Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0491
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-06-15T04:00Z

06/
15/
05
Deliberative
Material
 
Please
Do
Not
Quote
or
Cite
2­
1
SECTION
2
INTRODUCTION
AND
BACKGROUND
For
this
rulemaking,
we
are
developing
guidelines
for
BART
determinations
under
the
regional
haze
regulations.
Specifically,
we
are
addressing
the
issues
of:
1)
the
sources
that
must
apply
BART,
and
2)
guidance
as
to
how
a
State
should
determine
the
level
of
control
for
each
source
subject
to
BART
in
response
to
the
court's
ruling.
We
are
finalizing
a
reproposal
of
the
BART
guidelines
and
the
section
of
the
regional
haze
rule
relevant
to
the
BART
guidelines.
This
final
rule
reflects
both
our
review
of
the
public
comments,
and
our
response
to
the
court
ruling.

This
document
presents
the
health
and
welfare
benefits
of
the
Clean
Air
Visibility
Rule
(
CAVR)
or
BART
rule
and
compares
the
benefits
of
this
rule
to
the
estimated
costs
of
implementing
the
rule
in
2015.
This
section
provides
background
information
including
a
discussion
of
the
need
for
the
proposed
regulation,
a
brief
discussion
of
the
potentially
regulated
source
categories,
and
control
scenarios
analyzed
in
the
RIA.

2.1
Background
In
1999,
the
EPA
published
a
final
rule
to
address
a
type
of
visibility
impairment
known
as
regional
haze
64
FR
35714,
July
1,
1999.
The
regional
haze
rule
requires
state
implementation
plans
(
SIPs)
to
address
regional
haze
visibility
impairment
in
156
Federallyprotected
parks
and
wilderness
areas.
These
156
scenic
areas
are
called
"
Class
I
areas"
in
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA).
This
rule
fulfilled
a
long­
standing
EPA
commitment
to
address
regional
haze
under
the
authority
and
requirements
of
sections
169A
and
169B
of
the
CAA.

As
required
by
section
169A(
b)(
2)(
A)
and
169A(
g)
of
the
CAA,
we
included
in
the
final
regional
haze
rule
a
requirement
for
BART
for
certain
large
stationary
sources
that
were
put
in
place
between
1962
and
1977.
We
discussed
these
requirements
in
detail
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule.
(
See
64
FR
35737­
35743).
The
regulatory
requirements
for
BART
are
codified
at
40
CFR
51.308(
e),
and
in
the
definitions
that
appear
in
40
CFR
51.301.

The
CAA,
in
169A(
b)(
2)(
A)
and
in
169A(
g)(
7),
uses
the
term
"
major
stationary
source"
to
describe
those
sources
that
are
the
focus
of
the
BART
requirement.
To
avoid
06/
15/
05
Deliberative
Material
 
Please
Do
Not
Quote
or
Cite
2­
2
confusion
with
other
CAA
requirements
that
also
use
the
term
"
major
stationary
source"
to
refer
to
a
somewhat
different
population
of
sources,
the
regional
haze
rule
uses
the
term
"
BART­
eligible
source"
to
describe
these
sources.
BART­
eligible
sources
are
those
sources
that
have
the
potential
to
emit
250
tons
or
more
of
a
visibility­
impairing
air
pollutant,
were
put
in
place
or
under
construction
between
August
7,
1962
and
August
7,
1977,
and
whose
operations
fall
within
one
or
more
of
26
specifically
listed
source
categories.
Under
CAA
section
169A(
b)(
2)(
A),
BART
is
required
for
any
BART­
eligible
source
which
"
emits
any
air
pollutant
that
may
reasonably
be
anticipated
to
cause
or
contribute
to
any
impairment
of
visibility
in
any
such
area."
Accordingly,
for
stationary
sources
meeting
these
criteria,
States
must
address
the
BART
requirement
when
they
develop
their
regional
haze
SIPs.

Section
169A(
g)(
7)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
requires
that
States
must
consider
the
following
factors
in
making
BART
determinations:

(
1)
the
costs
of
compliance,

(
2)
the
energy
and
nonair
quality
environmental
impacts
of
compliance,

(
3)
any
existing
pollution
control
technology
in
use
at
the
source,

(
4)
the
remaining
useful
life
of
the
source,
and
(
5)
the
degree
of
improvement
in
visibility
which
may
reasonably
be
anticipated
to
result
from
the
use
of
such
technology.

These
statutory
factors
for
BART
appear
in
the
regional
haze
rule
in
40
CFR
51.308(
e)(
1)(
ii).

The
regional
haze
rule
provides
States
with
two
alternative
ways
to
approach
the
requirement
for
BART
in
the
CAA.
Under
the
first
approach,
contained
in
51.308(
e)(
1)
of
the
regional
haze
rule,
SIPs
would
contain
source
specific
emission
limits
for
each
source
subject
to
BART.
Under
the
second
approach,
States
may
elect
to
adoptive
alternative
measures,
such
as
a
regional
emissions
trading
program,
in
lieu
of
BART
so
long
as
the
alternative
measures
achieve
"
more
reasonable
progress"
than
would
application
of
sourcespecific
BART
emission
limits.
In
the
preamble
to
the
1999
regional
haze
rule,
we
discuss
a
number
of
issues
related
to
both
approaches.

In
addition,
in
the
preamble
to
the
regional
haze
rule
(
64
FR
35741,
July
1,
1999)
we
committed
to
issuing
further
guidelines
to
clarify
the
requirements
of
the
BART
provision.

The
purpose
of
this
rule
is
to
fulfill
this
commitment
by
providing
guidelines
for
States
to
use
06/
15/
05
Deliberative
Material
 
Please
Do
Not
Quote
or
Cite
2­
3
in
identifying
their
BART
eligible
sources,
in
identifying
those
sources
that
must
undergo
a
detailed
BART
analysis
(
i.
e.,
"
sources
subject
to
BART"),
and
in
conducting
the
technical
analysis
of
possible
controls
in
light
of
the
statutory
factors
listed
above
("
the
BART
determination").

Finally,
the
rule
discusses
proposed
changes
to
the
regional
haze
rule,
and
a
reproposal
of
the
BART
guidelines,
in
response
to
the
May
24,
2002
ruling
from
the
US
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
D.
C.
Circuit,
that
struck
down
the
regional
haze
rule
in
part
(
and
upheld
it
in
part).
This
rulemaking
finalizes
guidelines
for
States
to
use
in
identifying
their
BART
eligible
sources,
in
identifying
those
sources
that
must
undergo
a
detailed
BART
analysis.

2.2
Regulated
Source
Categories
This
action
does
not
directly
regulate
emissions
sources.
Instead,
it
requires
States
and
Tribes
with
BART­
eligible
stationary
sources
to
revise
their
implementation
plans
to
meet
the
BART
requirements.
However,
States
have
the
flexibility
to
choose
what
sources
to
control.
The
CAA
uses
the
following
26
source
category
titles
to
describe
the
types
of
stationary
sources
that
are
BART­
eligible:

(
1)
Fossil­
fuel
fired
steam
electric
plants
of
more
than
250
million
British
thermal
units
(
BTU)
per
hour
heat
input,

(
2)
Coal
cleaning
plants
(
thermal
dryers),

(
3)
Kraft
pulp
mills,

(
4)
Portland
cement
plants,

(
5)
Primary
zinc
smelters,

(
6)
Iron
and
steel
mill
plants,

(
7)
Primary
aluminum
ore
reduction
plants,

(
8)
Primary
copper
smelters,

(
9)
Municipal
incinerators
capable
of
charging
more
than
250
tons
of
refuse
per
day,

(
10)
Hydrofluoric,
sulfuric,
and
nitric
acid
plants,

(
11)
Petroleum
refineries,
06/
15/
05
Deliberative
Material
 
Please
Do
Not
Quote
or
Cite
2­
4
(
12)
Lime
plants,

(
13)
Phosphate
rock
processing
plants,

(
14)
Coke
oven
batteries,

(
15)
Sulfur
recovery
plants,

(
16)
Carbon
black
plants
(
furnace
process),

(
17)
Primary
lead
smelters,

(
18)
Fuel
conversion
plants,

(
19)
Sintering
plants,

(
20)
Secondary
metal
production
facilities,

(
21)
Chemical
process
plants,

(
22)
Fossil­
fuel
boilers
of
more
than
250
million
BTUs
per
hour
heat
input,

(
23)
Petroleum
storage
and
transfer
facilities
with
a
capacity
exceeding
300,000
barrels,

(
24)
Taconite
ore
processing
facilities,

(
25)
Glass
fiber
processing
plants,
and
(
26)
Charcoal
production
facilities.

Most
of
the
source
category
titles
are
general
descriptors
that
are
inclusive
of
all
the
operations
at
a
given
plant.
Some
plant
sites
may
have
more
than
one
of
the
categories
present.
Examples
of
this
would
include
plants
with
both
"
petroleum
refineries"
and
"
sulfur
recovery
plants,"
or
with
both
"
iron
and
steel
mill
plants"
and
"
sintering
plants."
On
the
other
hand,
some
plant
sites
may
include
some
emissions
units
meeting
one
of
these
26
descriptions,

but
other
emissions
units
that
do
not.

2.3
Control
Scenarios
The
source­
specific
BART
guidelines
require
emissions
reductions
from
sources
emitting
sulfur
dioxides
(
SO
2)
and
nitrous
oxides
(
NO
x).
The
analyses
conducted
for
this
RIA
include
three
regulatory
alternative
scenarios
that
States
may
choose
to
follow
to
comply
with
06/
15/
05
Deliberative
Material
 
Please
Do
Not
Quote
or
Cite
1
These
levels
are
commonly
achievable
by
flue
gas
desulfurization
controls
("
scrubbers").

2­
5
BART.
The
alternatives
include
three
scenarios
of
increasing
stringency
­
Scenario
1,
Scenario
2,
and
Scenario
3.
A
brief
discussion
of
the
these
alternatives
for
the
electric
generating
units
(
EGUs)
and
all
other
sources
follows.
More
details
of
the
alternative
control
scenarios
and
associated
control
costs
are
discussed
in
chapters
7
and
8
of
this
report.

2.3.1
Electric
Generating
Units
In
the
revised
BART
guidelines,
we
have
included
presumptive
control
levels
for
SO
2
and
NO
x
emissions
from
coal­
fired
electric
generating
units
greater
than
200
megawatts
(
MW)

in
capacity
at
plants
greater
than
750
MW
in
capacity.
Given
the
similarities
of
these
units
to
other
BART­
eligible
coal­
fired
units
greater
than
200
MW
at
plants
750
MW
or
less,
EPA's
guidance
suggests
that
states
control
such
units
at
similar
levels
for
BART.
The
guidelines
would
require
750
MW
power
plants
to
meet
specific
control
levels
of
either
95
percent
control
or
controls
of
0.15
lbs/
MMBtu,
for
each
EGU
greater
than
200
MW,
unless
the
State
determines
that
an
alternative
control
level
is
justified
based
on
a
careful
consideration
of
the
statutory
factors.
1
Thus,
for
example,
if
the
source
convincingly
demonstrates
unique
circumstances
affecting
its
ability
to
cost­
effectively
reduce
its
emissions,
the
State
may
take
that
into
account
in
determining
whether
the
presumptive
levels
of
control
are
appropriate
for
the
facility.
For
an
EGU
greater
than
200
MW
in
size,
but
located
at
a
power
plant
smaller
than
750
MW
in
size,
States
may
also
find
that
such
controls
are
cost­
effective
when
taking
into
consideration
the
costs
of
compliance
in
the
BART
analysis
in
applying
the
five
factor
test
for
the
BART
determination.
In
our
analysis
we
have
assumed
that
no
additional
controls
will
occur
where
units
have
existing
scrubbers
and
that
no
controls
will
occur
for
oil­
fired
units.

While
these
levels
may
represent
current
control
capabilities,
we
expect
that
scrubber
technology
will
continue
to
improve
and
control
costs
will
continue
to
decline.

For
NO
x,
for
those
large
EGUs
that
have
already
installed
selective
catalytic
reduction
(
SCR)
or
selective
non­
catalytic
reduction
(
SNCR)
during
the
ozone
season,
states
should
require
the
same
controls
for
BART.
However,
those
controls
should
be
required
to
operate
year­
round
for
BART.
For
sources
currently
using
SCR
or
SNCR
for
part
of
the
year,
states
should
presume
that
the
use
of
those
same
controls
year­
round
is
highly
cost­
effective.
For
other
sources,
the
guidelines
establish
presumptive
emission
levels
that
vary
depending
largely
upon
boiler
type
and
fuel
burned.
For
coal­
fired
cyclone
units
with
a
size
greater
than
200
MW,
our
analysis
assumes
these
units
will
install
SCR.
For
all
other
coal­
fired
units,
our
06/
15/
05
Deliberative
Material
 
Please
Do
Not
Quote
or
Cite
2­
6
analysis
assumed
these
units
will
install
current
combustion
control
technology.
In
addition,

we
assume
no
additional
controls
for
oil
and/
or
gas­
fired
steam
units.

We
present
alternative
regulatory
scenarios.
Scenario
2
represents
our
application
of
the
presumptive
limits
described
above
to
all
BART
eligibility
EGUs
greater
than
200
MW.

For
Scenario
1,
we
assume
that
only
200
MW
BART­
eligible
EGUs
located
at
facilities
above
750
MW
capacity
will
comply
with
the
SO
2
requirements
and
NO
x
controls.
In
this
scenario,

no
facilities
less
than
750
MW
capacity
are
assumed
to
install
BART
controls.
For
Scenario
1,
we
assume
that
units
with
existing
SCRs
will
operate
those
SCR
units
year
round
annually.

In
contrast
in
Scenario
3,
we
analyzed
SO
2
controls
equivalent
to
95
percent
reductions
or
0.1
lbs
per
MMBtu
on
all
previously
uncontrolled
units.
NO
x
controls
for
this
most
stringent
scenario
presume
SCRs
will
be
installed
on
all
units
greater
than
100
MW
capacity
and
combustion
controls
will
be
installed
on
units
greater
than
25
MW
but
less
than
100
MW
capacity.
The
EPA
analyzed
the
costs
of
each
BART
scenario
using
the
Integrated
Planning
Model
(
IPM).
The
EPA
has
used
this
model
extensively
in
past
rulemakings
to
analyze
the
impacts
of
regulations
on
the
power
sector.

The
analysis
presented
assumes
that
BART­
eligible
EGUs
affected
by
the
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
(
CAIR)
(
March
2005)
have
met
the
requirements
of
this
rule.
Thus,
no
additional
controls
for
EGUs
beyond
CAIR
are
anticipated
or
modeled
for
the
28
State
plus
District
of
Columbia
CAIR
region.
In
addition,
we
are
assuming
no
additional
SO
2
controls
for
sources
located
in
States
of
Arizona,
Utah,
Oregon,
Wyoming,
and
New
Mexico
or
Tribal
lands
located
in
these
States
due
to
agreements
made
with
the
Western
Regional
Air
Partnership
(
WRAP).
See
Chapter
7
for
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
emission
controls
scenarios
assumed
for
the
EGU
sector.
An
analysis
of
EGU
controls
under
CAIR
and
a
more
conservative
approach
to
BART
controls
for
EGU
sources
is
included
in
Appendix
E
of
this
report.
This
analysis
provides
information
as
to
the
possible
incremental
benefits
and
costs
associated
with
requiring
EGU
controls
for
BART
sources
in
the
non­
CAIR
region.
It
should
be
noted
that
a
more
strict
interpretation
of
BART
than
in
the
BART
guidelines
finalized
was
assumed
for
this
analysis
and
that
the
costs
and
benefits
for
BART
reported
in
Appendix
E
differ
from
those
estimated
for
the
three
regulatory
scenarios
analyzed
for
this
rulemaking.

2.3.2
Sources
other
than
Electric
Generating
Units
As
previously
discussed
there
are
25
source
categories
potentially
subject
to
BART
in
addition
to
EGUs
(
referred
to
as
non­
EGU
source
categories)
as
defined
by
the
CAA.
The
EPA
evaluated
a
set
of
SO
2
and
NO
x
emission
control
technologies
available
for
these
source
06/
15/
05
Deliberative
Material
 
Please
Do
Not
Quote
or
Cite
2­
7
categories
and
estimated
the
associated
costs
of
control
using
AirControlNET.
The
control
scenarios
evaluated
assume
maximum
control
measure
cost
caps
of
$
1,000
per
ton
(
Scenario
1),
$
4,000
per
ton
(
Scenario
2),
and
$
10,000
per
ton
(
Scenario
3).
The
EPA
also
conducted
a
cost
analysis
for
$
2,000
per
ton
and
$
3,000
per
ton,
and
the
results
of
this
analysis
are
presented
in
Appendix
G
of
this
document.
The
analysis
consists
of
applying
SO
2
and
NO
x
controls
to
each
non­
EGU
source
category
up
to
the
specified
cost
per
ton
cap
in
each
scenario.
These
cost
per
ton
caps
are
specified
in
average
cost
terms.
As
control
stringency
is
increased,
the
marginal
costs
are
also
estimated
for
each
non­
EGU
source
category.
The
scenarios
examined
are
based
on
the
costs
of
technologies
such
as
scrubbers
for
SO
2
control,

and
varying
types
of
technologies
for
NO
x
control.
Scrubbers
are
the
most
common
type
of
SO
2
control
for
most
non­
EGU
sources
for
each
scenario,
while
combustion
controls
such
as
low
NO
x
burners
(
LNB)
and
post­
combustion
controls
such
as
selective
noncatalytic
reduction
(
SNCR)
and
selective
catalytic
reduction
(
SCR)
are
commonly
applicable
to
most
of
the
non­
EGU
source
category.
Combustion
controls
are
commonly
applied
as
part
of
Scenario
1,
while
SNCR
and
SCR
are
more
commonly
applied
either
by
themselves
or
in
combination
with
combustion
controls
as
part
of
Scenarios
2
and
3.
Analyses
are
not
available
for
8
of
the
25
non­
EGU
source
categories,
because
there
are
no
available
control
measures
for
these
sources
or
there
are
no
sources
in
these
categories
included
in
the
non­

EGU
emissions
data
utilized
in
these
analyses.
The
marginal
costs
of
these
alternative
regulatory
scenarios
are
presented
along
with
the
results
of
these
analyses
in
Chapter
8
of
this
report.
All
of
these
results
are
estimated
using
a
nationwide
database
of
BART­
eligible
non­

EGU
sources
that
is
based
on
information
collected
from
Regional
Planning
Organizations
(
RPOs)
in
the
fall
of
2004.
This
database
became
part
of
the
baseline
for
this
analysis.
More
information
on
this
non­
EGU
source
database
is
available
in
Chapter
3
of
this
report.
Just
as
for
affected
EGUs,
all
impacts
to
non­
EGUs
are
estimated
for
the
year
2015.

2.4
Baseline
and
Years
of
Analysis
The
final
rule
on
which
this
analysis
is
based
sets
forth
the
requirements
for
States
and
Tribes
to
meet
the
BART
guidelines
of
the
Regional
Haze
Rule.
To
comply
with
the
BART
guidelines,
EPA
requires
that
certain
States
reduce
their
emissions
of
SO
2
and
NO
x.
The
Agency
considered
all
promulgated
CAA
requirements
and
known
state
actions
in
the
baseline
used
to
develop
the
estimates
of
benefits
and
costs
for
this
rule
including
the
recently
promulgated
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule.
However,
EPA
did
not
consider
actions
States
may
take
to
implement
the
ozone
and
PM
2.5
NAAQS
standards
nor
the
recently
promulgated
Clean
Air
Mercury
Rule
in
the
baseline
for
this
analysis.
06/
15/
05
Deliberative
Material
 
Please
Do
Not
Quote
or
Cite
2­
8
In
the
analysis,
the
controls
and
reductions
are
assumed
to
be
required
in
2015,
a
date
that
is
generally
consistent
with
the
expected
timing
of
the
rule.
States
must
submit
SIPs
relevant
to
the
BART
requirements
in
January
2008.
After
approval
of
the
SIP,
there
is
a
5
year
compliance
date.
Thus,
controls
are
likely
to
be
installed
by
the
end
of
2013
or
the
beginning
of
2014
to
comply
with
the
rule.
In
addition,
EPA
had
existing
inventories,

modeling,
and
base
case
runs
for
2015
to
use
for
the
analysis.
The
year
2015
is
used
in
this
analysis.
All
estimates
presented
in
this
report
represent
annualized
estimates
of
the
benefits
and
costs
of
CAVR
in
2015
rather
than
the
net
present
value
of
a
stream
of
benefits
and
costs
in
these
particular
years
of
analysis.

2.5
Organization
of
this
Report
This
document
describes
the
health
and
welfare
benefits
of
the
proposed
rule.
The
document
is
organized
as
follows:

Chapter
3,
Emissions
and
Air
Quality
Impacts,
describes
emission
inventories
and
air
quality
modeling
that
are
essential
inputs
into
the
benefits
assessment.

Chapter
4,
Benefits
Analysis
and
Results,
describes
the
methodology
and
results
of
the
benefits
analysis.

Chapter
5,
Qualitative
Assessment
of
Nonmonetized
Benefits,
describes
benefits
that
are
not
monetized
for
this
rulemaking.

Chapter
6,
Profile
of
Potentially
Affected
Industries,
describes
the
major
industries
that
may
be
affected
by
this
rule.

Chapter
7,
Cost
and
Economic
Impacts
for
the
EGU
Sector,
describes
the
costs
of
the
rule
to
the
power
section
and
related
economic
impacts.

Chapter
8,
Results
of
Cost,
Emission
Reductions,
and
Economic
Impact
Analysis
for
the
Non­
Electricity
Generating
Sectors,
describes
the
costs
of
the
rule
to
affected
industry
sectors
and
related
economic
impacts.

Chapter
9,
Executive
Order
and
Statutory
Requirements,
describes
impact
analyses
conducted
to
meet
executive
order
and
statutory
requirements.

Chapter
10,
Comparison
of
Benefits
and
Costs,
provides
a
comparison
of
the
monetized
benefits
and
estimated
annual
costs
of
the
proposed
rule.

Appendix
A,
BART
Industry­
Sector
Impacts
06/
15/
05
Deliberative
Material
 
Please
Do
Not
Quote
or
Cite
2­
9

Appendix
B,
Cost
and
Economic
Impact
Supplemental
Information
and
Sensitivity
Analyses

Appendix
C,
Additional
Technical
Information
Supporting
the
Benefits
Analysis

Appendix
D,
Visibility
Benefits
Methodology

Appendix
E,
Benefits
and
Costs
of
the
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule,
the
Clean
Air
Visibility
Rule,
and
the
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
Plus
the
Clean
Air
Visibility
Rule

Appendix
F,
Sensitivity
Analyses
of
Some
Key
Parameters
in
the
Benefits
Analysis

Appendix
G,
Additional
Control
Scenarios
for
Non­
EGU
Source
Categories