P. 1


# OAR Box 1790 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 212 ) ll-F- 1 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/200812:43:16

PM Sheet 212 of 250P. 2
UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y Offic e ofAi rQualityPlannin g an d Standard s Research Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 ! 

## VPS*? AP R- 4\zz*\\ 

## Jf-f't

Mr . Jame s B . MacRae , Jr . Actin g Administrato r Offic e o f Managemen t and Budge t Ne wExecutiv e Offic e Buildin g Roo m323 6 Washington , D.C . 2050 3 Dea r Mr . MacRae : A t th e Marc h7 , 199 1 meetin g o n th e Wisconsi n Electri c Powe r Compan y(WEPCO ) Interpretativ e Rule , th e conten t an d timin g o f a notic e an d commen t rulemakin g o n bes t availabl e contro l technolog ywa s discussed . I t wa s agree d tha t th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA ) wa s t o prepar e fo r revie wa n outlin e o f suc ha rulemaking . I n response , mystaf f hav e prepare d th e enclose d draft .
: , Pleas e not e tha t thi s draf t materia l ha s no t be,..3 > reviewe d byEPA' s senio r management .

Enclof-c. . •c : R . Grad y Ri-'cnmalens; : A'ii' D . GioXon s B . Gra y r ' TC Z I . r -nt. r T . G<

- m• TC inbpecnt
. J . Cher

rear i. ;Imste d D . \ir>t t , , • r• rr ;• ri: r> ' - ^ ?r



### - ' zJU^jUT'Llfi. Liu , 'JAN25 IT3 5 

# l! l EBW.r ir:cc;n rP. 3

STAF F DRAF T D O NOT CIT E ORQUOT E
AGENCY : ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENC Y(EPA ) ACTION : PROPOSE D RUL E SUMMARY : T o improv e th e effectivenes s o f th e preventio n o f significan t ai r qualit ydeterioratio n programrequire d b y Titl e I , Par t C o f th e Clean Ai r Ac t (Act) , EPApropose s todayt o amend it s rule s t o clarif yth e regulatorydefinitio n o f bes t availabl e contro l technology(BACT ) b yadding languag e tha t elucidate s th e lega l requirement s fo r a BAC T analysis . Th e ne w languag e specifie s tha t a BAC T analysi s mus t contai n th e following tw o cor e requirements : 1 ) th e availabl e contro l system s fo r th e <?curce mus t b e considere d i n th e determination , including ".hof. c ' . ~ -.rovJ.*. th e maximu mdegre e o i emission s tedv c an / 2 ) Selectio n ~>

f a contro l .• o f e r ' ..on

s rpductio n nus * >t . . . . _ rational e i n —rm r o f t hata t ,r" r tir -
- j ^ord , fo r ^ jC ctin qth- <_-:v-- :

. . . ..- uc»gre e o f con fc
. I n d'*' •'tion , EPAprcpos * . t c 8' » v t o e__ec ; th

e -hang e mac " •

• '* y& .-unendment s o f

±^-,<J r Xs--:atu- ' . . . _ . Zhe _;P Ai s .sitin g ' ,1 ; t o th ei?;.'uiator y-'fin___or
. o f DATE S -oiruutsnt s n. yb esubi..^. u tfc , o r befor e r 3 0day s iro mam- o fP. 4

ril< y ' i :'' • r H STAF F DRAF T D ONO T CIT E O RQUOT E ADDRESSES : Comment s o n thi s proposa l shoul db e sen t to : FO RFURTHE RINFORMATIO NCONTACT : SUPPLEMENTAR YINFORMATIO N I . Backgroun d Majo r stationar ysource s an d majo r modification s ar e subjec t t o th e preventio no f significan t deterioratio n(PSD ) revie w requirement s o f th e Act . Acovere dfacilit yma yno t b e constructe dwithou t a permi t tha t meet s th e requirement s o f § 16 5 o f th e Act . Th e curren t PS D progra mi s represen t b ytw o set s o f regulations . Th e firs t se t o f regulations , 4 0 CF R51.166 , specifie s th e minimu m requirement s tha t a PS D ai r dualit ypermi t progra munde r Par t C o f th e Ac t • Ts t cont r ,. i i n c>'-.:.'

t." - cbtr.ii ' approva l b yEP Aa s a revisio nt . (SIP) . Th e secon dset , 4 . CF R5 permi t program , whic hcurrentl y State s tha t hav e no t submitte d. . requirement s o f 4 0 CF R51.166 . -•g : ~ . .••-;..-th'XcK . • . • . . -ts £ ar e implementin g thei r ow n PS D "*• Ah--": h... r..-.;-r > i .'•'.:•• ' >

• .EP Aunde r 4 0 CF R51.166 . .Th e 4- ' :".". " . • d. t.r v

- ' -•' -J' remainin g Staces , mos t o f whic h.'.•..- • .< • c-... ~A V." 1 ''. : * . t o implemen t th e Federa l PS D p r .- \ rr , '•-.. • -.TV! X requirements, , th e facilit ymus t •'.;•; . ' . • 4 0 CF R52.21(j ) (Federa l rev/ula

- x-X X (regulation s nettin g fort hth e . .X. - impie3aentatio nplt n(SJ'- ) app v '0 \ • . i X•»...... ' t v Sta ' :t

, c;.le)Tif..7 J

. 2 1 ,... . • .*•.-. 'ii.'... 3 - , " "li e• 3;, i .•>:.:-* • " i

• i i• , , 'Z-'p:T

7 '<< ? • . , .' " -\q. ~.AC.I

-t h• ' .(.A:, 'Xi•

1 7 •:•:

•i'i ?P. 5

STAFF DRAF T D O NO T CIT E O RQUOT E 4 0 CF RPar t 52 , Subpar t A- Subpar t FF F (variou s SI P requirements)]. 1 Emission s limitation s reflecting th e applicatio n o f BAC T mus t b e se t fort hi n th e PS D permi t § 165(a)(1) . T o obtai n a PS D permit , an applican t must , among othe r requirements , conduc t an analysi s i n accordanc e wit hEPAregulation s t o ensur e th e applicatio n o f th e BAC T t o eac hne wo r modifie d emission s uni t [Ac t § 165(a)(2 , 4)] . Th e require d analysi s mus t addres s "the degre e o f continuou s emission s reductio n whic hcoul d b e achieve d b ysuc hfacility, " § 165(e)(3)(B ) [see , e.g. , 4 0 CF R52.21(n)(l)(3)] . Th e term"bes t availabl e contro l technology " i s define d i n th e Ac t as :

a n emission s limitatio n base d o n t ' reductio n o f eac hpollutan t - ^ Ljeu th e Clea n Ai r Ac t emitce d f

- • ' or. an ymajo r emitting facxlit ' authority , o n a case-bv-c " energy , environmental , an' . costs , determine s i s 2hi e . * . throughapplicatio n o . pro - < y availabl e method t . sy.vrrem F ^ • fue l cleaning , ciaan • elf

fue l COILbus t iontechi . ;uei
_ polluta;.- . i n n o ••vex XfX aval ] a t contro

__ec , oi o an ypo l itant s whir

X, •1 1 e '- van yapplicabl e st . ard .:tio n ""1 1 or 7 41 2 ,. . th sourc e "rtilizi i clean c u oompl v' : .t

hthi s parage aj: increass

- ^bove level s *Ta' "in d T '. : paragrapha s i t o f .~.i e Cist,..: Ai r Ac t Amen c maximu mox roqul f :7.su: . ;A7 ' T -ii. % • re e o f

•- - une 1 ^ --,

l-t t1 Unde r th e riea n Ai r Ac t Am- " circumstance s BAC T i s als o a re unde r Par t D c f th e Act .P. 6

STAF F DRAF T D O NO T CIT E O RQUOT E [Th e CAA§ 169(3) , a s amende d b y§ 403(d ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act s Amendment s o f 1990] . Durin g eac hBAC T analysis , whic hi s don e o n a case-by-cas e basis , th e reviewin g authorit yevaluate s th e energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s an d othe r cost s associate d wit heac havailabl e contro l technology . Th e reviewin g authorit y the n specifie s a n emission s limitatio n fo r th e sourc e tha t reflect s th e maximu mdegre e o f reductio n achievabl e fo r eac h pollutan t regulate d unde r th e Act , considerin g th e factor s enumerate d i n th e definitio n quote d above . I n n o even t ma ya technolog yb e selecte d tha t woul d no t mee t anyapplicabl e standar d o f performanc e unde r 4 0 CF RPart s 6 0 (ne wsourc e performanc e standards ) o r 6 1 (nationa l emissio n standard s fo r hazardou s ai r pollutants) . I n addition , i f th e reviewin g authorit ydetermine s that : ther e i s n o economically-reasonabl e o r te-"Knologically-fea,,. X wa yt o accuratel ymeasur e th e emis^.'^'is , ar:2 henc e t o imp°i . • enforceabl e emission s standar d i i ; vrequir e th e sour o . < ,- e design , alternativ e equipment , wei.; . . &-.Tic : . . or oper ; 'Ai.oiA' standard s t o reduc e emission s r '•'• t.^ e > c ...•„ . tcth e ;•'. • ..•..'.< . exten t [4 0 CF R5 2 .21(b ) (12 ) ; 4 GC X'...' . . (^)(12>; X

. I n Januar y1979 , EP Aissu < - *x . XUanc a fo r Dete*- ^ inX.tr unde r PSD, " an d i n Octobe r 198 f ;.. . vA < ' J;.Z Wor} ' . ,. : ' (EP A450/2-80-081) . Thes e docu.^e ' ..- . f.cuX-i ; • mapr - • (. "

2 F- r exanple , i f a coa l s t -;.. . . :•:!(< -•. -"..a. . ••'" • atmosphere , i t woul d mak e ..itt " ' iii-.s:. A- • • • "•<:..•-•. * •/.<-. .•^.'.'•.•i," ^ standard , sinc e measurin g th e . -TAAI- r- '• :.. - . ? Xi/. . o i « ' pil e ma yb e nearl yimpossible , Am^2 &-,?<„ ...'.re.ict >..j . • w.' - controllin g emission s is , fo r eT«-;.VL - rv^..Z.:- » . - tbe

- "-..-7-7-zti

th e coa l pil e periodicall yo r t •'-..X . i! / "•'•:...„?. 'Jo f operationa l standar d o r wor k j;.Ji.' "i••oiii

d ' - :-,X. . a n emission s limitatio n fo r th e p u r . jx." . _ • o f ih e <'.••' ' reqi'X..•.'•. • i. 'P. 7

STAFF DRAF T D ONO T CIT E O

RQUOT E BAC T analysi s i n whic hth e applican t wa s t o propos e a bas e cas e a s BACT , presen t mor e stringen t contro l alternatives , an d defend ' it s BAC T selectio n "demonstrating tha t eac halternativ e contro l system.. . woul d caus e unreasonabl e advers e energy , environmental , o r economi c impacts " (se e "Guidanc e fo r Determining BAC T unde r PSD, " January4 , 1979 , a t 5-6) . I n Jun e 1986 , EPAestablishe d a Ne wSourc e Revie wTas k Forc e t o addres s growing concern s abou t th e effectivenes s o f th e ne w sourc e revie w(NSR ) program s i n meetin g th e statutory requirements , an

d t o recommend action s t o improv e EPA' s exercis e o f it s oversigh t an d enforcemen t responsibilitie s i n implementing th e NS Rprogram . Th e Tas k Forc e found , base d o n a comprehensiv e revie wo f numerou s PS D permit s issue d during th e previou s severa l years , tha t PS D applicant s an d State s frequentl ywer e conducting inadequat e BAC T determination s using th e metho d outline d i n th e 197. 9 guidanc e an

d th e 198 0 worksh^' ' manual . I n nuinu . ou s instances , applicant s woul d propos e a ^ * • ic:-'

- . ' Xt./^ioi . at < • nea r an applicabl e newsourc e p e "T U..c t T-.:- : ">S ) ur-.di § il l o f th e Ac t a s th e bas e ca s anc1 o r ..xJ.-yj••'•• consideratio n o f th e mor e stringeuv . r— •<•• ' settling o n th e propose d leve l in. ."• ' . v.- . .<, accep t thes e determination s wit hX u >r x'bn t analysis , thereb

yfailing t o ful *'h•>-*• s- ->-;«- • - • th e Act . Th e Tas k Forc e po i :e d . .-T

-J. I - . .a, v:

c problemo t inadeguat e BAC T a aly s 'Cv . • 4 "iproviag implementatio n o f h e « . Jii " . . . practic e a s wel l a s i n th^o r • , t -a.. . ; • b e .. ...filled . Th e othe r op - .o n wr - A approac ht o th e BAC T analyse s ir :•--> . t

interna l dynamic s would , i n pra c . . .. u , a c implementatio n o f th e BAC T requir ' • =nt. - . . ••J.vir "< .P. 8

. w:«.^---STAFF DRAF T D O NO T CIT E O RQUOT E Sourc e Revie wTas k Forc e Report, " Fina l Draft , Decembe r 1986 , a t 25-28] . I nth e meantime , i n a n adjudicativ e decisio no n appea l o f a PS D permi t fo r a municipa l wast e combusto r (MWC) , th e Administrato r hel dtha t a PS D applican t ha s th e "burde no f demonstratin g tha t significan t technica l defects , o r substantia l loca l economic , energy , o r environmenta l factor s o r othe r cost s warran t a contro l technolog yles s efficien t tha n[th e mos t stringen t technolog yavailable]. " Honolul uResourc e Recover y Facilit y("H-Power") , PS D Appea l No . 86-8 , a t 7 (Reman dOrder , Jun e 22 , 1987) . Shortl ythereafter , EP Aissue dguidanc e callin g fo r applicatio no f th e H-Powe r holdin g t o al l BAC T determination s fo r MWC s ["Operationa l Guidanc e o n Contro l Technolog yfo r Ne w an dModifie dMunicipa l Wast e Combustors, " Jun e 26 , 1987] . I nligh t o f thes e events , EP Ade c ^ dtha t a s a i.i . Agenc ypolic yi t woul dadop t wha t ha : p.et o b e fcnowr !"•>]» down " BAC T metho dfo r al l categorie , o S D sourctj . I* . - th e top-dow nproces s provide s tha t c _ . .-Tillabl e cont . • technologie s b e ranke di n descendin g < O T cnnt'• effectiveness . Th e PS D applican t i X• "ine i f stringent—o r "top"—alternative . ' ' _• „ mat..'" • . ; establishe d a s BAC T unles s the . apt>l:'.- : 'le--.or... : i ;• permittin g authorit yi n it s informf c . -.-A. <_• . . : technica l considerations , o r energy . .re.•.;,.- . X X impact s o r othe r costs , justif ya • • L<. nT stringen t technolog yi s no t ''ach ; '•;• • ' .35&

_stringen t technolog yi s eliiM.i:.

- X . >.;.. . . x ^ nex t mos t stringen t alternativ e j. t :re-' ' ar X••.-"* I na Decembe r 1 , 198 7 memo r " ' • Hea r • • •• • i it s Regiona J office s t o us e a to - -cx> . Xso i . A ' r < •P. 9

STAF F DRAF T D ONO T CIT E O

RQUOT E determinations , an d t o strongl yencourag e stat e an d loca l PS D permittin g authoritie s t o d o s o a s wel l [se e Decembe r 1 , 198 7 memorandu

mfromCrai g Potter , Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an d Radiation , entitle d "Improving Ne wSourc e Review"] . Th e memorandu

mfurthe r directe d Regiona l Office s t o conduc t timel y review s o f PS D applications , an d t o commen t adversel yo n propose d PS D permit s tha t faile d t o adequatel yconside r th e mor e stringen t contro l options , a s woul d b e require d a s a matte r o f cours e i n an yacceptabl e metho d o f determinin g BACT . I f fina l Stat e an d loca l permit s stil l faile d t o reflec t adequat e consideratio n o f th e relevan t BAC T factors , th e Region s wer e t o conside r suc h permit s deficient ; an d wer e t o conside r appropriat e enforcemen t actio n unde r § § 11 3 an d 16 7 (i n th e cas e o f State-issue d permits ) o r appeal s t o th e Administrato r unde r 4 0 CFR124.1 9 (i n th e cas e o f Federa l permits ) t o remed ysuc hdeficiencies . A n additiona l poin t relate d t o th e top-dow n proces s i s tha t i t should , i n practice , lesse n administrativ e burd : ~-n « i n the con

e determination s becaus e i t doe. * ; contro l alternative s tha t ar e mor t othe r bas e case , a s woul d b e reqi X I n th e spring o f . °90 , EP Amad e . docume r , entitle d '""cp-dow n E . Guidanc e Document . uet a .lin g t i f
I n calling fo

r us e o f th e \. o chang e th e existing T regulat""-• ' leauirement s fo r an ysource . 1. . statute , Ji. regulation s an d '. ' to'.-dow n approac hdimpl yc..ari3._ < ou t th e existing statutoryan d ~ t o assur e tha t theywoul d b e fv_ . i nth econd i 

### aful l ••l<72T.t tha i r.a thi. • 1 et o'

i3 c' '^l eCcn.'.ri'.
. 3 AC . »-•- '

m p ? 06.C;. ,

• »•'•' • ;

:-
,

$ •

„ o f BA C J. S o f

-

• - . . - . % -.P.1 0

, ''f"T^'f , ^ r

x r ?*rt^F^^''T^ ir *" ' T T * '

m,. . • ... . , ..-• . •«#•:,. ' ; •:. • •• ---^SiTAFF- f DRAF T D O NO T CIT E O RQUOT E O nMarc h29 , 198 9 (supplemente do n Ma y3 an d 10 , 1989) , th e America nPape r Institut e an d th e Nationa l Fores t Product s Associatio n(collectivel y"API" ) petitione dEP At o rescin dth e top-dow npolic yan d initiat e a rulemakin g o n BAC T determinations . T h e EP Adenie dthi s reques t o n Ma y12 , 198 9 (supplemente do n Jun e 13 , 1989) , explainin g tha t th e top-dow napproac hwa s no t a t varianc e with , no r a revisio nof , th e PS D regulations , an d tha t n o rulemakin g wa s required . Subsequently , AP I file dsui t i n th e D.C . Circui t an d i n th e U.S . Distric t Cour t fo r D.C . AP I v . Reillv . D.C . Cir . No . 89-142 8 (file d7/10/89) ; A P I v . Reilly . D.D.C . Cir . No . 89-203 0 (file d7/18/89) . A consortiu m

o f utilitie s als o file da petitio nfo r revie wo f EPA' s actions , Alabam a Powe r Co . v . EPA . D.C . Cir . No . 89-142 9 (file d 7/11/89) , an d th e cas e wa s consolidate dwit hth e AP I case . Th e sam e consortiu mfile da n administrativ e petitio nwit hEP Ao n Februar y1 , 1990 . Finally , AP I als o challenge dtn e .199 0 EP/ . draf t guidanc e documen t o n top-dow nBACT , AP I v . Rejll vD.L> . N o . 90-136 4 (filed . 7/13/90). . Settlemen t negotiation s ~ rrently are . underwa yregardin g thes e ca s . . Th e EPhhas. decide di •• c matte r o f polic yt o conduc t thi s ivr^p^pe drulen.^-int ; t o facilitat e greate r publi c parti c ]~>:n..:i.c• . . ' / isr.-iin g -;••••-:•• X v notwithstandin g EPA' s positio ntha t i t 1 T•.;*:>•.. leg*..'. / i ^AAA A t- o d o so . I I . Lega l Requiremen t - • r, TT" • ...xysis " • I nadoptin g th e PS D progra i , . Conr-^--;

- . .'T'v-.aizc-:.. • 3 : importanc e o f thoroug han d rubli

- ; ? Z'\<- ' r ..•

. •O'i'ior , b ystatin g tha t uneo f th e purp c • --. f&jAA CL^A\T • th#/ : decisio nt o permi t increase dai i •••-zr v.ticj: >, . JAA i.v

. ev* . ' h x :.;•; ' "••.•*

. • thi s sectio napplie s i s mad . onl \ rx. i.-.. < -n- .,, . ''aluav, . A> .T •; • Z.\ th e consequence s o f suc ha decisio nand ' ;•. . J : ..'.^v'

- • opportunitie s fo r informe dpubli c part i ri.pavx --0 2 %}:• '-A 'AZ

•• , •!'.•. JC? Xt,. :.. .P.1 1

STAFF DRAF T D ONO T CIT E O

RQUOT E makin g process . A s note d above , § 16 5 specifies , an d EPA regulation s reflect , th e requiremen t t o conduc t a BAC T analysis . Th e statutoryemphasi s o n procedura l rigo r i s accompanie d b y expression s o f congressiona l inten t tha t State s hav e wid e discretio n i n setting fina l emission s limit s reflectin g BACT . Th e legislativ e historyo n BAC T make s clea r tha t Congres s mean t th e Stat e t o mak e th e fina l substantiv e decisio n o n th e appropriat e leve l o f technology . Th e ke ypassage s o f th e Senat e repor t sho wtha t th e Stat e ha s broa d flexibilit yt o exercis e it s judgmen t i n implementing BACT . Th e repor t states :

Th e decisio n regarding th e actua l implementatio n o f bes t availabl e contro l technologyi s a keyone , an d th e committe e place s thi s responsibilit ywit hth e State , t o b e determine d i n a case-by-cas e judgement . I t i s t o b e recognize d tha t th e phras e ha s broa d £2 exibilit yi n ho wi t shoul d an d ca n L e interpre 1

- dependin g o n site . I n making thi s keyde . ' o- < . .& •"

' X* • ~ b e use d th e Stat e i s t o taK env 4 • onmenta" * , en ecomm i th- * applicatio n o i bes t aval . T;. i weigh t a igned "ucb- --\c_ v

,v

- yth e ~ate . Suc ha ex._. adoptio n o f 'mpro

vi

r widesprea d fa

r iuoi . j.&
_ T uniformFedera l tar___u . ( [ S Rep . No . 95- ? 17 , 95t hoor.g. , : added). ] r A. ' t o •-y- .. UT):

> •*\e r• _£ £'

•" •^Wt o D^C " ' _tr
_

-P.1 2 -"wwiFWMW—*—*""* ' ! w . I "

STAFF DRAF T

. D ONOT CIT E O

RQUOT E A t th e same time , th e Senat e Repor t place s limit s o n Stat e discretio n i n two respects . First , i t i s clea r tha t Congres s intende d on e o f th e advantage s o f Stat e flexibilit yt o b e t o spee d u p th e adoptio n o f advance s i n contro l technology. 3 Second , i t i s als o clea r tha t i n adopting BACT , Congres s intende d PS D permitting authoritie s t o exercis e informe d discretio n t o weig henergy , environmental , an d economi c impact s i n determining BAC T fo r a particula r source . Thes e statutorygoal s can b e fulfille d b ymor e tha n on e metho d o f determining BACT . Regardles s o f th e specifi c methodologyuse d fo r determining BACT , b e i t top-down , th e metho d embodie d i n th e 197 9 guidance , o r otherwise , EPAha s consistentl y interprete d th e relevan t Ac t provision s a s embodying tw o cor e lega l criteri a tha t mus t b e satisfie d i n an yBAC T analysis . First , th e permi t applican t mus t conside r availabl e contro l technologies , i.e. , thos e tha t "provid e th e maximu mue^re e o f emission s reduction. " Whethe r a technolog yi s "available " ' V purpose s o f BAC T i s a practical , ff~tua 3 detei n ' ••<*tio.n , conventiona l notion s o f whethe r th e technolog yca r '^ e pu v use . See ' 1 ^nnsauke n County . Nev * / ' :rs yK.....:^..,"c

e Recov i "7 Facility . PS D Appea l No . 88- 8 (Reman d Or rV 'r ; Nov . 1 0 I ! • • ••• • . Eac htyp e o f availabl e contrr " electrostati c precipitator , a dr ^ f carbo n absorber ) o r combinatio n o :

3 [Se e ?ls o statemen t o f Sen.-"'
- (Jun e 8 , 1^77)] . Thi s construct s i n late r PS D appea l < ? ;cisioni3 , [

. rse yResourc e RecoveryFacilit y Order , Nov . 10 , ^ ^P)] . I n thes e - interprete d the BAC T definitio n a s

. . . -lonst.

- . e t o th e permitting aa . • ontro l technolog

y"available " w. -

- TAX :\j). . , ..r e

MUS K

VArOy

' • • ' .' . (e.g. , c

, a \vim. i-Cr. .. iKv-'tem s sx

v
•infoice di

• >.t'.' 'th e "T

.iri
. i '. A Ax

- ..ct

. . ' S'C; . • • • i

. >

' .-*»1, " LTt..;.

- 3 n.y.'TSTAF F DRAF T D O NO T CIT E ORQUOT E analyze d a t th e maximu m leve l o f contro l achievabl e fo r th e contro l system

o r combinatio n o f contro l system s a s i t woul d b e applie d a t th e propose d facilit yi n question . Majo r alternative s withi n a give n typ e o f contro l systemshoul d als o b e considere d (e.g. , electrostati c precipitator s tha t can achiev e 96% , 98% , an d 99.5 % contro l efficiency , respectively) . However , analyse s o f numerou s mino r variation s i n contro l system s o r combination s thereo f i s no t required . Second , an ydecisio n t o requir e les s tha n th e maximu

mdegre e o f emission s reductio n mus t b e justifie d b ya reasone d analysi s o f "energy , environmenta l an d economi c impact s an

d othe r costs " containe d i n th e record , an d th e permittin g authorit ymus t exercis e it s informe d judgmen t befor e acceptin g tha t justification . Thes e tw o cor e criteri a hav e bee n single d ou t i n th e administrativ e appeal s decision s subsequen t t o the K-Powe r decisio n a s being th e essencia l re , rr " •*.. f a BA'" " ana. ' T hj n Unio n count yRe r 'rce Recove r _, ' X__ y< ' " No . 90- i /28/90 ) a t th e Admin . •-...-v> r c.ted comp X.;

c withe tw o cor e crite i . . i n rt ph-\d:: ••T, n . s. L>~a resourc e recoveryfacility . = i'h < * on • r~- tw o cor e criteri a . A i-^noldi^qa .n....u.- oe 1 x^ i Mecklenbur g Cogeneratic . "mite c . ^ „ .3k_s ; •" " PS D Appea l No . 90- 7 (12/ ? /9 r ) a i ;: • . Althr ;g

h£PAbe]'°ve s t uv regulatorydefinition s o f BA ' • • consideratio n o r thes e twu e . . C-T , ade<>u

a t e EAC T de*—>rminct:.c . uhe ... . ' ' 2.72 f t h.2.3 remen t explicx t .j yin s " . X.; ; definitio n o f BAC T th . - follow 1 n u .n-• analysis :P. M ifmf»-4«rn'

mri

•'•'. K• »• v f STAFF DRAF

T D O NO T CIT E O RQUOT E 7 X V .T " ; 1 ) th e availabl e contro l system s fo r th e sourc e mus t b e considere di n th e determination , includin g thos e tha t provid e th e maximu mdegre e o f emission s reduction , an d 2 ) Selectio no f a contro l syste mprovidin g a lesse r degre e o f emission s reductio nmus t b e justifie dbya rationale , documente di n term s o f th e statutor ycriteri a an d supporte dby th e record , fo r rejectin g thos e contro l system(s ) providin g a greate r degre e o f control .

III . Purpos e o f th e Propose dChang e T o date , th e 197 9 an d top-dow napproac hhav e onl ybee n considere da s guidanc e byEP Ain.conductin g a n appropriat e BAC T analysi s base do n th e definitio no f BAC T i n th e Ac t an d i n EPA' s regulations . The yhav e no t establishe dbindin g regulator y requirements . Suc hrequirement s ac e containe di n th e Federa l regulation s an d SIP's . Instead , EPA' s 2&CT guidance

- ^.> i
... T '. . .CYH' I t o guid e p vrmittin g official s i n •Xvs e arps r 3 „>je<3- . .. . Federa l PS D regulation s a t 4 0 CF ! :'.;•:.:::> . Rathe r tha nspecifyin g a pre - .««? ; x-P ? ' '• " ' • • • • • "• • analysis , an< ; evaluatin g th e adeu

- X'•'• ' - i"A'A\ •X. . .3 ' • " .-' : agains t tha t approach , EP Ai s pro. > .-Si i ; . X;J>•;.•. . X - •.',.;• . • • o cor e lega l requirement s necessar y- r . ..-;.. .27. '• Thus , adherenc e t o a top-dow n a\ - :.'-c. . . z-vi2 cA'KA reviewin g ne wo r revise dStat e Pi ? /••. < .. . •y. , .i-. \ ?...-? -A • approval , th e Agenc ywil l dee mtl . •/ , ' • bf

- IT'•. . X provide s fo r com j '"ianc e wit hthe . - • • • • \ •-.-•.- . t : * 7 ' a nadeguat e BAC T analysis . Like'- . •-• • <' 1 XJ. '; ; • I

is t - >*•;• 7 - • ; Zfz• an denforcemen t responsibilities , 7.-A '..,:• • v» I - . v ' - u X*tu . polic yo f reviewin g specifi c pe r ' «.' " iv ' "-' r •>'•-• • >

• '•- - * "*''• -"' i wit hth e cor e criteria . S o Ion ; '- ' "-..., • '.ire . ..X .STAF F DRAF T D ONO T CIT E O RQUOT E procedura l norm s embodie di nth e cor e criteri a an ddoe s no t violat e an yobjectiv e standard s tha t ma yappl y(suc ha s NSP S o r SI P limits) , EP Awil l conside r a State' s BAC T analysi s t o b e adequat e an dwil l no t second-gues s th e State' s substantiv e BAC T decision . Conversely , permit s containin g BAC T determination s tha t d o no t confor mt o th e PS D requirement s o f th e Act , EP A regulations , an dapplicabl e SIP's , a s reflecte di nth e cor e criteria , wil l b e considere ddeficien t b yEPA . Instance s o f procedura l irregularitie s p r arbitrar ydecisionmakin g wil l remai n ground s fo r enforcemen t actio no r permi t appeals , a s appropriate . Th e EP Ai s toda ysolicitin g commen t o nth e propose dchang e t o th e BAC T definitio nfo r th e purpos e o f clarifyin g an d delineatin g th e regulator ystandar db ywhic hth e adequac yo f a BAC T determinatio nshoul db e judged . EP Acontinue s t o believ e tha t th e top-dow nmetho di s a nefficien t an dhighl yreliabl e metho do f conductin g a BAC T analy s i nconformit yv.it hth ~ statJtor yBAC T definition . Theref t '^n:h; ^.?.ic-. ..« • . .AC reviewin g agencie s ar e encourag e i c • c>n\;.;...•. . th e approac ha s describe dir th e ' '" •'« c th e purpos e j f permit s issue dun d. . above / howeve r EP Aacknowledge s ••.. . r . . th e vil ypermissibl e methc ^ of . c^ r . ' .:.. . St ; -'• > permittin g authoritie s rem.'. . ••>•>. lega l "iteri a withou t referenc e . . < - m t . ^•AC T determination s tha t sati s f v IV . J l . . . ' Th e definitio no f BAC T i nt . . , .. . .. . r.. . > § 40 3 fd ) o f th e 199 0 Amendment s XTT-' -t. . . > • ' t yTutorydefinition , EP Apropose r x.- ....... . -7 02 definitio no f BAC T a t 4 nC ? 5?x xX ' . . ,P.1 6

" " ---^TAFF^bRAF T DO NO T CIT E ORQUOT E inserting "clean fuels " afte r "including fue l cleaning , an d b y adding th e following a t th e en d thereof : "Emission s from an y sourc e utilizing clean fuels , o r an yothe r means , t o compl ywit h thi s paragraphshal l no t b e allowe d t o increas e abov e level s tha t woul d hav e bee n require d unde r thi s paragrapha s i t existe d prio r t o enactmen t o f th e Ac t Amendment s o f 1990. "P.1 7

STAF F DRAF T D O NO T CIT E O RQUOT E Propose dchang e t o BAC T definitio ni nregulator ylanguag e a t

51.166(b)(12 ) an d 52.21(b)(23 ) "Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology " mean s a nemission s limitatio n(includin g a visibl e emissio nstandard ) base do nth e maximu mdegre e o f reductio nfo r eac hpollutan t subjec t t o regulatio nunde r th e Clea nAi r Ac t whic hwoul db e emitte dfro m an ypropose dmajo r stationar ysourc e o r majo r modificatio nwhic h th e Administrator, 4 o na case-by-cas e basis , takin g 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 hsourc e o r modificatio nthroug h applicatio no f productio nprocesse s o r availabl e methods , systems , an d techniques , includin g fue l cleaning , clea nfuels , o r treatmen t o r innovativ e fue l combustio ntechnique s fo r contro l o f suc hpollutant . Tw o criteri a mus t b e satisfie di nan vBAC T analysis : 1 1 th e avaliabl e contro l system s fo r th e sourc e mus t b e considere di nth e determination , includin g thos e t.i.a t provide ? th e maximu mdegre e o f omission s rp r < ction . an d 2 1 se . •-•^'-"*XL-_.,'2'... ' contro l syste mprovidi ma lesse j 21r.ee ' "missj/cj s T "'• mus t b e justifie db ya rati s ale , <*.ente g .. . -^ r r 2" .-. statutor ycriteri a an d sup^ , :___LxM : ie re ^ -__£S J - X•_1 contro l syste^nfs l providin g a g r "_ / -x __.., „ even t shal l applicatio no f \ \C T > i* v, ; pollutan t whi . woul dexcee c th e v.n; Oove c Y applicabl e standar dun f ~ * CF T
..... ». ' . e Administrato r determine . *"h?,* * te . limitation s o nth e a p " '.cat i j no particula r emission s uni t woul d emissio nstandar dinft^sibl r . a •• operationa l standard , o r c c oin a . . ••-.. .7?^ , ; - b e pr< _ " O C neas v

.... .

•-... . .a; -. .

epi-i.--.-o ' -'SJ* . ,. . c>< 1 — '

4 Th e ter m"reviewin g authori

- ' " . bue BAC T a t 51.166(b)(12 )P.1 8

STAFF DRAF T "" ' "DO " NO T C*IT

E ORQUOT E instead t o satisf yth e requiremen t fo r th e applicatio n o f bes t availabl e contro l technology . Suc hstandar d shall , t o th e degre e possible , se t fort hthe emission s reductio n achievabl e b y implementatio n o f suc hdesign , equipment , wor k practic e o r operation , an

d shal l provid e fo r complianc e b ymean s whic h achiev e equivalen t results . Emission s from an ysourc e utilizing clea n fuels , o r an

vothe r means , t o compl vwit hthi s paragraph shal l no t b e allowe d t o increas e abov e level s tha t woul d hav e bee n require d unde r thi s paragrapha s i t existe d prio r t o enactmen t o f th e Clean Ai r Ac t Amendment s 1990 .P.1 9

STAF F DRAF T D O NO T CIT E O RQUOT E als o clea r tha t i n adoptin g BACT , Congres s intende d PS D permittin g authoritie s t o exercis e informe d discretio n t o weig henergy , environmental , an d economi c impact s i n determinin g BAC T fo r a particula r source . Thes e statutor ygoal s ca n b e fulfille d b ymor e tha n on e metho d o f determinin g BACT . Regardles s o f th e specifi c methodolog yuse d fo r determinin g BACT , b e i t top-down , th e metho d embodie d i n th e 197 9 guidance , o r otherwise , EP Aha s consistentl y interprete d th e relevan t Ac t provision s a s embodyin g tw o cor e lega l criteri a tha t mus t b e satisfie d i n an yBAC T analysis . First , th e permi t applican t mus t conside r availabl e contro l technologies , i.e. , thos e tha t "provid e th e maximu mdegre e o f emission s reduction." 4 Second , an ydecisio n t o requir e les s tha n th e maximu mdegre e o f emission s reductio n mus t b e justifie d b ya Order , Nov . 10 , 1988)] . I n thes e cases , th e Administrato r interprete d th e BACT-definitio n a s recuirin g th e P$ 0 r^olica r . t . demonstrat e t o th e permittin g autho r - <' -• "-h yth e i,o

t string s , contro l technolog y"available " wa s novchievable. "
* Whethe r a technolog yi e ". • .vailab. a practical , factua l determination , »"'X \ whethe r t htechnolog yca n b e pu t iv.U , x2' Ne wJers yResourc e Recover yFacXUty . ? . Order , Nov . 10 , 1988 ) a t 8 . Eac htyp e o f availabl e contro l &i- electrostati c precipitator , a dr ys c MX: , carbo n absorber ) o r combinatio n oXcor'. , ' analyze d a t th e maximumleve l o r con^rr; . . syste m o r combinatio n o f contro l cy-- Xv.« ' th e propose d facilit yi n questio

- Ha>.. . give n typ e o f contro l syste ms h,-,•-.

_ aXv . electrostati c precipitator s th?- t • •\r ; X J contro l efficiency , respective ^ f ' mino r variation s i n contro l syst > required . .fo i purp*"v ' • convG-.tioTu . ra e Penn*?
- •

•A, a \ ,. • ! RV stern a ;a,tevabX ;

cons.. . • 96% , ,'tVJ P.AC. • i• CQyyn ; * J • ' i

» .r,

•*v, . n f - "•• • oo ' * .'
. •c

r C l . 4