director , Air

Division , Regio n D

C Director , Offic e o f

Ai r Quality , Regio n X



# VP. 6

\ ' " 4-13-9 9 ***FO REP A INTERNA L US E ONLY** * COMMUNICATIO N PLA N Offic e o f Ai r an d Radiatio n KE Y WOR D TITLE : PSD/NS RPermi t Progra mRevie w ISSU E IMPORTANCE : Mediu m PROJECTE D ANNOUNCEMEN T DATE : March 1,199 9 AGENC Y CONTACTS : Ms . Kare n Blanchard , Office o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an d Standard s (919)541-550 3 1 . ACTION : EP A Headquarter s i s issuin g amemorandu mt o th e Regiona

l Air Director s requestin g informatio n abou t

th e PSD/NS Rpermi t

revie w proces s i n thei r

regions . B y Ma

y 7,1999 , EP A OAQP S i s askin g th e Region s t o revie w and commen t o n specifi c concern s raise d b y staf f a t th e Nationa

l Par k Servic e (NPS ) about

asubse t o f 4 7 permit s tha

t hav e been reviewe d b y di e NP S and subsequently issue d b y state permittin g authorities . B y Jun e 1 , EP A OAQP S i s askin g th e Regiona l Air Director s t o make availabl e fo r OAQP S review , copie s o f PS D permits , an

d permi t files , fo r PS D permit s tha

t hav e bee n issue d i n th e las t tw o years . Specifically , OAQP S need s t o ensur e tha t constructio n project s a

t majo r source s are undergoin g pre-constructio n PSD/NS Rreview s an d tha t th e appropriat

e leve l of air pollutio n contro l i s bein g applied . 2 . MESSAGE : Th e PSD/NS Rprogra

mi s a n importan

t par t o f ou r nationa l ai r qualit y managemen

t program , an d i s on e upo n which w e pla n t o rel y heavil y a s w e mov e forwar d implementin g th e ne w ozon e air qualit y standard s i n transitional areas . Ove r th e next year , w e inten d t o monito r

th e healt h o f th e progra mt o ensure tha

t i t i s bein g implemente d appropriatel y an d consistently acros s th e country . 3 . AUDIENCE : (a ) EP A Regiona

l Office s (b ) EP A Offic e o f

Air an d Radiation , Office o f

Enforcemen

t an d Complianc e Assessmen

t Assistan t Administrator , an

d Office Director s (c) State/Loca

l Air Pollutio n Contro l Agencie s



# 1 

# 5P. 7

•*•» • / 

## A

4 . OVERAL L STRATEGY : EPA wil l conduc t

a n initia l assessmen

t t o respond t o specifi c concern s raise d b y staf f fromth e NPS , an d genera

l concern s raise d by a

n air director fromaStat

e agency , i.e. , Iowa , a s wel l a s frominforma l discussion s wit

h personnel fromth e Office o f Enforcemen

t an d Complianc e Assurance , t o determine whedie r th e initia l concern s identifie d regardin g implementatio n o f th e PS D progra

mwarran t correctiv e action . Followin g thi s initia

l evaluation , EP

A OA Ran d th e Regiona

l Office s wil l determin e wha t correctiv e action , i f

any , i s needed . Th e typ e o f information tha

t wil l b e reviewe d include s acompilatio n o f

th e following fo

r each permit :

—Wha t contro l technolog y wa s selecte d a s BACT ?

—Wha t pollutant s wer

e emitted , an

d fromwha

t industry ?

—Wha t wer e th e allowabl e emissio n rates ?

—Wha t i s th e proximit

y t o th e neares t

Clas s I area ? Wer

e FLM' s notified ?

—Di d th e Regiona

l Office commen

t o n th e draf

t permit ? Wer

e tiiese comment s incorporate d into th e permit ? I n additio n t o th e information gatherin g step s above , EPA/OA Rha s decide d t o require additiona l reportin g fromRegiona

l Office s o n PS D and nonattainmen t Ne w Sourc e Revie w permit s fo

r th e upcomin g year s (FY200 0 • 2001) . OA Ri s als o coordinatin g closely wit

h OEC A in thei r enforcemen

t initiativ e relatin g t o thes e permittin g programs . Additionally , OA

Ri s considerin g takin g additiona l step s t o ensur

e th e progra

mi s bein g implemente d effectively . One suc h step include s possibl y re-institutin g annua l trainin g conference s among EPA , Stat e and loca l permittin g staf

f t o help promote nationa

l consistenc y b y providin g a n opportunit

y fo r dialogu e and collaboration . 5 . BACKGROUN D SUMMARY : O n Augus t 3,1998 , Peter

Hamlin , Chie f

o f th e Iow aAir

Qualit y Bureau , sen

t aletter t o Administrato r

Browne r raisin g anumbe

r o f concern s about

th e integrit

y o f th e PS D progra mnationally . Specifi c concern s include d th e lack o f PS D permit s tha

t are bein g issued , inappropriat

e BAC T determinations , an d inconsistent BAC T determination s fo

r simila r source s in differen

t part s o f th e U.S . Simila

r problem s were identifie d i n a memorandumto EP

A staf f fromNationa

l Par k Servic e staff

. 6 . DESCRIPTIO N O F ACTION : EP A i s undertakin g thi s datagatherin g effor t t o eithe r furthe r investigate th e preliminar

y infonnatio n suggestin g tha t there ma y b e problem s i n ho w th e PS D progra mi s bein g implemented .

* . (fiP. 8

7 . EFFECT.O F ACTION : I f result s o f th e datagatherin g effor

t confir mpreliminar

y concern s regardin g PS D progra mimplementation , anumbe r o f action s coul d result . Thes e coul d include : reprograrnmin g o f

resource s t o allo w increase d progra moversight , issuin g guidanc e memorand aand/or

makin g regulator

y change s t o reduc e th e likelihoo d o f incorrec t interpretation s o f

th e requirements , a s wel l a s providin g greate r emphasi s o n training . 8 . ANTICIPATE D REACTION : Stat e and loca l permittin g authoritie s ma

y b e unsupportiv e o f

thi s effor t i f i t appear s tha

t som e agencie s ma

y b e th e subjec t

o f criticism . EP A Regiona

l Office s wil l hav e concern s about th e resourc e implication s o f undertakin g th e effor t given th e competin g nee d t o issu e Titl e V operatin g permits . Som e peopl e fromth e publi c or industria l sector s ma

y complain that

EPA ha s mismanage d th e program . Industria l representative s an d Stat

e and loca l agencie s ma

y argu e tha t

th e progra

mi s s o complicate d dia

t n o on e ca n implemen

t i t appropriately . 9 . DETAILE D STRATEGY : The Office o f

Air Qualit y Plannin g an d Standard s (OAQPS ) wil l sen d th e fina l memorandu

mt o di e Regiona

l Air Director s by Frida

y Apri l 16 . Regiona l Office memorand aconcernin g th e Nationa l Par k Servic e staf

f comment s o n 4 7 permit s are du e t o OAQP S b y Ma y 7,1999 . OAQPS wil l engag e i n discussio n wit h Stat e an d loca l ai r agencie s durin g th e April/Ma y tim e frame, wit

h som e discussio n betwee n staf

f and th e STAPPA/ALAPC O permittin g committe e co-chair s i n lat e April , followe d b y a t leas t informa l discussion s betwee n th e ITPI D Divisio n Directo r

and/o r th e OAQP S Office Director a t th e STAPPA/ALAPC O membershi

p meetin g i n Arizon ao n Ma y 15 . c:\archive\psdcs.wp d

# "=* •_H9 _

MEMORANDU

M To : Joh n Bunyak , Denni s Crumpler , Le w Nagle r From : Do n Shepher d Subject : NS RIssue s Date : Decembe r 4,199 8 Backgroun

d Fo r th e pas t tw o decade s th e federa

l progra mfo r th e Preventio n o f

Significan

t Deterioratio n (PSD ) ha s sough

t t o protec t thos e area s wher

e ai r qualit y i s bette r tha n th e leve l require d fo

r th e protectio n of

huma n health , especially in thos e pristin e Clas s I area s set asid e fo r preservatio n i n their natura l state . One o f

th e majo r tenet s o f afedera l progra mwa s tha t i t shoul d hel p establis h a "leve l playin g field" s o tha

t simila r industrie s locatin g i n simila r situation s shoul d experienc e simila r air pollutio n contro l costs . I t

wa s als o expecte d tha

t th e Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology (BACT ) requiremen t o f th e PS D regulation s woul d b e technolog y forcing , drivin g th e state-of-the-ar

t towar d mor e effective contro l strategies . A t aminimum , BAC T wa s t o b e a t leas t a s stringen

t a s an y applicabl e Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standar d (NSPS) , whic h wer

e t o b e updated ever

y eigh t years . EP A wa s t o pla

y th e rol e o f

oversee r and "referee " fo

r di e PS D program , acting a s asourc e o f ne w contro l technolog y standards , a s wel l a s guidanc e o n interpretation s an

d final arbite

r o f disputes . One o f

EPA' s ke y function s wa s t o ac t

a s acontro l technology informatio n repositor y (th e RACT/BACT/LAE

RClearinghouse) , th e premis e bein g tha t ne w source s woul d b e require d b y th e state s t o meet level s o f contro l equivalent

t o dia t establishe d elsewhere , thu s promotin g consistenc y an d th e "level playin g field," and uniforml y forcin g di e technolog y towar

d mor e effective pollutio n control . Finding s O f th e 4 7 PS D permi t

application s dia

t I reviewe d over

th e pas t 1 5 months , abou t

hal f had a "fata l flaw " tha t woul d invalidat

e thei r conclusion s tha

t mor e effective air

pollutio n control s ar

e not feasible . Applicability: Fiv e application s involve d question s o f applicabilit

y o f PS D t o pollutant s othe

r tha n originally reviewed . Ou

r observatio n tha

t emission s fromothe

r operation s a

t amajo r sourc e could b e effecte

d b y th e modified emission s uni t an d shoul d thu s b e include d in th e applicabilit y determinatio n wer

e rejecte d b y mos t

states , although F

L DE P did requir

e applicant s t o investigat e thi s possibilit

y in subsequen

t application s wit

h th e result

tha t additiona l processe s an d pollutant s becam

e subject t o PS D review . One stat

e rejected ou

r concer n b y sayin g they ha

d mad e a"policy decision " not

to conside

r collatera l effects ; anothe

r stat e neve r seemed t o gras p the issue . I n discussin g anettin g issu e wit h one state , it

wa s pointe d out

t o u s tha t th e stat e could essentially d

o whateve r i t wishe d becaus e it s EP

A regiona l office di d no t

revie w permit s whe

n source s ha d nette d out

o f PSD . 

# 6P.1 0

NSPS as a minimum level

of control: On

e stat e ha d a n inconsistent

approach t o us e of

th e NSP S a s a"floor " fo

r contro l effectiveness . I n on e case , th e state refused t o recogniz e dat asubmitte d b y NP S showing tha

t acategor y o f source s (phosphat

e fertilize r plants ) wa s capabl e o f

meetin g sulfuric aci d emission s limit s les s tha n hal f thos e set b y th e NSP S and vowed allegianc e t o th e NSPS . Ou r contentio n wa s that , no t

onl y wa s thi s 20-yea

r ol d standar

d out-of-date , i t

wa s incorrectly establishe d i n th e firs t place . I n anothe

r case , th e sam

e state made a"polic y decision " t o ignor e apropose d (but

effective ) revisio n t o NO x limit s fo r utilit y boiler s becaus e they fel

t tha t ahighe r limi t wa s mor e appropriate . Despit

e th e propose d NSPS , th e EP A regio n concurre d witii th e state' s approach , o n th e conditio n tha t th e applican

t woul d hav e t o mee

t th e fina l NSP S upon promulgation . Ou

r concer n wit h thi s EP A determinatio n wa s tha

t it circumvente d BAC T by setting BAC T equa

l t o th e fina

l NSP S wit

h n o consideratio n tha

t BAC T migh

t b e mor e stringen t i n thi s case . A secon d stat e initiall y appeare d to b e s o wedde d t o usin g th e phosphat e fertilize r NSP S a s BAC T that , eve n though i t

admitte d tha

t typica l contro l technolog y (mis t

eliminators ) coul d perfor mmuch better , it

continue d to writ

e th e ancien

t NSP S limit s into it s permits . However , th e stat e wa s ope n t o ou r demonstratio n tha

t lowe r limit s wer e achievabl e an d subsequently set it s BAC T limit s lowe

r tha n NSP S i n permit s tha

t followed . A thir d stat e used th e 24-yea

r ol d Ferro-allo y NSP S t o set particulate emissio n limit s a t twic e th e rate measured fo

r asimilar , existin g uni t

a t th e sam e plant . EPA "approval"

of BACT: Severa

l state s and applicant s hav e use d EPA' s action s (or inactions ) t o clai mapprova l of acontro l technolog y tha

t doe s no t necessarily represent

BACT . Th e mos t egregiou s exampl e occurre d when afla t glas s manufacture

r propose d locatio n o f

ane w plant within 3 0 kilometer s of

Shenandoa

h Nationa l Park . Even though th e compan y employ s S0 2 and P M control s a

t it s tw o plant s i n Wisconsin , and even thoug h th e Par k i s alread y suffering advers e

. impact s du e to sulfat

e pollutio n an

d visibilit y impairment , th e compan

y chos e no t

t o contro l S0 2 and P M nea r Shenandoah . Th e stat

e agency wen

t alon g wit h th e applicant , citin g PS D permit s issued t o simila

r fla t glas s plant s i

n Iowa , Kentucky , and Ne w York . Bot h th e applican

t an d th e stat e argued that , becaus e EP

A ha d "approved " thos e plant s without th e S0 2 an

d P M control s tha t ha d previousl y bee

n th e industr

y norm , i t woul d b e unfai

r t o requir e th e compan

y t o spend an y mone y to contro l thos e sam

e pollutant s nea

r aNationa l Park . (Even th e applican

t note d tha t electrostati c precipitator s wer e in us e t o contro l P

M a t 90 % o f simila r glas s plant s around th e world. ) Research by NP S int o thos e thre e uncontrolle d plant s foun d that , i n each case , EP

A staf f wrot e strong objection s to th e state s concernin g th e lac k o f S0 2 and P

M controls , but

no actio n wa s take n when th e state s ignore d th e EP A objections . EPA' s respons e was , onc e again , tha t it wa s di e "state' s call. " Failur e b y EP A t o conduc t

or stan d by arigorous BAC T analysi s playe d apar t in a t leas t tw o othe r permit s in ou

r sample . I n on e case , EPA' s approva

l o f anew lime plant

without NO x control s undercut

ou r argumen t tha t suc h control s shoul d a

t leas t b e evaluate d fo

r thei r economi c feasibility . I

n anothe r case , EPA' s comment s durin g ou r revie w perio d tha

t SC Rwa s no t required on acombine d cycl e turbin e (CCT ) i n th e Pacifi c Northwest , whe n SCRi s th eP.1 1

presumptiv e nor

mo n al l othe

r CCT s w e hav e reviewed , undercut ou r influenc e i n reducin g NO x emission s i n tha

t area . Faulty technical

feasibility analyses: Th e firs t step i n th e BAC T analysi s i s t o identif y contro l technologie s tha

t ar e technically feasible . No t

only mus t a n applican t consider contro l technologie s tha

t hav e been proven fo

r it s particula

r typ e o f process , i t mus t als o consider

th e potentia l fo r transfe r o f contro l technolog y fromanothe r applicatio n wit

h simila r pollutant strea m characteristics . Som

e state s expresse d areluctanc e t o conside r suc h "technolog y transfer, " whil e on e openly refused , statin g tha t i f acontro l had no t

been use d o n a

n identica l source , the y woul d no t eve n conside r it . Even whe

n w e provide d example s o f tw o low-solven

t coatin g technologie s i n us e a t ahigh qualit

y furnitur e plant i n th e sam

e region , anothe

r stat e dismisse d tha

t technolog y becaus e th e applicant

ha d unsubstantiate d "qualit

y concerns. " Thi s appear s t o b e an are awhere state s ar e extremely reluctant

t o tread—onl

y Virgini arequire d a

n applican t t o analyz e th e factor s associate d wit

h transferrin g contro l technolog y from aproven applicatio n t o a n unproven one . Faulty economic

feasibility analyses: I f

acontro l technolog y i s determine d t o b e technicall y feasible , i t i s no t necessaril y acandidat

e fo r us e unles s i t

i s als o economically feasible . Tha t doe s not mea n tha t th e plant ca n affor d it , jus t tha t th e cos t o f usin g th e contro l i s withi n th e sam e genera l rang e a s cost s fo

r simila r control s a t simila r facilities . On e applicant

use d th e argument tha t i f i t ha d to retrofit

dr y low-NO x combustio n technolog y (or an y othe r NO x contro l technology ) to th e 1969 vintag e ga s turbine s i t propose d t

p brin g int o th e state , i t

coul d no t affor d th e project . EP A caution s agains t

establishin g on e "brigh

t line " o r generi c tes t

fo r determinin g ho w man

y dollar s shoul d b e spent

t o contro l ato n o f

"pollutant " regardles s of

th e industry ; instead , EP

A recommend s tha

t contro l cost s typica

l t o th e industr

y and specifi c t o th e pollutant b e use d a s th e criteria . OAQP S ha s prepare d aContro l Cos t Manua l (availabl e on th e CATC website ) t o serv e a s aguide i

n estimatin g th e cost s o f

variou s contro l options . Abou t 60 % o f th e application s reviewe d containe d significan t error s in thi s portio n o f

th e BAC T analysis . Man

y state s performe d th e cos t analyse s without

eve r statin g wha

t a n acceptabl e cost/to n woul d be . (On e stat e conclude d tha

t an y cos t woul d b e unacceptable! ) Other s applie d a generi c $/to n t o al l processe s and pollutants . Thes e cos t threshold s range d fromaroun d $2000/to n - $500 0 /ton , irrespectiv e o f th e pollutant . Eve

n whe n acos t fel l belo w th e state' s economi c feasibilit

y threshold , th e applican

t woul d conclude tha

t i t wa s stil l to o expensive . Th e mos t common mistake s in th e cos t analyse s wer

e th e lack o f documentatio n t o suppor

t cos t estimates , inflated costs , an d th e us e o f

a10 % interes t

rat e whe n calculatin g th e lon g ter

mcost s of investin g mone

y into pollutio n contro l equipment . Often , th e applican t woul d us e thos e portion s o f

th e Cos t Manua l tha t drov e cost s upward , and ignor e o r substitute higher

cost s fo r thos e portion s o f

th e Manua

l tha t tende d towar

d lowe r costs , without

justifyin g it s deviatio n from the Manual s procedures . Despit e advisin g ever

y applican t an d host-state that , a s o f

Marc h 1997 , OM B and OAQP S ha

d change d th e annua

l interes t rate t o 7% , mos t

continue d t o us e th e ol d 10 % rat e tha t inflate s cost s dramatically (abou t 25% ) ove r th e 20-yea

r lif e o f mos t ai r pollutio n contro l equipment . (On

e stat e did perfor

malternate calculation s usin g th e 7 % interes t rate afte r \0P.1 2

w e pointed thi s out. ) Applicant s als o tende d t o underestimat e th e lif e o f contro l equipmen

t they did not wan t to purchase , i n som

e case s shortenin g th e life-expectancy by a s muc h a s afacto r o f five . I n one case , th e applican

t calculate d th e incrementa

l cost s o f movin g fromon e (favored ) leve l o f emission s contro l t o ahighe r (unfavored) level . Although thi s i s a n acceptabl e ste

p i n th e economi c analysis , EP

A procedure s advis e tha

t i t mus t b e preceded by acalculatio n o f averag e cos t effectiveness , s o tha

t th e "bi g picture " o f

overal l emissio n reduction s an d cost s ca n b e shown . I t i s typically extremely difficul t t o prov e tha

t a n applican t ha s overestimate d it s cost s when there i s no documentatio n to suppor t (or refute ) thos e costs . State s ar e ofte n unde r s o muc h pressur

e t o issu e permit s quickly tha

t ther e i s grea t reluctanc e t o requir

e th e applican

t t o retur n wit h documentation to suppor

t it s cos t assumptions . (Virgini adi d requir e such are-analysi s and th e resul t wa s aver y well documente d and thoroughly researche d economi c analysi s tha t i s include d a s a n attachmen

t to thi s report. ) It

ma y als o b e th e cas e tha

t stat e permi t revie w engineer s ar

e no t familia r wit h th e economi c analysi s procedure s and ar e therefor e uncomfortabl e wit

h th e whol e process . In man

y cases , w e hav e resorte d t o conductin g generi c cos t analyse s base d o n our estimatio n o f

typica l industr y cost s fo r agive n project . Faulty environmental impacts analyses: Even thoug h apotentia l contro l technolog y ma

y b e technically an

d economically feasible , i t

ma y stil l b e rejecte d becaus e i t create s a n unacceptabl e environmenta

l impact o r deplete s som

e scarc e resource . On

e stat e attempte d t o advanc e thi s logi c to th e it s illogica

l conclusio n b y advisin g a

n applican t tha t improve d contro l of

S0 2 emission s a

t aphosphat

e fertilize r plant need no t b e considere d becaus e i t

woul d generat

e a wast e product . Becaus e al l add-o n air pollutio n contro l technologie s conver t air pollutant s into som e othe r for mof waste , thi s superficia

l argumen t woul d eliminat

e al l current

technologie s fromconsideration . Anothe r invali d environmenta

l feasibilit y argumen

t i s base d o n th e premis e that , i f n o ai r qualit y

. standar d i s bein g exceede d or

AQR V adversely impacted , BAC T ca n b e les s stringent . Som

e source s tr y to argu e that , i f

air qualit y impact s ar

e ver y low , BAC T ca

n b e relaxed . A s EP

A ha s noted , BAC T mus t

stan d o n it s own . Othe r state s ar e currently strugglin g wit

h th e legitimat

e questio n o f

th e side effect s create d by pushing NO x contro l technolog y t o ever-lowe r emissio n rates . For

example , SC Rrequire s th e injection o f

ammoni ainto th e stack

ga s t o reac t

wit h NOx . A s th e catalys t

in th e system deteriorates , mor

e an d mor e o f thi s ammoni afail s t o reac t wit h th e NO x an

d is , instead , release d t o the atmospher

e (a s "slip") . Furthermore , bot h th e ammoni aused t o reac t wit h th e NO x an

d th e spen t catalys t ar e hazardou s material s and requir e specia l handling . Unfortunately , applicant s wh o ar e tryin g t o mak

e acas e fo r rejectin g SC

Rofte n overstat e it s risks. (O n th e other

hand , applicant s proposin g SC

Rusually repor

t tha t thes e risk's ca

n b e managed successfull

y throug h p roper plan t procedures. ) So , th e issu e become s on e o f balancin g th e desir

e t o reduc e NO x emission s wit

h th e need t o prevent

excessiv e ammoni a"slip " fro mth e stack , ammoni aspills , and the proble mof dealing wit

h disposa l o f th e catalys t

wit h it s heav y metals . Althoug h tw o state s ar e talcin g a n objectiv e loo

k a t thi s problem , the

y ma y nee d som

e technica l assistance . For example , on

e stat e appear s to hav e assume d tha t aone part-per-millio n (ppm ) increas e i n 

# / IP.1 3

ammoni aemission s ha

d th e sam e weigh t a s aone-pp mreductio n i n NOx . Du e t o th e difference s in molecula

r weights , th e actua

l trade-of f i s muc h mor e favorable t o NO x reduction . Procedural

Issues: Althoug h federa

l regulations , EPA' s Ne w Sourc e Revie w Workshop Manual , an d ou r ow n PS D guidanc e publication s al l la y out th e time period s i n whic h informatio n o n PS D application s tha

t ma y affec t visibilit y i n an y federa l Clas s I are amus t

b e provide d or

taken , man y state s ar e either unawar e o f thes e requirement s o r

d o no t care . I n on e case , w e foun d out about aPS D applicant

nea r GRS M throug h loca

l privat e contacts-th e stat e ha

d never advise d u s o f tha t o r severa l othe r PS D permits . Anothe

r stat e tol d u s tha

t w e ha d misse d thei r

20-da y perio d t o file anotic e o f

intent t o comment , although w e wer e neve r informed o f

th e permi t

applicatio n or give n ou r require d 6 0 day s t o revie w and commen t upon it . (The state di d "grant " u s aten-da y extension , although , when th e visibilit y analysi s wa s receive d o n th e nint h day , n o furthe

r extension s wer

e allowed. ) Whe

n w e advise d th e stat

e o f ou r rights t o more time, thei r

reactio n wa s on e of tota l disbelief . Th e mos t blatant exampl e i s ongoin g in whic h th e stat e continue s t o refus e t o require th e applican t t o model th e impac t

o f it s emission s o n AQRV s a t anearb y Clas s I area . Th e state contend s that , a s lon g a s th e Clas s I increment s ar e no t exceeded , th e applicant

doe s no t bea r th e burde n t o conduc t an y furthe r analyse s wit

h respec t t o th e Clas s I area . I n on e case , astat

e advise d u s tha

t they do no t

hav e authorit

y t o requir e a n applicant

requestin g revisio n o r extensio n o f

aPS D permi t

to revisi t BACT . I f tha t i s th e case , th e adequac y o f th e stat e SI P should b e questioned . Anothe r stat e mad e apolic y decisio n t o se t

BAC T highe

r tha n a proposed NSPS—wit

h EP A concurrence . I n th e cas e o f

th e glas s plant

mentione d above , th e stat

e refuse d t o re-se t th e clock o n ou r 60-da y commen t period , eve

n thoug h w e advise d the

mtha t th e applican

t ha d conducte d it s visibilit

y modelin g wit

h th e Appalachia

n Mountain s runnin g fromsoutheas t t o northwest . Th e problemo f states ' unwillingnes s to provid e u s th e require d information an d time , o r ignoranc e o f

thos e requirements , i s widespread ; roughl y two-third s o f th e state s involve d i n thi s sampl e failed t o follow th e prope

r PS D permittin g procedure s in thi s respec t Thi s result s i n ou

r havin g t o prepar

e comment s o

n majo r issue s wit h minima l tim e an d information . And , eve n whe n w e do submi t

comments , thei r

impact i s har d t o gauge . I n on e case , eve n thoug h we ha d submitte d tw o set s o f

comment s o n BACT , th e stat e failed t o includ e ou

r second an d mos t extensiv e se

t o f comment s in th e publi c record . Additiona l Concern s A s EP A continue s to defe

r and delegat

e t o th e states , it s lack

o f oversight appear s t o b e encouraging developmen

t interest s t o prevai l ove

r environmenta

l protection . For

example , whe

n questioned if

i t woul d revie w a

n applicant' s visibilit

y analysi s fo

r GRSM , astate , unde

r intens e pressur e fro mth e applicant

acros s th e table , proclaime d tha t i t woul d accep t

th e modelin g result s immediatel

y an d a t face value . (A s aminimum , th e stat e shoul d defe

r t o th e FLM s rathe

r tha n simpl y accepting th e applicant' s analysis. ) Anothe r stat e als o borderin g GRS M submitte d it s 

# I 

# a-P.1 4

review of th e applicant' s BAC T analysi s in th e for mo f averbati mre-statement

o f th e applicant' s submittal . Whe

n w e challenge d aserie s o f invali d assumption s about

th e technica

l infeasibilit

y of controllin g emissio n from apape r machine an

d associate d boilers , th e state agenc y becam e ver y defensive , even thoug h th e applican t wa s forced to radically alter it s story . Finally , when w e presente d evidenc e t o astate tha t there wer e emission s o f

S0 2 fo r whic h i t had no t accounte d (an d woul d trigge

r PS D fo r tha t pollutant) , and tha

t th e applican

t ha d mislea d th e stat e regardin g th e contro l technolog y tha

t woul d actually b e used , th e state' s respons e wa s t o ignor e th e informatio n an

d issu e th e permit . It i s usuall y difficul t t o asses s th e effectivenes s o f our comment s becaus e w e rarel y receiv e a respons e fro

mth e stat e regardin g th e fina

l dispositio n o f

th e permit , o r

aspecifi c respons e t o ou

r comments . (Florid aha s bee n ver y goo d a t providin g such follow-up. ) I t i s als o practicall y impossibl e to verif

y tha t "syntheti c minors " ar

e trul y minor

unles s suc h action s wer

e t o b e reported to EP

A and th e FLM . Th e evolutio n of syntheti c minor s into majo r source s throug h increase s in throughput

an d emission s ofte

n lead s t o situation s wher

e th e resultin g contro l technology i s les s effective tha n tha t which woul d hav e been BAC T ha d al l o f th e emission s bee n reviewe d initially , du e t o retrofit costs . Conclusion s A n overarchin g problemappear s t o b e alack o f consistenc y among EP

A region s i n dealin g wit

h PSD . Fo r example , th e hea

d o f NS Rfo r on e EP A regio n note d recentl y tha t he woul d no t

dar e requir e th e level of

contro l in hi s regio n tha

t som e othe r EP A region s do , fo

r politica l an d cultura l reasons . A s aresul t

o f thes e inconsistencies , w e se e awide rang e o f BAC T withi n a give n industr y an d time , a s illustrate d b y th e attache d tabl e o f BAC T determination s an

d pendin g application s fo

r utilit y turbines . Despit e di e lac k o f stron g nationwide EP

A oversight , som

e state s (CA , NJ ) hav e maintaine d health y NS Rprogram s an

d ca n b e counte d upo n t o se

t th e mar k fo r othe r state s t o striv e toward . And , state s suc

h a s Florid ahav e shown a

n encouragin g willingnes s t o conside r ou r comment s an d concern s an

d tr y t o addres s the

mfairl y i n it s revie w process . Virginia' s emphasi s on regiona l office review an

d responsibilit

y ha s resulte d in som

e excellen t effort s t o evaluat

e th e feasibilit

y o f alternat e contro l strategies . On th e othe r hand , othe

r state s appea

r t o b e s o overwhelme d b y th e technica l and politica

l issue s involve d i n NS Rdia t they ca n only "rubbe

r stamp " application s a s quickl y a s they ca

n pus h permit s out

th e door . I t appear s tha

t man y state s need additiona

l NS Rstaffin

g (wh o doesn't? ) an

d trainin g in th e finer point s o f NSR , especially th e economi c analysi s portio n o f th e BAC T review . Thi s ma y accoun t fo r the reluctanc e o f

man y state s t o requir

e thoroughly documente d BAC T demonstrations . Ther e als o appear s to b e agrea

t reluctanc e to advanc e o

r transfe r technolog y a s apar

t o f th e BAC T process , unles s there i s som e outsid e driver

such a s a n incremen

t problem . Mos t

deleteriou s t o th e FLM s i s the seemin g lac

k o f understandin g by man

y state s o f th e procedura

l requirement s tha t appl y whe n aPS D sourc e ma

y impac t amandator

y federa l clas s I area . Thi s ofte

n result s in th e FLM s receivin g lat

e notificatio n (or

n o notification ) regardin g project s tha t ma y impac t area s unde r their responsibilit

y an d force s th e FLM s to rus h thei r analyse s t o confor

mto th e 

# '- 5P.1 5

applicant' s constructio n schedule . Hopefully , NS RRefor mwil l help addres s thi s deficiency , assumin g state s comply . Recommendation s EPA/DOI/USF S mus t

provid e t o th e state s suppor t an d incentiv e t o trai n thei r NS Rstaffs . Only a staf f tha t i s knowledgeabl e o f

th e PS D regulations , NS Rprocedures , and th e role s o f th e FLM s ca n recogniz e th e tactic s use d b y applicant s an d their consultants , and understan d th e legitimat e need s of th e FLM s fo

r informatio n and time t o revie w majo r applications . EP

A shoul d expan d upon it s standar

d educationa

l program s b y providin g specialize d course s i n PSD-NS Rand invite participatio n b y th e FLMs . (Fo r example , curren

t NS Rtrainin g course s offered throug h AWM A and EP A ar e conducte d b y consultant s wit h littl e actua

l experienc e i n dealin g wit

h Clas s I issues. ) N o matte r ho w wel l traine d th e staf

f o f astate agenc y ma

y be , withou t

th e suppor

t o f th e policy-makers , permittin g decision s will defaul t towar d politica l expediency . EP

A mus t take a mor e activ e rol e i

n oversight

o f PS D permittin g activitie s and follow-through wit h remand s o f permit s tha

t i t recognize s ar

e defective . Only th e threa

t o f remand o f

apermi t or revocatio n o f authorit y will get th e attentio n o f

som e state an d loca l programs . Ther e i s atremendou s nee d fo

r bette r communicatio n and coordinatio n among th e governmenta l permit review participant s (permittin g authority , EPA , and FLMs) . Th e permittin g authoritie s mus t becom e mor e awar e of thei r obligation s to notif

y an d suppl y informatio n t o th e FLM s i n a timely fashion , and EP

A an d th e FLM s shoul d coordinat e thei r response s t o th e permittin g authoritie s s o tha

t mixe d signal s ar

e no t bein g sent . Permittin g authoritie s shoul d provid e writte n response s to FL

M writte n comments , a s wel l a s copie s o f fina l actions . (A

n alternat e approac h migh t hav e th e permittin g authoritie s pos t al l permittin g action s o n thei r website. ) The FLM s mus t

become mor

e awar e an d assertiv e o f

thei r rights i n th e NS Rprocess . A s lon g a s w e allo w thos e rights t o b e ignored , w e ar e short-changin g ou

r primar y stakeholders , th e citizen s of th e U S wh o valu e thei r

nationa l parks , refuges , an d wildernes s areas .



# rtP.1 6

Cas e Example s AC E fDEVA/CA)--permit modification fo

r CF B boiler . W

e ma y b e a t faul t fo r missin g th e publi c notic e and failin g t o commen t t o EPA . EP

A ma y hav e unwisely accepte d th e argumen t tha t actua l emission s will no t

increas e an

d shoul d hav e require d incorporatio n o f verificatio n into th e permit . W

e nee d mor

e information on thi s one . Alabam aPower—Theodore Pit(BRET/AL)—Alabam aPowe r propose d a17 0 M

W gas-fire d combustion turbine , duc t

burner , an d a4 0 M W hea t recover y stea mgenerator

t o b e controlle d to 3. 5 pp mNOx . W

e agree d tha

t thi s represent s BACT . Androscoggi n Energ y (ACAD/MaineV-thre e 5 0 M W gas/oi l combined cycl e turbine s (CCT ) wit h dr y low-NO x (DLN ) combustor s an d SCR . Propose d NO x limit s ar e 6- 9 pp m(gas , witiiou t an d wit h duc t burners , an

d 4 2 pp mo n oil . W

e note d error s in th e BAC T analysi s (e.g. , us e o f incrementa

l rather tha n averag e cost , 10 % interes t rate) , raise d question s about undocumented costs , an

d recommended us e o f

SC Ran d lowe r N O limits . Althoug h w e do no t hav e arespons e fro

mMaine t o ou

r comments , th e final permi t di d result in aNO x limi t

tha t fel l betwee n ou r recommende d valu e and tha t originall y proposed . Main e refuse d t o requir

e aregiona

l haz e analysi s unti l FLAG reache s aconclusio n and nationwide rule s ar

e promulgated . Th e applicant , fearing a n appeal , conducte d th e regiona l haz e analysi s anyway . Sinc e th e haz e analysi s wa s date d 3/26/9 8 and th e permi t wa s issue d 3/31/98 , Main e obviously di d no t

allo w u s th e 60-da

y revie w w e ar

e entitle d to . Baye r Corp . (CARO/SO—Bave r i s proposin g t o ad

d ane w gas/oi l boiler

t o tak e o n th e loa

d previously carrie d b y tw o ol d 16 0 mmBtu/h

r (each ) ga s an

d # 6 oil-fire d boilers . Th e new boiler woul d us e Low-NO x burner s an d Flu e Ga s Recirculation , an d bu m0.05 % sulfu r oi l a s backup ; thi s represent s BAC T fo

r thi s typ e o f

boiler . Even though th e new boiler coul d operat

e a t a

. highe r firing rat e tha n typicall y experience d b y th e combined ol d boiler s (about 12 0 mmBtu/h

r total) , DHE

C believe s tha

t they ca n preven t unpermitte d "extra " us e b y requirin g tha t an y ne w stea musing equipmen

t b e evaluate d fo

r it s effec t o n boiler emissions . The benefit

t o Baye r i s a boile r tha t i s mor e reliable , efficient , an

d economical ; di e benefit

t o th e environment

i s acleane

r boiler . • The problemi s tha

t DHEC base d it s nettin g calculation s o n acompariso n o f pas t potential emission s (instea

d o f th e averag e o f

th e las t tw o years ' actua

l emissions ) t o futur

e potentia l emissions . Althoug h I hav e no t been abl e t o find emission s datafo r thi s plant , I suspec t

tha t a n acrual-to-potentia

l emission s compariso n woul d trigger PSD . W e advise d DHEC that , althoug h w e hav e som

e concern s about

th e wa y th e nettin g calculation s wer e performed , w e agre e wit

h th e overall goal s o f

th e projec t

t o replac e tw o relativel y dirt y ol d boiler s wit

h aclean , ne w unit . We als o stresse d tha

t DHEC insur

e tha t an y additiona

l equipmen

t wit h astea mdemand i s evaluate d fo r it s impact upon emission s an

d ai r quality . EP

A R-I V doe s no t

no w revie w mino

r sourc e nettin g applications , s o the y would no t b e involve d in thi s anyway . 

# / 5P.1 7

B P Oi l (BRET/LAI-increas e boiler capacit y from25 0 t o 43 0 mmBtu/hr . Th e applicant ha s employed auniqu e strateg y b y confining it s revie w o f othe r BAC T deterrnination s t o only EP A Region VI , or

i f necessary , t o onl

y Louisiana . Th e applican

t ha s even furthe

r limite d th e scop e o f it s BAC T revie w b y dismissin g SC Ro n th e basi s tha

t i t i s onl y use d i n ozone non-attainment areas . I n it s submitta

l date d 5/26/98 , th e applican t dismisse d Selectiv e Non-Catalyti c Reductio n (SNCR ) o n th e ground s tha

t i t canno t operat e a t th e boiler exhaus t temperatur

e o f 65 0 F . I n it s 8/31/9 8 submittal , B P ha s correcte d it s SC Rcos t estimat e t o exactly confor

mt o our s wit

h on e exception . B P rejects SCRbecaus e it claim s tha

t SC Rwoul d hav e t o b e place d afte r th e boiler economize r and tha t th e norma l economize

r outle t temperatur

e woul d b e to o low . I n orde r t o obtai n th e necessar

y SC Roperatin g temperatur e (500-75 0 F) , B P contend s tha t th e efficiency o f th e economize

r woul d hav e to b e reduced , thu s incurrin g a$565,00 0 annua l "fue l penalty. " Th e result o f thi s fue l penalt y i s a$560 0 cos t

pe r to n o f NO x removed . Th e fue

l penalt y include d i n BP' s cos t estimate s i n no t

justifie d and BP' s cos t

estimate s used t o dismis s SC Ra s economically infeasibl e ar

e therefor e overestimated . Without

th e fue l penalty , SC Ri s technicall y an d economically feasibl e and shoul d b e require d a s BACT . Calpine

— Sout h Poin t (GRCA/AZV

- Calpin e propose d gas-only firing an d Dr y Low-NO x combustor s wit

h Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n fo r th e 50 0 M

W combine d cycl e turbine s a t it s Sout h Poin t Plant . W e agree d tha

t th e targe t NO x emissio n limi t

o f 4. 5 pp mrepresent s BAC T fo r thi s application . Cardina l Glas s (SHEN/VAV-600-ton/da v fla t glas s plant . Althoug h Cardina l operate s tw o plant s in Wisconsi n wher

e i t use s dr y scrubber s an

d electrostati c precipitator s t o contro l S0 2 an d PM , i t propose d t o locat

e withi n 3 0 k

mo f SHE N without eithe r o f thes e contro l technologies . Cardina l and VaDE Q justifie d thi s approac h o n th e basi s tha t th e las t thre e PS D permit s issue d (b y Iowa , Kentucky , an

d Ne w York

) fo r simila r facilitie s di d not

requir e suc h control s and eac h permit wa s "approved " b y th e EP A regiona l offices . (Cardina

l di d propos e ane w NO x contro l technology , th e Pilkingto n 3 RProces s tha t ha d been require d b y Kentuck y an d Ne w York ; Iow a require d SNCR. ) Onc e suc h aprecedent o f $0/to n fo r controllin g S0 2 and P

M ha d been allowe d b y EPA , eve

n thoug h V

A performe d th e bes t

cost/benefit

analyse s o f

an y I hav e reviewe d i n th e pas t eigh t months , V

A inevitably conclude d tha t an y expens e wa s excessiv e when measure d ' agains t th e "no-control " action s in other states . Th e plant

eventually withdre w it s applicatio n whe n confronted b y publi c oppositio n t o locatin g th e plant in a n environmentally sensitiv e are a wit h substandar

d pollutio n contro l technology . Fro maprocedura

l standpoint , V

A handle d th e Cardina

l applicatio n better

tha n mos t states , although i t shoul d hav e re-se t

ou r 60-da y revie w "clock " whe

n it wa s discovere d tha

t Cardina l ha d committe d majo

r error s in it s visibilit

y modeling . The problemwit h th e Cardina

l applicatio n resulte d fro

mth e creatio n o f

a"backslidin g bandwagon " effec t tha t wa s allowe d t o gai n momentu mwhe n th e EP A regiona l office s responsibl e fo

r reviewin g PS D permit s in thei r respectiv e state s allowed th e permit s t o stan d despite expressin g seriou s concern s about th e lac k o f S0 2 an d P M controls . EP

A regiona l staf f contacte d whil e reviewin g thi s applicatio nP.1 8

expressed frustration ove

r thes e outcomes , but

justifie d themwit

h th e refrain tha

t thes e wer e th e "state s calls. " Cardina l subsequently moved it s applicatio n t o Nort h Carolina , wher

e i t agai n propose d n o S0 2 or P M controls , an

d somewha

t higher NO x emissions . I t

i s our understandin g tha

t N C intend s t o permit thes e emissions . DO I di d no t commen t du e t o th e distanc e o f

th e propose d plant

fromit s Clas s I areas . Cargil l Fertilizer-Barto w Pi t(CHAS/FLV-Cargil l propose d to increas e th e MAP/DA P capacit y of it s Barto w fertilize

r plant # 3 from264 0 TP

D t o 300 0 TPD . A PSD-significan t emission s increas e woul d occur fo r P M an d F . Cargil l woul d replac e or upgrade man

y o f th e emission contro l systems , an d ha s propose d tha t it s P M limi t b e reduced . Cargil l ha s provide d a

n adequat e explanatio n o f

which part s o f

th e plant and whic h pollutant s ar

e effecte d by th e modificatio n and subject t o PSD . Cargill' s propose d emissio n limit s ar e based upo n th e expecte d performanc e o f

th e upgraded contro l equipmen t an d are consistent

wit h th e 0.1 9 l b PM/ T phosphat

e an d 0.041 7 l b F/

T limit s require d b y otiie

r permit s issue d b y FDEP . Thos e limit s represent

BAC T fo r thi s project. . Cargil l Fertilizer—Rivervie w Pi t(CHAS/FLV-Th e tw o main issue s t o b e addresse d i n di e BACT review wer

e th e control s fo

r S0 2 and sulfuric aci d mis t (SAM ) a t th e modified Ul sulfuric acid plant . S02: Cargil l di d no t perfor man y demonstratio n o f

th e economi c infeasibilit

y of potentially mor

e efficien t contro l technologie s an

d coul d not , therefore , eliminat e themfrom consideration . However , Cargil l propose d alowe r S02/to n limi t

tha n any foun d t o dat e i n th e RACT/BACT/LAE

RClearinghouse , astep i n th e right direction . Nevertheless , th e limi t proposed by Cargil l i s no t

a s lo w a s that

propose d b y one o f

it s competitors . SAM: Cargill di d no t

perfor man y demonstratio n o f

th e economi c infeasibilit

y o f potentiall y mor e efficien t contro l technologie s an

d cannot , therefore , eliminat e the mfromconsideration . Cargill' s relianc e upo n a

n out-of-dat

e an d technicall y flawed NSP S wa s no t sufficien t t o refute th e evidenc e o f

it s own tes t

result s tha

t amuc h lowe

r limi t ca n b e achieve d b y it s current mis t eliminators . I

t wa s recommende d that , i f

SA M emission s fromth e Cargil l #7 aci d plant wer e limited t o no t mor e tha n 0.1 0 l b SAM/to n o f

aci d produce d (the highes t rate recorde d a

t thi s facilit y an d likely to b e me

t mor e tha n 99.9999 % o f

th e time), FWS woul d no t challeng e th e lack o f aprope r BAC T analysi s fo

r thi s permi t

application . When FDE

P acte d upo n th e FW S comment s an

d issue d th e permi t

fo r 0.1 2 l b SAM/ton o f

aci d produced , a33 % reductio n from previou s permits , w e decide d t o accep t tha t smal l victory . A fe w month s later , Cargill propose d t o expand it s monoammoniu mphosphate (MAP) plant

b y requestin g tha

t it s permit limit s b e revise d t o reflect

greate r productio n an

d actua l emissions . A t th e reques t

o f FWS , FDE

P investigate d whethe

r bot h o f th e recen t application s fromCargil l should b e combined an

d reviewe d a s on e project , and th e effect s o f thes e project s o n other emission source s a

t th e facilit y shoul d b e evaluate d wit

h respec t to PS D applicabilit

y and impacts . Thei

r conclusio n wa s tha

t th e project s wer

e separate , based on corporat e record s an

d 

# ftP.1 9

Cargill' s continue d nee d to bu y sulfuri c acid . FDE P als o responde d t o FW S comment s on contro l technolog y b y requirin g that Cargil l meet lowe r emissio n limit s tha

n originall y proposed . Casc o Ba y Energ y (ACAD/M E Casc o Ba y Energ y Compan

y (CBEC ) propose d t o construc t an d operat e a52 0 M W combine d cycl e ga s turbin e (CCT ) a t Bangor-Hydro' s E . M . Graha m Station powe

r plant i n Veazie , Maine . CBE

C propose d t o us e Dr

y Low-NO x Combustor s (DLNC ) and Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n t o reduc e NO x emission s t o 5 pp mt o allo w som e margi n fo r safet y i n day-to-da

y operatio n an

d fo r efficiency losse s du e t o agin g o f th e catalyst . CBE C ha s note d i

n thei r applicatio n tha

t som e vendor s hav e been willin g t o guarante e achievemen

t of a3.5-ppmlimi t

durin g aone-tim

e performanc e test , bu t

sugges t 5 pp mfo r long-ter moperation . Althoug h NP § concurre d wit h CBEC , Maine DE

P require d th e 3.5-ppm limit . CP&L—Le

e (SWAN/NO-CP& L i s requestin g extensio n o f apermi t t o construc t

an d operat e severa l larg e oil-fire d combustio n turbine s in easter n NC . No t only ha s CP&L propose d th e sam e high NO x emissio n limit s allowe d by th e ol d permit , i t ha s refused t o provid e FW S wit h th e information i

t need s t o determin e wha

t impact s th e facilit

y woul d hav e on AQRV s i n th e Swanquarte

r Clas s I area . N C support s CP& L on th e basi s that , a s lon g a s there i s n o incremen t violation , th e applican

t need conduc t

n o furthe r analysis . Chaparra l Stee l (SHEN/VAV-ne w electri c ar c stee l mill . W

e note d error s i n th e BAC T analysi s (e.g. , 10 % interes t

rate) , requeste d documentatio n o f costs , and recommende d tha t furthe r S0 2 contro l option s b e explore d fo r di e EA F and NO x control s fo

r th e bille t rehea t furnace . (Ther

e wa s areluctanc e t o even conside r contro l technolog y tha

t had no t been prove n on a n identica l source. ) VaDE Q responde d t o comment s fromNP S an d EP A b y requirin g th e additiona l analyse s requested . Coge n Technologies-Linde n Ventur e (BRIG/NJV-proposa l to ad d asixt h CC T wit h DL N and SCR . Although w e receive d acopy o f a n earlie r applicatio n t o modif

y th e existin g facility , w e ma y no t hav e receive d muc h informatio n o n th e propose d ne w CCT . Althoug h th e applican t ha s propose d additio n o f

SC Rt o meet

LAE Rrequirement s an

d expedit e permitting , NJDN

Ri s considering eliminatin g th e SC Rrequirement

du e t o concern s about

ammoni aslip . W

e need t o ge t mor e informatio n o f

thi s one . Colorad o Energ y Management—Brus h (ROMO/CO)

- Colorado Energ y Managemen t (CEM ) i s requestin g apermi t

t o construc t

an d operat

e tw o 196 9 vintag e gas-fire d Westinghous e 251A A turbine s rated a

t 2 5 M W eac h a t it s Brush , C O plant . Althoug h w e agree d tha t SCRi s probably not BAC T fo r suc h asmal l simpl e cycl e peakin g turbine , we disagree d whe n CE M dismisse d Dr y Low-NO x (DLN ) combustor s o n th e ground s tha t they coul d no t

b e retrofitte d to thes e ancien t turbine s without

grea t expense . W

e suggeste d tha

t CE M shoul d not

us e turbine s tha

t canno t be controlle d t o today' s environmenta l standards . I

n vie w o f th e predominanc e of

DL N control technolog y fo

r simpl e cycl e turbines , an

d thei r capabilit y t o mee t NO x emissio n limit s i n th e 9-1 5 pp

mrange , CE

M shoul d b e require d t o mee t alimit in tha t range .P.2 0

Colorad o Spring s Utilities—Nixon (GRSA7COV-Colorad o Spring s Utilitie s (CSU ) i s requestin g tha

t it s permi t t o construc t

and operat

e a11 0 M W turbin e a

t it s Ra y D . Nixo n Plant

b e modified to substitut

e tw o G E Fram e 6 B turbine s rate d a

t 3 3 M W each . Althoug h w e agreed wit h CS U tha t DL N technolog y probably represent s BACT here , w e disagree d wit h th e emissio n limit s propose d b y CSU . CS U concluded that , becaus e i t coul d find n o simpl e cycl e turbine s a t som e (undefined

) higher altitud e tha

n se alevel meetin g aNO x limi t lowe r tha n th e 2 5 pp m proposed , BAC T woul d defaul t t o it s proposal . However , CS U provide d n o informatio n a s t o th e effec t o f altitud e o n th e abilit

y o f moder n ga s turbine s wit

h DL N t o meet lower NO x limits . I n vie w of th e predominanc e o f

DL N contro l technolog y fo

r simpl e cycl e turbines , an d thei r capabilit y t o meet NO x emissio n limit s i n th e 9-1 5 ppmrange , CS U shoul d b e require d t o eithe r mee t alimit i n tha t rang e o r provid e better

documentatio n a s t o wh

y i t canno t Continenta l Lim e (CARE/UT)—Continenta l ha s determine d tha

t n o NO x control s ar

e feasible fo r thi s ne w coal-fire d lime kiln . NP S wil l likel y commen t tha t Continenta

l shoul d investigat

e th e possibilit

y o f transferrin g SC Rtechnolog y t o thi s proces s b y re-heatin g th e baghous e exhaus t usin g wast e hea t and treatin g th e effluen

t wit h SCR . Duke Energy—Ne

w Smyrn a(CHAS/FL)-Duk e Energ y (Duke ) propose s t o construc t an d operat e agas-fired 500-megawat

t (MW ) combine d cycl e turbin e (CCT ) i n Ne w Smyrna , Florida . Duk e ha s propose d t o mee t

NO x limit s o f

1 2 pp mb y us e o f

"advanced dr

y low-NO x combustors " t o minimiz e th e formatio n o f NO x by premixin g fue

l and ai r prio r t o combustion , an d b y providin g stage d combustio n to reduc e flam e temperatures . Duk

e ha s rejecte d th e us e o f SC Ron the ground s o f

economi c infeasibility . Th e hig h cos t o f SC R($6534/to n NO x removed ) ma y b e du e t o cos t overestimates , performanc e underestimates , and calculatio n error s o n th e par t of th e applicant . However , withou t documentatio n to suppor

t man y o f th e cost s presented , i

t i s impossibl e t o determin e wh y Duke' s estimate s ar

e s o muc h higher

than fo r other simila r • installations . Duke' s proposa

l represent s aste

p backwar d fromth e leve l o f

NO x contro l propose d b y th e majorit y o f simila r current competitors . Duk

e ha s no t documente d or

justifie d th e extraordinarily high contro l cost s containe d i n it s application . W e believ e tha

t NO x ca n b e controlle d t o aleve l of 2-3. 5 pp mby additio n o f

SCRand tha

t th e cos t o f such contro l woul d no t

exceed th e $400 0 pe r to n typica l o f th e industry . I f

Duke' s cost s really are exceptional , it mus t present mor e diorough evidenc e t o suppor t it s claim . Farmlan d Hydr o (CHAS/FLV-NP S believe s tha t th e PS D applicabilit

y determination s fo

r tw o successiv e expansion s a

t Farmlan d Hydr

o ma y no t hav e bee n broa

d enough in tha

t they di d no t evaluat e th e effects o f

th e expansion s o

n eac h othe

r an d o n othe r relate d processe s a

t th e plant . I n lat e 1997 , Farmlan d Hydr

o (FH ) submitte d aPS D permi t applicatio n t o expand it s sulfuri c aci d plan t (SAP) productio n capacity . I n early 1998 , F

H propose d to expand th e utilizatio n of it s monoammoniu

mphosphate (MAP ) an

d diammoniumphosphat

e (DAP ) plant , which utilize s sulfuric aci d fro

mth e expande d aci d plant . In bot h applications , FH quantifie d only th e direc t emission s fromth e equipment to b e modified and ignore d an y effects tha

t increase d throughput s 1 

## \°iP.2 1

, . J

would hav e o n supportin g an d dependen

t operations . In ou

r comment s t o FDEP , NP S advise d tha t th e applicant

shoul d quantif

y an d ad d an y increase s i n emission s o f thes e pollutant s fromth e existin g facilit

y t o th e quantitie s describe d b y th e applicant . NP S als o pointe d out deficiencie s i n th e BAC T analysis , including : lac k o f documentatio n o f

costs ; dismissa

l o f potentia l control s becaus e they create d awast e product ; failur

e t o consider

mor e stringen t control s propose d a

t other , simila

r facilities ; and over-relianc e o n a n out-date d an d poorl y develope d NSPS . Fronterr aPw r

fPAIS/TXV-Fronterraconsist s o f tw o gas-fire d 165-megawat t (MW) G E Fram e 7F A combustio n turbine s wit

h tw o hea t recover y stea mgenerator s an

d on e stea mturbine . Fronter apropose d t o meet

anitroge n oxide s (NOx ) limi t o f 1 5 part s pe

r millio n (ppm ) usin g Dry-Low-NO x (DLN ) combustors , despite ou r experienc e ove

r th e pas t yea r tha t mos t ne w ga s turbin e facilitie s are includin g Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n (SCR ) fo r contro l o f NOx . TNRC C rejected SC

Ro n th e premis e tha

t i t woul d creat

e advers e ammoni aemission s an d excessiv e costs . Ou r analyse s indicate d tha

t SCRfo r NO x contro l wa s technically , economically , an d environmentally feasible , and wa s therefor e BACT . W

e encourage d TNRC C t o reconsider th e us e of SCRfo r thi s applicatio n and fo

r othe r facilitie s o f

thi s type . Glob e Metallurgica l (CRLA/OR)-ne w electri c ar c furnac e fo

r productio n o f

silico n metal . P

M contro l limit s wer

e base d o n a

n ancient NSP S an d no t

reflectiv e o f

current capabilities . Griffit h Energ y (GRCA/AZ)-W e commended Griffit h fo r it s choic e o f

gas-onl y firin g an d Dr

y Low-NOx combustor s wit

h Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n fo r th e propose d 65 0 M

W combine d cycl e turbine s a

t it s Kingma

n plant . We agree d tha

t th e targe t NO x emissio n limi t

o f 4. 5 pp m represent s BAC T fo

r thi s application . Hoeganae s (MACA/TNV

- Hoeganae s propose d t o construc t an d operat

e ane w 42.6-ton-per-hou

r ladl e furnac e and rotar

y dryer . Emissio n control s o n th e electri c arc ladl e furnac e and rotar

y dryer woul d consis t

o f fabri c filters. Th e us e o f

enclosur e an d abaghous e fo

r contro l o f particulate emission s fromth e electri c ar c furnac e (EAF ) represents BAC T fo r particulat e matter . However , w e wer e concerne d tha

t th e us e o f side-draf t hood s fo r fum e captur e i s no t a s effectiv e a s direc t

shel l evacuatio n whic h capture s al l emission s durin g melting . Furthermore , w e suggeste d dia t th e baghous e coul d b e mor e efficien t an d meet th e much lowe

r limit s tha t ar e foun d i n th e RACT/BACT/LAE RClearinghous e fo

r recent EA F permits . Fo r example , Chaparra

l Steel i n Virgini arecentl y receive d apermi t limitin g it s EA

F t o 0.001 8 gr/dscf . IMC-Agric o (CHAS/FLV-additio n o f aphosphate-base d anima

l fee d kiln . NP S recommende d additio n o f

apermi t limi t t o verif y th e applicant' s contentio n tha t th e expansio n woul d no t

resul t in increase d emission s fromth e rest o f thi s majo r source . We als o recommende d fluoride control s simila

r t o tha t achieve d a

t fertilize r plants . Kissimmee

—Can e Islan d (CHAS/FL1-

- W e commended Kissimme e Utilit y Authorit y (KUA ) fo r proposin g installatio n o f

anew , efficien

t 25 0 M W Combine d Cycl e Turbin e (CCT) , but wer e disappointe d tha

t th e degre e o f

NO x contro l propose d lag s wel l behin d tha t whic h w e se e elsewher e aroun d th e U.S . Ou

r own compilatio n o f

recen t permi t application s show s aclea

r tren dP.2 2

towar d installatio n o f

SC Ro n thes e facilities . Unles s KU A ca n sho w som

e compellin g reason wh y it cannot achiev e asimila

r leve l o f control , w e recommended tha t i t revis e it s applicatio n t o include SC

Rand meet

aNO x limit

o f 3.5-5. 0 ppm . KU A received apermi t

fromFDE

P fo r installatio n o f

ane w 4 0 M

W simpl e cycl e turbin e wit h NO x to b e controlle d t o 1 5 pp mb y Dr y Lox-NO x (DLN ) combustors . However , KU A ha s experienced difficultie s i n meetin g tha t limi t an d ha s requeste d unti l 1/1/200 0 t o d o so . Becaus e o f th e peakin g natur

e o f thi s unit , i t

i s likel y tha

t DL N represent s BACT , s o th e only questio n i s th e emission limi t

achievabl e b y thi s technology . In vie w th e difficultie s experience d b y KU A in meetin g th e 15-pp

mlimi t fo r thi s aero-derivativ e turbine , i t seem s reasonabl e t o allo w extr atime to brin g thi s uni t

int o complianc e wit

h tha t limit . Lakelan d Mcintos h fCHAS/FLV-additio n o f a250-megawat

t (MW) simpl e cycl e ga s and oi l fired turbine facilit

y t o it s existin g Mcintos h Powe r Plant . Despit

e a t leas t 1 8 example s o f

ga s turbine s permitte d t o startup no w wit h N O limit s i n th e 9-1 5 ppmvd rang e and usin g dr y lo w N O combustors , Lakelan d i s stil l proposin g t o meet a9-ppmNO x limi t

withi n five year s o f

startup . Bot h FDE P an d NSP S hav e suggeste d tha t Lakeland op t

fo r amor e efficien t combine d cycl e turbin e (CCT ) tha

t woul d b e mor

e efficien t an d les s polluting ; Lakeland ma y conver t t o CC T i n th e future . Lakeland' s economi c analysi s als o containe d numerou s example s o f unsupporte d or inflated costs , shor

t equipmen t lives , an d hig h (10% ) interes t rates . FDE

P eventually issue d a permit requirin g tha

t th e plant eithe r meet 9 pp mi n th e simpl e cycl e mode or 7. 5 pp ma s aCCT . L aPalom aGeneratin g (JOTR/CA)—L aPalom apropose d t o construc t fou r 26 2 M W gas-fire d combined cycl e turbin e unit s wit h NO x controlle d t o 3. 5 pp mb y SCR . Du e t o th e goo d control s an d lon g distanc e from aDO I unit , w e di d no t comment . Mississipp i Phosphat e (BRET/MS)-propose d t o increas e th e combine d productio n o f it s sulfuric aci d plants . Althoug h th e applican t agree d tha

t PS D wa s triggere d fo

r sulfuri c aci d mist , NP S raise d concern s tha

t th e extr a39. 9 TPY o f

S0 2 coul d als o trigger

PS D fo r tha t pollutant i f

. othe r S0 2 source s a

t th e plant increase d emission s a s aresult of th e expansion . MDEQ' s respons e wa s tha

t apolic y decisio n ha

d been made no t

t o conside r thi s possibility . Later , NP S advised MDEQ tha

t tes t result s in F

L ha d foun d tha t S0 2 coul d als o b e emitte d fromth e catalys t used i n di e sulfuri c aci d plant

and that thes e extr aemission s coul d trigger PSD—n o respons e fromMDEQ . NP S advise d MDEQ tha t th e sulfuri c aci d mis t

eliminator s propose d b y th e applican t wer e no t really th e "hig h efficiency " unit s claimed , an d tha t better mis t eliminator s wer e alread y in us e elsewher

e a t tiiis plant and others—MDEQ' s draf

t permi t continue d t o rel y o n di e NSP S an

d permit s i

n otiie r states . Mis s Pwr—Daniel s (BRET/MD-

- We commende d Mississipp i Powe r fo r it s choic e o f

gas-only firing an d Dr y Low-NO x combustor s wit h Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n fo r th e propose d combined cycl e turbine s a

t it s Daniel s Plant . W

e agreed tha

t th e target NO x emissio n limi t

o f 3. 5 pp mrepresente d BAC T fo

r thi s application . Northwes t

Regional Powe r

Facility (MORAAVAV-83 8 M W combine d cycl e turbin e (CCT ) facility . Northwes t

Regiona l Powe r Facilit y (NRPF) propose d to meet anitroge n oxide s (NO ) limit o f 9 part s pe r millio n (ppm) usin g Dry-Low-NO x (DLN) combustors , an d claime d tha

t th eP.2 3

additio n o f

Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n (SCR) t o furthe r reduc e NO x emission s woul d creat e advers e ammoni aemission s an d excessiv e costs . Washingto n Departmen t o f Ecolog y agree d wit h tha t position . However , th e state ma y hav e incorrectly assume d tha t apar t per millio n o f NO x an d ammoni awer

e equivalent , becaus e i t

neve r actually calculate d th e effect o n emission s o f addin g SCR . NP S estimate d tha t NO x reduction s woul d outweig h ammoni aemission s b y a facto r o f 2- 4 times . NRFP' s economi c analysi s o f addin g SCRals o containe d numerou s example s o f

unsupporte d o r

inflate d costs , shor

t equipmen t lives , an d hig h (10% ) interes t rates . Nuco r Stee l (SWAN/NCV

- Nuco r i s proposin g t o construc t

an d operate ane w 250-ton-per-hour stee l mil l i n easter n NC . Emissio n control s o n th e electri c ar c and ladl e furnace s woul d consis t o f fabri c filters . NO x emission s fromth e bille t rehea t furnac e (BRF ) woul d b e reduce d throug h us e o f Low-NOx burners . Nuco r

ha s propose d t o contro l NO x emission s t o 0.2 1 Ib/mmBt u by us e o f Low-NOx burners . However , a s Nuco r note d i n it s BACT analysis , apermi t issue d b y Indian a DE M to Bet aSteel require s us e o f

Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n (SCR) . Nuco r ha s attempte d t o dismis s SC

Ro n th e basi s tha

t th e $270 0 cos t

o f removin g ato n o f

NO x i s economicall y prohibitive . No t

only woul d $270 0 pe r

to n b e considere d acceptabl e i n ever y stat e i n whic h w e ar e awar e o f acos t threshold , i t

i s als o inflate d and poorly documented . Nuco r Stee l (CARO/SO-propose d additio n o f new millin g operations . When w e suggeste d to S C that , unles s th e propose d additio n i s considere d par t o f th e recentl y permitte d mai n mill , som e pollutant s woul d escap e PS D review , S C construe d ou r comment s t o mea

n tha t the y though t w e wer e concerne d that

thi s applicatio n wa s completely circumventin g PSD . Althoug h w e trie d t o explai n t o S C that , b y dividin g aprojec t into small parts , som

e pollutant s tha

t ma y b e emitte d i n significan

t amount s coul d drop out

o f PS D revie w whil e other s stayed , the y neve r quit e grasped th e concept . The economi c analysi s wa s flawed i n tha t it relie d upo n unsubstantiate d an

d inflate d cost s an d interes t rates . W e hav e no t receive d an

y respons e fromS C regardin g ou

r BAC T comments . Orang e Cogeneration—Barto w (CHAS/FL1

- Orang e Coge n (Orange ) receive d apermi t from FDE P fo r installatio n o f

atw o ne w 4 1 M

W Combine d Cycl e Turbine s (CCT ) wit h NO x t o b e controlle d to 1 5 ppmb y Dr y Lox-NO x (DLN ) combustors . However , Orang e ha s experience d difficultie s i

n meetin g tha

t limi t and ha s requeste d unti l 1/1/200 0 t o d o so . Altiioug h FDE P doe s no t hav e th e authorit

y t o revisi t

BAC T i n thi s case , it

i s m y understandin g tha t EP A polic y demand s tha

t an y revisio n and/or

extensio n o f

aPS D permi t

mus t consider possibl e change s i n BAC T subsequen t t o th e issuanc e o f

th e origina

l permit . I n thi s case , Orang e should b e require d to perfor mane w BAC T analysis , wit h particula r attentio n t o th e feasibilit

y o f installin g Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n (SCR ) o n thi s CCT . FDE P implie d tha

t EP A interventio n would b e give n seriou s consideration . Pglnctf o Lim e (CARO/SQ--proposa l t o construc t ane w lim e calcinin g kiln . S C repeatedly asserte d that , if

acontro l technolog y ha

d no t been previously require d on thi s typ e o f source , i t need not b e considered . The applicant continue d t o argu e tha

t potentia l control s were either technically o

r economically infeasible , but di d no t provide a n economi c analysi s to suppor t th e latte r contention . S C cite d EP

A BAC T determination s a

t othe r lime plants , and aletter

fro mEP

A approvin g th e propose d BAC T a s justification . Ou r extensiv e argument s fo

r technica l feasibilit y wer e neve r include d in th e hearin g record , no r wer e ther e an y responses . Pine v Poin t

Phosphate s fCHAS/FLV-proposa l t o reconstruc t

asulfuri c aci d plant

a t a phosphat e fertilize r manufacturin g facility . Although alawsuit b y aloca l governmen

t finall y force d the plant

t o accep t alowe r S0 2 limit , informatio n provide d b y FW S appeare d t o hav e playe d amajo

r rol e i n supportin g tha

t lowe r limit . FDE

P cite d our

evidenc e tha

t mode mmis t eliminator s ar

e capabl e o f

reducin g sulfuric aci d emission s well belo w th e 197 8 NSP S limi t and require d their

use , but di d no t reflec t thos e capabilitie s i n it s final permit . Th e economi c analysi s wa s flawe d i n tha t i t relie d upo n unsubstantiate d and inflate d cost s an d interes t rates . Procto r & Gambl e fMING/MOI-ne w papermakin g machine and boilers . MDN Ressentially approved th e applicant' s argument s wit h littl e independen

t revie w unti l a

n initial round o f comment s were submitte d b y NPS . At th e point , MDN

Rappeare d t o g o int o amode o f tryin g t o justif y it s initia l determination , despit

e wil d variation s i n th e argument s submitte d by th e applicant . Ravonie r (OKEF/FD-

- Rayonie

r requeste d apermi t

t o instal l and operate atemporar y boiler t o b e fired o n # 6 fue l oi l whil e each o f

th e tw o main boiler s i s taken down fo r repairs . Emissio n increase s ove

r norma l rate s durin g th e repair

perio d woul d b e abou

t 27 7 ton s S0 2 an

d 8 1 ton s NOx . Becaus e o f

th e temporar

y natur e o f thi s boiler , add-o n contro l equipment i s no t likely t o b e economicall

y feasible . Furthermore , Rayonie r ha s committe d t o tyin g th e exhaus t fromth e temporar y boiler into thei r existin g ventur

i S0 2 scrubbe

r s o tha t S0 2 emission s wil l b e reduce d b y ove r 90% . Thi s tend s t o mak

e uneconomica

l an y attempt s t o reduc e S0 2 emission s further . Althoug h th e temporar

y boiler propose d b y Rayonie

r i s equippe d wit

h Low-NO x Burner s and Flu e Gas Recirculation , th e 0.42 5 lb NOx/mmBt u emissio n rat

e i s mor e tha n doubl e tha

t typica l fo r thi s siz e boiler

an d probably reflect s th e quarter-centur y ag e o f th e unit . Re d Hill s Powe r

Projec t fNATR/MSV-proposed larg e lignite-fire d CF B boiler . MDEQ say s i t ha s mad e apolic y decisio n t o permi t tiie boile r a t 0.2 0 lb NOx/mmBt

u and without

additio n o f SNCR . Sinc e th e propose d revisions t o NSP S Subpar t D aar e alread y effectiv e an d requir

e a NOx limi t n o greate r tha n 0.1 5 Ib/mmBtu , MDE Q ha s made apolic y decisio n t o allo w th e highe r limi t an d planne d t o discus s th e matte r wit h EP A R-IV . MDE Q claim s tha t SNCR , which i s typically require d fo

r ne w CF B boilers , i s no t

feasibl e fo

r thi s boiler

becaus e o f

it s siz e an d low-qualit y fuel . Chocta w Generatio n Inc . i s proposin g th e constructio n o f th e Re d Hill s Powe

r Generatio n Facilit y (RHPGF) in Chocta

w County , Mississippi . Th e projec t consist s o f

tw o 22 0 megawat

t (MW ) circulatin g fluidized-be d (CFB ) coal/wood-fired boiler s an d tw o 33 5 millio n Bt

u pe r hour (mmBtu/hr

) auxiliar y natura l gas-fired boiler s in centra l Mississippi . Emission s o f Particulat e Matte r (PM) , Sulfu

r Dioxid e (S02) , Carbo n Monoxide (CO) , Volatil e Organi c Compound s (VOC) , Fluoride s (F) , Sulfuri c Aci d Mis t (SAM) , an

d Nitrogen Oxide s (NOx ) woul d b e i n sufficien t quantitie s t o trigger

applicatio n o f

federa l regulation s fo

r th e Preventio n of

Significan

t Deterioratio n (PSD ) o f

ai r qualit y an d thu s th e requiremen

t tha t thos e emission s b e controlle d usin g Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y (BACT) . S0 2 an d NO x emission s wil l b e controlle d by the inherently low-pollutin g natur e o f th e fluidized bed combustio n process . Particulat e wil l 

## £ 3P.2 5

b e controlle d b y abaghouse . NO x emission s are expecte d t o result in a2- 6 pp b increas e i n ozon e concentration s withi n 20 0 k mo f th e plant . NP S ha s obtaine d informatio n fromJacksonvill e (FL ) Electri c Authorit y (JEA ) regardin g a propose d 30 0 M

W coal/petroleumcoke-fired CF B boiler . Emission s fromtha t boiler woul d b e controlle d b y Selectiv e Non-Catalyti c Reductio n (SNCR) o f NOx , Lime Spra

y Dryin g (LSD ) fo

r S02 , an d afabri c filte

r fo r PM . Initia

l emissio n limit s ar

e expecte d t o b e n o higher

than 0.0 1 l b NOx/mmBtu , 0.1 7 l b S02/mmBtu , an d 0.01 7 l b PM/mmBtu . S02 Controls are propose d t o b e th e inheren t scrubbin g abilit

y o f th e limeston e componen

t o f th e fluidized bed . Althoug h additiona l S0 2 remova

l coul d b e achieve d b y increasin g th e amount o f limeston e injecte d into th e fluidized bed , RHPG F ha s determine d tha

t th e optimumleve l o f limestone injectio n woul d achiev e 90 % S0 2 remova l an d mee t a n emissio n limi t

o f 0.2 5 Ib/mmBtu . S0 2 emission s woul d b e 5424 TPY . RHPG F evaluate d th e effect s o f

addin g aLime Spra

y Drye r (LSD ) a s a

n alternativ e t o CF

B t o contro l S0 2 emissions . However , RHPG F di d no t explor e th e possibilit

y o f addin g aLS D t o th e CFB , a s i s bein g propose d b y JE A (se e discussio n above) . Whe n request s b y NP S t o RHPG F t o ad d thi s analyse s were rejecte d b y th e applicant o n th e ground s tha

t th e expens e woul d outweig h th e benefits , NP S conducte d it s ow n analysi s usin g technique s develope d b y EP A i n it s Contro l Technology Cos t

Manual . Althoug h hampere d b y th e lac k o f cos t dat aspecifi c t o thi s project , ou r analysi s determine d tha

t a n additiona

l 92 % S0 2 remova

l woul d reduc e emission s b y ove r 5000 TP Y a t a n annua l cos t o f about $1 1 million ; th e resultin g cos t per to n o f S0 2 remove d would b e abou

t $2200 , wel l withi n th e range s o f reasonabl e cost s see

n i n othe r projects . NP S ha s significan

t disagreement s wit

h RHPG F wit h respec t t o it s LS D operatin g an d annualize d cos t

calculations . RHPG

F shoul d obtai n vendor

quote s o n th e capita

l an d operatin g cost s of apolishin g scrubbe

r fo r thi s application . Finally , th e additio n o f

LS D woul d als o provid e contro l o f th e fluoride s an d chloride s cite d b y RHPG F a s detrimenta

l factor s fo

r th e us e o f additiona l NO x control s (se e NO x discussio n below) , a s wel l a s reducin g thei r emission s an d environmenta l impac t NOx Controls propose d b y RHPG F ar e limite d t o th e low-temperatur e combustio n characteristi c o f CF B boiler s and th e resultin g lo w NO x generatio n rates . Althoug h additiona l NO x remova

l could b e achieve d b y addin g specifi c NO x controls , RHPG F ha s decide d tha

t they ar e no t feasible fo r thi s application . Th e RHPG F proposa l woul d achiev e a

n emissio n limi t

o f 0.2 0 Ib/mmBtu . NO x emission s woul d b e 647 0 TPY . Althoug h th e propose d NSP S ha s no t yet been promulgated , it

wil l apply i n it s final for

mt o "thos e electri c utilit

y and industria

l stea mgeneratin g unit s fo

r whic h construction , modification , o r reconstructio n i s commence d afte r July 9,1997. " Therefore , RHPG F mus t comply wit

h th e final, promulgate d versio n o f thi s standard . Base d o n conversation s wit h Mr . Jame s Eddinger , (Combustion Group , Emissio n Standard s Division , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Research Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolina) , h e doe s no t

expec t th e final versio n t o chang eP.2 6

significantly . If

tha t i s th e case , RHPG

F will b e require d t o meet

aNO x emissio n limi t equivalen t t o 0.1 5 Ib/mmBt

u hea t input , instead o f

th e 0.2 0 Ib/mmBt

u limi t propose d b y RHPGF . Furthermore , becaus e BAC T ma y represent

a n emissio n limi t

eve n lowe r tha n th e NSPS , th e appropriat e NO x limi t

fo r RHPG F ma y lowe r still . B y proceedin g wit

h it s applicatio n a

t thi s time, RHPG

F i s placin g itsel f

i n a n are ao f unknow n emissio n requirements . Rathe r tha n accept a n emissio n limi t

tha t woul d represent

th e mos t stringen t likely outcom

e o f th e propose d NSPS , i t

ha s chose n alimi t tha t woul d b e vali d only i f th e propose d NSP S i s promulgate d in arelaxe d for mand BAC T i s determine d t o b e equivalent t o tha t relaxe d NSPS . RHPG

F ha s reache d a

n agreemen

t wit h Mississipp i DE Q an d EP A Regio n I V tha t woul d allo w i t

t o receiv e apermi t

a t 0.2 0 l b NOx/mmBtu , wit

h tiie conditio n tha

t i t mee t alowe r limi t i f promulgate d through th e NSPS . (NP S question s ho w thes e agencie s determine d tha t BAC T woul d b e equa

l t o th e NSP S i n thi s case , in tha t BAC T i s t o represent

acase-by-cas e determinatio n an

d i s ofte n mor e stringen t tha n th e NSPS. ) RHPG F als o made argument s tha t mor e advanced contro l technologie s migh t mak e th e projec t unaffordable , an

d cite d alette

r fromEP A Regio n I V t o Nort

h Carolin aa s a

n exampl e o f

an objection base d o n affordability . However , accordin g t o EPA' s Ne w Sourc e revie w Workshop Manual , affordabilit

y i s no t avali d consideration . RHPG F als o rejecte d SCRo

n th e ground s tha

t i t wa s to o expensiv e a

t abou t $830 0 per

to n o f NO x remove d an

d technically difficult . However , th e technica l difficultie s o f

operatin g SC R downstrea mo f aCF B wit h it s exceptionally hig h particulate loadin g ca n b e overcome b y installin g dus t

remova l equipmen

t between th e boiler

and th e SC Rsystem . Tw o possibl e approache s are to eithe

r instal l ahigh temperatur

e fabri c filter

or mechanica

l collectors , screens , an d adumm y catalys t ahea d o f th e SCR ; RHPG

F chos e th e latter

approach fo

r it s cos t analysis . (NP S believe s tha

t RHPG F shoul d hav e als o evaluate d th e fabri c filter alternative . Becaus e th e RHPG F cos t analysi s wa s ver

y sketchy , NP S attempte d t o us e th e EP A Contro l Cos t

Manua l

. approach usin g bot

h Tota l Capita l Investmen

t (TCI ) estimate s fromRHPG F an d fromth e EP

A IAPCS5 acos t

model . Usin g RHPGF' s $5 0 millio n TC I estimate , it s catalys t replacement

cos t o f 70 % o f TC I (much higher

tha n th e 40%-60 % o f

Capita l Cos t tha t w e usually see) , and two-yea r catalys t lif e (compare d t o three-fiv e year s i n othe r applications) , assumin g 82 % NO x remova l (fro mth e IAPCS5 amodel prediction) , includin g other operatin g costs , an

d usin g a7 % interes t rat e to calculat

e th e Capita

l Recover y Factor , NP S estimate s tha t a n additiona

l 540 0 TP Y o f NO x could b e removed a

t acos t o f about $1 8 millio n annually ; th e cos t pe r to n o f NO x remove d would b e about

$3300 , withi n th e rang e accepte d b y man y states . Whe

n NP S use d th e IAPCS5 a mode l t o estimat

e TCI , w e obtaine d aTC I o f $1 3 million , and a

n annua l cos t o f $1 1 millio n t o remov e th e sam

e 540 0 ton s of

NOx . Th e NP S cos t

benefit rati o wa s about

$100 0 pe r ton . NP S believe s tha

t RHPG F shoul d hav e evaluate d a

t leas t on e mor e NO x contro l option . Becaus e i t ha s apreed t

o mee t aNO x limit

a s lo w a s th e 0.1 5 propose d b y EP A i n it s NSP S i f

tha t limi t i s ultimately promulgated , RHPG F ha s effectivel

y admitte d tha

t suc h alowe r limi t i s feasible . (In Preag , Germany , alignite-fire d boile r i s demonstratin g NO x emission s 0.1-0.13 7 Ib/mmBtu . According t o th e boiler

vendor , asimila

r boiler i n Provence , France , i s emittin g les s NOx/mmBt

u tha n propose d fo

r RHGF , an

d RHG F NO x emission s shoul d b e even lower . Ou r 

# 9 <P.2 7

understandin g i s tha

t RHPG F woul d probably blen d woodwast e wit h th e lignite t o achiev e tins lowe r limit. ) So , becaus e aproper BAC T analysi s mus t

evaluat e al l technicall y feasibl e contro l technologie s tha

t ar e capabl e o f

achievin g alowe

r emissio n rate , an

d becaus e RHPG

F ha s alread y agree d t o meet

suc h alowe

r rate i f require d t o d o so , RHPG

F shoul d justif

y wh y i t cannot mee t a0.1 5 lb NOx/mmBt

u limi t immediately rathe

r tha n a s afutur

e contingency . Republi c Stee l (GRSM/TNV-ne w mini-mill . Th e applican t has , when i t

serve s t o mak

e th e additio n of S0 2 and NO x control s mor e difficult , chosen t o combine ga s stream s fromth e electri c ar c furnac e and ladl e meltin g furnace , even thoug h each ha s it s own baghouse . Th e economi c analysi s i s completely withou t documentatio n and th e interes t rate i s inflated . Roanok e Electri c Stee l (SHEN/VAWRoanok e Electri c Steel' s (RES ) propose d t o modif y thei r steel mil l in Roanok

e b y increasin g throughput o f it s # 5 Electri c Arc Furnac e (EAF ) and # 5 Ladle Metallurgica

l Statio n (LMS ) plu s addin g a#2 Bille t Rehea t Furnac e (BRF) . Roanok

e Electri c Steel provide d a

n excellent

analysi s o f

th e cos t o f addin g Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n (SCR ) to contro l nitrogen oxid e (NOx ) emission s fromth e #2 BRF . Al l cos t estimate s wer

e ver y well documente d and th e methodolog y an d assumption s use d wer

e quite reasonabl e and eas y t o follow . W

e agree d that , fo

r thi s situation , SCRwa s no t economically feasibl e In performing it s analysi s o f potentia l contro l technologie s fo

r th e BRF , RE S di d no t

initiall y includ e a n evaluatio n o f

th e feasibilit

y o f usin g Selectiv e Non-Catalyti c Reductio n (SNCR) fo r NO x control . We encourage d DE Q t o investigat e th e economi c and environmenta l feasibilit y o f SNC Rfo r th e BRF . Roanok e Electri c Steel als o provide d a n excellen t analysi s o f

th e cos t o f changin g filte

r medi at o contro l particulate emission s fromth e 45 EAF . Al l cos t estimate s ar

e well documente d and th e methodolog y an

d assumption s use d ar

e reasonabl e and eas y t o follow . W e agree d tha

t conversio n t o Teflon filter

bag s wa s no t

economically feasible . Sant aTeres aPw r

(CACA/NMV-Dvneg v Powe r Corp . (Dynegy ) propose d t o construc t an d operat e tw o natura

l gas-fire d 22 0 Megawat

t (MW) combine d cycl e turbine s (CCT ) i n Santa Teresa , Ne w Mexico . Dyneg y propose d to mee t anitroge n oxide s (NOx ) limi t o f 1 5 part s per millio n (ppm

) usin g Dry-Low-NO x (DLN ) combustors , despit e ou r experienc e ove

r th e pas t yea r tha t mos t new ga s turbin e facilitie s are includin g Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n (SCR ) fo r contro l of NOx . Dyneg y ha s rejecte d SC Ro n th e premis e tha

t it woul d creat

e excessiv e cost s and creat e the potentia

l fo r ammoni aspills . However , w e believ e tha t thi s cos t estimat e i s inflate d an d unsupported . Steelcas e Furnitur e (GRSM/NQ-proposa l t o ad d ane w furnitur

e finishing line . Th e state' s revie w wa s averbati mrestatement o f th e applicant' s BAC T analysis . Althoug h NP S provide d example s o f

low-solven

t coatin g technologie s in us e o n furnitur e o f even highe

r qualit y tha n mad e by Steelcase , ou

r example s wer

e rejecte d becaus e o f

unsubstantiate d "qualit

y concerns" . TVA-Bellefont e (GRSM/TNV-TV A plan s t o construc t fou r 8 5 M W simpl e cycl e turbine s t o suppl y peakin g power . NO x woul d b e controlle d t o 1 5 ppmby Dr y Low-NO x (DLN ) 

## £->P.2 8

combustors . In vie w o f

th e applicatio n by Oleande r Powe r to mee t a9 pp mNO x limi t

o n it s five 190 M W simpl e cycl e peakin g units , TV A shoul d explain wh

y they canno t

d o a s well . TVA—Gallati n flylACA/TNWTVA plan s t o construc t fou r 8 5 M W simpl e cycl e turbine s t o suppl y peakin g power . NO x woul d b e controlle d t o 1 5 ppmby Dr y Low-NO x (DLN ) combustors . In vie w o f

th e applicatio n b y Oleande r Powe r to mee t a9 pp mNO x limi t

o n it s five 190 M W simpl e cycl e peakin g units , TV A shoul d explain wh

y the y canno t

d o a s well . TX-NM Pwr—Lordsbur g f/TX W Texas-New Mexic o Powe r Compan y (TNMP ) propose d to operat e tw o aero-derivativ e 40-megawat t (MW ) gas/# 2 oil-fire d combine d cycl e turbine s (CCT ) a t Lordsburg , NM . Althoug h th e applican t propose d th e us e o f

wate r injectio n an d Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n (SCR) , th e propose d NO x emissio n concentration s ar e 1 5 and 2 5 pp m respectively . Thes e outle t

concentration s ar

e significantl

y highe r tha n current emissio n limit s fo

r CCTs . Th e applican t justifie d th e highe

r emission s o n th e ground s tha t low-NO x burner s ar

e no t compatibl e wit

h th e aero-derivativ e typ e turbine s propose d a t Lordsbur g Eve n allowin g fo

r th e inheren

t difficult y in controllin g th e aero-derivativ e turbine s proposed , w e believ e tha

t th e SCRpropose d ca

n achiev e lowe

r emissio n limits . For

example , i f

emission s from ga s firing resultin g fromwate r injectio n only are 2 5 pp ma s state d i n Tabl e IV- 4 o f th e application , a

n 80 % efficien

t SCRsystemdownstrea

mshoul d lowe

r outle t emission s t o 5 ppm , puttin g thi s project

into th e rang e o f

emission s o f

mos t curren t CC T projects .



# 9-lr