p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1793 Prepped byKeeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 24 ) ll-F-6 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/3/2008 11:31:54

AM Sheet 24 of 45P. 2

r » U 4 

## OfficeA^u^ualicyWar^ g^ s 

## J ^

U . S . Etmronnienta lProtectio nAgenc y, , Researc hTnangl ePark ,N C 2771 1 TM FA XNumber : (919)541-550 9

TO s 

## D« K///•*-/ ? _*** " / ^^^^^^TM^^^^************- " NAM I ( COMPANY/OFFICE 

# O H



# v 6 (PHONE NVMBEf t (FAXNUMBC X 

## FROM : " 5335"" TM
COMMENTS : BNUMK X 

### 919-341 . £^7 / 

## ^h&kejore. Aw^csecJ fCM'Zf'&i^&> *^ eCo^im/ 7eck - no j? you, e^tf& Tr/J, e./LCe.jrt I'**- AaU^AUe^Jl

«, /WfcW e -^/^ / &IA.O& tfh. 

## /0^ /3 7 yW p7vcv cU*~^&<5
. _ / #/r< 9 ^coi/c^^>(^^Jr-phe. *^*zW eT-J ? (J>hrt. b "/JoA teA^f-A WXu/

lyfir-tS-*- 6e&* ch*>Kjxtd -frryx^ ^ we.&S-J7<&ri/ers,erp. /_3<K

_ 

## / Numbero f

Pages (ihcludin

gcove rsheet) : 5 V/V

i2*/x ) If youdidnotreceivei B thepages ,pleasecontac tth efollowingpeaoo : F = —I&I l ^&-*-. 

### imjiaas 919-341 -P. 3



## nl°1-

°^ 

# % 1 ^ control s an d wil l facilitat e timel yrevie wo f th e BAC T analysis . Th e EP Ai s proposin g regulator yrevision s tha t provid e a framewor k fo r BAC T determination s unde r EPA-approve d Stat e ru n program s an d a specific , reliabl e an d efficaciou s methodolog yfo r Federally-administere d programs , whic hi s availabl e fo r State s t o adopt . (I n proposin g thes e revision s an d takin g fina l action , EP Awil l als o discharg e certai n lega l obligation s arisin g ou t o f severa l judicia l an d administrativ e matters . Se e sectio n IV.I . o f thi s notice. ) EP Ai s als o proposin g regulator yrevision s tha t significantl ylimi t a permi t applicant' s responsibilit yt o revie w ne wcontro l technologie s tha t ar e develope d o r emerg e an d ar c identifie d afte r a complet e permi t applicatio n ha s bee n submitted . Thi s revisio n wil l reduc e th e numbe r o f delay s associate d wit hevaluatin g emergin g contro l technologie s i n th e post-completenes s stag e o f th e permittin g process . Th c CAAAC' o diocuooion o focuoc d primaril yo n BACT . However , Th c recommendation o an d resultan t improvement o t o EPA' o contro l p^ ( technolog yinformatio n oyotcmo,—th c propooc d regulator ylanguag e . , 

# k°^A\\ pertainin g t o th e univcro c o f technolog ycandidatco,—a_a d A* € limitation o o n th c conoidcratio n o f ne wtcchnologic o woul d alo o <^to* exten d t o LAER . Th c CAAA C mad e n o opccifi c recommendation o o n f <" * X L 

# tf th c methodolog yfo r determinin g LAER.—Therefore , EP Ai o no t \APJ\ /•• t. 

# y r PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D<f BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC Y •••Novembe r 2, 199 5 [fil e name : Maotor0 .11 ] •• • A . as-fcer/ J MP. 4

10 9 propooin g changc o t o cxioting rcgulation o tha t gover n ho wt o determin e LAER . Th e CAAAC' s discussion s focuse d primaril yo n BACT . Th e CAAAC mad e n o specifi c recommendation s o n th e methodologyfo r determinin g LAER . Therefore , the EP Ai s no t proposing change s t o existin g regulation s whic hgover n ho wt o determin e LAER. 3 6 K However , th e recommendation s an d resultan t improvement s t o EPA' s V IA contro l technologyinformatio n systems , the propose d regulatory(/ languag e pertaining t o the univers e o f technolog ycandidates , an

d limitation s o n th e consideratio n o f ne wtechnologie s als o extend t o LAER . Thu s th e EPAi s proposing t o ad d suc hne wprovision s t o existin g 4 0 CFR 51.165(a)(2 ) tha t ar e analogou s t o Th e EP Ai o propooin g t o creat e a ne wparagraphfo r "Contro l technology review"—i n th e rcgulation o governing developmen t o f implementatio n pian o a t 4 0 CFR 51.165(a ) (2)—t o accommodat e th c ne wprovioion o tha t ar c i n commo n wit hthos e propose d fo r BAC T a t 4 0 CF R 51.166(j ) (5 ) . Se e propose d 4 0 CFR 51.165(a ) (2 ) (ii ) . B . ProposedRevision s to th e Methodolog

y fo r Determining BAC T 1 . Genera l descriptio n o f th e BAC T determinatio n proces s

3 6 Asubsequen t propose d rulemaking , fo r implementing change s t o th e NS R regulation s pursuan t t o provision s i n Titl e I part s C an d D o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t a s amende d i n 1990 , wil l furthe r updat e the contro l technolog y requirement s a t 4 0 CFR 51.165(a)(2 ) t o reflec t statutor yrequirements . PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY •••November 2 , 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] •• •P. 5



## y g iJ Typically , th e propose d majo r sourc e permi t applican t conduct s a BAC T analysi s t o b e submitte d wit hthe permi t applicatio n t o th e permitting authority . Th e analysi s include s a n evaluatio n o f the technica l feasibilit yan d th e energy , environmental , economi c impacts , an d othe r cost s associate d wit h variou s alternativ e contro l options . Th e applican t include s i n it s applicatio n th e BAC T analysi s an d wha t i t consider s t o b e the bes t contro l technolog yo r systemo f controlling emission s fo r th e particula r sourc e o r project . Th e permitting authorit y review s th e applicant' s analysi s and , afte r taking int o accoun t conoidcring thc aooociatc d impacto,—othe r cao c opccifi c factor o M * yjft 

## 0 

# lif e

** "

_ WI th e energyenvironmenta l , an d economi c impact s an d othe r costs , CPrw]^ an d th e public' s views , specifie s a n emission s limitatio n fo r th e sourc e that , i n its

- the permitting authority' s reasone d judgment , reflect s th c maximu mdegre e o f reductio n achievable,—i.e.,—BACT. 3 7 3 7 Bes t availabl e contro l technolog yi s define d i n sectio n 169(3 ) o f th e Ac t as : "[A] n emissio n limitatio n base d o n the maximu mdegre e o f reduction...whic hthe permitting authority , o n a case-by

cas e basis , taking int o accoun t energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s an d othe r costs , determine s i s achievabl e fo r suc hfacilit ythroughapplicatio n o f productio n processe s an

d availabl e methods , systems , an d techniques , including fue l cleaning , clea n fuels , o r treatmen t o r innovativ e fue l combustio n technique s fo r contro l o f eac h suc hpollutant. " Sectio n 169(3 ) als o provide s tha t i n n o even t mayBAC T resul t i n emission s tha t excee d thos e allowe d b yan yapplicabl e standar d establishe d unde r section s 11 1 o r 11 2 o f th e Act . I n addition , i f th e reviewing authorit ydetermine s tha t ther e i s n o economicall yreasonabl e o r -technologicall yfeasibl e wayt o measur e th e emissions , an d henc e t o impos e a n enforceabl e PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •••November 2 , 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] •• •P. 6

11 1 2 . Th e Cor e Criteri a A s noted , bes t availabl e contro l technolog yrequire s th e adoptio n o f a n emissio n limitatio n base d o n th e "maximumdegre e P\f*j P o f reduction...whic hth e permittin g authority , o n a case-bv-cas e ^ 

### AA basis , takin g int o accoun t energy , environmental , an d economi c C^AIIO , 

# A * impact s an d othe r costs , determine s i s achievable. " Se e sectio n \ 169(3 ) o f th e Act . Th e Act , alo o therefore , confer s substantia l discretio n o n th e permittin g authorit yi n establishin g BACT . Th e "permittin g authority " i o t o determin e th c "maximumdegre e o f r reduction " o n a "cao c b ycao c baoio " conoidcrin g "energy , environmenta l an d economi c impact o an d othe r cooto. " Th e Stat e flexibilit yi n weighin g relevan t factor s an d determinin g BAC T i n an yparticula r circumstanc e i s addresse d i n th e legislativ e histor yassociate d wit hcongressiona l adoptio n o f th e PS D progra mi n th e 197 7 Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendments . Th e tjgjr » i > legislativ e histor yadvocate s tha t a centra l benefi t o f Stat e fat**" flexibilit yi s tha t i t facilitate s implementatio n o f th e bes t ff X At availabl e controls , allowin g fo r th e widesprea d adoptio n o f f£ / V improve d technologie s fa r mor e guickl ytha n woul d occu r wit ha r*T ^ unifor m

standard : |0 t/W j emission s standard , i t ma yrequir e th e sourc e t o us e a design , equipment , wor k practic e o r operationa l standar d o r combinatio n thereof , t o reduc e emission s o f th e pollutan t t o th e maximu m exten t practicable . Se e als o existin g section s 52.21(b)(12 ) an d 51.166(b)(12) . PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC Y •••Novembe r 2 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] •• •P. 7

11 2 Th e decisio n regarding th e actua l implementatio n o f bes t availabl e technolog yi s a ke yone , an

d th e committe e place s thi s responsibilit ywit hth e State , t o b e determine d . frF i n a case-bv-cas e judgment . I t i s recognize d tha t th e l** } ]Aphras e ha s broa d flexibilit yi n ho wi t shoul d an d ca n b e J

V interpreted , depending o n fthel site . Y&P • ^ I n makin g thi s keydecisio n o n th e technolog yt o b e C^r used , th e Stat e i s t o tak e int o accoun t energy , environmental , an

d economi c impact s an d othe r cost s o f th e applicatio n o f bes t availabl e contro l technology . Th e weigh t assigne d t o suc hfactor s i s t o b e determine d bvth e State . Suc ha flexibl e approac hallow s th e adoptio n o f improvement s i n technolog yt o become widesprea d fa r mor e rapidl ytha n woul d occu r wit ha uniformFedera l standard . Th e onl yFedera l guideline s ar e th e EPAne wsourc e performanc e an

d hazardou s emission s standards , whic h represen t a floo r fo r th e State' s decision. 3 8 Th e legislativ e historyals o indicate s tha t a benefi t o f th e BAC T reguiremen t i s minimizing the incremen t consume d b yan y singl e source , allowing fo r greate r growt hi n an are a withi n th e applicabl e increment :

I n th e long run , th e growt hpotentia l o f thes e clean

ai r area s ma vb e guickl vfille d withou t a reasonabl e polic y

3 8 Se e S . Rep . No . 127 , 95t hCong. , 1s t Sess . 3 1 (1977) . PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •••November 2, 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] •• •P. 8

11 3 t o preven t significan t deterioration . Th e firs t ne wsourc e buil t i n a n are a woul d ofte n absorbth e entir e availabl e ai r resource , leaving n o capacit yfo r futur e expansio n o r growth . Unde r th e polic yt o preven t significan t deterioratio n i n thi s bill , th e growt hoption s shoul d b e enlarged . Thi s i s becaus e th e provisio n reguire s tha t an ymajo r sourc e b e constructe d t o utiliz e the bes t availabl e contro l technology . Thi s shoul d leave roo mfo r additiona l growth. 3 9 Th e legislativ e historydescribe s the breadt ho f Stat e discretio n i n regulating significan t ai r qualit ydeterioratio n i n a community . Whil e th e legislative historyrecognize s tha t th e BAC T reguiremen t help s limi t the amoun t o f incremen t ne wsource s consume , i t als o recognize s tha t a propose d sourc e meetin g BAC T ma vnevertheles s consume substantia l increment . Th e legislativ e historyprovide s tha t the permitting authorit yha s broa d discretio n i n deciding ho wmuch , i f any , incrementa l ai r qualit y deterioratio n t o devot e t o a propose d sourc e meetin g BACT . Th e legislativ e historyals o indicate s tha t a Stat e ha s discretio n t o rejec t a permi t applicatio n fo r a propose d sourc e becaus e o f impact s th e propose d sourc e coul d hav e o n th e characte r o f th e community :

3 9 id . PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •••November 2 , 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] •• •P. 9

11 4 Thi s directiv e enable s th e Stat e t o conside r th e siz e o f th e plant , th e incremen t o f ai r qualit ywhic hwil l b e absorbe d b van yparticula r majo r emittin g facility , an d suc h othe r consideration s a s anticipate d an d desire d economi c growt hfo r th e area . Thi s allow s th e State s an d loca l communitie s t o judg e ho wmuc ho f th e define d incremen t o f significan t deterioratio n wil l b e devote d t o an ymajo r emittin g facility . If , unde r th e desig n whic ha majo r facilit ypropos e fsicl , th e percentag e o f th e incremen t woul d effectivel ypreven t growt hafte r th e propose d majo r facilit ywa s completed , th e Stat e o r communit ycoul d refus e t o permi t construction , o r limi t it s size . Thi s i s strictl y a Stat e an d loca l decision ; thi s legislatio n provide s th e parameter s fo r tha t decision . Similarly , whe n a n analysi s o f energy , economics , o r environmenta l consideration s indicate s tha t th e impac t o f a majo r facilit ycoul d alte r th e characte r o f tha t community , the n th e Stat e could , afte r considerin g thos e impacts , rejec t th e applicatio n o r conditio n i t withi n th e desire s o f th e Stat e o r loca l community . Flexibilit yan d Stat e judgmen t ar e th e foundation s o f thi s policy . Furthe r Accordingly , i n adoptin g th e PS D program , Congres s emphasize d th e importanc e o f thoroug han d publi c analysi s i n PS D
PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y •••Novembe r 2 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] •• •P.1 0

11 5 decision-making . On e o f th e enumerate d purpose s o f PS D i s t o assur e tha t an

ydecisio n t o permi t increase d ai r pollutio n i n an y are a t o whic hPS D applie s i s mad e onl yafte r carefu l evaluatio n o f al l th e consequence s o f suc ha decisio n an d afte r adequat e procedura l opportunitie s fo r informe d publi c participatio n i n th e decision-makin g process . Se e sectio n 160(5 ) o f th e Act . N * I n summary , EPArecognize s tha t fo r a give n propose d sourc e AJf rv o r modification , BAC T i s no t a preordaine d leve l o f emission s " \J t, reduction , bu t th e resul t o f a determinatio n b yth e permittin g & £ authorit ybase d o n an analysi s o f availabl e contro l methods , (,* * yy ^ systems , an

d technigues . Th e permitting authorit yestblishe s a n emission s limitatio n base d o n th e maximu mdegre e o f reductio n tha t i s achievabl e i n ligh t o f th e circumstance s o f th e individua l cas e taking int o accoun t th e energy , environmental , economic s impact s an d othe r cost s o f the candidat e contro l alternatives , an

d th e concern s o f th e Stat e an d loca l communit y tha t coul d b e impacte d b yth e sourc e unde r consideration . Consequently , th e EPAbelieve s a BAC T determinatio n should , a t a minimum , mee t tw o cor e requirements : (1 ) al l o f th e availabl e contro l system s fo r the source , including th e mos t stringent , mus t b e considere d i n the determination 4 0 an d (2 ) th e selectio n

4 0 An applican t coul d limi t it s propose d lis t o f technolog y alternative s t o th e mos t effectiv e contro l technologies . Consideratio n o f technologie s tha t ar e outdate d o r ar e clearl y inferio r t o thos e i n the applicant s propose d lis t woul d no t b e necessary . Th e EPAi s als o proposing i n thi s notice , limit s o n PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •••November 2 , 199 5 [file name : -MaotcrQ.17 ] •• • 

### /Wer/.10 |P.1 1

11 6 o f a particula r contro l systema s BAC T mus t b e justifie d i n term s o f th e statutorycriteri a an d supporte d b

yth e record , an

d mus t explai n th e basi s fo r th e rejectio n o f -eh e othe r mor e stringen t a candidat e contro l systems . However , a n applican t proposin g th e A. v£ te p mos t stringen t candidat e contro l alternativ e nee d no t provid e q]P cos t and othe r detaile d informatio n i n regar d t o othe r contro l ^ w- V \ ^ options. 4 1 •*- * Today , th e EPAi s proposing t o mak e th e cor e criteri a V *» » 

### 0 

### oo describe d herei n th e minimu mrequirement s fo r determinin g BACT . \-fl d Th e EP Ai s proposing t o codif yi n the Federa l PS D regulation s a t 4 0 CF R 52.2 1 (j ) (5 ) an d 52.21(n ) (2 ) (iii) , a specifi c methodology fo r determinin g BAC T tha t i t bclievc o bco t complic o wit h effectivel yimplement s the statutoryrequirement s an d th e cor e criteria . However , t o allo wState s more.flexibilit yunde r thei r ow n rule s fo r making case-specifi c BAC T determinations , EP Ai s proposin g t o inser t the cor e criteri a int o th e regulatory provision s fo r BAC T determination s i n SIP s a t 4 0 CFR 51.16 6 (j ) (5 ) an d 51.166(n)(2)(iii) . Thus , s o lon g a s the cor e criteri a ar e met , thes e propose d revision s allo wfo r othe r methodologie s tha t provid e equivalen t result s wit hles s time an d effort . Th e EPA th e applicant' s responsibilit yt o conside r ne wcontro l technologie s tha t ar e identifie d afte r a permi t applicatio n i s determine d t o b e complete . Se e sectio n IV . D . o f thi s notice .

4 1 Th e applican t maynee d t o conside r collatera l emissio n increase s o f hazardou s ai r pollutant s unde r othe r Stat e program s PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKIN G DRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPAPOLIC Y •••Novembe r 2, 199 5 [fil e name : Maotm-IT . 17 ] •• • 

### tAa.sitr\.\0\P.1 2 

# ^-.^^I'tjJ fcr P^/ ^ AA. o n th e propose d cor e (P reguest s publi c commen t o n thi s approac han d o n th e propose d cor e criteria . Th c EPArcqucot o publi c commcnt o o n alternativ e mcthod o fo r determining BACT . Commcnter o ohoul d explai n o r illuotrat c ho wouc halternativ e metho d wil l oatiof yth c following cor e criteri a propooc d i n thi o notice:—Br)—al l availabl e contro l oyotcmo fo r th c oourc c muo t b e conoidcrc d i n th e determination , including thoo c tha t provid e the maximu mdegre e o f omiooion o reduction,—a_ad—(-2-)—oclcctio n o f a particula r contro l oyotc ma o BACT,—and th c baoi o fo r thc rejectio n o f thc othe r mor e effectiv e cmiooion o contro l oyotcmo,—muo t b e juotific d i n tcrmo o f th c otatutorycriteri a an d oupportc d b

yth c record.—Cpccifically , thc commcnt o ohoul d addrco o ho wthc alternativ e methodologywoul d provid e fo r conoidcratio n o f energy,—environmental,—and economi c impact o an

d othe r cooto.—Th c commcnt o ohoul d alo o includ e cxamplc o tha t illuotrat c ho wthe rcoultan t leve l o f contro l woul d compar e wit htha t achieve d throughEPA' o recommende d method . 6e e CA A§ ICQ (3 ) . 3 . Descriptio n o f the Federa l Methodologyfo r Determinin g BAC T Sinc e lat e 198 7 EPAha s recommende d a specifi c proces s fo r determining BACT . Th e recommendatio n evolve d fro ma 198 6 nationa l programaudi t tha t identifie d BAC T determination s a s a deficien t aspec t o f the PS D permitting process , an d a 198 7 EP A PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAFT FO

ROFFIC E O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY •••November 2 , 199 5 [fil e name : JtaaLuiO.17 ] •• • 

### H^htr j. 10 !P.1 3

11 8 permi t appea l decision. 4 2 Th e EPA' s recommende d methodologyfo r determinin g BAC T i s describe d i n detai l i n th e 199 0 Draf t NS R Worksho p Manual 4 3 an d i s summarize d below . Th e firs t step i s t o identify , fo r th e emission s uni t i n question , al l "available " contro l options. 4 4 Se e propose d sectio n 52.21(j)(5) . Availabl e contro l option s ar e thos e ai r pollutio n contro l technologie s o r technique s wit ha practica l potentia l fo r applicatio n t o the emission s uni t an d th e regulate d pollutan t unde r evaluation , an d whic hhav e bee n "demonstrate d i n practice. " Se e propose d section s 52.21(b)(42 ) an d (j)(5)(i) . Ai r pollutio n contro l technologie s an d technique s includ e th e applicatio n o f productio n processe s an d availabl e methods , systems , an

d techniques , including fue l cleaning , clea n fuel s o r treatmen t o r innovativ e fue l combustio n technique s fo r contro l o f th e affecte d pollutant . Se e Sectio n 169(3 ) o f th e Act . I n some

4 2 Se e "NewSourc e Revie wTas k Forc e Report, " Fina l Draft , Dec . 1986 . Honolul u Resourc e RecoveryFacility , PS D Appea l No . 86- 8 (Reman

d Order , Jun e 22 , 1987) . "Operationa l Guidanc e o n Contro l Technologyfo r Ne wan d Modifie d Municipa l Wast e Combustors, " Jun e 26 , 1987 . "Improving Ne wSourc e Review, " Memorandu

mfro mCrai g Potter , Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an d Radiatio n t o EPARegiona l Administrators , Region s l-X , Decembe r 1 , 1987 .

4 3 Se e Chapte r B o f EPA' s 199 0 Draf t NS R Worksho p Manua l fo r a mor e detaile d descriptio n o f EPA' s BAC T determinatio n policies , including guidanc e addressing th e consideratio n o f energy , environmental , an d economi c impacts . 4 4 Th e ter

m"emission s unit " mayals o represen t a proces s o r a systemtha t migh t collec t emission s fro m severa l discret e piece s o f equipment . PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •••November 2 , 199 5 [file name : Maota_r9*il7 ] •• •P.1 4

11 9 circumstances , inherentl ylower-polluting processe s ar e appropriat e fo r consideratio n a s availabl e contro l alternatives . Byproposin g tha t fo r consideratio n i n permi t applications , technologie s shoul d b e "demonstrate d i n practice, " EP Aintend s t o requir e consideratio n o f technologie s i n EPA' s RACT/BACT/LAE R Clearinghous e (Se e Sectio n IV.C) , technologie s identifie d o r require d i n a regulatorycontex t an d technologie s meetin g minimu m operatin g performanc e requirements . Th e EPApropose s t o authoriz e limiting consideratio n o f emerging technologie s tha t ar e identifie d afte r an applicatio n i s complete . Thi s i s discusse d i n mor e detai l i n Section s IV.D.l . an d IV.D.2 . o f thi s notice . I n th e second step , the technica l feasibilit yo f eac h contro l optio n tha t wa s identifie d i n ste p on e i s evaluate d wit h respec t t o th e source-specifi c (o r emission s unit-specific ) factors . Se e propose d sectio n 52.21(j ) (5 ) (i ) . On e o r mor e o f th e option s mayb e eliminate d fro mconsideratio n wher e the yar e demonstrate d t o b e technicall yinfeasible . Ademonstratio n o f technica l infeasibilit yshoul d b e clearl ydocumente d an d shoul d show , base d o n physical , chemical , an d engineering principles , tha t technica l difficultie s woul d preclud e th e successfu l us e o f th e contro l optio n o n the emission s uni t unde r review . Th e contro l technolog yoption s identifie d a s availabl e an d technicall yfeasibl e ar e the n ranke d b yoveral l contro l PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •••November 2 , 199 5 [file name : Ma__fcL___iJL_£& 3 •• •P.1 5

12 0 effectivenes s fo r the pollutan t unde r review , wit hth e mos t effectiv e contro l alternativ e a t th e top . A t thi s poin t i n th e analysis , i t i s initiall yassume d tha t th e mos t stringen t alternativ e represent s BAC T pending th e consideratio n o f th e source-specifi c energy , environmenta l an d economi c impacts , an d othe r cost s associate d wit heac hcontro l option . Se e propose d sectio n 52.2 1 (j ) (5 ) (i) . Bot hbeneficia l an d advers e impact s shoul d b e discusse d and , wher e possible , quantified . I n general , the BAC T analysi s shoul d focu s o n th e direc t impac t o f th e contro l alternative . yA& Cos t i^ s a*= e ofte n a majo r concer n o f th e owne r o r operato r o f th e propose d sourc e an d shoul d b e include d i n th e analysis . Bot haverag e cos t effectivenes s an d margina l (incremental ) cos t effectivenes s shoul d b e derive d fo r th e contro l alternative s an d considere d i n th e fina l decision. 4 5 

# y 

# \f

4 5 Cos t effectivenes s i s the cos t o f contro l divide d byth e mas s o f emission s (usuall yi n tons ) reduce d b ytha t control . Averag e cos t effectivenes s i s the cos t pe r to n tha t woul d b e incurre d compare d wit hbaselin e controls , (i.e. , eithe r uncontrolle d o r th e contro l leve l tha t woul d b e require d i n th e absenc e o f th e majo r sourc e requirement s fo r whic hth e sourc e i s makin g application) . Margina l o r incrementa l cos t i s th e differenc e i n cos t pe r to n o f emission s reduce d a t th e nex t mos t , stringen t leve l o f control , whe n comparing two dominan t contro l ^Afc/ options . ~ ,j j "X Th e EPAha s develope d an d publishe d detaile d procedura l r gA informatio n fo r performing cos t analyses , including averag e vs ^ivAyh J incrementa l cos t effectiveness , i n the OAQP S Cos t Manual . Th e j ' V" J i 0 J 1 Manua l i s availabl e throughth e Nationa l Technica l Informatio n A J(? / Servic e (NTIS ) 528 5 Por t Roya l Road , Springfield , V A22161 ; Phon e No . (703 ) 487-4807 . Governmen t agencie s ca n orde r i t fromth e EPAContro l Technolog yCente r (CTC) . Th e EPAha s mad e part s o f PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •••November 2 , 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] •• •P.1 6

12 1 , I f th e applican t i s dispose d toward selecting th e mos t -ee p r A, JJ stringen t emission s contro l alternativ e i n th e listing a s BACT , ^Jy 

# U<r irrespectiv e o f cost , the n the analysi s nee d onl yaddres s V generatio n o f othe r ai r pollutants , e.g. , toxi c pollutants . Se e propose d sectio n 52.2 1 (j ) (5 ) (i) . I f ther e ar e n o outstandin g issue s tha t woul d justif yselectio n o f a n alternativ e contro l option , th e analysi s end s an d the result s ar e propose d a s BACT . I n th e even t tha t the feee mos t stringen t candidat e contro l <f**~ alternativ e i s show n t o b e inappropriate , du e t o energy , environmenta l o r economi c impact s an d othe r costs , th e rational e fo r thi s finding i s documente d fo r the publi c record . Se e propose d sectio n 52.21(j)(5)(i) . The n the nex t mos t stringen t alternativ e i n th e listing become s th e ne wcontro l candidat e an d i s similarl yevaluated . Thi s proces s continue s unti l the technologyunde r consideratio n canno t b e eliminate d b yan y source-specifi c environmental , energ yo r economi c impact s whic h demonstrat e tha t alternativ e t o b e inappropriat e a s BACT . I n summary , unde r the methodolog yjus t described , th e mos t effectiv e contro l optio n no t eliminate d base d o n relevan t statutoryfactor s i s propose d a s BAC T fo r th e pollutan t an d emissio n uni t unde r review . Th e EPAbelieve s the propose d BAC T determinatio n methodologyi s th e mos t rigorou s an d reliabl e way th e Manua l dealing wit hgenera l cos t analysi s procedure s availabl e a s retrievabl e electroni c file s o n th e CT C bulleti n board . Se e als o footnot e 4 9 fo r compute r acces s information . PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y ***November 2, 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] •• •P.1 7

12 2 o f determining a leve l o f contro l tha t conform s wit hth e statutorydefinitio n o f BAC T an d the cor e criteria . Fo r thi s reaso n th e EP Ai s proposing t o codif ythi s methodologyi n th e Federa l NS R regulations . Th e propose d Federa l regulation s w gfoul d als o serv e a s a templat e fo r thos e State s tha t choos e t o incorporat e thi s metho d int o thei r SIPs . Th e EP Areguest s publi c comment s o n alternativ e method s fo r determinin g BACT . Commenter s shoul d explai n o r illustrat e ho w suc halternativ e metho d wil l satisf ythe following cor e criteri a propose d i n thi s notice : (1 ) al l availabl e contro l system s fo r th e sourc e mus t b e considere d i n the determination , includin g the mos t stringen t emission s contro l alternative , an d (2 ) selectio n A P X o f a particula r contro l syste ma s BACT , an

d th e basi s fo r th e P & jA , 

## P Y

# —= '==— — k\<\\\ rejectio n o f th e othe r mor e effective emission s contro l systems,« V § v mus t b e justifie d i n term s o f the statutorycriteri a and , . f^f t\

- , supporte d bvth e record . Specifically , th e comment s shoul d 5 C/ \ addres s ho wth e alternativ e methodolog ywoul d provid e fo r consideratio n o f energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s an d othe r costs . Se e CA A§ 169(3) . T o promot e conoiotcnc yan d certaint yi n th e permitting proccoo,—EPAencouragc o bot h applicant o an

d reviewing agencic o t o uo c thi o approach . 4 . Additiona l Guidanc e fo r BAC T Determination s Th e Federa l analytica l methodolog youtline d abov e provide s fo r reasone d BAC T determinations , bu t i t doe s no t dictat e a PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •••November 2 , 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] •• •P.1 8

13 6 Inadverten t omission s shoul d b e evaluate d byth e permittin g authorit yi n ligh t o f case-specifi c factors . I n al l instances , i f a technologytha t shoul d hav e bee n evaluate d i s identifie d an d th e permittin g authorit ysustain s th e completenes s finding , ther e i s stil l a dut yt o evaluat e th e omitte d technolog yrelativ e t o th e othe r technolog yalternative s prio r t o permi t issuance . 2 . Permitting authorit ymaylimi t consideratio n o f ne wo r emerging technologie s afte r complet e applicatio n Ne wo r emerging technologie s ar e thos e technologie s tha t hav e bee n develope d bu t hav e no t satisfie d th e criteri a t o b e classifie d a s "demonstrate d i n practice. " Some NS R Reform Subcommitte e member s recommende d tha t EPAprohibi t an y consideratio n o f ne wo r emerging technologie s identifie d afte r th e permi t applicatio n i s complete . Othe r member s recommende d tha t EP Ano t allo wan ylimitation s o n consideratio n o f ne wo r emergin g technologie s prio r t o the en d o f th e publi c commen t perio d o n a permi t application . Th e EPAi s proposing ne w regulatoryprovision s tha t woul d authoriz e th e permitting authorit yt o cut-of f consideratio n o f technolog i e s tha t evolv e o r a appea r afte r th e permi t applicatio n i s complete , excep t unde r Jfl V limite d circumstance s describe d below , unlco o a commente r \ JA'C * M V 

### & 

### <ri/

AK providc o informatio n abou t a no wtechnolog ytha t warrant o furthe r j/ \fi conoidcration . Se e propose d section s 51.165(a ) (2 ) (ii ) (E ) an d *\<fi 

### f 

### \.o 

### |

< > ' PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN Df* J BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Yr fL w •••November 2 , 199 5 -- - [file name : Master9.17 ] •• • ^ JV , 

# aP.1 9

13 7 (a)(7)(iii) , 51.166(j)(5)(iii ) an d (q)(3 ) an

d 52.21(j)(5)(iii ) an d (q)(3) . Unde r th e propose d rules , the permitting authorit yma y requir e commenter s t o submi t a recommendation , accompanie d by reasonabl yavailabl e information , regarding ne wo r emergin g contro l technologie s wit hthei r recommendations . Thi s informatio n coul d include , th e name an d locatio n o f th e sourc e utilizin g th e contro l technology , th e manufacture r an d typ e o f contro l device , th e dat e o n whic hth e technolog ywa s installe d an d becam e operational ; an d performanc e requirement s an d an y resultin g tes t o r performanc e dat a available . Se e propose d section s 51.165(a)(7)(ii ) an d 51.166(q)(2) . Wit hregar d t o th e implementatio n o f th e Federa l PS D requirement s a t sectio n 52.21 , th e EP Ai s proposin g t o requir e tha t publi c commenter s includ e th e abov e informatio n along wit han yrecommendatio n fo r furthe r consideratio n o f ne wcontro l technolog yalternatives . Se e propose d sectio n 52.21(q)(2) . I t shoul d b e note d tha t th e existing NS R regulation s a t V sectio n 51.165(a ) d o no t contai n a n explici t provisio n fo r publi c fl participatio n procedure s a s d o the PS D regulation s i n AhA\b </



## . rCr M * X . part s 5 1 an

d 52 . Nevertheless , the publi c participatio n *< "tip" ft A X procedure s se t fort hunde r 4 0 CFR 51.16 1 generall yappl yfo r bot h^ \ ) 

### See , ^vh^t^-mlA..f£J^!A majo r an

d mino r ne wsourc e revie wpermitting.* , i n orae r t o mak e c^M~^ clea r th e regulatorycontex t fo r today' s propose d provision s PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •••November 2 , 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] •• •P.2 0

13 8 concernin g a cutof f dat e an d informationa l requirement s fo r publi c commenters , th e EPAi s toda yproposing t o amend sectio n 51.16 5 t o refe r t o the existing requirement s a t 4 0 CF R 51.161 . Se e propose d sectio n 51.165(a)(7) . Th e EPAintend s als o t o propos e additiona l publi c participatio n provision s fo r par t D NS R permit s i n a forthcoming rulemaking designe d primaril yt o updat e th e PS D an

d NS R rule s consisten t wit hth e 199 0 Ac t Amendments . Th e EP Atodaypropose s t o ad d th e provisio n concerning publi c recommendation s o n ne wan d emerging contro l technologie s a s par t o f th e ne wprovision s fo r publi c participation . Th e permitting authorit yshal l b e responsibl e fo r evaluatin g th e supporting documentatio n tha t ha s bee n provide d b ycommenter s assertin g ne wo r emerging technologie s warran t consideratio n a s BAC T o r LAER . Base d o n the fact s tha t ar e presented , th e permittin g authorit ywil l eithe r accep t th e recommendatio n a t fac e value , rejec t i t a s being insufficientl ydemonstrated , o r refe r i t t o th e permi t applican t fo r furthe r consideration . Th e EP Ai s als o proposin g t o requir e the permitting authorit yt o notif yth e permi t applican t withi n 1 0 day s upo n receip t o f comment s recommending a ne wtechnolog yfo r whic hth e permittin g authorit ydetermine s the comment s hav e me t the specificit y criteri a i t ha s establishe d relativ e t o the cut-of f date . Se e propose d section s 51.165(a ) (7 ) (iii) , 51.166(q)(3 ) an d 52.21(q)(3) . Thi s requiremen t woul d provid e applicant s wit ha n PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •••Novembe r 2, 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] •• •P.2 1

13 9 opportunit yt o respon d t o the comment s an d expedit e thei r investigatio n relativ e t o th e propose d project . Th e permitting authority , i n determining th e exten t t o whic h commenters ' recommendation s deserv e furthe r consideration , shoul d conside r th e difficult yo f privat e citizen s an d smal l organization s i n getting acces s t o detaile d supporting data . I f informatio n abou t th e emerging technolog yi s limited , commenter s shoul d documen t thei r attempt s t o obtai n dat a abou t th e sourc e an d th e recommende d technology . Fo r example , th e commente r may presen t log s o f telephon e conversation s wit hcompan yofficial s an d correspondenc e wit htrad e associations , environmenta l associations , governmen t agencie s an d technica l consultant s tha t migh t hav e relevan t informatio n regarding th e availabilit yand effectivenes s o f th e technology . Alis t o f question s tha t ar e aske d and respectiv e response s mayb e helpful . Whil e thi s informatio n mayno t actuall ydemonstrat e th e availabilit yo f a recommende d technology , i t wil l provid e the permitting authorit y wit hinformatio n t o hel p determin e whethe r furthe r evaluatio n i s warrante d eithe r b yit s staf f o r th e source . Th e EPArequest s commen t o n th e propose d criteri a fo r evaluating publi c comment s addressing the availabilit yo f ne wtechnologie s an d th e appropriat e burde n o f proo f tha t commenter s shoul d bea r afte r a permi t i s determine d t o b e complete .

PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •••November 2, 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] •• •P.2 2

14 0 Unlik e a recommendatio n t o conside r ne wo r emerging technolog

ya s discusse d above , th e identificatio n o f a technology alternativ e tha t ha s bee n "demonstrate d i n practice " and shoul d hav e bee n assesse d prio r t o completeness , place s n o burde n o n th e commente r t o suppl yqualifying informatio n abou t th e technology . Th e permittin g authorit ymus t ensur e tha t th e omitte d technology alternativ e i s adequatel yconsidere d i n the BAC T o r LAE R determination . Th e permitting authorit ymayb e able , however , t o determin e i f th e alternativ e i s inferio r t o th e technolog y _f * propose d byth e applicant . I n al l circumstance s th e permittin g authorit ywoul d b e responsibl e fo r considering th e comment s an d documenting it s associate d decision s fo r the publi c record . Th e propose d approac hfo r considering ne wo r emerging technologie s promote s certaint yan d limit s permitting burden s fo r thos e applicant s tha t have include d a thoroughrevie wo f contro l technologie s i n thei r permi t applications . Th e propose d regulation s woul d requir e consideratio n o f onl ythos e post
completenes s emerging technologie s whos e availabilit yan d effectivenes s ar e substantiate d t o the satisfactio n o f th e permittin g authority . Thi s proposa l als o preserve s opportunit yfo r publi c participation . I n al l instances , the publi c woul d hav e th e righ t t o submi t comment s addressing whethe r al l contro l technologie s tha t were , i n fact , "demonstrate d i n practice " prio r t o PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •••November 2 , 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] •• •14 1

completeness , wer e adequatel yconsidere d i n the permi t applicatio n and during revie wb ythe permitting authority . I n addition , publi c commenter s hav e the opportunit yt o recommend ne w o r emergin g technologie s provide d tha t recommendation s ar e accompanie d wit hsupporting informatio n abou t th e existenc e and capabilitie s o f th e technology . Th e permitting authorit ywoul d b e require d t o conside r timel yan d documente d publi c comment s addressing technologie s tha t emerg e afte r completeness . Finall yI n ligh t o f the consideration s describe d above , th e EP Ai s als o proposin g regulatorychange s t o revis e rcvioin g it s polic ytha t set s th e permi t issuanc e dat e a s the fina l cut-of f fo r consideratio n o f ne wan d emerging technologies . Propose d revision s t o th e Federa l regulation s woul d se t the fina l cut-of f a t th e clos e o f th e publi c commen t period , unles s the permi t i s reopene d fo r revie wo r the sourc e fail s t o commenc e constructio n withi n a prescribe d time perio d afte r the permi t i s issued . EPAals o reguest s publi c commen t o n alternativ e regulatory change s tha t would : (1 ) allo wStat e NS R program s t o wholl y preclud e consideratio n o f publi c comment s abou t technolog ytha t v



# _^—; #,Y> i s ne wo r emergin g afte r a n applicatio n i s complete ; an d (2 ) A ^ Y, I- 3 provid e i n th e Federa l NS R progra mfo r wholl yprecluding .^A' r** \^ consideratio n o f publi c comment s abou t technolog ytha t i s ne wo r MX emerging afte r a n applicatio n i s complete . PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •••November 2 , 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] •• •P.2 4

14 2 Rule s tha t allo wo r provid e fo r entirel yprecludin g publi c commen t o n technologytha t emerge s afte r a permi t applicatio n i s complet e woul d provid e greate r certaint yfo r busines s plannin g an d hav e administrativ e eas e an d simplicit ybenefits . O n th e othe r hand , suc hrule s woul d potentiall yeliminat e publi c inpu t o n emergin g technologie s an d foreg o an

yresulting emissio n reduction s benefits . I f EPAdi d allo wo r provid e fo r a categorica l cutof f o f publi c commen t addressing technologie s emergin g afte r a n applicatio n i s complete , EP Ama vals o nee d t o includ e a n exceptio n tha t provide s fo r consideratio n o f ne wo r emergin g technologie s i n circumstance s wher e substantia l tim e elapse s betwee n th e completenes s determinatio n an d fina l permi t issuanc e (e.g. , a permi t applican t submit s a n applicatio n tha t i s determine d complet e bu t significan t deficiencie s wit hth e applicatio n ar e discovere d during th e ful l permi t revie wtha t substantiall ydelaypermi t processing) . Unde r al l o f th e alternative s presented , the permittin g authorit ywoul d b e require d t o conside r publi c commen t addressin g whethe r th e technologie s availabl e (i.e. , "demonstrate d i n practice" ) a t th e time the permi t i s complet e wer e adeguatel v evaluated . EP Aseek s publi c inpu t o n thes e alternative s an d relate d issues .

E . Complet e Applicatio nCriteri a PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •••November 2 , 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] •• •P.2 5

, Footenot e 1 0 *I n a separat e rulemakin g EP Aha s propose d revisin g th e publi c revie wan d commen t requirement s a t 4 0 CF R 51.16 1 t o giv e State s mor e flexibilit yi n processin g mino r sourc e permit s fo r project s tha t ar e determine d t o b e "les s environmentall ysignificant. " Mino r sourc e actions , e.g . netting , tha t i n effec t shiel d a sourc e fro mmajo r sourc e action s woul d no t qualif yfo r les s environmentall ysignifican t status . Se e 6 0 F R 45529 . 45549 , (Augus t 31 7 1995) .