[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38108-38135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-18094]
[[Page 38107]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 51
Proposed Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Regulations; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2001 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 38108]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
[FRL-6934-4]
Proposed Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Regulations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The purpose of this proposal is to request comment on EPA's
proposed guidelines for implementation of the best available retrofit
technology (BART) requirements under the regional haze rule which was
published on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35714). We propose to add the
guidelines as appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51. We propose to add
regulatory text requiring that these guidelines be used for addressing
BART determinations under the regional haze rule. In addition, we are
proposing one revision to guidelines issued in 1980 for facilities
contributing to ``reasonably attributable'' visibility impairment.
DATES: We are requesting written comments by September 18, 2001. The
EPA has scheduled two public hearings on this proposed rule. The first
public hearing will be held on August 21 in Arlington, Virginia. The
second public hearing will be held on August 27 in Chicago, Illinois.
(See following section for times and addresses.)
ADDRESSES: Docket. Information related to the BART guidelines is
available for inspection at the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, docket number A-2000-28. The docket is located at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Room M-
1500, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-7548. The docket is
available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
You should submit comments on today's proposal and the materials
referenced herein (in duplicate if possible) to the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention: Docket No. A-2000-28,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20460. You may also submit comments to EPA by electronic
mail at the following address: [email protected].
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use
of special characters and any form of encryption. All comments and data
in electronic form must be identified by the docket number [A-2000-28].
Electronic comments on this proposed rule also may be filed online at
many Federal Depository Libraries.
Public Hearings. The first public hearing on this proposed rule
will be held on August 21 at 10:00 am at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, 1489
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. The hotel is located near
the Crystal City metro stop. The second public hearing will be held on
August 27 at 10:00 am at the Metcalfe Federal Building, Room 331, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604.
If you wish to attend either public hearing or wish to present oral
testimony, please send notification no later than one week prior to the
date of the public hearing to Ms. Nancy Perry, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division,
MD-15, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5628, e-
mail [email protected].
Oral testimony will be limited to 5 minutes each. The hearing will
be strictly limited to the subject matter of the proposal, the scope of
which is discussed below. Any member of the public may file a written
statement by the close of the comment period. Written statements
(duplicate copies preferred) should be submitted to Docket No. A-2000-
28 at the address listed above for submitting comments. The hearing
schedule, including lists of speakers, will be posted on EPA's webpage
at http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/whatsnew.html. A verbatim
transcript of the hearings and written statements will be made
available for copying during normal working hours at the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center at the address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Smith (telephone 919-541-4718),
Mail Drop 15, EPA, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711. Internet address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are providing the public with the
opportunity to comment on EPA's Proposed BART Guidelines and the
accompanying regulatory text.
Table of Contents
I. Background on BART Guidelines
A. Commitment in the Preamble to the Regional Haze Rule
B. Statutory Requirement for BART Guidelines
II. Proposed Amendments to Part 51
III. Revision to 1980 BART Guidelines for ``Reasonably
Attributable'' Visibility Impairment
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Regulatory Planning and Review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) (Executive Order 12866)
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act--Impact on Reporting Requirements
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Environmental Justice--Executive Order 12898
F. Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks--Executive Order 13045
G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 13211. Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
K. Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze
Rule
I. Background on BART Guidelines
A. Commitment in the Preamble to the Regional Haze Rule
The EPA included in the final regional haze rule a requirement for
BART for certain large stationary sources put in place between 1962 and
1977. We discuss these requirements in detail in the preamble to the
final rule (see 64 FR 35737-35743). The regulatory requirements for
BART are codified in 40 CFR 51.308(e). In the preamble, we committed to
issuing further guidelines to clarify the requirements of the BART
provision. The purpose of this notice is to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on the draft guidelines and the accompanying
regulatory text.
B. Statutory Requirement for BART Guidelines
Section 169A(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to
provide guidelines to States on the implementation of the visibility
program. Moreover, the last sentence of section 169A(b) states:
In the case of a fossil-fuel fired generating powerplant having
a capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, the emission limitations
required under this paragraph shall be determined pursuant to
guidelines, promulgated by the Administrator under paragraph (1)
We interpret this statutory requirement as clearly requiring EPA to
publish BART guidelines and to require that States follow the
guidelines in establishing BART emission limitations for power plants
with a total capacity exceeding the 750 megawatt cutoff. The
[[Page 38109]]
statute is less clear regarding whether the guidelines must be used for
sources other than 750 megawatt power plants; however, today's proposed
rule would require States to use the guidelines for all of the 26
categories. We believe it is reasonable that consistent, rigorous
approaches be used for all BART source categories. In addition, we
believe it is important to provide for consistent approaches to
identifying the sources in the remaining categories which are BART-
eligible. We request comment on whether the regional haze rule should:
(1) Require use of the guidelines only for 750 megawatt utilities, with
the guidelines applying as guidance for the remaining categories, or
(2)require use of the guidelines for all of the affected source
categories.
II. Proposed Amendments to Part 51
We propose:
(1) BART guidelines, to be added as appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51,
(2) regulatory text, to be added as sub-paragraph 51.308(e)(1)(C),
requiring the use of the guidelines.
Overview of Proposed Appendix Y
We discuss the following general topics in appendix Y, which are
organized into the following sections:
--Introduction. Section I provides an overview of the BART requirement
in the regional haze rule and in the CAA, and an overview of the
guidelines.
--Identification of BART-eligible sources. Section II is a step-by-step
process for identifying BART-eligible sources.
--Identification of sources subject to BART. Sources ``subject to
BART'' are those BART-eligible sources which ``emit a pollutant which
may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility in any Class I area.'' We discuss considerations for
identifying sources subject to BART in section III of the proposed
appendix Y.
--Engineering analysis. For each source subject to BART, the next step
is to conduct an engineering analysis of emissions control
alternatives. This step requires the identification of available,
technically feasible, retrofit technologies, and for each technology
identified, analysis of the cost of compliance, and the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts, taking into account the remaining
useful life and existing control technology present at the source. For
each source, a ``best system of continuous emission reduction'' is
selected based upon this engineering analysis. Guidelines for the
engineering analysis are described in section IV of the proposed
appendix Y.
--Cumulative air quality analysis. The rule requires a cumulative
analysis of the degree of visibility improvement that would be achieved
in each Class I area as a result of the emissions reductions achievable
from all sources subject to BART. The establishment of BART emission
limits must take into account the cumulative impact overall from the
emissions reductions from all of the source-specific ``best
technologies'' identified in the engineering analysis. Considerations
for this cumulative air quality analysis are discussed in section V.
--Emission limits. Considering the engineering analysis and the
cumulative air quality analysis, States must establish enforceable
limits, including a deadline for compliance, for each source subject to
BART. Considerations related to these limits and deadlines are
discussed in section VI.
--Trading program alternative. General guidance on how to develop an
emissions trading program alternative to BART is contained in section
VII of the guidance. (Note that more comprehensive guidance for
emission trading programs generally is described in Section VII).
Regulatory Text
The proposed regulatory text would require that States follow the
guidelines for all BART determinations required under the regional haze
rule. We request public comment on all provisions of the guidelines and
on the accompanying regulatory text.
III. Revision to 1980 BART Guidelines for ``Reasonably
Attributable'' Visibility Impairment
As noted above, the primary purpose of today's proposed rule is to
provide BART guidelines for the regional haze program. In addition,
however, we are making limited revisions to longstanding guidelines for
BART under the 1980 visibility regulations for localized visibility
impairment that is ``reasonably attributable'' to one or a few
sources.\1\ The visibility regulations require that States must use a
1980 guidelines document when conducting BART analyses for certain
power plants for reasonably attributable visibility impairment. The
regulatory text for this requirement is found in 40 CFR
51.302(c)(4)(iii), as follows:
\1\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines for
Determining Best Available Retrofit Technology for Coal-fired Power
Plants and Other Existing Stationary Facilities, EPA-450/3-80-009b,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, N.C., November 1980 (1980 BART Guidelines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) BART must be determined for fossil-fuel fired generating
plants having a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts
pursuant to ``Guidelines for Determining Best Available Retrofit
Technology for Coal-fired Power Plants and Other Existing Stationary
Facilities'' (1980), which is incorporated by reference, exclusive
of appendix E, which was published in the Federal Register on
February 6, 1980 (45 FR 8210). It is EPA publication No. 450/3-80-
009b and is for sale from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161. It is also available for inspection at the Office of
the Federal Register Information Center, 800 North Capitol NW.,
suite 700, Washington, DC.
While the analytical process set forth in these guidelines is still
generally acceptable for conducting BART analyses for ``reasonably
attributable'' visibility impairment, there are statements in the 1980
BART Guidelines that could be read to indicate that the new source
performance standards (NSPS) may be considered to represent the maximum
achievable control for existing sources. While this may have been the
case in 1980 (e.g., the NSPS for sulfur dioxide (SO2) from
boilers had been recently issued in June 1979), the maximum achievable
control levels for recent plant retrofits have exceeded NSPS levels.
Thus, in order to ensure that there is no confusion regarding how the
1980 guidelines should be interpreted, EPA has included the following
discussion in today's action and proposes limited clarifying changes to
the visibility regulations.
In various sections of the 1980 guideline, the discussion indicates
that the NSPS in 1980 was considered to generally represent the most
stringent option these sources could install as BART (i.e., maximum
achievable level of control). See, e.g., 1980 BART Guidelines at pp. 8,
11 and 21. For example, a flowchart in the 1980 guidelines indicates
that if States establish a BART emission limitation equivalent to NSPS
for the source, then the State would not need to conduct a full-blown
analysis of control alternatives. See, 1980 BART Guidelines at p. 8.
Similarly, the visibility analysis described in the guideline assumes
as a starting point the level of controls currently achieved by the
NSPS. See, 1980 Guideline at p. 11. In the 20-year period since these
guidelines were developed, there have been advances in SO2
control technologies that have significantly increased the level of
control that is feasible, while costs per ton of SO2
controlled have declined.
[[Page 38110]]
This is demonstrated by a number of recent retrofits or binding
agreements to retrofit coal-fired power plants in the western United
States. These plants include: Hayden (CO), Navajo (AZ), Centralia (WA),
and Mohave (NV). These cases have shown that control options exist
which can achieve a significantly greater degree of control than the 70
percent minimum required by the NSPS for power plants emitting
SO2 at less than 0.60 lb/million Btu heat input. These
retrofits have achieved, or are expected to achieve, annual
SO2 reductions in the 85 to 90 percent range. Additionally,
an EPA report \2\ published in October 2000 shows that the
SO2 removal for flue gas desulfurization systems installed
in the 1990s is commonly 90 percent or more for both wet and dry
scrubbers, well above the minimum 70 percent control required by the
1979 NSPS.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Controlling SO2
Emissions: A Review of Technologies, EPA-600/R-00-093, Office of
Research and Development, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 2000, pp 32-34.
\3\ Note also that part II of the 1980 BART guidelines includes
an analysis of 90 percent control for three power plants burning
low-sulfur coal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the advances in control technology that have occurred over
the past 20 years, we believe that it should be made clear that the
BART analyses for reasonably attributable visibility impairment should
not be based on an assumption that the NSPS level of control represents
the maximum achievable level of control. While it is possible that a
detailed analysis of the BART factors could result in the selection of
a NSPS level of control, we believe that States should only reach this
conclusion based upon an analysis of the full range of control options,
including those more stringent than a NSPS level of control. In sum,
all ``reasonably attributable'' BART analyses should consider control
levels more stringent than NSPS, including maximum achievable levels,
and evaluate them in light of the statutory factors.
IV. Administrative Requirements
In preparing any proposed rule, EPA must meet the administrative
requirements contained in a number of statutes and executive orders. In
this section of the preamble, we discuss how today's regulatory
proposal for BART guidelines addresses these administrative
requirements.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) (Executive Order 12866)
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' and
EPA has submitted it to OMB for review. The drafts of rules submitted
to OMB, the documents accompanying such drafts, written comments
thereon, written responses by EPA, and identification of the changes
made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are available
for public inspection at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (Docket Number A-2000-28).
Because today's guidelines clarify, and do not change, the existing
rule requirements of the regional haze rule, the guidelines do not have
any effect on the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) that was previously
prepared for the regional haze rule. This RIA is available in the
docket for the regional haze rule (A-95-38). As part of the analyses
included in this RIA, we provided an estimate of the potential cost of
control to BART sources that is an average of the costs associated with
the least stringent illustrative progress goal (1.0 deciview reduction
over a 15-year period) and the most stringent illustrative progress
goal (10 percent deciview reduction over a 10-year period). The annual
cost of control to BART sources associated with the final Regional Haze
rulemaking in 2015, the year for which impacts are projected, is $72
million (1990 dollars).
This estimate of the control costs for BART sources for the year
2015 was calculated after taking into account a regulatory baseline
projection for the year 2015. The baseline for these calculations
included control measures estimated to be needed for partial attainment
of the PM and ozone NAAQS issued in 1997. These baseline estimates were
contained in an analysis prepared for the RIA for the PM and ozone
NAAQS, and are summarized in the RIA for the regional haze rulemaking.
As a result, in this RIA, we calculated relatively small impacts for
BART, in part because the baseline for the analysis assumed a
substantial degree of emissions control for BART-eligible sources in
response to the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for
PM2.5.
The EPA provided a benefits analysis of the emissions reductions
associated with the four illustrative progress goals in the RIA for the
final rulemaking. This benefits analysis is also incremental to partial
attainment of the PM and ozone NAAQS issued in 1997. We did not,
however, include a benefits analysis for the reductions from controls
specific to the potentially affected BART sources. For more information
on the benefit analysis for the final Regional Haze rulemaking, please
refer to the RIA in the public docket for the regional haze rule
(Docket A-95-38).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this proposed rule.
The EPA has also determined that this proposed rule would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because
the rule would not establish requirements applicable to small entities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (RFA), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub.
L. No.104-121) (SBREFA), provides that whenever an agency is required
to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, it must prepare and
make available an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, unless it
certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have ``a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Courts have interpreted the RFA to require
a regulatory flexibility analysis only when small entities will be
subject to the requirements of the rule. See Motor and Equip. Mfrs.
Ass'n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 1998); United Distribution
Cos. v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105, 1170 (D.C.
[[Page 38111]]
Cir. 1996); Mid-Tex Elec. Co-op, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 342 (D.C.
Cir. 1985) (agency's certification need only consider the rule's impact
on entities subject to the rule).
Similar to the discussion in the proposed and final regional haze
rules, the proposed BART guidelines would not establish requirements
applicable to small entities. The proposed rule would apply to States,
not to small entities. The BART requirements in the regional haze rule
require BART determinations for a select list of major stationary
sources defined by section 169A(g)(7) of the CAA. However, as noted in
the proposed and final regional haze rules, the State's determination
of BART for regional haze involves some State discretion in considering
a number of factors set forth in section 169A(g)(2), including the
costs of compliance. Further, the final regional haze rule allows
States to adopt alternative measures in lieu of requiring the
installation and operation of BART at these major stationary sources.
As a result, the potential consequences of the BART provisions of the
regional haze rule (as clarified in today's proposed guidelines) at
specific sources are speculative. Any requirements for BART will be
established by State rulemakings. The States would accordingly exercise
substantial intervening discretion in implementing the BART
requirements of the regional haze rule and today's proposed guidelines.
In addition, we note that most sources potentially affected by the BART
requirements in section 169A of the CAA are large industrial plants. Of
these, we would expect few, if any, to be considered small entities. We
request comment on issues regarding small entities that States might
encounter when implementing the BART provision.
For today's proposed BART guidelines, EPA certifies that the
guidelines and accompanying regulatory text would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act--Impact on Reporting Requirements
The information collection requirements in today's proposal
clarify, but do not modify, the information collection requirements for
BART. Reporting requirements related to BART requirements were included
in an Information Collection Request document that was prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1813.02) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, by mail
at Collection Strategies Division; U.S. EPA (2822) 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by email at [email protected], or
by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are
not effective until OMB approves them.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; and
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any
correspondence.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) (UMRA), establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 2
U.S.C. 1532, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including
a cost-benefit analysis, for any proposed or final rule that ``includes
any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more * * * in any one year.'' A ``Federal mandate'' is
defined under section 421(6), 2 U.S.C. 658(6), to include a ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' and a ``Federal private sector mandate.'' A
``Federal intergovernmental mandate,'' in turn, is defined to include a
regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local,
or tribal governments,'' section 421(5)(A)(i), 2 U.S.C. 658 (5)(A)(i),
except for, among other things, a duty that is ``a condition of Federal
assistance,'' section 421(5)(A)(i)(I). A ``Federal private sector
mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector,'' with certain exceptions, section 421(7)(A),
2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A).
Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed under section 202 of the UMRA, section 205, 2 U.S.C. 1535, of
the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule.
By proposing to release BART guidelines and to require their use,
EPA is not directly establishing any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments. Thus, EPA is not obligated to develop under section 203 of
the UMRA a small government agency plan.
Further, EPA carried out consultations with the governmental
entities affected by this rule in a manner consistent with the
intergovernmental consultation provisions of section 204 of the UMRA.
The EPA also believes that because today's proposal provides States
with substantial flexibility, the proposed rule meets the UMRA
requirement in section 205 to select the least costly and burdensome
alternative in light of the statutory mandate for BART. The proposed
rule provides States with the flexibility to establish BART based on
certain criteria, one of which is the costs of compliance. The proposed
rule also provides States with the flexibility to adopt alternatives,
such as an emissions trading program, in lieu of requiring BART. The
BART guidelines therefore, inherently provides for adoption of the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative that
achieves the objective of the rule.
The EPA is not reaching a final conclusion as to the applicability
of the requirements of UMRA to this rulemaking action. It is
questionable whether a requirement to submit a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision
[[Page 38112]]
constitutes a Federal mandate. The obligation for a State to revise its
SIP that arises out of sections 110(a), 169A and 169B of the CAA is not
legally enforceable by a court of law and, at most, is a condition for
continued receipt of highway funds. Therefore, it is possible to view
an action requiring such a submittal as not creating any enforceable
duty within the meaning of section 421(5)(A)(i) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658
(5)(A)(i)). Even if it did, the duty could be viewed as falling within
the exception for a condition of Federal assistance under section
421(5)(A)(i)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(A)(i)(I)). As noted earlier,
however, notwithstanding these issues, the discussion in section 2 and
the analysis in chapter 8 of the RIA constitutes the UMRA statement
that would be required by UMRA if its statutory provisions applied, and
EPA has consulted with governmental entities as would be required by
UMRA. Consequently, it is not necessary for EPA to reach a conclusion
as to the applicability of the UMRA requirements.
E. Environmental Justice--Executive Order 12898
Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. The requirements
of Executive Order 12898 have been previously addressed to the extent
practicable in the RIA cited above, particularly in chapters 2 and 9 of
the RIA.
F. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks--Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. The EPA
interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. The BART guidelines are not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because they do not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.
G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
The EPA concludes that this rule will not have substantial
federalism implications, as specified in section 6 of Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it will not directly
impose significant new requirements on State and local governments, nor
substantially alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities between States and the Federal government.
Although EPA has determined that section 6 of Executive Order 13132
does not apply, EPA nonetheless consulted with a broad range of State
and local officials during the course of developing this proposed rule.
These included contacts with the National Governors Association,
National League of Cities, National Conference of State Legislatures,
U. S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, Council
of State Governments, International City/County Management Association,
and National Association of Towns and Townships.
H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
On November 6, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249) entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.'' Executive Order 13175 took effect on January 6, 2001,
and revokes Executive Order 13084 (Tribal Consultation) as of that
date. The EPA developed this proposed rule, however, during the period
when EO 13084 was in effect; thus, EPA addressed tribal considerations
under EO 13084. The EPA will analyze and fully comply with the
requirements of EO 13175 before promulgating the final rule.
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.''
Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. This proposed action does not
involve or impose any requirements that directly affect Indian tribes.
Under EPA's tribal authority rule, tribes are not required to implement
CAA programs but, instead, have the opportunity to do so. Accordingly,
the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply
to this rule.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub. L. No.
[[Page 38113]]
104-113, Sec. 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 13211. Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), provides that agencies shall prepare and submit to the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for
certain actions identified as ``significant energy actions.'' Section
4(b) of Executive Order 13211 defines ``significant energy actions'' as
``any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register)
that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final
rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of
proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) that is
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any
successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.'' Under Executive
Order 13211, a Statement of Energy Effects is a detailed statement by
the agency responsible for the significant energy action relating to:
(i) any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use
including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and increased use of
foreign supplies) should the proposal be implemented, and (ii)
reasonable alternatives to the action with adverse energy effects and
the expected effects of such alternatives on energy supply,
distribution, and use. While this rulemaking is a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, EPA has determined
that this rulemaking is not a significant energy action because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
As discussed above in Unit IV.A, EPA provided an estimate of the
potential cost of control to BART sources in the RIA for the regional
haze rule for the year 2015. As specified in the CAA, these BART
sources include certain utility steam electric plants and sources in 25
additional industrial source categories. In 1999, EPA estimated that
BART would impose additional costs of $72 million per year (in 1990
dollars) in 2015 on affected utility and industrial sources.\4\ It is
expected that these annual costs will be lower in 2015 than currently
projected due to continued improvements in scrubber operation and
design. Included in the total cost is an estimate that roughly 35
utility units built between the years 1962 and 1977 would be required
to install additional control equipment, typically scrubbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Regional Haze Rule. U.S.
EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. April 22, 1999.
Unit 6.6.3, pp. 6-40 through 6-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the RIA, we have looked at the potential energy
impacts associated with scrubbers. About 60 percent of the overall $72
million estimate, or about $40 million, was a result of scrubber cost
calculations. These scrubber cost calculations are based on cost models
which determine three types of costs for scrubbers: (1) Annualized
capital costs, (2) fixed operation and maintenance costs, and (3)
variable operating and maintenance costs. The cost models for variable
operating and maintenance costs took into account the energy needs of
the scrubber, which was assumed to be 2.0% of the electricity generated
by a plant (or approximately 15,000 Megawatt-hours per year (MW-h/yr)
for a 100 MW scrubber).\5\ Although BART requirements may also be
achieved with other control strategies and techniques (such as emission
trading, or switching types of fuels used to produce power), these
scrubber cost calculations can be used to provide an order of magnitude
estimate of possible energy costs. The EPA estimates that of the total
annual cost estimate of $40 million for scrubbers, about 20 to 35
percent, or about $9 million to $15 million, would be variable
operating and maintenance costs. The energy costs for the scrubbers
would be some fraction of this $9 to $15 million estimate, which also
includes other elements such as the costs of reagents and disposal.
Applying this energy use to the roughly 35 utility units requires a
total of 525 million MW-h/yr, or 0.5 billion Kilowatt-hours/year (kWh-
yr) of energy, which is valued at $17 million.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Controlling SO2
Emissions: A Review of Technologies, EPA-600/R-00-093, Office of
Research and Development, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 2000, pp 32-34.
\6\ Based on wholesale energy prices for the year 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also believes that an annual cost of $40 million for the
electric utility sector for the year 2015 and beyond would not result
in significant changes in electricity or fuel prices, or in significant
changes in the consumption of energy.
For non-utility sources, the costs of the BART requirements may
result from installing, operating and maintaining pollution control
equipment or from other control strategies and techniques. As with
utilities, a fraction of these costs in some cases would be related to
the energy used to operate the pollution control equipment, thus
increasing the overall demand for energy and fuels; however, such
impacts are usually a small fraction of the overall annualized costs of
control equipment. Thus, EPA believes that the energy costs for non-
utility categories would be a relatively small fraction of the $72
million cost estimate. The EPA believes that the overall effects on
energy supply and use for a small fraction of $72 million would be
trivial, and that this would not significantly affect the price or
supply of energy.
Therefore, we conclude that based on the analysis above that the
BART requirements of the Regional Haze Rule will have a minimal impact,
if any, on energy prices, or on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
K. Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule
We are proposing to adopt guidelines for BART determinations under
the regional haze rule. The guidelines and areas on which comment is
requested are described below. After we receive comments on these
guidelines, we will add them to 40 CFR part 51 as
appendix Y.
Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule
Table of Contents
I. Introduction and Overview
A. What is the purpose of the guidelines?
A. What does the CAA require generally for improving visibility?
C. What is the BART requirement in the CAA?
D. What types of visibility problems does EPA address in its
regulations?
[[Page 38114]]
E. What are the BART requirements in EPA's regional haze
regulations?
F. Do States have an alternative to imposing controls on specific
facilities?
G. What is included in the guidelines?
H. Who is the target audience for the guidelines?
II. How To Identify BART-eligible Sources
A. What are the steps in identifying BART-eligible sources?
1. Step 1: Identify emission units in BART categories
2. Step 2: Identify the start-up dates of those emission units
3. Step 3: Compare the potential emissions to the 250 ton/yr
cutoff
4. Final step: Identify the emission units and pollutants that
constitute the BART-eligible source.
III. How To Identify Sources ``Subject to BART''
A. How can I identify the ``geographic area'' or ``region'' that
contributes to a given Class I area?
IV. Engineering Analysis of BART Options
A. What factors must I address in the Engineering Analysis?
B. How does a BART engineering analysis compare to a BACT review
under the PSD program?
C. Which pollutants must I address in the engineering review?
D. What are the five basic steps of a case-by-case BART engineering
analysis?
1. Step 1--How do I identify all available retrofit emission
control techniques?
2. Step 2--How do I determine whether the options identified in
Step 1 are technically feasible?
a. In general, what do we mean by technical feasibility?
b. What do we mean by ``available'' technology?
c. What do we mean by ``applicable'' technology?
d. What type of demonstration is required if I conclude that an
option is not technically feasible?
3. Step 3--How do I develop a ranking of the technically
feasible alternatives?
a. What are the appropriate metrics for comparison?
b. How do I evaluate control techniques with a wide range of
emission performance levels?
c. How do I rank the control options?
4. Step 4--For a BART engineering analysis, what impacts must I
calculate and report? What methods does EPA recommend for the
impacts analyses?
a. Impact analysis part 1: how do I estimate the costs of
control?
b. How do I take into account a project's ``remaining useful
life'' in calculating control costs?
c. What do we mean by cost effectiveness?
d. How do I calculate average cost effectiveness?
e. How do I calculate baseline emissions?
f. How do I calculate incremental cost effectiveness?
g. What other information should I provide in the cost impacts
analysis?
h. Impact analysis part 2: How should I analyze and report
energy impacts?
i. Impact analysis part 3: How do I analyze ``non-air quality
environmental impacts?''
j. What are examples of non-air quality environmental impacts?
5. Step 5--How do I select the ``best'' alternative, using the
results of steps 1 through 4?
a. Summary of the impacts analysis
b. Selecting a ``best'' alternative
c. In selecting a ``best'' alternative, should I consider the
affordability of controls?
V. Cumulative Air Quality Analysis
A. What air quality analysis do we require in the regional haze rule
for purposes of BART determinations?
B. How do I consider the results of this analysis in my selection of
BART for individual sources?
VI. Enforceable Limits / Compliance Date
VII. Emission Trading Program Overview
A. What are the general steps in developing an emission trading
program?
B. What are emission budgets and allowances?
C. What criteria must be met in developing an emission trading
program as an alternative to BART?
1. How do I identify sources subject to BART?
2. How do I calculate the emissions reductions that would be
achieved if BART were installed and operated on these sources?
3. For a cap and trade program, how do I demonstrate that my
emission budget results in emission levels that are equivalent to or
less than the emissions levels that would result if BART were
installed and operated?
4. How do I ensure that trading budgets achieve ``greater
reasonable progress?''
5. How do I allocate emissions to sources?
6. What provisions must I include in developing a system for
tracking individual source emissions and allowances?
7. How would a regional haze trading program interface with the
requirements for ``reasonably attributable'' BART under Sec. 51.302
of the regional haze rule?
I. Introduction and Overview
A. What Is the Purpose of the Guidelines?
The Clean Air Act (CAA), in sections 169A and 169B, contains
requirements for the protection of visibility in 156 scenic areas
across the United States. To meet the CAA's requirements, EPA recently
published regulations to protect against a particular type of
visibility impairment known as ``regional haze.'' The regional haze
rule is found in this part (40 CFR part 51), in Secs. 51.300 through
51.309. These regulations require, in Sec. 51.308(e), that certain
types of existing stationary sources of air pollutants install best
available retrofit technology (BART). The guidelines are designed to
help States and others (1) identify those sources that must comply with
the BART requirement, and (2) determine the level of control technology
that represents BART for each source.
B. What Does the CAA Require Generally for Improving Visibility?
Section 169A of the CAA, added to the CAA by the 1977 amendments,
requires States to protect and improve visibility in certain scenic
areas of national importance. The scenic areas protected by section
169A are called ``mandatory Class I Federal Areas.'' In these
guidelines, we refer to these as ``Class I areas.'' There are 156 Class
I areas, including 47 national parks (under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Interior--National Park Service), 108 wilderness areas
(under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior-Fish and Wildlife
Service or the Department of Agriculture--US Forest Service), and one
International Park (under the jurisdiction of the Roosevelt-Campobello
International Commission). The Federal Agency with jurisdiction over a
particular Class I area is referred to in the CAA as the Federal Land
Manager. A complete list of the Class I areas is contained in 40 CFR
part 81, Secs. 81.401 through 81.437, and you can find a map of the
Class I areas at the following internet site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
oarpg/t1/fr--notices/classimp.gif
The CAA establishes a national goal of eliminating man-made
visibility impairment from the Class I areas where visibility is an
important value. As part of the plan for achieving this goal, the
visibility protection provisions in the CAA mandate that EPA issue
regulations requiring that States adopt measures in their State
Implementation Plans (SIPs), including long-term strategies, to provide
for reasonable progress towards this national goal. The CAA also
requires States to coordinate with the Federal Land Managers as they
develop their strategies for addressing visibility.
C. What Is the BART Requirement in the CAA?
Under section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA, States must require certain
existing stationary sources to install BART. The BART requirement
applies to ``major stationary sources'' from one of 26 identified
source categories which have the potential to emit 250 tons per year or
more of any air pollutant. The CAA requires only sources which were put
in place during a specific 15-year time interval to install BART. The
BART requirement applies to sources that existed as of the date of the
1977 CAA amendments (that is, August 7, 1977)
[[Page 38115]]
but which had not been in operation for more than 15 years (that is,
not in operation as of August 7, 1962).
The CAA requires BART when any source meeting the above description
``emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause
or contribute to any impairment of visibility'' in any Class I area. In
identifying a level of control as BART, States are required by section
169A(g) of the CAA to consider:
--The costs of compliance,
--The energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance,
--Any existing pollution control technology in use at the source,
--The remaining useful life of the source, and
--The degree of visibility improvement which may reasonably be
anticipated from the use of BART.
The CAA further requires States to make BART emission limitations part
of their SIPs. As with any SIP revision, this will be a public process
that provides an opportunity for public comment and judicial review of
any decision by EPA to approve or disapprove the revision.
D. What Types of Visibility Problems Does EPA Address in Its
Regulations?
The EPA addressed the problem of visibility in two phases. In 1980,
EPA published regulations addressing what we termed ``reasonably
attributable'' visibility impairment. Reasonably attributable
visibility impairment is the result of emissions from one or a few
sources that are generally located in close proximity to a specific
Class I area. The regulations addressing reasonably attributable
visibility impairment are published in Secs. 51.300 through 51.307.
On July 1, 1999, EPA amended these regulations to address the
second, more common, type of visibility impairment known as ``regional
haze.'' Regional haze is the result of the collective contribution of
many sources over a broad region. The regional haze rule regulations
slightly modified 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.307, including the addition
of a few definitions in Sec. 51.301, and added new Secs. 51.308 and
51.309.
E. What Are the BART Requirements in EPA's Regional Haze Regulations?
In the July 1, 1999 rulemaking, EPA added a BART requirement for
regional haze. You will find the BART requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1). Definitions of terms used in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) are
found in Sec. 51.301.
As we discuss in detail in these guidelines, the regional haze rule
codifies and clarifies the BART provisions in the CAA. The rule
requires that States identify and list ``BART-eligible sources,'' that
is, that States identify and list those sources that fall within one of
26 source categories, that were put in place during the 15-year window
of time from 1962 to 1977, and that have potential emissions greater
than 250 tons per year. Once the State has identified the BART-eligible
sources, the next step is to identify those BART eligible sources that
may ``emit any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to
cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility.'' Under the rule,
a source which fits this description is ``subject to BART.'' For each
source subject to BART, States must identify the level of control
representing BART based upon the following analyses:
-- First, paragraph 308(e)(1)(ii)(A) provides that States must identify
the best system of continuous emission control technology for each
source subject to BART taking into account the technology available,
the costs of compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the
source, and the remaining useful life of the source.
-- Second, paragraph 308(e)(1)(ii)(B), provides that States must
conduct an analysis of the degree of visibility improvement that would
be achieved from all sources subject to BART that are within a
geographic area that contributes to visibility impairment in any
protected Class I area.
Once a State has identified the level of control representing BART
(if any), it must establish an emission limit representing BART and
must ensure compliance with that requirement no later than 5 years
after EPA approves the SIP. States are allowed to establish design,
equipment, work practice or other operational standards when
limitations on measurement technologies make emission standards
infeasible.
F. Do States Have an Alternative to Imposing Controls on Specific
Facilities?
States are given the option under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) to adopt an
alternative approach to imposing controls on a case-by-case basis for
each source subject to BART. However, while States may instead adopt
alternative measures, such as an emissions trading program, 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i) requires States to provide a demonstration that any
such alternative will achieve greater ``reasonable progress'' than
would have resulted from installation of BART from all sources subject
to BART. Such a demonstration must include:
-- a list of all BART-eligible sources;
-- an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control
technology available for all sources subject to BART, taking into
account the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy
and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution
control equipment in use at the source, and the remaining useful life
of the source. Unlike the analysis for BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1),
which requires that these factors be considered on a case-by-case
basis, States may consider these factors on a category-wide basis, as
appropriate, in evaluating alternatives to BART;
-- an analysis of the degree of visibility improvement that would
result from the alternative program in each protected Class I area.
States must make sure that a trading program or other such measure
includes all BART-eligible sources, unless a source has installed BART,
or plans to install BART consistent with 51.308(e)(1).\1\ A trading
program also may include additional sources. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) also
requires that States include in their SIPs details on how they would
implement the emission trading program or other alternative measure.
States must provide a detailed description of the program including
schedules for compliance, the emissions reductions that they will
require, the administrative and technical procedures for implementing
the program, rules for accounting and monitoring emissions, and
procedures for enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As noted in the preamble to the regional haze rule, States
need not include a BART-eligible source in the trading program if
the source already has installed BART-level pollution control
technology and the emission limit is a federally enforceable
requirement (64 FR 35742). We clarify in these guidelines that
States may also elect to allow a source the option of installing
BART-level controls within the 5-year period for compliance with the
BART requirement [see section VI of these guidelines] rather than
participating in a trading program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. What Is Included in the Guidelines?
In the guidelines, we provide procedures States must use in
implementing the regional haze BART requirements on a source-by-source
basis, as provided in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). We address general topics
related to development of a trading program or other alternative
allowed by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), but we will address most of the details
of guidance for trading programs in separate guidelines.
The BART analysis process, and the contents of this guidance, are
as follows:
[[Page 38116]]
-Identification of all BART-eligible sources. Section II of this
guidance outlines a step-by-step process for identifying BART-eligible
sources.
-Identification of sources subject to BART. As noted above, sources
``subject to BART'' are those BART-eligible sources which ``emit a
pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to
any impairment of visibility in any Class I area.'' We discuss
considerations for identifying sources subject to BART in section III
of the guidance.
-Engineering analysis. For each source subject to BART, the next step
is to conduct an engineering analysis of emissions control
alternatives. This step requires the identification of available,
technically feasible, retrofit technologies, and for each technology
identified, analysis of the cost of compliance, and the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts, taking into account the remaining
useful life and existing control technology present at the source. For
each source, a ``best system of continuous emission reduction'' will be
selected based upon this engineering analysis. Guidelines for the
engineering analysis are described in section IV of this guidance.
--Cumulative air quality analysis. The rule requires a cumulative
analysis of the degree of visibility improvement that would be achieved
in each Class I area as a result of the emissions reductions achievable
from all sources subject to BART. The establishment of BART emission
limits must take into account the cumulative impact overall from the
emissions reductions from all of the source-specific ``best
technologies'' identified in the engineering analysis. Considerations
for this cumulative air quality analysis are discussed in section V of
this guidance.
--Emissions limits. Considering the engineering analysis and the
cumulative air quality analysis, States must establish enforceable
limits, including a deadline for compliance, for each source subject to
BART. Considerations related to these limits and deadlines are
discussed in section VI of the guidance.
--Considerations in establishing a trading program alternative. General
guidance on how to develop an emissions trading program alternative is
contained in section VII of the guidance.
H. Who Is the Target Audience for the Guidelines?
The guidelines are written primarily for the benefit of State,
local and tribal agencies to satisfy the requirements for including the
BART determinations and emission limitations in their SIPs or tribal
implementation plans (TIPs). Throughout the guidelines, which are
written in a question and answer format, we ask questions ``How do I *
* *?'' and answer with phrases ``you should * * *, you must* * *'' The
``you'' means a State, local or tribal agency conducting the
analysis.\2\ We recognize, however, that agencies may prefer to require
source owners to assume part of the analytical burden, and that there
will be differences in how the supporting information is collected and
documented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In order to account for the possibility that BART-eligible
sources could go unrecognized, we recommend that you adopt
requirements placing a responsibility on source owners to self-
identify if they meet the criteria for BART-eligible sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. How To Identify BART-Eligible Sources
This section provides guidelines on how you identify BART-eligible
sources. A BART-eligible source is an existing stationary source in 26
listed categories which meets criteria for startup dates and potential
emissions.
A. What Are the Steps In Identifying BART-Eligible Sources?
Figure 1 shows the steps for identifying whether the source is a
``BART eligible source:''
Step 1: Identify the emission units in BART categories,
Step 2: Identify the start-up dates of those emission units, and
Step 3: Compare the potential emissions to the 250 ton/yr cutoff.
[[Page 38117]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY01.000
1. Step 1: Identify Emission Units in the BART Categories
The BART requirement only applies to sources in specific categories
listed in the CAA. The BART requirement does not apply to sources in
other source categories, regardless of their emissions. The listed
categories are:
(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,
(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,
[[Page 38118]]
(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.
Some plant locations may have emission units from more than one
category, and some emitting equipment may fit into more than one
category. Examples of this situation are sulfur recovery plants at
petroleum refineries, coke oven batteries and sintering plants at steel
mills, and chemical process plants at refineries. For Step 1, you
identify all of the emissions units at the plant that fit into one or
more of the listed categories. You do not identify emission units in
other categories.
Example: A mine is collocated with a electric steam generating
unit and a coal cleaning plant. You would identify emission units
associated with the electric steam generating unit and the coal
cleaning plant, because they are listed categories but not the mine,
because coal mining is not a listed category.
The category titles are generally clear in describing the types of
equipment to be listed. Most of the category titles are very broad
descriptions that encompass all emission units associated with a plant
site (for example, ``petroleum refining'' and ``kraft pulp mills''). In
addition, this same list of categories appears in the PSD regulations,
for example in 40 CFR 52.21. States and source owners need not revisit
any interpretations of the list made previously for purposes of the PSD
program. We provide the following clarifications for a few of the
category titles and we request comment on whether there are any
additional source category titles for which EPA should provide
clarification in the final guidelines:
--``Steam electric plants of more than 250 million BTU/hr heat input.''
Because the category refers to ``plants,'' boiler capacities must be
aggregated to determine whether the 250 million BTU/hr threshold is
reached.
Example: Stationary source includes a steam electric plant with
three 100 million BTU/hr boilers. Because the aggregate capacity
exceeds 250 million BTU/hr for the ``plant,'' these boilers would be
identified in Step 2.
``Steam electric plants'' includes combined cycle turbines because of
their incorporation of heat recovery steam generators. Simple cycle
turbines should not be considered ``steam electric plants'' because
they typically do not make steam.
--``Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 250 million BTU/hr heat input.''
The EPA proposes two options for interpreting this source category
title. The first option is the approach used in the regulations for
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD). In the PSD regulations,
this same statutory language has been interpreted in regulatory
language to mean ``fossil fuel boilers (or combinations thereof)
totaling more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat
input.'' The EPA proposes that this same interpretation be used for
BART as well. Thus, as in the example above, you would aggregate boiler
capacities to determine whether the 250 million BTU/hr threshold is
reached.
Under the second option, this category would be interpreted to
cover only those boilers that are individually greater than 250 million
BTU/hr. This approach would result in differing language from the PSD
program. It is possible, however, that different approaches may be
justified. The PSD program ensures that new source projects do not
circumvent the program by constructing several boilers with capacities
lower than 250 million BTU/hr. Because the BART program affects only
sources already in existence as of the date of the 1977 CAA amendments,
there may be a lesser need to aggregate boilers that are individually
less than 250 million BTU/hr. The EPA requests comment on both options
proposed above.
--Petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding
300,000 barrels. The 300,000 barrel cutoff refers to total facility-
wide tank capacity for tanks that were put in place within the 1962-
1977 time period, and includes gasoline and other petroleum-derived
liquids.
--``Phosphate rock processing plants.'' This category descriptor is
broad, and includes all types of phosphate rock processing facilities,
including elemental phosphorous plants as well as fertilizer production
plants.
--``Charcoal production facilities.'' In a letter sent to EPA on
October 11, 2000, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) noted
that there is some limited legislative history on this source category
list. Specifically, there is discussion in the Congressional Record
from July 29, 1976 (Cong. Record S. 12781-12784) which identifies a
study in the 1970s by the Research Corporation of New England (the TRC
report). The Congressional Record contains a table extracted from the
TRC report that identifies 190 source categories considered in
developing a list of 28 categories that led to the 26 categories
eventually listed in the CAA. In its October 11, 2000 letter, NAM
suggests that the Congressional Record and the TRC report are relevant
to the interpretation of the source category ``charcoal production
facilities.'' While EPA does not believe that the TRC report or table
contain any information that would suggest subdividing this category,
EPA has included the NAM letter and the cited passage from the
Congressional Record in the docket for this proposed rule. The EPA
requests comment on whether and how the information cited by NAM is
relevant to the interpretation of this or other categories.
2. Step 2: Identify the Start-Up Dates of the Emission Units
Emissions units listed under Step 1 are BART-eligible only if they
were ``in existence'' on August 7, 1977 but were not ``in operation''
before August 7, 1962.
What does ``in existence on August 7, 1977'' mean?
The regulation defines ``in existence'' to mean that:
The owner or operator has obtained all necessary preconstruction
approvals or permits required by Federal, State, or local air
pollution emissions and air quality laws or regulations and either
has (1) begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program of physical
on-site construction of the facility or (2) entered into binding
agreements or contractual obligations, which cannot be canceled or
modified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to
undertake a program of construction of the facility to be completed
in a reasonable time. See 40 CFR 51.301.
Thus, the term ``in existence'' means the same thing as the term
``commence construction'' as that term is used in the PSD regulations.
See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xvi) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(9). Thus, an emissions
unit could be ``in existence'' according to this test even if it did
not begin operating until several years later.
Example: The owner or operator obtained necessary permits in
early 1977 and entered into binding construction agreements in June
1977. Actual on-site construction began in late 1978, and
construction was completed in mid-1979. The source began operating
in September 1979. The emissions unit was ``in existence'' as of
August 7, 1977.
We note that emissions units of this size for which construction
commenced
[[Page 38119]]
AFTER August 7, 1977 (i.e., were not ``in existence'' on August 7,
1977) were subject to major new source review (NSR) under the PSD
program. Thus, the August 7, 1977 ``in existence'' test is essentially
the same thing as the identification of emissions units that were
grandfathered from the NSR review requirements of the 1977 CAA
amendments.
Finally, we note that sources are not BART eligible if the only
change at the plant was the addition of pollution controls. For
example, if the only change at a copper smelter during the 1962 through
1977 time period was the addition of acid plants for the reduction of
SO2 emissions, these emission controls would not by
themselves trigger a BART review.
What does ``in operation before August 7, 1962'' mean?
An emissions unit that meets the August 7, 1977 ``in existence''
test is not BART-eligible if it was in operation before August 7, 1962.
``In operation'' is defined as ``engaged in activity related to the
primary design function of the source.'' This means that a source must
have begun actual operations by August 7, 1962 to satisfy this test.
Example: The owner or operator entered into binding agreements
in 1960. Actual on-site construction began in 1961, and construction
was complete in mid-1962. The source began operating in September
1962. The emissions unit was not ``in operation'' before August 7,
1962 and is therefore subject to BART.
What is a ``reconstructed source?''
Under a number of CAA programs, an existing source which is
completely or substantially rebuilt is treated as a new source. Such
``reconstructed'' sources are treated as new sources as of the time of
the reconstruction. Consistent with this overall approach to
reconstructions, the definition of BART-eligible facility (reflected in
detail in the definition of ``existing stationary facility'') includes
consideration of sources that were in operation before August 7, 1962,
but were reconstructed during the August 7, 1962 to August 7, 1977 time
period.
Under the regulation, a reconstruction has taken place if ``the
fixed capital cost of the new component exceeds 50 percent of the fixed
capital cost of a comparable entirely new source.'' The rule also
states that ``Any final decision as to whether reconstruction has
occurred must be made in accordance with the provisions of Secs. 60.15
(f)(1) through (3) of this title.'' [40 CFR 51.301].
``Secs. 60.15(f)(1) through (3)'' refers to the general provisions for
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Thus, the same policies and
procedures for identifying reconstructed ``affected facilities'' under
the NSPS program must also be used to identify reconstructed
``stationary sources'' for purposes of the BART requirement.
You should identify reconstructions on an emissions unit basis,
rather than on a plantwide basis. That is, you need to identify only
the reconstructed emission units meeting the 50 percent cost criterion.
You should include reconstructed emission units in the list of emission
units you identified in Step 1.
The ``in operation'' and ``in existence'' tests apply to
reconstructed sources. If an emissions unit was reconstructed and began
actual operation before August 7, 1962, it is not BART-eligible.
Similarly, any emissions unit for which a reconstruction ``commenced''
after August 7, 1977, is not BART-eligible.
How are modifications treated under the BART provision?
The NSPS program and the major source NSR program both contain the
concept of modifications. In general, the term ``modification'' refers
to any physical change or change in the method of operation of an
emissions unit that leads to an increase in emissions.
The BART provision in the regional haze rule contains no explicit
treatment of modifications. Accordingly, guidelines are needed on how
modified emissions units, previously subject to best available control
technology (BACT), lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) and/or NSPS,
are treated under the rule. The EPA believes that the best
interpretation for purposes of the visibility provisions is that
modified emissions units are still ``existing.'' The BART requirements
in the CAA do not appear to provide any exemption for sources which
were modified since 1977. Accordingly, if an emissions unit began
operation before 1962, it is not BART-eligible if it is modified at a
later date, so long as the modification is not also a
``reconstruction.'' Similarly, an emissions unit which began operation
within the 1962-1977 time window, but was modified after August 7,
1977, is BART-eligible. We note, however, that if such a modification
was a major modification subject to the BACT, LAER, or NSPS levels of
control, the review process will take into account that this level of
control is already in place and may find that the level of controls are
already consistent with BART. The EPA requests comment on this
interpretation for ``modifications.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Another possible interpretation would be to consider sources
built before 1962 but modified during the 1962-1977 time window as a
``new'' source at the time of the modification. Under this approach,
such sources would be considered to have commenced operation during
the 1962-1977 time period, and thus would be BART eligible.
Similarly, consistent with this interpretation, a source modified
after the 1977 date would be treated as ``new'' as of the date of
the modification and therefore would not be BART-eligible. The EPA
believes that this approach may be much more difficult to implement,
given that programs to identify ``modifications'' were not in place
for much of the 1962-1977 time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Step 3: Compare the potential emissions to the 250 ton/yr cutoff
The result of Steps 1 and 2 will be a list of emissions units at a
given plant site, including reconstructed emissions units, that are
within one or more of the BART categories and that were placed into
operation within the 1962-1977 time window. The third step is to
determine whether the total emissions represent a current potential to
emit that is greater than 250 tons per year of any single visibility
impairing pollutant. In most cases, you will add the potential
emissions from all emission units on the list resulting from Steps 1
and 2. In a few cases, you may need to determine whether the plant
contains more than one ``stationary source'' as the regional haze rule
defines that term, and as we explain further below.
What pollutants should I address?
Visibility-impairing pollutants include the following:
--Sulfur dioxide (SO2),
--Nitrogen oxides (NOX),
--Particulate matter. (You may use PM10 as the indicator for
particulate matter. We do not recommend use of total suspended
particulates (TSP). PM10 emissions include the components of
PM2.5 as a subset. There is no need to have separate 250 ton
thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5, because 250 tons
of PM10 represents at most 250 tons of PM2.5, and
at most 250 tons of any individual particulate species such as
elemental carbon, crustal material, etc).
--Volatile organic compounds (VOC), and
--Ammonia.
What does the term ``potential'' emissions mean?
The regional haze rule defines potential to emit as follows:
``Potential to emit'' means the maximum capacity of a stationary
source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational
design. Any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of
the source to emit a pollutant including air pollution control
equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or
amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated
as part of its design if the limitation or the effect it would have
on emissions is federally enforceable. Secondary emissions do not
count in determining the potential to emit of a stationary source.
[[Page 38120]]
This definition is identical to that in the PSD program (40 CFR 51.166
and 51.18). This means that a source which actually emits less than 250
tons per year of a visibility-impairing pollutant is BART-eligible if
its emissions would exceed 250 tons per year when operating at its
maximum physical and operational design.
Example: A source, while operating at one-fourth of its
capacity, emits 75 tons per year of SO2. If it were
operating at 100 percent of its maximum capacity, the source would
emit 300 tons per year. Because under the above definition such a
source would have ``potential'' emissions that exceed 250 tons per
year, the source (if in a listed category and built during the 1962-
1977 time window) would be BART-eligible.
A source's ``potential to emit'' may take into account federally
enforceable emission limits.
Example: The same source has a federally enforceable restriction
limiting it to operating no more than \1/2\ of the year. Because you
can credit this under the definition of potential to emit, the
source would have a potential of 150 tons per year, which is less
than the 250 tons/year cutoff.
The definition of potential to emit allows only federally enforceable
emission limits to be taken into account for this purpose, and does not
credit emission limitations which are enforceable only by State and
local agencies, but not by EPA and citizens in Federal court. As a
result of some court cases in other CAA programs, EPA is undertaking a
rulemaking to determine whether only federally enforceable limits
should be taken into account. This rulemaking will address the Federal
enforceability restriction in the regional haze definition as well as
other program definitions. We expect that this rulemaking will be
complete well before the time period for determining whether BART
applies.
How do I identify whether a plant has more than one ``stationary
source?''
The regional haze rule, in 40 CFR 51.301, defines a stationary
source as a ``building, structure, facility or installation which emits
or may emit any air pollutant.'' \4\ The rule further defines
``building, structure or facility'' as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Note: Most of these terms and definitions are the same for
regional haze and the 1980 visibility regulations. For the regional
haze rule we use the term ``BART-eligible source'' rather than
``existing stationary facility'' to clarify that only a limited
subset of existing stationary sources are subject to BART.
All of the pollutant-emitting activities which belong to the
same industrial grouping, are located on one or more contiguous or
adjacent properties, and are under the control of the same person
(or persons under common control). Pollutant-emitting activities
must be considered as part of the same industrial grouping if they
belong to the same Major Group (i.e., which have the same two-digit
code) as described in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual,
1972 as amended by the 1977 Supplement (U.S. Government Printing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office stock numbers 4101-0066 and 003-005-00176-0 respectively).
In applying this definition, it is first necessary to draw the
plant boundary, that is the boundary for the ``contiguous or adjacent
properties.'' Next, within this plant boundary it is necessary to group
those emission units that are under ``common control.'' The EPA notes
that these plant boundary issues and ``common control'' issues are very
similar to those already addressed in implementation of the title V
operating permits program and in NSR.
For emission units within the ``contiguous or adjacent'' boundary
and under common control, you then group emission units that are within
the same industrial grouping (that is, associated with the same 2-digit
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code).\5\ For most plants on
the BART source category list, there will only be one 2-digit SIC that
applies to the entire plant. For example, all emission units associated
with kraft pulp mills are within SIC code 26, and chemical process
plants will generally include emission units that are all within SIC
code 28. You should apply this ``2-digit SIC test'' the same way you
are now applying this test in the major source NSR programs.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The EPA recognizes that we are in transition period from the
use of the SIC system to a new system called the North American
industry Classification System (NAICS). Our initial thinking is that
BART determinations, as a one-time activity, are perhaps best
handled under the SIC classifications. We request comment on whether
a switch to the new system for the regional haze rule is warranted--
we expect that few if any BART eligibility determinations would
hinge on this distinction.
\6\ Note: The concept of support facility used for the PSD
program applies here as well. As discussed in the draft New Source
Review Workbook Manual, October 1990, pages A.3-A.5, support
facilities, that is facilities that convey, store or otherwise
assist in the production of the principal product, must be grouped
with primary facilities even when more than one 2-digit SIC is
present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of the regional haze rule, you group emissions from
all emission units put in place within the 1962-1977 time period that
are within the 2-digit SIC code, even if those emission units are in
different categories on the BART category list.
Examples: A chemical plant which started operations within the
1962 to 1977 time period manufactures hydrochloric acid (within the
category title ``Hydrochloric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants'')
and various organic chemicals (within the category title ``chemical
process plants''), and has onsite an industrial boiler greater than
250 million BTU/hour. All of the emission units are within SIC 28
and, therefore, all the emission units are considered in determining
BART eligibility of the plant. You sum the emissions over all of
these emission units to see whether there are more than 250 tons per
year of potential emissions.
A steel mill which started operations within the 1962 to 1977
time period includes a sintering plant, a coke oven battery, and
various other emission units. All of the emission units are within
SIC 33. You sum the emissions over all of these emission units to
see whether there are more than 250 tons per year of potential
emissions.
4. Final Step: Identify the Emissions Units and Pollutants That
Constitute the BART-Eligible Source
If the emissions from the list of emissions units at a stationary
source exceed a potential to emit of 250 tons per year for any
visibility-impairing pollutant, then that collection of emissions units
is a BART-eligible source. A BART analysis is required for each
visibility-impairing pollutant emitted.
Example: A stationary source comprises the following two
emissions units, with the following potential emissions:
Emissions unit A
500 tons/yr SO2
150 tons/yr NOX
25 tons/yr PM
Emissions unit B
100 tons/yr SO2
75 tons/yr NOX
10 tons/yr PM
For this example, potential emissions of SO2 are 600 tons
per year, which exceeds the 250 tons/yr threshold. Accordingly, the
entire ``stationary source'' that is emissions units A and B are
subject to a BART review for SO2, NOX, and PM,
even though the potential emissions of PM and NOX each are
less than 250 tons/yr.
Example: The total potential emissions, obtained by adding the
potential emissions of all emission units in listed categories at a
plant site, are as follows:
200 tons/yr SO2
150 tons/yr NOX
25 tons/yr PM
Even though total emissions exceed 250 tons per year, no
individual regulated pollutant exceeds 250 tons per year and this
source is not BART-eligible.
III. How To Identify Sources ``Subject To BART''
After you have identified the BART-eligible sources, the next step
is determining whether these sources are subject to a further BART
analysis because they emit ``an air pollutant which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute'' to any visibility
[[Page 38121]]
impairment in a Federal Class I area. As we discuss in the preamble to
the regional haze rule at 64 FR 35739-35740, the statutory language
represents a very low triggering threshold. In implementing the
regional haze rule, you should find that a BART-eligible source is
``reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute'' to regional haze if
the source emits pollutants within a geographic region from which
pollutants can be emitted and transported downwind to a Class I area.
Where emissions from a given geographic region contribute to regional
haze in a Class I area, you should consider any emissions from BART-
eligible sources in that region to contribute to the regional haze
problem, thereby warranting a further BART analysis for those sources.
A. How Can I Identify ``the Geographic Area'' or ``Region'' That
Contributes to a Given Class I Area?
As noted in the preamble to the regional haze rule, geographic
``regions'' that can contribute to regional haze generally extend for
hundreds or thousands of kilometers (64 FR 35722). Accordingly, most
BART-eligible sources are located within such a geographic region. For
example, we believe it would be difficult to demonstrate that a State
or territory's emissions do not contribute to regional haze impairment
in a Class I area within that State or territory.
The regional haze rule recognizes that there may be geographic
areas (individual States or multi-State areas) within the United
States, (in virtually all cases involving States that do not have Class
I areas) for which the total emissions make only a trivial contribution
to visibility impairment in any Class I area. In identifying any such
State or area, you or a regional planning organization must conduct an
air quality modeling analysis to demonstrate that the total emissions
from the State or area makes only a trivial contribution to visibility
impairment in Class I areas.
One approach that can be used is to determine whether a State or
area contributes in a non-trivial way would be to do an analysis where
you compare the visibility impairment in a Class I area with the
emissions from a State or area to the visibility impairment in the
Class I area in the absence of the emissions from the State or area.
This approach can be referred to as a ``zero-out'' approach where you
zero out the emissions from the State or area that is suspected to make
a trivial contribution to visibility impairment in a Class I area.
Under this approach, you would compare:
(1) the visibility impairment in each affected Class I area (for
the average of the 20 percent most impaired days and the 20 percent
least impaired days) when the emissions from the State or area
suspected to have a trivial contribution are included in the modeling
analysis, and
(2) the visibility impairment in each affected Class I area (for
the average of the 20 percent most impaired days and the 20 percent
least impaired days), excluding from the modeling analysis the
emissions from the geographic area suspected to have a trivial impact.
The difference in visibility between these two model runs provides an
indication of the impact on visibility of emissions from the State(s)
in question. In addition, it may be possible in the future to conduct
analyses of the geographic area that contributes to visibility
impairment in a Class I area through use of a source apportionment
model for PM. Source apportionment models for PM are currently under
development by private consultants. Guidance for regional modeling for
visibility and PM is found in a document entitled ``Guidance for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for PM2.5 and
Regional Haze.'' [Note: this document is currently in draft form, but
we expect a final document before final publication of the BART
guidelines]
IV. Engineering Analysis of BART Options
This section describes the process for the engineering analysis of
control options for sources subject to BART.
A. What Factors Must I Address in the Engineering Analysis?
The visibility regulations define BART as follows:
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) means an emission
limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the
application of the best system of continuous emission reduction for
each pollutant which is emitted by * * * [a BART-eligible source].
The emission limitation must be established, on a case-by-case
basis, taking into consideration the technology available, the costs
of compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts
of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use or in
existence at the source, the remaining useful life of the source,
and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be
anticipated to result from the use of such technology.
In the regional haze rule, we divide the BART analysis into two parts:
an engineering analysis requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A), and
a visibility impacts analysis requirement in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B). This section of the guidelines address the
requirements for the engineering analysis. Your engineering analysis
identifies the best system of continuous emission reduction taking into
account:
--The available retrofit control options,
--Any pollution control equipment in use at the source (which affects
the availability of options and their impacts),
--The costs of compliance with control options,
--The remaining useful life of the facility (which as we will discuss
below, is an integral part of the cost analysis), and
--The energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of control
options.
We discuss the requirement for a visibility impacts analysis below in
section V.
B. How Does a BART Engineering Analysis Compare to a BACT Review Under
the PSD Program?
In this proposal, we are seeking comment on two alternative
approaches for conducting a BART engineering analysis. EPA prefers the
first approach. Under this first alternative, the BART analysis would
be very similar to the BACT review as described in the New Source
Review Workshop Manual (Draft, October 1990). Consistent with the
Workshop Manual, the BART engineering analysis would be a process which
provides that all available control technologies be ranked in
descending order of control effectiveness. Under this option, you must
first examine the most stringent alternative. That alternative is
selected as the ``best'' unless you demonstrate and document that the
alternative cannot be justified based upon technical considerations,
costs, energy impacts, and non-air quality environmental impacts. If
you eliminate the most stringent technology in this fashion, you then
consider the next most stringent alternative, and so on.
The EPA also requests comment on an alternative decision-making
approach that would not necessarily begin with an evaluation of the
most stringent control option. Under this approach, you would have more
choices in the way you structure your BART analysis. For example, you
could choose to begin the BART determination process by evaluating the
least stringent technically feasible control option or an intermediate
control option drawn from the range of technically feasible control
alternatives. Under this approach, you would then consider the
additional emission reductions, costs, and other
[[Page 38122]]
effects (if any) of successively more stringent control options. Under
such an approach, you would still be required to (1) display and rank
all of the options in order of control effectiveness, including the
most stringent control option, and to identify the average and
incremental costs of each option; (2) consider the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of each option; and (3) provide a
justification for adopting the control technology that you select as
the ``best'' level of control, including an explanation as to why you
rejected other more stringent control technologies. While both
approaches require essentially the same parameters and analyses, the
EPA prefers the first approach described above, because we believe it
may be more straightforward to implement than the alternative and would
tend to give more thorough consideration to stringent control
alternatives.
Although very similar in process, BART reviews differ in several
respects from the BACT review process described in the NSR Draft
Manual. First, because all BART reviews apply to existing sources, the
available controls and the impacts of those controls may differ.
Second, the CAA requires you to take slightly different factors into
account in determining BART and BACT. In a BACT analysis, the
permitting authority must consider the ``energy, environmental and
economic impacts and other costs'' associated with a control technology
in making its determination. In a BART analysis, on the other hand, the
State must take into account the ``cost of compliance, the remaining
useful life of the source, the energy and nonair quality environmental
impacts of compliance, any existing pollution control technology in use
at the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility from the use
of such technology'' in making its BART determination. Because of the
differences in terminology, the BACT review process tends to encompass
a broader range of factors. For example, the term ``environmental
impacts'' in the BACT definition is more broad than the term ``nonair
quality environmental impacts'' used in the BART definition.
Accordingly, there is no requirement in the BART engineering analysis
to evaluate adverse air quality impacts of control alternatives such as
the relative impacts on hazardous air pollutants, although you may wish
to do so. Finally, for the BART analysis, there is no minimum level of
control required, while any BACT emission limitation must be at least
as stringent as any NSPS that applies to the source.
C. Which Pollutants Must I Address in the Engineering Review?
Once you determine that a source is subject to BART, then a BART
review is required for each visibility-impairing pollutant emitted. In
a BART review, for each affected emission unit, you must establish BART
for each pollutant that can impair visibility. Consequently, the BART
determination must address air pollution control measures for each
emissions unit or pollutant emitting activity subject to review.
Example: Plantwide emissions from emission units within the
listed categories that began operation within the ``time window''
for BART \7\ are 300 tons per year of NOX, 200 tons per
year of SO2, and 150 tons of primary particulate.
Emissions unit A emits 200 tons per year of NOX, 100 tons
per year of SO2, and 100 tons per year of primary
particulate. Other emission units, units B through H, which began
operating in 1966, contribute lesser amounts of each pollutant. For
this example, a BART review is required for NOX,
SO2, and primary particulate, and control options must be
analyzed for units B through H as well as unit A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ That is, emission uunits that were in existence on August 7,
1977 and which began actual operation on or after August 7, 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. What Are the Five Basic Steps of a Case-by-Case BART Engineering
Analysis?
The five steps are:
Step 1--Identify all \8\ available retrofit control technologies,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In identifying ``all'' options, you must identify the most
stringent option and a reasonable set of options for analysis that
reflects a comprehensive list of available technologies. It is not
necessary to list all permutations of available control levels that
exist for a given technology--the list is complete if it includes
the maximum level of control each technology is capable of
achieving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 2--Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options,
Step 3--Rank Remaining Control Technologies By Control Effectiveness,
Step 4--Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results, and
Step 5--Select ``Best System of Continuous Emission Reduction.''
1. Step 1: How Do I Identify All Available Retrofit Emission Control
Techniques?
Available retrofit control options are those air pollution control
technologies with a practical potential for application to the
emissions unit and the regulated pollutant under evaluation. Air
pollution control technologies can include a wide variety of available
methods, systems, and techniques for control of the affected pollutant.
Available air pollution control technologies can include technologies
employed outside of the United States that have been successfully
demonstrated in practice on full scale operations, particularly those
that have been demonstrated as retrofits to existing sources.
Technologies required as BACT or LAER are available for BART purposes
and must be included as control alternatives. The control alternatives
should include not only existing controls for the source category in
question, but also take into account technology transfer of controls
that have been applied to similar source categories and gas streams.
Technologies which have not yet been applied to (or permitted for) full
scale operations need not be considered as available; we do not expect
the source owner to purchase or construct a process or control device
that has not already been demonstrated in practice.
Where a NSPS exists for a source category (which is the case for
most of the categories affected by BART), you should include a level of
control equivalent to the NSPS as one of the control options.\9\ The
NSPS standards are codified in 40 CFR part 60. We note that there are
situations where NSPS standards do not require the most stringent level
of available control for all sources within a category. For example,
post-combustion NOX controls (the most stringent controls
for stationary gas turbines) are not required under subpart GG of the
NSPS for Stationary Gas Turbines. However, such controls must still be
considered available technologies for the BART selection process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In EPA's 1980 BART guidelines for reasonably attributable
visibility impairment, we concluded that NSPS standards generally,
at that time, represented the best level sources could install as
BART, and we required no further demonstration if a NSPS level was
selected. In the 20 year period since this guidance was developed,
there have been advances in SO2 control technologies,
confirmed by a number of recent retrofits at Western power plants.
Accordingly, EPA no longer concludes that the NSPS level of controls
automatically represents ``the best these sources can install.''
While it is possible that a detailed analysis of the BART factors
could result in the selection of a NSPS level of control, we believe
that you should only reach this conclusion based upon an analysis of
the full range of control options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially applicable retrofit control alternatives can be
categorized in three ways.
Pollution prevention: use of inherently lower-emitting
processes/practices, including the use of materials and production
processes and work practices that prevent emissions and result in lower
``production-specific'' emissions,
Use of, (and where already in place, improvement in the
performance of) add-on controls, such as scrubbers,
[[Page 38123]]
fabric filters, thermal oxidizers and other devices that control and
reduce emissions after they are produced, and
Combinations of inherently lower-emitting processes and
add-on controls. Example: for a gas-fired turbine, a combination of
combustion controls (an inherently lower-emitting process) and post-
combustion controls such as selective catalytic reduction (add-on) may
be available to reduce NOX emissions.
For the engineering analysis, you should consider potentially
applicable control techniques from all three categories. You should
consider lower-polluting processes based on demonstrations from
facilities manufacturing identical or similar products from identical
or similar raw materials or fuels. Add-on controls, on the other hand,
should be considered based on the physical and chemical characteristics
of the pollutant-bearing emission stream. Thus, candidate add-on
controls may have been applied to a broad range of emission unit types
that are similar, insofar as emissions characteristics, to the
emissions unit undergoing BART review.
In the course of the BART engineering analysis, one or more of the
available control options may be eliminated from consideration because
they are demonstrated to be technically infeasible or to have
unacceptable energy, cost, or non-air quality environmental impacts on
a case-by-case (or site-specific) basis. However, at the outset, you
should initially identify all control options with potential
application to the emissions unit under review.
We do not consider BART as a requirement to redesign the source
when considering available control alternatives. For example, where the
source subject to BART is a coal-fired electric generator, we do not
require the BART analysis to consider building a natural gas-fired
electric turbine although the turbine may be inherently less polluting
on a per unit basis.
In some cases, retrofit design changes may be available for making
a given production process or emissions unit inherently less
polluting.\10\ (Example: To allow for use of natural gas rather than
oil for startup). In such cases, the ability of design considerations
to make the process inherently less polluting must be considered as a
control alternative for the source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Because BART applies to existing sources, we recognize that
there will probably be far fewer opportunities to consider
inherently lower-emitting processes than for NSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combinations of inherently lower-polluting processes/practices (or
a process made to be inherently less polluting) and add-on controls
could possibly yield more effective means of emissions control than
either approach alone. Therefore, the option to use an inherently
lower-polluting process does not, in and of itself, mean that no
additional add-on controls need to be included in the BART analysis.
These combinations should be identified in Step 1 for evaluation in
subsequent steps.
For emission units subject to a BART engineering review, there will
often be control measures or devices already in place. For such
emission units, it is important to include control options that involve
improvements to existing controls, and not to limit the control options
only to those measures that involve a complete replacement of control
devices.
Example: For a power plant with an existing wet scrubber, the
current control efficiency is 66 percent. Part of the reason for the
relatively low control efficiency is that 22 percent of the gas
stream bypasses the scrubber. An engineering review identifies
options for improving the performance of the wet scrubber by
redesigning the internal components of the scrubber and by
eliminating or reducing the percentage of the gas stream that
bypasses the scrubber. Four control options are identified: (1) 78
percent control based upon improved scrubber performance while
maintaining the 22 percent bypass, (2) 83 percent control based upon
improved scrubber performance while reducing the bypass to 15
percent, (3) 93 percent control based upon improving the scrubber
performance while eliminating the bypass entirely, (this option
results in a ``wet stack'' operation in which the gas leaving the
stack is saturated with water) and (4) 93 percent as in option 3,
with the addition of an indirect reheat system to reheat the stack
gas above the saturation temperature. You must consider each of
these four options in a BART analysis for this source.
You are expected to identify all demonstrated and potentially
applicable retrofit control technology alternatives. Examples of
general information sources to consider include:
The EPA's Clean Air Technology Center, which includes the
RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC);
State and Local Best Available Control Technology
Guidelines--many agencies have online information--for example South
Coast Air Quality Management District, Bay Area Air Quality Management
District, and Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission;
Control technology vendors;
Federal/State/Local NSR permits and associated inspection/
performance test reports;
Environmental consultants;
Technical journals, reports and newsletters, air pollution
control seminars; and
EPA's NSR bulletin board--http://www.epa.gov/ttn/nsr;
Department of Energy's Clean Coal Program--technical
reports;
NOX Control Technology ``Cost Tool''--Clean Air
Markets Division web page--http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/nox/noxtech.htm;
Performance of selective catalytic reduction on coal-fired
steam generating units--final report. OAR/ARD, June 1997 (also
available at http:www.epa.gov/acidrain/nox/noxtech.htm);
Cost estimates for selected applications of NOX
control technologies on stationary combustion boilers. OAR/ARD June
1997. (Docket for NOX SIP call, A-96-56, II-A-03);
Investigation of performance and cost of NOX
controls as applied to group 2 boilers. OAR/ARD, August 1996. (Docket
for Phase II NOX rule, A-95-28, IV-A-4);
Controlling SO2 Emissions: A Review of
Technologies. EPA-600/R-00-093, USEPA/ORD/NRMRL, October 2000.
OAQPS Control Cost Manual.
You should compile appropriate information from all available
information sources, and you should ensure that the resulting list of
control alternatives is complete and comprehensive.
2. Step 2: How Do I Determine Whether the Options Identified in Step 1
Are Technically Feasible?
In Step two, you evaluate the technical feasibility of the control
options you identified in Step one. You should clearly document a
demonstration of technical infeasibility and should show, based on
physical, chemical, and engineering principles, that technical
difficulties would preclude the successful use of the control option on
the emissions unit under review. You may then eliminate such
technically infeasible control options from further consideration in
the BART analysis.
In general, what do we mean by technical feasibility?
Control technologies are technically feasible if either (1) they
have been installed and operated successfully for the type of source
under review, or (2) the technology could be applied to the source
under review. Two key concepts are important in determining whether a
technology could be applied: ``availability'' and ``applicability.'' As
explained in more detail below, a technology is considered
``available'' if
[[Page 38124]]
the source owner may obtain it through commercial channels, or it is
otherwise available within the common sense meaning of the term. An
available technology is ``applicable'' if it can reasonably be
installed and operated on the source type under consideration. A
technology that is available and applicable is technically feasible.
What do we mean by ``available'' technology?
The typical stages for bringing a control technology concept to
reality as a commercial product are:
Concept stage;
Research and patenting;
Bench scale or laboratory testing;
Pilot scale testing;
Licensing and commercial demonstration; and
Commercial sales.
A control technique is considered available, within the context
presented above, if it has reached the licensing and commercial sales
stage of development. Similarly, we do not expect a source owner to
conduct extended trials to learn how to apply a technology on a totally
new and dissimilar source type. Consequently, you would not consider
technologies in the pilot scale testing stages of development as
``available'' for purposes of BART review.
Commercial availability by itself, however, is not necessarily a
sufficient basis for concluding a technology to be applicable and
therefore technically feasible. Technical feasibility, as determined in
Step 2, also means a control option may reasonably be deployed on or
``applicable'' to the source type under consideration.
Because a new technology may become available at various points in
time during the BART analysis process, we believe that guidelines are
needed on when a technology must be considered. For example, a
technology may become available during the public comment period on the
State's rule development process. Likewise, it is possible that new
technologies may become available after the close of the State's public
comment period and before submittal of the SIP to EPA, or during EPA's
review process on the SIP submittal. In order to provide certainty in
the process, we propose that all technologies be considered if
available before the close of the State's public comment period. You
need not consider technologies that become available after this date.
As part of your analysis, you should consider any technologies brought
to your attention in public comments. If you disagree with public
comments asserting that the technology is available, you should provide
an explanation for the public record as to the basis for your
conclusion.
What do we mean by ``applicable'' technology?
You need to exercise technical judgment in determining whether a
control alternative is applicable to the source type under
consideration. In general, a commercially available control option will
be presumed applicable if it has been or is soon to be deployed (e.g.,
is specified in a permit) on the same or a similar source type. Absent
a showing of this type, you evaluate technical feasibility by examining
the physical and chemical characteristics of the pollutant-bearing gas
stream, and comparing them to the gas stream characteristics of the
source types to which the technology had been applied previously.
Deployment of the control technology on a new or existing source with
similar gas stream characteristics is generally a sufficient basis for
concluding the technology is technically feasible barring a
demonstration to the contrary as described below.
What type of demonstration is required if I conclude that an option
is not technically feasible?
Where you assert that a control option identified in Step 1 is
technically infeasible, you should make a factual demonstration that
the option is commercially unavailable, or that unusual circumstances
preclude its application to a particular emission unit. Generally, such
a demonstration involves an evaluation of the characteristics of the
pollutant-bearing gas stream and the capabilities of the technology.
Alternatively, a demonstration of technical infeasibility may involve a
showing that there are unresolvable technical difficulties with
applying the control to the source (e.g., size of the unit, location of
the proposed site, or operating problems related to specific
circumstances of the source). Where the resolution of technical
difficulties is a matter of cost, you should consider the technology to
be technically feasible. The cost of a control alternative is
considered later in the process.
The determination of technical feasibility is sometimes influenced
by recent air quality permits. In some cases, an air quality permit may
require a certain level of control, but the level of control in a
permit is not expected to be achieved in practice (e.g., a source has
received a permit but the project was canceled, or every operating
source at that permitted level has been physically unable to achieve
compliance with the limit). Where this is the case, you should provide
supporting documentation showing why such limits are not technically
feasible, and, therefore, why the level of control (but not necessarily
the technology) may be eliminated from further consideration. However,
if there is a permit requiring the application of a certain technology
or emission limit to be achieved for such technology (especially as a
retrofit for an existing emission unit), this usually is sufficient
justification for you to assume the technical feasibility of that
technology or emission limit.
Physical modifications needed to resolve technical obstacles do
not, in and of themselves, provide a justification for eliminating the
control technique on the basis of technical infeasibility. However, you
may consider the cost of such modifications in estimating costs. This,
in turn, may form the basis for eliminating a control technology (see
later discussion).
Vendor guarantees may provide an indication of commercial
availability and the technical feasibility of a control technique and
could contribute to a determination of technical feasibility or
technical infeasibility, depending on circumstances. However, we do not
consider a vendor guarantee alone to be sufficient justification that a
control option will work. Conversely, lack of a vendor guarantee by
itself does not present sufficient justification that a control option
or an emissions limit is technically infeasible. Generally, you should
make decisions about technical feasibility based on chemical, and
engineering analyses (as discussed above), in conjunction with
information about vendor guarantees.
A possible outcome of the BART procedures discussed in these
guidelines is the evaluation of multiple control technology
alternatives which result in essentially equivalent emissions. It is
not EPA's intent to encourage evaluation of unnecessarily large numbers
of control alternatives for every emissions unit. Consequently, you
should use judgment in deciding on those alternatives for which you
will conduct the detailed impacts analysis (Step 4 below). For example,
if two or more control techniques result in control levels that are
essentially identical, considering the uncertainties of emissions
factors and other parameters pertinent to estimating performance, you
may evaluate only the less costly of these options. You should narrow
the scope of the BART analysis in this way, only if there is a
negligible difference in emissions and energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts between control alternatives.
[[Page 38125]]
3. Step 3: How Do I Develop a Ranking of the Technically Feasible
Alternatives?
Step 3 involves ranking all the technically feasible control
alternatives identified in Step 2. For the pollutant and emissions unit
under review, you rank the control alternatives from the most to the
least effective in terms of emission reduction potential.
Two key issues that must be addressed in this process include:
(1) Making sure that you express the degree of control using a
metric that ensures an ``apples to apples'' comparison of emissions
performance levels among options, and
(2) Giving appropriate treatment and consideration of control
techniques that can operate over a wide range of emission performance
levels.
In some instances, a control technology may reduce more than one
visibility impairing pollutant. We request comment on whether and how
the BART guidelines should address the process for ranking such control
technologies against control technologies which reduce emissions of
only one pollutant.
What are the appropriate metrics for comparison?
This issue is especially important when you compare inherently
lower-polluting processes to one another or to add-on controls. In such
cases, it is generally most effective to express emissions performance
as an average steady state emissions level per unit of product produced
or processed.
Examples of common metrics:
Pounds of SO2 emissions per million Btu heat
input, and
Pounds of NOX emissions per ton of cement
produced.
How do I evaluate control techniques with a wide range of emission
performance levels?
Many control techniques, including both add-on controls and
inherently lower polluting processes, can perform at a wide range of
levels. Scrubbers and high and low efficiency electrostatic
precipitators (ESPs) are two of the many examples of such control
techniques that can perform at a wide range of levels. It is not our
intent to require analysis of each possible level of efficiency for a
control technique, as such an analysis would result in a large number
of options. It is important, however, that in analyzing the technology
you take into account the most stringent emission control level that
the technology is capable of achieving. You should use the most recent
regulatory decisions and performance data (e.g., manufacturer's data,
engineering estimates and the experience of other sources) to identify
an emissions performance level or levels to evaluate.
In assessing the capability of the control alternative, latitude
exists to consider any special circumstances pertinent to the specific
source under review, or regarding the prior application of the control
alternative. However, you must document the basis for choosing the
alternate level (or range) of control in the BART analysis. Without a
showing of differences between the source and other sources that have
achieved more stringent emissions limits, you should conclude that the
level being achieved by those other sources is representative of the
achievable level for the source being analyzed.
You may encounter cases where you may wish to evaluate other levels
of control in addition to the most stringent level for a given device.
While you must consider the most stringent level as one of the control
options, you may consider less stringent levels of control as
additional options. This would be useful, particularly in cases where
the selection of additional options would have widely varying costs and
other impacts.
Finally, we note that for retrofitting existing sources in
addressing BART, you should consider ways to improve the performance of
existing control devices, particularly when a control device is not
achieving the level of control that other similar sources are achieving
in practice with the same device.
How do I rank the control options?
After determining the emissions performance levels (using
appropriate metrics of comparison) for each control technology option
identified in Step 2, you establish a list that identifies the most
stringent control technology option. Each other control option is then
placed after this alternative in a ranking according to its respective
emissions performance level, ranked from lowest emissions to highest
emissions (most effective to least stringent effective emissions
control alternative). You should do this for each pollutant and for
each emissions unit (or grouping of similar units) subject to a BART
analysis.
4. Step 4: For a BART Engineering Analysis, What Impacts Must I
Calculate and Report? What Methods Does EPA Recommend for the Impacts
Analysis?
After you identify and rank the available and technically feasible
control technology options, you must then conduct three types of
impacts analyses when you make a BART determination:
Impact analysis part 1: Costs of compliance, (taking into account the
remaining useful life of the facility)
Impact analysis part 2: Energy impacts, and
Impact analysis part 3: Non-air quality environmental impacts.
In this section, we describe how to conduct each of these three
analyses. You are responsible for presenting an evaluation of each
impact along with appropriate supporting information. You should
discuss and, where possible, quantify both beneficial and adverse
impacts. In general, the analysis should focus on the direct impact of
the control alternative.
a. Impact analysis part 1: How do I estimate the costs of control?
To conduct a cost analysis, you:
--Identify the emissions units being controlled,
--Identify design parameters for emission controls, and
--Develop cost estimates based upon those design parameters.
It is important to identify clearly the emission units being
controlled, that is, to specify a well-defined area or process segment
within the plant. In some cases, multiple emission units can be
controlled jointly. However, in other cases it may be appropriate in
the cost analysis to consider whether multiple units will be required
to install separate and/or different control devices. The engineering
analysis should provide a clear summary list of equipment and the
associated control costs. Inadequate documentation of the equipment
whose emissions are being controlled is a potential cause for confusion
in comparison of costs of the same controls applied to similar sources.
You then specify the control system design parameters. Potential
sources of these design parameters include equipment vendors,
background information documents used to support NSPS development,
control technique guidelines documents, cost manuals developed by EPA,
control data in trade publications, and engineering and performance
test data. The following are a few examples of design parameters for
two example control measures:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of design
Control device parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Scrubbers............................. Type of sorbent used (lime,
limestone, etc.)
Gas pressure drop
Liquid/gas ratio.
[[Page 38126]]
Selective Catalytic Reduction............. Ammonia to NOX molar ratio
Pressure drop
Catalyst life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The value selected for the design parameter should ensure that the
control option will achieve the level of emission control being
evaluated. You should include in your analysis, documentation of your
assumptions regarding design parameters. Examples of supporting
references would include the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) Control Cost Manual (see below) and background
information documents used for NSPS and hazardous pollutant emission
standards. If the design parameters you specified differ from typical
designs, you should document the difference by supplying performance
test data for the control technology in question applied to the same
source or a similar source.
Once the control technology alternatives and achievable emissions
performance levels have been identified, you then develop estimates of
capital and annual costs. The basis for equipment cost estimates also
should be documented, either with data supplied by an equipment vendor
(i.e., budget estimates or bids) or by a referenced source (such as the
OAQPS Control Cost Manual, Fifth Edition, February 1996, EPA 453/B-96-
001).\11\ In order to maintain and improve consistency, we recommend
that you estimate control equipment costs based on the EPA/OAQPS
Control Cost Manual, where possible.\12\ The Control Cost Manual
addresses most control technologies in sufficient detail for a BART
analysis. While the types of site-specific analyses contained in the
Control Cost Manual are less precise than those based upon a detailed
engineering design, normally the estimates provide results that are
plus or minus 30 percent, which is generally sufficient for the BART
review. The cost analysis should take into account site-specific
conditions that are out of the ordinary (e.g., use of a more expensive
fuel or additional waste disposal costs) that may affect the cost of a
particular BART technology option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The Control Cost Manual is updated periodically. While this
citation refers to the latest version at the time this guidance was
written, you should use the version that is current as of when you
conduct your impact analysis. This document is available at the
following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/chpt2acr.pdf.
\12\ You should include documentation for any additional
information you used for the cost calculations, including any
information supplied by vendors that affects your assumptions
regarding purchased equipment costs, equipment life, replacement of
major components, and any other element of the calculation that
differs from the Control Cost Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. How do I take into account a project's ``remaining useful life''
in calculating control costs? You treat the requirement to consider the
source's ``remaining useful life'' of the source for BART
determinations as one element of the overall cost analysis. The
``remaining useful life'' of a source, if it represents a relatively
short time period, may affect the annualized costs of retrofit
controls. For example, the methods for calculating annualized costs in
EPA's Control Cost Manual require the use of a specified time period
for amortization that varies based upon the type of control. If the
remaining useful life will clearly exceed this time period, the
remaining useful life has essentially no effect on control costs and on
the BART determination process. Where the remaining useful life is less
than the time period for amortizing costs, you should use this shorter
time period in your cost calculations.
For purposes of these guidelines, the remaining useful life is the
difference between:
(1) January 1 of the year you are conducting the BART analysis (but
not later than January 1, 2008); \13\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The reason for the year 2008 is that the year 2008 is the
latest year for which SIPs are due to address the BART requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The date the facility stops operations. This date must be
assured by a federally-enforceable restriction preventing further
operation. A projected closure date, without such a federally-
enforceable restriction, is not sufficient. (The EPA recognizes that
there may be situations where a source operator intends to shut down a
source by a given date, but wishes to retain the flexibility to
continue operating beyond that date in the event, for example, that
market conditions change.) We request comment on how such flexibility
could be provided in this regard while maintaining consistency with the
statutory requirement to install BART within 5 years. For example, one
option that we request comment on is allowing a source to choose
between:
(1) Accepting a federally enforceable condition requiring the
source to shut down by a given date, or
(2) Installing the level of controls that would have been
considered BART if the BART analysis had not assumed a reduced
remaining useful life if the source is in operation 5 years after the
date EPA approves the relevant SIP. The source would not be allowed to
operate after the 5-year mark without such controls.
c. What do we mean by cost effectiveness? Cost effectiveness, in
general, is a criterion used to assess the potential for achieving an
objective at least cost. For purposes of air pollutant analysis,
``effectiveness'' is measured in terms of tons of pollutant emissions
removed, and ``cost'' is measured in terms of annualized control costs.
We recommend two types of cost-effectiveness calculations--average cost
effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness.
In the cost analysis, you should take care to not focus on
incomplete results or partial calculations. For example, large capital
costs for a control option alone would not preclude selection of a
control measure if large emissions reductions are projected. In such a
case, low or reasonable cost effectiveness numbers may validate the
option as an appropriate BART alternative irrespective of the large
capital costs. Similarly, projects with relatively low capital costs
may not be cost effective if there are few emissions reduced.
d. How do I calculate average cost effectiveness? Average cost
effectiveness means the total annualized costs of control divided by
annual emissions reductions (the difference between baseline annual
emissions and the estimate of emissions after controls), using the
following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY01.004
[[Page 38127]]
Because you calculate costs in (annualized) dollars per year ($/yr)
and because you calculate emissions rates in tons per year (tons/yr),
the result is an average cost-effectiveness number in (annualized)
dollars per ton ($/ton) of pollutant removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Whenever you calculate or report annual costs, you should
indicate the year for which the costs are estimated. For example, if
you use the year 2000 as the basis for cost comparisons, you would
report that an annualized cost of $20 million would be: $20 million
(year 2000 dollars).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. How do I calculate baseline emissions? The baseline emissions
rate should represent a realistic depiction of anticipated annual
emissions for the source. In general, for the existing sources subject
to BART, you will estimate the anticipated annual emissions based upon
actual emissions from a baseline period. For purposes of estimating
actual emissions, these guidelines take a similar approach to the
current definition of actual emissions in NSR programs. That is, the
baseline emissions are the average annual emissions from the two most
recent years, unless you demonstrate that another period is more
representative of normal source operations.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ This is the approach in the current NSR regulations. It is
possible that this definition of baseline period may change based
upon a current effort to amend the NSR regulations. We propose that
these guidelines should be amended to be consistent with the
approach taken in that separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you project that future operating parameters (e.g., limited
hours of operation or capacity utilization, type of fuel, raw materials
or product mix or type) will differ from past practice, and if this
projection has a deciding effect in the BART determination, then you
must make these parameters or assumptions into enforceable limitations.
In the absence of enforceable limitations, you calculate baseline
emissions based upon continuation of past practice.
Examples: The baseline emissions calculation for an emergency
standby generator may consider the fact that the source owner would
not operate more than past practice of 2 weeks a year. On the other
hand, baseline emissions associated with a base-loaded turbine
should be based on its past practice which would indicate a large
number of hours of operation. This produces a significantly higher
level of baseline emissions than in the case of the emergency/
standby unit and results in more cost-effective controls. As a
consequence of the dissimilar baseline emissions, BART for the two
cases could be very different.
f. How do I calculate incremental cost effectiveness? In addition
to the average cost effectiveness of a control option, you should also
calculate incremental cost effectiveness. You should consider the
incremental cost effectiveness in combination with the total cost
effectiveness in order to justify elimination of a control option. The
incremental cost effectiveness calculation compares the costs and
emissions performance level of a control option to those of the next
most stringent option, as shown in the following formula:
Incremental Cost Effectiveness (dollars per incremental ton removed) =
(Total annualized costs of control option) - (Total annualized costs of
next control option)
(Next control option annual emissions) - (Control option annual
emissions)
Example 1: Assume that Option F on Figure 2 has total annualized
costs of $1 million to reduce 2000 tons of a pollutant, and that
Option D on Figure 2 has total annualized costs of $500,000 to
reduce 1000 tons of the same pollutant. The incremental cost
effectiveness of Option F relative to Option D is ($1 million -
$500,000) divided by (2000 tons - 1000 tons), or $500,000 divided by
1000 tons, which is $500/ton.
Example 2: Assume that two control options exist: Option 1 and
Option 2. Option 1 achieves a 100,000 ton/yr reduction at an annual
cost of $19 million. Option 2 achieves a 98,000 tons/yr reduction at
an annual cost of $15 million. The incremental cost effectiveness of
Option 1 relative to Option 2 is ($19 million - $15 million) divided
by (100,000 tons - 98,000 tons). The adoption of Option 1 instead of
Option 2 results in an incremental emission reduction of 2,000 tons
per year at an additional cost of $4,000,000 per year. The
incremental cost of Option 1, then, is $2000 per ton - 10 times the
average cost of $190 per ton. While $2000 per ton may still be
deemed reasonable, it is useful to consider both the average and
incremental cost in making an overall cost-effectiveness finding. Of
course, there may be other differences between these options, such
as, energy or water use, or non-air environmental effects, which
also deserve consideration in selecting a BART technology.
You should exercise care in deriving incremental costs of candidate
control options. Incremental cost-effectiveness comparisons should
focus on annualized cost and emission reduction differences between
``dominant'' alternatives. To identify dominant alternatives, you
generate a graphical plot of total annualized costs for total emissions
reductions for all control alternatives identified in the BART
analysis, and by identifying a ``least-cost envelope'' as shown in
Figure 2.
Example: Eight technically feasible control options for analysis
are listed in the BART ranking. These are represented as A through H
in Figure 2. The dominant set of control options, B, D, F, G, and H,
represent the least-cost envelope, as we depict by the cost curve
connecting them. Points A, C and E are inferior options, and you
should not use them in calculating incremental cost effectiveness.
Points A, C and E represent inferior controls because B will buy
more emissions reductions for less money than A; and similarly, D
and F will buy more reductions for less money than C and E,
respectively.
In calculating incremental costs, you:
(1) Rank the control options in ascending order of annualized total
costs,
(2) Develop a graph of the most reasonable smooth curve of the
control options, as shown in Figure 2, and
(3) Calculate the incremental cost effectiveness for each dominant
option, which is the difference in total annual costs between that
option and the next most stringent option, divided by the difference in
emissions reductions between those two options. For example, using
Figure 2, you would calculate incremental cost effectiveness for the
difference between options B and D, options D and F, options F and G,
and options G and H.
[[Page 38128]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY01.001
A comparison of incremental costs can also be useful in evaluating
the viability of a specific control option over a range of
efficiencies. For example, depending on the capital and operational
cost of a control device, total and incremental cost may vary
significantly (either increasing or decreasing) over the operational
range of a control device.
In addition, when you evaluate the average or incremental cost
effectiveness of a control alternative, you should make reasonable and
supportable assumptions regarding control efficiencies. An
unrealistically low assessment of the emission reduction potential of a
certain technology could result in inflated cost-effectiveness figures.
g. What other information should I provide in the cost impacts
analysis? You should provide documentation of any unusual circumstances
that exist for the source that would lead to cost-effectiveness
estimates that would exceed that for recent retrofits. This is
especially important in cases where recent retrofits have cost-
effectiveness values that are within a reasonable range, but your
analysis concludes that costs for the source being analyzed are not
reasonable.
Example: In an arid region, large amounts of water are needed
for a scrubbing system. Acquiring water from a distant location
could greatly increase the cost effectiveness of wet scrubbing as a
control option.
[[Page 38129]]
h. Impact analysis part 2: How should I analyze and report energy
impacts? You should examine the energy requirements of the control
technology and determine whether the use of that technology results in
any significant or unusual energy penalties or benefits. A source owner
may, for example, benefit from the combustion of a concentrated gas
stream rich in volatile organic compounds; on the other hand, more
often extra fuel or electricity is required to power a control device
or incinerate a dilute gas stream. If such benefits or penalties exist,
they should be quantified and included in the cost analysis. Because
energy penalties or benefits can usually be quantified in terms of
additional cost or income to the source, the energy impacts analysis
can, in most cases, simply be factored into the cost impacts analysis.
However, certain types of control technologies have inherent energy
penalties associated with their use. While you should quantify these
penalties, so long as they are within the normal range for the
technology in question, you should not, in general, consider such
penalties to be an adequate justification for eliminating that
technology from consideration.
Your energy impact analysis should consider only direct energy
consumption and not indirect energy impacts. For example, you could
estimate the direct energy impacts of the control alternative in units
of energy consumption at the source (e.g., BTU, kWh, barrels of oil,
tons of coal). The energy requirements of the control options should be
shown in terms of total (and in certain cases, also incremental) energy
costs per ton of pollutant removed. You can then convert these units
into dollar costs and, where appropriate, factor these costs into the
control cost analysis.
You generally do not consider indirect energy impacts (such as
energy to produce raw materials for construction of control equipment).
However, if you determine, either independently or based on a showing
by the source owner, that the indirect energy impact is unusual or
significant and that the impact can be well quantified, you may
consider the indirect impact.
The energy impact analysis may also address concerns over the use
of locally scarce fuels. The designation of a scarce fuel may vary from
region to region. However, in general, a scarce fuel is one which is in
short supply locally and can be better used for alternative purposes,
or one which may not be reasonably available to the source either at
the present time or in the near future.
Finally, the energy impacts analysis may consider whether there are
relative differences between alternatives regarding the use of locally
or regionally available coal, and whether a given alternative would
result in significant economic disruption or unemployment. For example,
where two options are equally cost effective and achieve equivalent or
similar emissions reductions, one option may be preferred if the other
alternative results in significant disruption or unemployment.
i. Impact analysis part 3: How do I analyze ``non-air quality
environmental impacts?'' In the non-air quality related environmental
impacts portion of the BART analysis, you address environmental impacts
other than air quality due to emissions of the pollutant in question.
Such environmental impacts include solid or hazardous waste generation
and discharges of polluted water from a control device.
You should identify any significant or unusual environmental
impacts associated with a control alternative that have the potential
to affect the selection or elimination of a control alternative. Some
control technologies may have potentially significant secondary
environmental impacts. Scrubber effluent, for example, may affect water
quality and land use. Alternatively, water availability may affect the
feasibility and costs of wet scrubbers. Other examples of secondary
environmental impacts could include hazardous waste discharges, such as
spent catalysts or contaminated carbon. Generally, these types of
environmental concerns become important when sensitive site-specific
receptors exist or when the incremental emissions reductions potential
of the most stringent control is only marginally greater than the next
most-effective option. However, the fact that a control device creates
liquid and solid waste that must be disposed of does not necessarily
argue against selection of that technology as BART, particularly if the
control device has been applied to similar facilities elsewhere and the
solid or liquid waste problem under review is similar to those other
applications. On the other hand, where you or the source owner can show
that unusual circumstances at the proposed facility create greater
problems than experienced elsewhere, this may provide a basis for the
elimination of that control alternative as BART.
The procedure for conducting an analysis of non-air quality
environmental impacts should be made based on a consideration of site-
specific circumstances. It is not necessary to perform this analysis of
environmental impacts for the entire list of technologies you ranked in
Step 3, if you propose to adopt the most stringent alternative. In that
case, the analysis need only address those control alternatives with
any significant or unusual environmental impacts that have the
potential to affect the selection or elimination of a control
alternative. Thus, any important relative environmental impacts (both
positive and negative) of alternatives can be compared with each other.
In general, the analysis of impacts starts with the identification
and quantification of the solid, liquid, and gaseous discharges from
the control device or devices under review. Initially, you should
perform a qualitative or semi-quantitative screening to narrow the
analysis to discharges with potential for causing adverse environmental
effects. Next, you should assess the mass and composition of any such
discharges and quantify them to the extent possible, based on readily-
available information. You should also assemble pertinent information
about the public or environmental consequences of releasing these
materials.
j. What are examples of non-air quality environmental impacts? The
following are examples of how to conduct non-air quality environmental
impacts:
Water Impact
You should identify the relative quantities of water used and water
pollutants produced and discharged as a result of the use of each
alternative emission control system relative to the most stringent
alternative. Where possible, you should assess the effect on ground
water and such local surface water quality parameters as ph, turbidity,
dissolved oxygen, salinity, toxic chemical levels, temperature, and any
other important considerations. The analysis should consider whether
applicable water quality standards will be met and the availability and
effectiveness of various techniques to reduce potential adverse
effects.
Solid Waste Disposal Impact
You should compare the quality and quantity of solid waste (e.g.,
sludges, solids) that must be stored and disposed of or recycled as a
result of the application of each alternative emission control system
with the quality and quantity of wastes created with the most stringent
emission control system. You should consider the composition and
various other characteristics of the solid waste (such as permeability,
water retention, rewatering of dried material,
[[Page 38130]]
compression strength, leachability of dissolved ions, bulk density,
ability to support vegetation growth and hazardous characteristics)
which are significant with regard to potential surface water pollution
or transport into and contamination of subsurface waters or aquifers.
Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
You may consider the extent to which the alternative emission
control systems may involve a trade-off between short-term
environmental gains at the expense of long-term environmental losses
and the extent to which the alternative systems may result in
irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources (for example, use
of scarce water resources).
Other Adverse Environmental Impacts
You may consider significant differences in noise levels, radiant
heat, or dissipated static electrical energy. Other examples of non-air
quality environmental impacts would include hazardous waste discharges
such as spent catalysts or contaminated carbon. Generally, these types
of environmental concerns become important when the plant is located in
an area that is sensitive to environmental degradation and when the
incremental emissions reductions potential of the most stringent
control option is only marginally greater than the next most-effective
option.
Benefits to the Environment
It is important to consider relative differences between options
regarding their beneficial impacts to non-air quality-related
environmental media. For example, you may consider whether a given
control option results in less deposition of pollutants to nearby
sensitive water bodies.
5. Step 5: How Do I Select the ``Best'' Alternative, Using the Results
of Steps 1 Through 4?
a. Summary of the Impacts Analysis. From the alternatives you
ranked in Step 3, you should develop a chart (or charts) displaying for
each of the ranked alternatives:
Expected emission rate (tons per year, pounds per hour);
Emissions performance level (e.g., percent pollutant
removed, emissions per unit product, lb/MMbtu, ppm);
Expected emissions reductions (tons per year);
Costs of compliance--total annualized costs ($), cost
effectiveness ($/ton), and incremental cost effectiveness ($/ton);
Energy impacts (indicate any significant energy benefits
or disadvantages);
Non-air quality environmental impacts (includes any
significant or unusual other media impacts, e.g., water or solid
waste), both positive and negative.
b. Selecting a ``best'' alternative. As discussed above, we are
seeking comment on two alternative approaches for evaluating control
options for BART. The first involves a sequential process for
conducting the impacts analysis that begins with a complete evaluation
of the most stringent control option. Under this approach, you
determine that the most stringent alternative in the ranking does not
impose unreasonable costs of compliance, taking into account both
average and incremental costs, then the analysis begins with a
presumption that this level is selected. You then proceed to
considering whether energy and non-air quality environmental impacts
would justify selection of an alternative control option. If there are
no outstanding issues regarding energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts, the analysis is ended and the most stringent
alternative is identified as the ``best system of continuous emission
reduction.''
If you determine that the most stringent alternative is
unacceptable due to such impacts, you need to document the rationale
for this finding for the public record. Then, the next most-effective
alternative in the listing becomes the new control candidate and is
similarly evaluated. This process continues until you identify a
technology which does not pose unacceptable costs of compliance, energy
and/or non-air quality environmental impacts.
The EPA also requests comment on an alternative decision-making
approach that would not begin with an evaluation of the most stringent
control option. For example, you could choose to begin the BART
determination process by evaluating the least stringent, technically
feasible control option or by evaluating an intermediate control option
drawn from the range of technically feasible control alternatives.
Under this approach, you would then consider the additional emissions
reductions, costs, and other effects (if any) of successively more
stringent control options. Under such an approach, you would still be
required to (1) display and rank all of the options in order of control
effectiveness and to identify the average and incremental costs of each
option; (2) consider the energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts of each option; and (3) provide a justification for adopting
the technology that you select as the ``best'' level of control,
including an explanation as to why you rejected other more stringent
control technologies.
Because of EPA's experience in evaluating SO2 control
options for utility boilers, the Agency is proposing to establish a
presumption regarding the level of SO2 control that is
generally achievable for such sources. Based on the cost models in the
Controlling SO2 Emissions report,\16\ it appears that, where
there is no existing control technology in place, 90-95 percent control
can generally be achieved at cost-effectiveness values that are in the
hundreds of dollars per ton range or less.\17\ We are thus proposing a
presumption that, for uncontrolled utility boilers, an SO2-
control level in the 90-95 range is generally achievable. If you wish
to demonstrate a BART level of control that is less than any
presumption established the final guidelines, you would need to
demonstrate the source-specific circumstances with respect to costs,
remaining useful life, non-air quality environmental impacts, or energy
impacts that would justify less stringent controls than for a typical
utility boiler. We believe that the ``consideration of cost'' factor
for source-by-source BART, which is a technology-based approach,
generally requires selection of control measures that are within this
level of cost effectiveness. We recognize, however, that the population
of utility boilers subject to BART may have case-by-case variations
(for example, type of fuel used, severe space limitations, and presence
of existing control equipment) that could affect the costs of applying
retrofit controls. We invite comments on whether the 90-95 percent
presumption is appropriate, or whether another presumption should be
established instead. If commenters want to offer a different
presumption they should provide documentation supporting the basis for
their proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Documentation of the presumption that 90-95 percent control
is achievable is contained in a recent report entitled Controlling
SO2 Emissions: A Review of Technologies, EPA-600/R-00-
093, available on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/WebPubs/so2. This report summarizes percentage controls for flue
gas desulfurization (FGD) systems worldwide, provides detailed
methods for evaluating costs, and explains the reasons why costs
have been decreasing with time.
\17\ The EPA has used the cost models in the Controlling
SO2 Emissions report to calculate cost-effectiveness ($/
ton) estimates for FGD technologies for a number of example cases.
(See note to docket A-2000-28 from Tim Smith, EPA/OAQPS, December
29, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For evaluating the significance of the costs of compliance, EPA
requests
[[Page 38131]]
comment on whether the final rule should contain specific criteria, and
on whether such criteria would improve implementation of the BART
requirement. For example, in the work of the Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP),\18\ a system is described which views as ``low
cost'' those controls with an average cost effectiveness below $500/
ton, as ``moderate'' those controls with an average cost effectiveness
between $500 to 3000 per ton, and as ``high'' those controls with an
average cost effectiveness greater than $3000 per ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Technical Support Documentation. Voluntary Emissions
Reduction Program for Major Industrial Sources of Sulfur Dioxide in
Nine Western States and a Backstop Market Trading Program. An Annex
to the Report of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission.
Section 6A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. In selecting a ``best'' alternative, should I consider the
affordability of controls? Even if the control technology is cost
effective, there may be cases where the installation of controls would
affect the viability of continued plant operations.
As a general matter, for plants that are essentially uncontrolled
at present, and emit at much greater levels per unit of production than
other plants in the category, we are unlikely to accept as BART any
analysis that preserves a source's uncontrolled status. While this
result may predict the shutdown of some facilities, we believe that the
flexibility provided in the regional haze rule for an alternative
reduction approach, such as an emissions trading program, will minimize
the likelihood of shutdowns.
Nonetheless, we recognize there may be unusual circumstances that
justify taking into consideration the conditions of the plant and the
economic effects of requiring the use of a given control technology.
These effects would include effects on product prices, the market
share, and profitability of the source. We do not intend, for example,
that the most stringent alternative must always be selected, if that
level would cause a plant to shut down, while a slightly lesser degree
of control would not have this effect. Where there are such unusual
circumstances that are judged to have a severe effect on plant
operations, you may take into consideration the conditions of the plant
and the economic effects of requiring the use of a control technology.
Where these effects are judged to have a severe impact on plant
operations you may consider them in the selection process, so long as
you provide an economic analysis that demonstrates, in sufficient
detail for a meaningful public review, the specific economic effects,
parameters, and reasoning. (We recognize that this review process must
preserve the confidentiality of sensitive business information). Any
analysis should consider whether other competing plants in the same
industry may also be required to install BART controls.
V. Cumulative Air Quality Analysis
A. What Air Quality Analysis Do We Require in the Regional Haze Rule
for Purposes of BART Determinations?
In the regional haze rule, we require the following in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B):
An analysis of the degree of visibility improvement that would
be achieved in each mandatory Class I Federal area as a result of
the emission reductions from all sources subject to BART located
within the region that contributes to visibility impairment in the
Class I area, based on the * * * [results of the engineering
analysis required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A)] * * *
This means that the regional haze rule requires you to conduct a
regional modeling analysis which addresses the total cumulative
regional visibility improvement if all sources subject to BART were to
install the ``best'' controls selected according to the engineering
analysis described above in section IV of these guidelines. We are
developing guidelines for regional air quality modeling.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ (The current draft of this document is entitled Guidance
for Attainment of Air Quality Goals for PM2.5 and
Regional Haze. We expect this document will be released in final
form before the publication of the final rule for the BART
guidelines.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. How Do I Consider the Results of This Analysis in My Selection of
BART for Individual Sources?
You use a regional modeling analysis to assess the cumulative
impact on visibility of the controls selected in the engineering
analysis for the time period for the first regional haze SIP, that is,
the time period between the baseline period and the year 2018. You use
this cumulative impact assessment to make a determination of whether
the controls you identified, in their entirety, provide a sufficient
visibility improvement to justify their installation. We believe that
there is a sufficient basis for the controls if you can demonstrate for
any Class I area that any of the following criteria are met:
(1) The cumulative visibility improvement is a substantial fraction
of the achievable visibility improvement from all measures included in
the SIP, or is a substantial fraction of the visibility goal selected
for any Class I area (EPA believes that for such situations, the
controls would be essential to ensure progress towards a long-term
improvement in visibility); OR
(2) The cumulative visibility improvement is necessary to prevent
any degradation from current conditions on the best visibility days.
Note that under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B), the passage cited
above, the rule does not provide for modeling of subgroupings of the
BART population within a region, nor for determinations that some, but
not all, of the controls selected in the engineering analysis may be
included in the SIP. Thus, to comply with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1), the
visibility SIP must provide for BART emission limitations for all
sources subject to BART (or demonstrate that BART-level controls are
already in place and required by the SIP), unless you provide a
demonstration that no BART controls are justifiable based upon the
cumulative visibility analysis.
VI. Enforceable Limits/Compliance Date
To complete the BART process, you must establish enforceable
emission limits and require compliance within a given period of time.
In particular, you must establish an enforceable emission limit for
each subject emission unit at the source and for each pollutant subject
to review that is emitted from the source. In addition, you must
require compliance with the BART emission limitations no later than 5
years after EPA approves your SIP. If technological or economic
limitations in the application of a measurement methodology to a
particular emission unit would make an emissions limit infeasible, you
may prescribe a design, equipment, work practice, operation standard,
or combination of these types of standards. You should ensure that any
BART requirements are written in a way that clearly specifies the
individual emission unit(s) subject to BART review. Because the BART
requirements are ``applicable'' requirements of the CAA, they must be
included as title V permit conditions according to the procedures
established in 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71.
Section 302(k) of the CAA requires emissions limits such as BART to
be met on a continuous basis. Although this provision does not
necessarily require the use of continuous emissions monitoring (CEMs),
it is important that sources employ techniques that ensure compliance
on a continuous basis. Monitoring requirements generally applicable to
sources, including those that are subject to BART, are governed by
other regulations. See, e.g., 40 CFR
[[Page 38132]]
part 64 (compliance assurance monitoring); 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) (periodic
monitoring); 40 CFR 70.6(c)(1) (sufficiency monitoring). Note also that
while we do not believe that CEMs would necessarily be required for all
BART sources, the vast majority of electric generating units already
employ CEM technology for other programs, such as the acid rain
program. In addition, emissions limits must be enforceable as a
practical matter (contain appropriate averaging times, compliance
verification procedures and recordkeeping requirements). In light of
the above, the permit must:
Be sufficient to show compliance or noncompliance (i.e.,
through monitoring times of operation, fuel input, or other indices of
operating conditions and practices); and
Specify a reasonable averaging time consistent with
established reference methods, contain reference methods for
determining compliance, and provide for adequate reporting and
recordkeeping so that air quality agency personnel can determine the
compliance status of the source.
VII. Emission Trading Program Overview
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) allows States the option of implementing an
emissions trading program or other alternative measure instead of
requiring BART. This option provides the opportunity for achieving
better environmental results at a lower cost than under a source-by-
source BART requirement. A trading program must include participation
by BART sources, but may also include sources that are not subject to
BART. The program would allow for implementation during the first
implementation period of the regional haze rule (that is, by the year
2018) instead of the 5-year compliance period noted above. In this
section of the guidance, we provide an overview of the steps in
developing a trading program \20\ consistent with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ We focus in this section on emission cap and trade programs
which we believe will be the most common type of economic incentive
program developed as an alternative to BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. What Are the General Steps in Developing an Emission Trading
Program?
The basic steps are to:
(1) Develop emission budgets;
(2) Allocate emission allowances to individual sources; and
(3) Develop a system for tracking individual source emissions and
allowances. (For example, procedures for transactions, monitoring,
compliance and other means of ensuring program accountability).
B. What Are Emission Budgets and Allowances?
An emissions budget is a limit, for a given source population, on
the total emissions amount \21\ that may be emitted by those sources
over a State or region. An emission budget is also referred to as an
``emission cap.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ An emission budget generally represents a total emission
amount for a single pollutant such as SO2. As noted in
the preamble to the regional haze rule (64 FR 35743, July 1, 1999)
we believe that unresolved technical difficulties preclude inter-
pollutant trading at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, the emission budget is subdivided into source-specific
amounts that we refer to as ``allowances.'' Generally, each allowance
equals one ton of emissions. Sources must hold allowances for all
emissions of the pollutant covered by the program that they emit. Once
you allocate the allowances, source owners have flexibility in
determining how they will meet their emissions limit. Source owners
have the options of:
--Emitting at the level of allowances they are allocated (for example,
by controlling emissions or curtailing operations),
--Emitting at amounts less than the allowance level, thus freeing up
allowances that may be used by other sources owned by the same owner,
or sold to another source owner, or
--Emitting at amounts greater than the allowance level, and purchasing
allowances from other sources or using excess allowances from another
plant under the same ownership.
A good example of an emissions trading program is the acid rain
program under title IV of the CAA. The acid rain program is a national
program--it establishes a national emissions cap, allocates allowances
to individual sources, and allows trading of allowances between all
covered sources in the United States. The Ozone Transport Commission's
NOX Memorandum of Understanding, and the NOX SIP
call both provide for regional trading programs. Other trading programs
generally have applied only to sources within a single State. A
regional multi-State program provides greater opportunities for
emission trading, and should be considered by regional planning
organizations that are evaluating alternatives to source-specific BART.
The WRAP has recommended a regional market trading program as a
backstop to its overall emission reduction program for SO2.
Although regional trading programs require more interstate
coordination, EPA has expertise that it can offer to States wishing to
pursue such a program.
C. What Criteria Must Be Met in Developing an Emission Trading Program
as an Alternative to BART?
Under the regional haze rule, an emission trading program must
achieve ``greater reasonable progress'' (that is, greater visibility
improvement) than would be achieved through the installation and
operation of source-specific BART. The ``greater reasonable progress''
demonstration involves the following steps, which are discussed in more
detail below:
--Identify the sources that are subject to BART,
--Calculate the emissions reductions that would be achieved if BART
were installed and operated on sources subject to BART,
--Demonstrate whether your emission budget achieves emission levels
that are equivalent to or less than the emissions levels that would
result if BART were installed and operated,
--Analyze whether implementing a trading program in lieu of BART would
likely lead to differences in the geographic distribution of emissions
within a region, and
--Demonstrate that the emission levels will achieve greater progress in
visibility than would be achieved if BART were installed and operated
on sources subject to BART.
1. How Do I Identify Sources Subject to BART?
For a trading program, you would identify sources subject to BART
in the same way as we described in sections II and III of these
guidelines.
2. How Do I Calculate the Emissions Reductions That Would Be Achieved
If BART Were Installed and Operated on These Sources?
For a trading program under 51.308(e)(2), you may identify these
emission reductions by:
--Conducting a case-by-case analysis for each of the sources, using the
procedures described above in these guidelines in sections II through
V;
--Conducting an analysis for each source category that takes into
account the available technologies, the costs of compliance, the energy
impacts, the non-air quality environmental impacts, the pollution
control equipment in use, and the remaining useful life, on a category-
wide basis; or
[[Page 38133]]
--Conducting an analysis that combines considerations on both source-
specific and category-wide information.
For a category-wide analysis of available control options, you
develop cost estimates and estimates of energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts that you judge representative of the sources
subject to BART for a source category as a whole, rather than analyze
each source that is subject to BART. The basic steps of a category-wide
analysis are the same as for a source-specific analysis. You identify
technically feasible control options and rank them according to control
stringency. Next, you calculate the costs and cost effectiveness for
each control option, beginning with the most stringent option. Likely,
the category-wide estimate will represent a range of cost and cost-
effectiveness values rather than a single number.\22\ Next, you
evaluate the expected energy and non-air quality impacts (both positive
and negative impacts) to determine whether these impacts preclude
selection of a given alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ We request comment on whether these guidelines should
recommend a weighted average of the values instead of presenting the
values as a range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA requests comment on an approach to the category-wide
analysis of BART that would allow the States to evaluate different
levels of BART control options (e.g., all measures less than $1000/ton
vs. all measures less than $2000/ton vs. all measures less than $3000/
ton) through an iterative process of assessing relative changes in
cumulative visibility impairment. For example, States or regional
planning organizations could use $1000 or $2000/ton as an initial
cutoff for selecting reasonable control options. The States or regional
planning organizations could then compare the across-the-board regional
emissions and visibility changes resulting from the implementation of
the initial control option and that resulting from the implementation
of control options with a $3000/ton cutoff (or $1500/ton, etc). This
approach would allow States and other stakeholders to understand the
visibility differences among BART control options achieving less cost-
effective or more cost-effective levels of overall control.
3. For a Cap and Trade Program, How Do I Demonstrate That My Emission
Budget Results in Emission Levels That Are Equivalent To or Less Than
the Emissions Levels That Would Result If BART Were Installed and
Operated?
Emissions budgets must address two criteria. First, you must
develop an emissions budget for a future year \23\ which ensures
reductions in actual emissions that achieve greater reasonable
visibility progress than BART. This will generally necessitate
development of a ``baseline forecast'' of emissions for the population
of sources included within the budget. A baseline forecast is a
prediction of the future emissions for that source population in
absence of either BART or the alternative trading program. Second, you
must take into consideration the timing of the emission budget relative
to the timetable for BART. If the implementation timetable for the
emission trading program is a significantly longer period than the 5-
year time period for BART implementation, you should establish budgets
for interim years that ensure steady and continuing progress in
emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ As required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii), emissions
reductions must take place during the period of the first long-term
strategy for regional haze. This means the reductions must take
place no later than the year 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating whether the program milestone for the year 2018
provides for a BART-equivalent or better emission inventory total, you
conduct the following steps:
--Identify the source population included within the budget, which must
include all BART sources and may include other sources,
--For sources included within the budget, develop a base year \24\
emissions inventory for stationary sources included within the budget,
using the most current available emission inventory,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The base year must reflect the year of the most current
available emission inventory, in many cases the year 2002, and this
base year should not be later than the 2000-2004 time period used
for baseline purposes under the regional haze rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Develop a future emissions inventory for the milestone year (in most
cases, the year 2018), that is, an inventory of projected emissions for
the milestone year in the absence of BART or a trading program,
--Calculate the reductions from the forecasted emissions if BART were
installed on all sources subject to BART,
--Subtract this amount from the forecasted total, and
--Compare the budget you have selected and confirm that it does not
exceed this level of emissions.
Example: For a given region for which a budget is being
developed for SO2, the most recent inventory is for the
year 2002. The budget you propose for the trading program is 1.2
million tons. The projected emissions inventory total for the year
2018, using the year 2002 inventory and growth projections, is 4
million tons per year. Application of BART controls on the
population of sources subject to BART would achieve 2.5 million tons
per year of reductions. Subtracting this amount from the project
inventory yields a value of 1.5 million tons. Because your selected
budget of 1.2 million tons is less than this value, it achieves a
better than a BART-equivalent emission total.
4. How Do I Ensure That Trading Budgets Achieve ``Greater Reasonable
Progress?''
In some cases, you may be able to demonstrate that a trading
program that achieves greater emissions progress may also achieve
greater visibility progress without necessarily conducting a detailed
dispersion modeling analysis. This could be done, for example, if you
can demonstrate, using economic models, that the likely distribution of
emissions when the trading program is implemented would not be
significantly different than the distribution of emissions if BART was
in place. If distribution of emissions is not substantially different
than under BART, and greater emissions reductions are achieved, then
the trading program would presumptively achieve ``greater reasonable
progress.''
If the distribution of emissions is different under the two
approaches, then the possibility exists that the trading program, even
though it achieves greater emissions reductions, may not achieve better
visibility improvement. Where this is the case, then you must conduct
dispersion modeling to determine the visibility impact of the trading
alternative. The dispersion modeling should determine differences in
visibility between BART and the trading program for each impacted Class
I area, for the worst and best 20 percent of days. The modeling should
identify:
--The estimated difference in visibility conditions under the two
approaches for each Class I area,
--The average difference in visibility over all Class I areas impacted
by the region's emissions. [For example, if six Class I areas are in
the region impacted, you would take the average of the improvement in
deciviews over those six areas].
[[Page 38134]]
The modeling study would demonstrate ``greater reasonable progress'' if
both of the following two criteria are met:
--Visibility does not decline in any Class I area
Example:
In Class I area X, BART would result in 2.5 deciviews of
improvement but the trading program would achieve 1.4 deciviews. The
criterion would be met because the trading program results in
improvement of 1.4 deciviews, rather than a decline in visibility.
--Overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the
average differences over all affected Class I areas
Example: For the same scenario, assume that ten Class I areas
are impacted. The average deciview improvement from BART for the ten
Class I areas is 3.5 deciviews (the 2.5 deciview value noted above,
and values for the remaining areas of 3.9, 4.1, 1.7, 3.3, 4.5, 3.1,
3.6, 3.8 and 4.5). The average of the ten deciview values for the
trading program must be 3.5 deciviews or more.
5. How Do I Allocate Emissions to Sources?
Emission allocations must be consistent with the overall budget
that you provide to us. We believe it is not appropriate for EPA to
require a particular process and criteria for individual source
allocations, and thus we will not dictate how to allocate allowances.
We will provide information on allocation processes to State and local
agencies, and to regional planning organizations.
6. What Provisions Must I Include in Developing a System for Tracking
Individual Source Emissions and Allowances?
The EPA requests comment generally on what the BART guidelines
should require in terms of the level of detail for the administration
of a trading program and for the tracking of emissions and allowances.
In general, we expect regional haze trading programs to contain the
same degree of rigor as trading programs for criteria pollutants. In
terms of ensuring the overall integrity and enforceability of a trading
program, we expect that you will generally follow the guidance already
being developed for other economic incentive programs (EIPs) in
establishing a trading program for regional haze. In addition, we
expect that any future trading programs developed by States and/or
regional planning organizations will be developed in consultation with
a broad range of stakeholders.
There are two EPA-administered emission trading programs that we
believe provide good examples of the features of a well-run trading
program. These two programs provide considerable information that would
be useful to the development of regional haze trading programs as an
alternative to BART.
The first example is EPA's acid rain program under title IV of the
CAA. Phase I of the acid rain reduction program began in 1995. Under
phase I, reductions in the overall SO2 emissions were
required from large coal-burning boilers in 110 power plants in 21
midwest, Appalachian, southeastern and northeastern States. Phase II of
the acid rain program began in 2000, and required further reductions in
the SO2 emissions from coal-burning power plants. Phase II
also extended the program to cover other lesser-emitting sources.
Allowance trading is the centerpiece of EPA's acid rain program for
SO2. You will find information on this program in:
--Title IV of the CAA Amendments (1990),
--40 CFR part 73 at 58 FR 3687 (January 1993),
--EPA's acid rain website, at www.epa.gov/acidrain/trading.html.
The second example is the rule for reducing regional transport of
ground-level ozone (NOX SIP call). The NOX SIP
call rule requires a number of eastern, midwestern, and southeastern
States and the District of Columbia to submit SIPs that address the
regional transport of ground-level ozone through reductions in
NOX. States may meet the requirements of the rule by
participating in an EPA-administered trading program. To participate in
the program, the States must submit rules sufficiently similar to a
model trading rule promulgated by the Agency (40 CFR part 96). More
information on this program is available in:
--The preamble and rule in the Federal Register at 63 FR 57356 (October
1998),
--The NOX compliance guide, available at www.epa.gov/acidrain/modlrule/main.html#126,
--Fact sheets for the rule, available at www.epa.gov/ttn/rto/sip/related.html#prop,
--Additional information available on EPA's web site, at www.epa.gov/acidrain/modlrule/main.html.
A third program that provides a good example of trading programs is
the the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) NOX budget program.
The OTC NOX budget program was created to reduce summertime
NOX emissions in the northeast United States. The program
caps NOX emissions for the affected States at less than half
of the 1990 baseline emission level of 490,000 tons, and uses trading
to achieve cost-effective compliance. For more information on the
trading provisions of the program, see:
--Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), available at www.sso.org/otc/att2.HTM,
--Fact sheets available at www.sso.org/otc/Publications/327facts.htm,
--Additional information, available at www.epa.gov/acidrain/otc/otcmain.html.
The EPA is including in the docket for this rulemaking a detailed
presentation that has been used by EPA's Clean Air Markets Division to
explain the provisions of NOX trading programs with State
and local officials. This presentation provides considerable
information on EPA's views on sound trading programs.
The EPA recognizes that it is desirable to minimize administrative
burdens for sources that may be subject to the provisions of several
different emission trading programs. We believe that it is desirable
for any emission trading program for BART to use existing tracking
systems to the extent possible. At the same time, we request comment on
whether States and/or regional planning organizations should conduct
additional technical analyses (and, if so, to what extent) to determine
whether the time periods for tracking of allowances under existing
programs (i.e., annual allowances for SO2 for the acid rain
program, and allowances for the ozone season for NOX) are
appropriate for purposes of demonstrating greater reasonable regional
progress vis a vis BART. The EPA expects that if such analyses are
conducted, they would be conducted in conjunction with the timelines
for development of SIPs for regional haze.
7. How Would a Regional Haze Trading Program Interface With the
Requirements for ``Reasonably Attributable'' BART Under 40 CFR 51.302
of the Regional Haze Rule?
If a State elects to impose case-by-case BART emission limitations
according to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) of the regional haze rule, then there
should be no difficulties arising from the implementation of
requirement for ``reasonably attributable'' BART under 40 CFR 51.302.
However, if a State chooses an alternative measure, such as an
emissions trading program, in lieu of requiring BART emissions
limitation on specific sources, then the requirement for BART is not
satisfied until alternative measures reduce emissions sufficient to
make ``more reasonable progress than BART.'' Thus, in that
[[Page 38135]]
period between implementation of an emissions trading program and the
satisfaction of the overall BART requirement, an individual source
could be required to install BART for reasonably attributable
impairment under 40 CFR 51.302. Because such an overlay of the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.302 on a trading program under 40 CFR
51.308 might affect the economic and other considerations that were
used in developing the emissions trading program, the regional haze
rule allows for a ``geographic enhancement'' under 40 CFR 51.308. This
provision addresses the interface between a regional trading program
and the requirement under 40 CFR 51.302 regarding BART for reasonably
attributable visibility impairment. (See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(v)).
The EPA recognizes the desirability of addressing any such issues
at the outset of developing an emissions trading program to address
regional haze. We note that the WRAP, the planning organization for the
nine western States considering a trading program under 40 CFR 51.309
(which contains a similar geographic enhancement provision), has
adopted policies which target use of the 51.302 provisions by the
Federal Land Managers (FLMs). In this case for the nine WRAP States,
the FLMs have agreed that they will certify reasonable attributable
impairment only under certain specific conditions. Under this approach,
the FLMs would certify under 40 CFR 51.302 only if the regional trading
program is not decreasing sulfate concentrations in a Class I area
within the region. Moreover, the FLMs will certify impairment under 40
CFR 51.302 only where: (1) BART-eligible sources are located ``near''
that class I area and (2) those sources have not implemented BART
controls. In addition, the WRAP is investigating other procedures for
States to follow in responding to a certification of ``reasonably
attributable'' impairment if an emissions trading approach is adopted
to address the BART requirement based on the sources' impact on
regional haze.
The specific pollutants and the magnitude of impacts under the
regional haze rule and at specific Class I areas may vary in different
regions of the country. We expect that each State through its
associated regional planning organization will evaluate the need for
geographic enhancement procedures within any adopted regional emissions
trading program.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 22, 2001.
Christine T. Whitman,
Administrator.
In addition to the guidelines described above, part 51 of chapter I
of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7410-7671q.
2. Section 51.302 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(4)(iii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 51.302 Implementation control strategies for reasonably
attributable visibility impairment.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) BART must be determined for fossil-fuel fired generating
plants having a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts
pursuant to ``Guidelines for Determining Best Available Retrofit
Technology for Coal-fired Power Plants and Other Existing Stationary
Facilities' (1980), which is incorporated by reference, exclusive of
appendix E, which was published in the Federal Register on February 6,
1980 (45 FR 8210), except that options more stringent than NSPS must be
considered. Establishing a BART emission limitation equivalent to the
NSPS level of control is not a sufficient basis to avoid the detailed
analysis of control options required by the guidelines. It is EPA
publication No. 450/3-80-009b and is for sale from the U.S. Department
of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
* * * * *
3. Section 51.308 is amended by adding paragraph(e)(1)(ii)(C) as
follows:
Sec. 51.308 Regional haze program requirements.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Appendix Y of this part provides guidelines for conducting the
analyses under paragraphs (e)(1)(ii)(A) and (e)(1)(ii)(B) of this
section. All BART determinations that are required in paragraph (e)(1)
of this section must be made pursuant to the guidelines in appendix Y
of this part.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-18094 Filed 7-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P