p. 1



# OAR Box 1787 Prepped by Ollie Stewart

Document

Number: 

# 34 ) II-B-1 9
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/2008 10:22:19 AM

Sheet 34 of 147P. 2

,^° SU >,

o UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y WASHINGTON , D.C . 2046 0

\ FE B 3 198 9 

# -viJA^ '

WW 

## m 2 \. fc fl- l 

## iO-3>l

ll -0~ /«/

OFFIC E O F AI R AN O RAOIATIO N MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : BAC

T Determinatio nfo r

Davidso nExterio r

Trim/Textro n Joh n S

. Seitz , Directo r K^Jy^fC^ Stationar y Sourc e Compli^a^c e 'Biv i Offic e o f

Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an dStandard s FROM :

TO : Winsto n A

. Smith , Directo r

Air , Pesticide s an dToxic s Management Divisio n Regio nI V O nOctobe r

14 , 198 8 you forwarde dt o thi s divisio nareques t regardin g th e BAC

T determinatio nfo r

th e Davidso nExterio r Trim/Textro n facilit y i nGeorgia

. W e hav e coordinate darespons e t o you r reques t

wit hth e Ne

w Sourc e Revie w Sectio ni nAQMD , th e Chemica l Applicatio nSectio ni nESD , an dth e Ai r Enforcemen t Divisio n i nOECM

. Th e followin g response s t o you r question s ar e provided : 1

. Doe s Davidso nExterio r presen t

"uniqu e an dconvincing " argument s whic hwoul djustif y eliminatio no f add-o nspra y boot hand/o r

ove r control s a s BACT

? Whil e Davidso nha s supplie ddat ao nth e contro l cost , cos t effectiveness , an dpercen t increas e i nth e cos t pe r uni t o f product , the y hav e no t presente da nargumen t a s t o wh y th e contro l cos t

i s unreasonable

. I t als o appear s tha t ther e ar e contro l alternative s availabl e whic hDavidso nha s no t explore d(se e respons e t o questio n2 & 3 below)

. Therefore , w

e agre e tha t

Davidso nExterio r

ha s faile dt o mak e acas e fo r

rejectin g a s BAC

T th e add-o ncontrol s i n question

. 2

. Ar e ther e othe r

fasci aplant s whic hhav e bee nrequire dt o instal l bot hspra y boot han dove ncontrols ? W e kno w o f n o othe r

fasci aplant s whic hhav e bee nrequire d t o instal l bot hspra y boot han dove n controls

. Th e Genera lP. 3

- 2 - Motor s part s plan t

i nOshawa , Ontario , Canad aha s recentl y installe da nexhaus t ai r recirculatio nan dVO C contro l (incineration ) syste mo nth e clea r coa t portio no f

th e fasci aspra y booths

. 3

. Ha s EP

A establishe dspra y boot hand/o r ove ncontrol s a s BAC T a t fasci apaintin g operations ? Bake ove nexhaus t

control s hav e bee nrequire di nsevera l 3ACT/IAE

Rperm i t s fo r

fasci apaintin g (Subaru-Isuzu , DuPont , Saturn , etc.)

. Spra y boot hexhaus t control s hav e no t

bee n require di nBACT/LAE Rperm i t s fo r

fasci apainting

. Th e number o f controlle dspra y booth s i s growin g (e.g.,

. automobiles, , aerospace , meta l parts) , an dth e cos t o f contro l i s becomin g lowe r wit hexperienc e an dth e developmen t an ddemonstratio no f ne w technologie s (e.g. , recirculation , contro l equipmen t fo r lo w VO C concentratio nexhaus t streams)

. Spra y boot hexhaus t controls , therefore , mus t receiv e seriou s consideratio n i n curren t an dfutur e permittin g of fasci apaintin g operations

. 4

. Were th e ove n control s installe do nth e fasci aoperation s a t th e Subaru/lsuz u facility , locate di nLafayette , Indiana , th e resul t o f aBAC T evaluatio no r

necessitate dfo r

som e othe r reason ? Th e bak e ove n exhaus t control s a t

Subaru-Isuz u wer e par t o f th e BAC T demonstration

. 5

. I f th e argument s presente db y Davidso nExterio r

d o no t constitut e a"uniqu e an dconvincing " basi s fo r rejectio no f controls , wha t

woul dEP

A conside r

t o b e vali dcriteri afo r rejectio nof

th e controls ? Thre e criteri awhic hshoul db e aske dwhe nreviewin g permit s i n whic hmor

e stringen t

level s o f

contro l hav e bee nrejecte d a s BAC T ar e discusse dbelow : i ) I f

anothe r

simila r

sourc e ha s adopte dcertai nemissio n controls , wh

y can' t thi s applicant ? Wher e similia r

unit s hav e adopte daparticula r leve l o f

emissio n contro l o r contro l technology , th e applican t shoul djustif y o ntechnical , environmental , o r

economi c groun dwh

y the y canno t

als o adop t tha t particula r

contro l syste mo r

otherwis e meet

tha t leve l o f control

. Thi s analysi s shoul dfocu s o nth e difference s (i f any ) betwee nth e tw o source s (e.g. , difference s i nra w materia l cost s o r

contro l costs)

.P. 4

- 3 - i i ) Wh

y i s th e economi c impac t o f aleve l o f

contro l unreasonable ? Wher e apermi t applican t

claim s tha t

emissio n contro l cost s ar e unreasonable , th e burde no f showin g wh

y th e cos t ar e unreasonabl e i s o n th e applicant

. Som e possibl e parameter s fo r judgin g th e reasonablenes s of a contro l leve l coul db e th e percen t o f th e tota l cos t

o f a constructio no r

modificatio nproject , cos t effectivenes s ( $ pe r ton) , o r

percen t

cos t increas e pe r

uni t o f product

. Again , othe r

simila r

source s tha t

hav e adopte daparticula r leve l of contro l ma

y provid e ausefu l benchmark agains t

whic h t o compar e th e claime deconomi c impac t o f emissio ncontrols

. However , contro l cos t dat aan dcos t

effectivenes s calculation s • likel y d o not , standin g alone , provid e aconvincin g argumen t agains t adoptin g apotentia l BAC T level

. Fo r

example , simpl y statin g tha t

i t i s infeasibl e t o meet aparticula r

cos t pe r to no f pollutan t

controlle di s no t

adequate ; th e reaso n mus t

b e explicit y explaine dt o EPA, th e permittin g agency , an dth e public

. Th e applican t shoul dloc k

a t thi s cos t i nterm s of

typica l contro l cos t fo r othe r source s o f thi s pollutant

. Th e cost s of contro l fo r

simila r

source s i s addresse di n# i above

. iii ) Base do nth e reviewer' s experienc e i nreviewin g contro l cos t estimate s an dcos t

effectivenes s calculation s fo r a particula r

pollutan t

an dsourc e category , d o th e cos t dat a provide db y th e applican t see mcredible ? I nothe r words , ar e th e cos t

estimate s withi nth e rang e o f cost s you woul d expec t t o se e fo r

tha t particula r

typ e o f

sourc e o r

pollutant ? I f acos t o r cos t effectivenes s estimat e strike s yo u a s bein g to o high , yo

u shoul das k

th e applican t

t o explai nwh

y thei r emissio n contro l cost s woul db e highe r tha nthos e documente d fo r asimila r

source . 6
. Woul dHeadquarter' s suppor t a§16 7 order , issue db y Regio n IV , i f i t i s determine dtha t

Davidso nExterio r

ha s no t installe do r

propose dt o instal l BACT ? Consisten t

wit hth e Jul y 15 , 198 8 guidanc e o nprocedure s t o follo w whe

n EP A find s aDeficien t

Ne w Sourc e Permit , adeficien t BAC T analysi s i s caus e fo r expeditiou s (withi n3 0 day s o f permi t receipt ) issuanc e o f a§16 7 orde r

i nSIP-approve dprograms . However , th e ultiirat e decisio nvfoethe r t o procee dwit henforcemen t actio ni nthi s o r

any othe r

cas e depends , i nlarg e part , upo n a l l th e specific s o

f th e particula r

cases . Thes e include , among other s :P. 5

- 4 - 1 ) Th e "tim e an dmanne r i n whic hEP

A ha s informe dth e applican t

an dth e permittin g authorit y o f allege d defect s i n th e permit , an do f th e consequence s o f a failur e t o correc t

thos e defects

. 2 ) Th e amoun t

o f tim e betwee n permi t issuanc e an dth e commencemen t

o f enforcemen t

action

. 3 ) Whethe r

th e applican t

ha s entere dint o constructio n contracts , begu n actua l construction , o r otherwis e acte di n relianc e o n th e State-issue dpermit

. 4 ) Plus. , fo r

SI Papprove dStates , ..th e conten t o f th e Stat e regulation s an drelevan t Federa l Registe r notices

. I apologiz e fo r

th e dela y i n providin g thi s response . I f yo u hav e an y questions , pleas e contac t Gar y McCutche n i n AQM D (FTS-629-5592 ) regardin g response s # 1 & 5 , Dav e Salma n i n ESD (FTS-629-5417 ) regardin g response s #2-4 , an dSall y Farrel l o f m y staf f (FTS-382-2875 ) regardin g respons e #6

. c c : Wayn e Aronson , Regio n I V Mar k Armentrout , Regio n I V Gar y McCutchen , AQM D Sa mDuletsky , AQM

D Ji mBerry , ESD Dav e Salman , ES

D Jud y Katz , OEC

M NS RContacts , Regio n I- X Gre g Foote , OG

C