P. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1790 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 246 ) ll-F-3 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:17

PM Sheet 246 of 250P. 2 

## A-90-3 7 

# thi s gets to th eright

OFFIC E O P MANAGEMENT ANDBUDGE T OFFIC E O F INFORMATIO N AN DREGULATOR

YAFFAIR S

DATE l

_SENDER S 

# A'FTM**

TO : 

## ^TXUOI J

# £ruft o ^
- AGENCY t PROM : •f

i PA XNO. ! _ RECIPIEN T RECIPIEN T TELEPHONE MO. I TOTA L NUMBERO P PAGES . ZMCLDDZN GCOVERSHEET : COMMENTS t r

MOTE : I P YOUD OMO T RECEIVE AL L TH E PAGES , TLEAS E CAL L A S SOO N A S POSSIBLE . VERIFICATIO

N MO. I _02-395-73« 0 OIR A PA XMO . I _Q2-J*5-*« SP. 3

10 3 proposing change s t o existing regulation s tha t gover n ho wt o

• determin e LAER . . Th e CAAA C s . discussion s focuse d primaril yo n BACT.' . However , 'th e recommendation s an d resultan t improvement s t o EPA' s contro l technologyinformatio n systems , the propose d regulatorylanguag e pertainin g t o th e univers e o f technolog ycandidates , and limitation s o n the consideratio n o f ne wtechnologie s woul d als o

. extend t o LAER . Th e EPAi s proposing t o creat e a ne wparagrap h fo r "Contro l technolog yreview " i n the regulation s governing

• developmen t o f implementatio n plan s a t 4 0 CFR 51.165(a ) (2 ) to1 accommodat e th e new . provision s that , ar e i n commo n wit hthos e propose d fo r BAC T a t 4 0 CFR 51.166(j)(5) . Th e CAAAC mad e n o specifi c recommendation s • on . th e methodologyfo r determining tAER . Therefore , th e EPAi s no t proposing change s t o existing regulation s whic hgover n ho wt o determin e LAER. 3 4 B . Propose d Revision s t o the Methodologyfo r Determinin g BAC T . 1 . Genera l descriptio n o f the BAC T determinatio n proces s

: Typically , the . propose d majo r sourc e permi t applican t conduct s a BAC T analysi s t o b e submitte d wit hth e permi t applicatio n t o the permitting authority . Th e analysi s include s

11 Asubsequen t propose d rulemaking, ' fo r implementing change a to• • the NS R regulation s pursuan t t o provision s i n part s C an d D o f th e Clean Ai r Ac t as• ( amende d i n 1990 , wil l furthe r updat e the contro l technolog yrequirement s a t 4 0 CF R51.155(a)(2)•t o reflec t statutor yrequirements . PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D. BUDGET . REVIE W

* ' DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y •' . ** * Jul y

5, . 199 5 -p - [fil e name : Master6.29 ] *** .P. 4

. 10 4 . a nevaluatio nb f th e technical'feasibilit yan d th e energy , environmental , economi c impacts , an d othe r cost s associate dwit h variou s alternativ e contro l options . Th e applican t include s i n its'applicatio nthe'BAC T analysi s an d wha t i t consider s t o b e th e bes t contro l technolog yo r syste mo f controllin g emissions-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 considerin g th e associate dimpacts , othe r case-specifi c factor s an d the
- public' s views, ' specifie s an . emission s limitatio nfo r the , source ' that , i n

• i • • * ' • ' • . • - • . it s reasone djudgemen t reflect s th e maximu mdegre e o f • reductio n % -b^-x xii^>

Qxo>v*Mir e-M^n , -4

, {l^- -tU'p ACUVU^LMH

C s a*JU_«*daU / i nil l ipuwTi T \t

' ii ' i BACT . ' • - ^
• j.2 . , . Th e Cor e Criteri a

i . • • ; ' ' **»"'< - -.-.ra- i l.aK I a r,r-tr,4- v^ l I I 1 n1 j j -r>qn-ivr, nJ-f r p3 ^n|nh- i . » ^ ^ auluiu.im i llllUldLiu u LMUCOJ . 01 1 tli e•"luaAJmm

udogflo a&£ * * Th eAc t

s_ss s confer s discretio no nth epermittin g \

j 3 S Best , availabl e contro l technolog yi s define di n sectio n 169(3 ) o f -the Ac t as :

. j "[A] nemissio nlimitatio nbase do hth e maximu mdegre e o f !

. | reduction. . ...whic hth e permittin g authority , o n a ease-by-
- . ;-cas e basiB , takin g int o accoun t energy , environmental , an d | economi c impact s an d othe r costs , determine s i s achievable ' • : for-suc hfacilit ythroug happlicatio no f productio n [processe s an d availabl e methods , systems , an d techniques , [includin g fue l cleaning , clea nfuels,.-o r treatmen t o r ! innovativ e fuel-combustio ntechnique s fo r contro l o f eac h | suc hpollutant. " Sectio n16' ? (3 ) also'provide s tha t i n n o even t ma yBAC T resul t i n emission s tha t excee dthos e allowe db yan yapplicabl e standard ' establishe dunde r section s il l o r 11 2 o f th e Act . I n addition , i f th e reviewin g .-authorit ydetermine s tha t ther e i s n o • economicall yreasonabl e o r technologicall yfeasibl e wa yt o measur e th e .emissions , an d henc e t o impos e an-enforceable.
- PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D

. j BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP APOLICY . ! ** * Jul y5 , .199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] **' *P. 5

10 5 authorit yin-establishing BACT . Th e "permitting authority " , i s t o determin e the "maximunrdegre e of-reduction " o n a "case-by-cas e frJt_^^Wafs*'«r is" . ^unufdarin g "energy , basis",*Hjii_fdurin

g , environmenta l an d economi c impact s 'an d othe r costs."Se e sectio n 169(3 ) o f the Act .
• Further , i n adopting the PS D program , Congres s emphasize d - i • . ' • • i • • .. . th e importanc e o f thoroughan d publi c analyse s i n PS D decision
making . On e o f the enumerate d purpose s o f PS D i s t o assur e tha t an yjiecisio

n t o permi t increase d ai r pollutio n i n anyare a to ' i - % ,*'.•.... " whic i PS D applie s i s mad e onl yafte r carefu l evaluatio n o f al l th e consequences No f suc ha decisio n an d afte r adequat e procedural ' opportunitie s fo r informe d publi c participatio n i n th e decision
naki ig proces s . Se e •.atutor yemphasi s and brocedura l rigo r i s accompanied , b ya recognitio n tha t BAC T i s no t k preordaine d leve l o f reductio n bu t on e tha t mus t b e establishe d i n ligh t o f th e circumstance s presente d eemoriHrtting ' CjTUl.

t-ui " *_ * 

### Consequently , th eEP Abelieve s a BAC T determinatio n should , a t a minimum , mee t two cor e i . ' . • requji-rements : (1 ) all'o f the availabl e contro l system s fo r th e source , including the.mos t stringent , mus t b e considere d i n th e equipmen t emi s eq u the e x 5 1 re o exten t sion s standard, ' i t mayrequir e the sourc e t o us e a design , , wor k practic e o r operationa l standar d o r combinatio n f , t o reduc e emission s o f the pollutan t t o the maximu m practicable . Se e als o existing section s -52.21(b ) (12 ) ain d 6(b)(12) . 1 6 PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND 1 BUDGET.REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPAPOLIC Y | ** * Jul y5 , 199 5 * [fil e name. : Masters . 29 ] . **+P. 6

10 6 determination 3 6 an

d (2 ) th e selectio n 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 statutory criteri a and supporte d b yth e record , an

d mus t explai n th e basi s fo r th e rejectio n "O f •«_e , othe r mor e stringen t candidat e control.\ , ^SV"*SVAAA-6*C T ty&JiJiiaZXj systems . However , a n applican t proposing the ia_^,corrtro l alternativ e nee d no t provid e cost , an d othe r detaile d informatio n .i n regar d t o othe r contro l options. 3 7 '• I Today , th e EPAi s proposing t o mak e th e cor e criteri a describe d herei n the minimu mrequirement s fo r determinin g BACT . Th e EPA . i s proposing t o codif yi n the . Federa l PS D regulation s a t i • • ' • ' 4 0 C^ R 52.2 1 (j ) C5) . and 52.2 1 (n)-(2),(iii ) , a . specifi c methodology fo r determining BAC T tha t i t believe s &_grcomplie s with ' the . . statutoryrequirement s an d the cor e criteria . However , t o allo w State s mor e flexibilit yunde r thei r own rule s fo r makin g eaae -
• specifi c BAC T determinations , EPAi s proposing t o inser t th e cor e criteri a into.th e regulatoryprovision s fo r BAC T determinations ' .i n S^p

_a t 4 0 CFR 51.l66(j)(5 ) an d 51.16 6 (n ) (2 ) (iii ) . ' Thus,
- s o long | a s th e cor e criteri a ar e met , thes e propose d revision s allo w j 3 6 A n applican t coul d limi t .its-proposed , lis t o f technology alternatives't o th e mos t effectiv e contro l technologies. ' .Consideratio n of . 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 on ' 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 •determined t o be ' complete . . Se e sectio n IV . D . o f thi s notice .

3 7 Th e applican t maynee d t o conside r collatera l emissio n increase s o f hazardou s air'pollutant s unde r othe r Stat e programs . PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT . AND BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPAPOLIC Y **** • Jul y5 , i99 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P. 7

10 7 ' fo r othe r methodologie s tha t provid e equivalen t result s wit hles s . time an d effort . EP A

/UAU** kC*%£+£

e^Usa^o*cka*< A OV-llu . Th e EP Arequest s publi c comment s o n alternativ e method s fo r determining BACT . Commenter s shoul d explai n o r illustrat e how
suc halternativ e metho d wil l satisf yth e following cor e criteri a proposed.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 , including , thos s .that provid e the maximu mdegre e o f emission s reduction' , and (2) , selectio n o f a particula r contro l systema s BACT, , and th e basi 3 fo r the rejectio n o f the othe r mor e effectiv e emission s contro l systems , mus t b e justifie d i n term s o f th e statutory criteri a an

d supporte d b

ythe record . Specifically , th e comment s shoul d addres s ho wth e alternativ e methodolog ywoul d provid e fo r consideratio n o f energy , environmental , an d economi c impacts
- and other , costs . Th e comment s shoul d als o includ e example s tha t • illustrat e ho wthe resultan t leve l o f contro l woul d compar e with ' tha t achieved , throughEPA' s recommende d method . .Se e CA A§ 169(b) . , 3 . Descriptio n of•th e Federa l Methodologyfor'Determining BAC T . Sinc e lat e 198 7 EPAha s recommende d a specifi c proces s fo r determinin g BACT . . Th e recommendatio n evolve d fro ma 1986 . nationa l program

audi t tha t identifie d BAC T determination s a s a def i cien t aspec t o f the PS D permitting process , an d a 198 7 EPA PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPAPOLIC Y ** * Jul y-5 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** * 

# * ?P. 8

10 8 permi t appea l decision. 3 8 Th e EPA' B recommende d methodologyfo r •determining &AC T i s .described i n detai l i n th e 199 0 Draf t NS R Worksho p Manual 3 9 an d i s summarize d below . Th e first.ste p i s t o identify , .fo r the emission s uni t i n question , al l "available " contro l options. 4 0 Se e propo'se d sectio n 52.2i(j)(5) . Availabl e contro l option s ar e thos e air
- < f . ' 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 hhave 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 som e . j 3 8 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- 0 (Reman

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

m fro m Craig . Potter , Assistan t Administrato r for.Ai r an d Radiatio n t o EPA . Regiona l Administrators , Region s I-X , Decembe r 1 , 1987 .

. ' ! 3 9 Se e Chapte r B o f EPA' s 199 0 Draf t NS R Worksho p Manua l fo r a mqr e detailed , descriptio n o f EPA' s BAC T determinatio n polieies , including guidanc e addressing th e consideratio n o f energy , environmental. , an

d economi c impacts .

' • i • • ••'''. ' • ' ! *°Th e term

"emission s unit " mayals o represen t a proces s o r a systemtha t migh t collec t emission s fro msevera l discret e piece s o f equipment . PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND ' BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPAPOLIC Y ;! ' *•* * Jul y5 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** * i - ' ' ' • ' - - I • ' • . . •

• • I ' • ' • •-.•'• , i • •
• • I - • - - • ix-
- . ' • ' - - • ' ' •P. 9

• 10 9 ,'•",.- . circumstances , inherentl ylower-polluting processe s ar e apprppriat e fo r consideratio n a s availabl e contro l alternatives . Byproposin g tha t fo r consideratio n i n permit'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 iClearinghous e (Se e Sectio n IV.C) , technologie s identifie d o r required.'i n a regulatorycontex t an d technologie s meeting , minimu m operatin g performanc e requirements . Th e EPApropose s to *

''•-- . 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 e

.!".*' . • • . • • 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 .

... . j In ' th e secon

d step, ' the technica l feasibilit yo f eac h contto l optio n tha t wa s identifie d i n step on e i s evaluate d wit h respeo t t o th e source-specifi c (p r emission s unitTSpecific ) 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 yare .

- • 1 • ' . ' . - » • ' • demonstrate d t o b e technicall yinfeasible . Ademonstratio n of
- •• technica l infeasibilit yshoul d b e clearl ydocumente d an d shoul d

.. . I • ..-', • show ^ base d o n physical , chemical , an d engineering principles, ' that ; technica l difficultie s woul d preclud e the successfu l us e o f ! ' ' th e tontrol-optio n o n the emissions , uni t unde r review .

• • ! • • • ' ! Th e contro l technolog yoption s identified-a s availabl e and technicall yfeasibl e ar e the n ranke d b yoveral l contro l j . . ' • ' • i PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND

- ! BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPAPOLIC Y j ** * Jul y5 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 0

• ' n o 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 stringent' ' alternative,represent s BACT . pending the consideratio n o f th e •.source-specifi c energy , environmental : an d economi c impacts , and .othe r cost s associate d wit heac hcontro l option. , Se e propose d sectio n 5 2 .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 , '.th e BAC T analysi s shoul d focu s o n the direc t impact ' o f th e
' contro l alternative . Co/st , \re ofte n a majo r concern - o f the owne r o r operato r o f .th e propose d sourc e an d shoul d b e included-i n th e analysis . Bot h averag e cos t effectivenes s an d margina l (incremental ) cost . .' . ,.effedtivenes s shoul d b e derive d fo r the contro l = alternative s and considere d i n the . fina l decision. 4 1 i f th e applican t i s disposed.towar d selecting th e to p alternativ e i n th e listing
- a s BACT , irrespectiv e o f cost , the n •th e analysi s need-onl yaddres s generation•o f othe r ai r

4 1 Cos t effectivenes s i s • th e cos t o f contro l divide d by-th 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 hbaseline.controls , (i.e. , eithe r uncontrolle d o r the contro l leve l tha t woul d b e require d in''th e absenc e o f the majo r sourc e requirement s fo r whic hth e source ' 1 ? makirig-application ) . Margina l o r incremental
- cos t i s th e differenc e i n cos t pe r to n o f emission s reduced.a t th e nex t mos t stringen t leve l o f control , whe n comparing two dominan t contro l . optidinB . PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOR.OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPAPOLIC Y. ** * Jul y5 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 1

11 1 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 outstanding issue s tha t woul d justif yselectio n o f an alternativ e contro l option , th e analysi s end s and th e result s ar e propose d as.BACT . I n th e even t tha t th e top candidat 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 , rhe rational e fo r thi s finding i s documente d i f o r th e public , record.
- Se e propose d sectio n 52.2 1 (j ) (5 ) (i) . The n the . nex t mos t stringen t alternativ e i, n the listing become s th e ne wcontro l candidat e and i s similarl yevaluated . Thi s proces s continue s unti l the technolog yunde r consideratio n canno t b e eliminate d b

yan ysource-specifi c environmental , energyor '

- ! . . economi c impact s whic hdemonstrat e tha t alternativ e t o b e i inappropriat e a s BACT . |I n summary , unde r the methodologyjus t described , th e most 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 and

- - I • • . . . emissio n uni t unde r 'review . Th e EPAbelieve s the propose d BAC T 

## i ' ' ' determination , methodologyi s the mos t rigorou s an d reliabl e way o f determining a leve l o f contro l tha t conform s wit hth e

• , - i • ' • • . • ' • statutorydefinitio n o f BAC T an d the cor e criteria . Fo r thi s

i • . • . . • . . . , reaso n th e EPAi s proposing t o codif ythi s methodologyi n th e !•'''•• ' Ctm Federa l NS R regulations . The propose d Federa l regulation s ^5ul d alsp j serv e a s a templat e fo r thos e State s tha t choos e t o PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND i BUDGE T REVIEW * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y i ' ** * Jul y5 , 199 5 [fil e name : Mast«r6.29 ] ** *P.1 2

11 2 incorporat e thi s metho d int o thei r ^t? " J i T " p V ~ T ~*-*>—~g i nf'-irnTj--, ,
• aa d .QftiLuiuL

yI n Lll

U^i_m_fcftiii

_ jprocogQi—EP

Aenamurago o beth 1 app,I H riant c and ' gavicwing agonaic s t mvst. thi s appi«ea.eh » 4. . Additiona l Guidanc e fo r BAC T Determination s jTh e Federa l analytica l methodolog youtline d above- 1 provides . fo r reasone d BAC T determinations , bu t i t doe s no t dictat e a ' particula r result . Althoughthe progressio n o f th e analysi s i s logical , the CAAAC suggeste d tha t mor e detaile d guidanc e addressing ho wth e metho d work s i n real-lif e application s woul d . .

i • . • be.helpful . : Th e CAAAC recommende d tha t the EP Aprovid e guidanc e i n tik e for mo f specifi c example s illustrating (1 ) ho wth e cons:.deration o f energy , environmenta l o r economi c .factor s justifie d -establishin g a les s .stringent contro l technologya s BACT l and (2 ) ho wth e BAC T proces s mayproperl yresul t i n a BAC T determinatio n mor e stringen t tha n initiall ypropose d byth e source . • X' i Th e EP Aagree s tha t th e issuanc e o f guidanc e i n th e for mo f i ' illustrativ e example s woul d improv e understandin g o f EPA' s BAC T

i ' . . . • • determination'process . Therefore , the EPAi s preparin g a.cas e study,report , containing example s o f BAC T determination s properl y employing the EP Amethodology . Th e ^PA' s guidanc e wil l examin e severa l instance s i n whic hles s than th e mos t stringent' . tfechiologiesiwer e determine d t o represen t BACT , and other s wher e

i - - - ' - th e permittin g authorit yimpose d mor e stringen t requirement s tha n j ' • ' ' PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND T BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPAPOLIC Y ! ** * Jul y5 , 199 5 -•-- [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *