Loading (50 kb)...'

(continued)

(2) Summary tables of five highest concentrations at each receptor for each averaging period, and average concentration for entire run period at each receptor.

(3) Optional case study printout with hourly plume and receptor characteristics. Optional table of annual impact assessment from non-permanent activities.

(4) Concentration files written to disk or tape can be used by ANALYSIS postprocessor to produce the highest concentrations for each receptor, the cumulative frequency distributions for each receptor, the tabulation of all concentrations exceeding a given threshold, and the manipulation of hourly concentration files.

d. Type of Model

OCD is a Gaussian plume model constructed on the framework of the MPTER model.

e. Pollutant Types

OCD may be used to model primary pollutants. Settling and deposition are not treated.

f. Source-Receptor Relationship

(1) Up to 250 point sources, 5 area sources, or 1 line source and 180 receptors may be used.

(2) Receptors and sources are allowed at any location.

(3) The coastal configuration is determined by a grid of up to 3600 rectangles. Each element of the grid is designated as either land or water to identify the coastline.

g. Plume Behavior

(1) As in ISC, the basic plume rise algorithms are based on Briggs' recommendations.

(2) Momentum rise includes consideration of the stack angle from the vertical.

(3) The effect of drilling platforms, ships, or any overwater obstructions near the source are used to decrease plume rise using a revised platform downwash algorithm based on laboratory experiments.

(4) Partial plume penetration of elevated inversions is included using the suggestions of Briggs (1975) and Weil and Brower (1984).

(5) Continuous shoreline fumigation is parameterized using the Turner method where complete vertical mixing through the thermal internal boundary layer (TIBL) occurs as soon as the plume intercepts the TIBL.

h. Horizontal Winds

(1) Constant, uniform wind is assumed for each hour.

(2) Overwater wind speed can be estimated from overland wind speed using relationship of Hsu (1981).

(3) Wind speed profiles are estimated using similarity theory (Businger, 1973). Surface layer fluxes for these formulas are calculated from bulk aerodynamic methods.

i. Vertical Wind Speed

Vertical wind speed is assumed equal to zero.

j. Horizontal Dispersion

(1) Lateral turbulence intensity is recommended as a direct estimate of horizontal dispersion. If lateral turbulence intensity is not available, it is estimated from boundary layer theory. For wind speeds less than 8 m/s, lateral turbulence intensity is assumed inversely proportional to wind speed.

(2) Horizontal dispersion may be enhanced because of obstructions near the source. A virtual source technique is used to simulate the initial plume dilution due to downwash.

(3) Formulas recommended by Pasquill (1976) are used to calculate buoyant plume enhancement and wind direction shear enhancement.

(4) At the water/land interface, the change to overland dispersion rates is modeled using a virtual source. The overland dispersion rates can be calculated from either lateral turbulence intensity or Pasquill-Gifford curves. The change is implemented where the plume intercepts the rising internal boundary layer.

k. Vertical Dispersion

(1) Observed vertical turbulence intensity is not recommended as a direct estimate of vertical dispersion. Turbulence intensity should be estimated from boundary layer theory as default in the model. For very stable conditions, vertical dispersion is also a function of lapse rate.

(2) Vertical dispersion may be enhanced because of obstructions near the source. A virtual source technique is used to simulate the initial plume dilution due to downwash.

(3) Formulas recommended by Pasquill (1976) are used to calculate buoyant plume enhancement.

(4) At the water/land interface, the change to overland dispersion rates is modeled using a virtual source. The overland dispersion rates can be calculated from either vertical turbulence intensity or the Pasquill-Gifford coefficients. The change is implemented where the plume intercepts the rising internal boundary layer.

1. Chemical Transformation

Chemical transformations are treated using exponential decay. Different rates can be specified by month and by day or night.

m. Physical Removal

Physical removal is also treated using exponential decay.

n. Evaluation Studies

DiCristofaro, D.C. and S.R. Hanna, 1989. OCD: The Offshore and Coastal Dispersion Model. Volume I: User's Guide. Sigma Research Corporation, Westford, MA.

Hanna, S.R., L.L. Schulman, R.J. Paine and J.E. Pleim, 1984. The Offshore and Coastal Dispersion (OCD) Model User's Guide, Revised. OCS Study, MMS 84–0069. Environmental Research & Technology, Inc., Concord, MA. (NTIS No. PB 86–159803).

Hanna, S.R., L.L. Schulman, R.J. Paine, J.E. Pleim and M. Baer, 1985. Development and Evaluation of the Offshore and Coastal Dispersion (OCD) Model. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 35: 1039–1047.

Hanna, S.R. and D.C. DiCristofaro, 1988. Development and Evaluation of the OCD/API Model. Final Report, API Pub. 4461, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.

A. REFERENCES

Benson, P.E., 1979. CALINE3—A Versatile Dispersion Model for Predicting Air Pollution Levels Near Highways and Arterial Streets. Interim Report, Report Number FHWA/CA/TL–79/23. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Briggs, G.A., 1975. Plume Rise Predictions. Lectures on Air Pollution and Environmental Impact Analyses. American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA, pp. 59–111.

Briggs, G.A., 1984. Analytical Parameterizations of Diffusion: The Convective Boundary Layer. Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, 24(11): 1167–1186.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. Recommendations on Modeling (October 1980 Meetings). Appendix G to: Summary of Comments and Responses on the October 1980 Proposed Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models. Meteorology and Assessment Division, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long-Range Transport Impacts. Publication No. EPA–454/R–98–019. (NTIS No. PB 99–121089).

Escoffier-Czaja, C. and J.S. Scire, 2002. The Effects of Ammonia Limitation on Nitrate Aerosol Formation and Visibility Impacts in Class I Areas. Twelfth AMS/AWMA Conference on the Application of Air Pollution Meteorology, 20–24 May 2002; Norfolk, VA.

Gifford, F.A., Jr. 1976. Turbulent Diffusion Typing Schemes—A Review. Nuclear Safety, 17: 68–86.

Horst, T.W., 1983. A Correction to the Gaussian Source-depletion Model. In Precipitation Scavenging, Dry Deposition and Resuspension. H. R. Pruppacher, R.G. Semonin and W.G.N. Slinn, eds., Elsevier, NY.

Hsu, S.A., 1981. Models for Estimating Offshore Winds from Onshore Meteorological Measurements. Boundary Layer Meteorology, 20: 341–352.

Huber, A.H. and W.H. Snyder, 1976. Building Wake Effects on Short Stack Effluents. Third Symposium on Atmospheric Turbulence, Diffusion and Air Quality, American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA.

Irwin, J.S., 1979. A Theoretical Variation of the Wind Profile Power-Law Exponent as a Function of Surface Roughness and Stability. Atmospheric Environment, 13: 191–194.

Liu, M.K. et al., 1976. The Chemistry, Dispersion, and Transport of Air Pollutants Emitted from Fossil Fuel Power Plants in California: Data Analysis and Emission Impact Model. Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, CA.

Pasquill, F., 1976. Atmospheric Dispersion Parameters in Gaussian Plume Modeling Part II. Possible Requirements for Change in the Turner Workbook Values. Publication No. EPA–600/4–76–030b. Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.

Petersen, W.B., 1980. User's Guide for HIWAY–2 A Highway Air Pollution Model. Publication No. EPA–600/8–80–018. Office of Research & Development, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. (NTIS PB 80–227556)

Rao, T.R. and M.T. Keenan, 1980. Suggestions for Improvement of the EPA–HIWAY Model. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 30: 247–256 (and reprinted as Appendix C in Petersen, 1980).

Robe, F.R., Z–X. Wu and J.S. Scire, 2002: Real-time SO2 Forecasting System with Combined ETA Analysis and CALPUFF Modeling. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Harmonisation within Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes, 14–17 October 2002; Sofia, Bulgaria.

Schulman, L.L. and J.S. Scire, 1980: Buoyant Line and Point Source (BLP) dispersion model user's guide. The Aluminum Association; Washington, DC. (See A.2 in this appendix.)

Schulman, L.L. and S.R. Hanna, 1986. Evaluation of Downwash Modification to the Industrial Source Complex Model. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 36: 258–264.

Segal, H.M., 1983. Microcomputer Graphics in Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 23: 598–600.

Snyder, W.H., R.S. Thompson, R.E. Eskridge, R.E. Lawson, I.P. Castro, J.T. Lee, J.C.R. Hunt, and Y. Ogawa, 1985. The structure of the strongly stratified flow over hills: Dividing streamline concept. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 152: 249–288.

Turner, D.B., 1969. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. PHS Publication No. 999–26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle, Park, NC 27711.

Weil, J.C. and R.P. Brower, 1984. An Updated Gaussian Plume Model for Tall Stacks. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 34: 818–827.

Weil, J.C., 1996. A new dispersion algorithm for stack sources in building wakes, Paper 6.6. Ninth Joint Conference on Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology with A&WMA, January 28–February 2, 1996. Atlanta, GA.

Weil, J.C., L.A. Corio, and R.P. Brower, 1997. A PDF dispersion model for buoyant plumes in the convective boundary layer. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 36: 982–1003.

Zhang, X., 1993. A computational analysis of the rise, dispersion, and deposition of buoyant plumes. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Zhang, X. and A.F. Ghoniem, 1993. A computational model for the rise and dispersion of wind-blown, buoyancy-driven plumes—I. Neutrally stratified atmosphere. Atmospheric Environment, 15: 2295–2311.

[70 FR 68228, Nov. 9, 2005]

Appendix X to Part 51—Examples of Economic Incentive Programs
top
I. Introduction and Purpose

This appendix contains examples of EIP's which are covered by the EIP rules. Program descriptions identify key provisions which distinguish the different model program types. The examples provide additional information and guidance on various types of regulatory programs collectively referred to as EIP's. The examples include programs involving stationary, area, and mobile sources. The definition section at 40 CFR 51.491 defines an EIP as a program which may include State established emission fees or a system of marketable permits, or a system of State fees on sale or manufacture of products the use of which contributes to O3 formation, or any combination of the foregoing or other similar measures, as well as incentives and requirements to reduce vehicle emissions and vehicle miles traveled in the area, including any of the transportation control measures identified in section 108(f). Such programs span a wide spectrum of program designs.

The EIP's are comprised of several elements that, in combination with each other, must insure that the fundamental principles of any regulatory program (including accountability, enforceability and noninterference with other requirements of the Act) are met. There are many possible combinations of program elements that would be acceptable. Also, it is important to emphasize that the effectiveness of an EIP is dependent upon the particular area in which it is implemented. No two areas face the same air quality circumstances and, therefore, effective strategies and programs will differ among areas.

Because of these considerations, the EPA is not specifying one particular design or type of strategy as acceptable for any given EIP. Such specific guidance would potentially discourage States (or other entities with delegated authority to administer parts of an implementation plan) from utilizing other equally viable program designs that may be more appropriate for their situation. Thus, the examples given in this Appendix are general in nature so as to avoid limiting innovation on the part of the States in developing programs tailored to individual State needs.

Another important consideration in designing effective EIP's is the extent to which different strategies, or programs targeted at different types of sources, can complement one another when implemented together as an EIP “package.” The EPA encourages States to consider packaging different measures together when such a strategy is likely to increase the overall benefits from the program as a whole. Furthermore, some activities, such as information distribution or public awareness programs, while not EIP's in and of themselves, are often critical to the success of other measures and, therefore, would be appropriate complementary components of a program package. All SIP emissions reductions credits should reflect a consideration of the effectiveness of the entire package.

II. Examples of Stationary and Mobile Source Economic Incentive Strategies

There is a wide variety of programs that fall under the general heading of EIP's. Further, within each general type of program are several different basic program designs. This section describes common types of EIP's that have been implemented, designed, or discussed in the literature for stationary and mobile sources. The program types discussed below do not include all of the possible types of EIP's. Innovative approaches incorporating new ideas in existing programs, different combinations of existing program elements, or wholly new incentive systems provide additional opportunities for States to find ways to meet environmental goals at lower total cost.

A. Emissions Trading Markets

One prominent class of EIP's is based upon the creation of a market in which trading of source-specific emissions requirements may occur. Such programs may include traditional rate-based emissions limits (generally referred to as emissions averaging) or overall limits on a source's total mass emissions per unit of time (generally referred to as an emissions cap). The emissions limits, which may be placed on individual emitting units or on facilities as a whole, may decline over time. The common feature of such programs is that sources have an ongoing incentive to reduce pollution and increased flexibility in meeting their regulatory requirements. A source may meet its own requirements either by directly preventing or controlling emissions or by trading or averaging with another source. Trading or averaging may occur within the same facility, within the same firm, or between different firms. Sources with lower cost abatement alternatives may provide the necessary emissions reductions to sources facing more expensive alternatives. These programs can lower the overall cost of meeting a given total level of abatement. All sources eligible to trade in an emissions market are faced with continuing incentives to find better ways of reducing emissions at the lowest possible cost, even if they are already meeting their own emissions requirements.

Stationary, area, and mobile sources could be allowed to participate in a common emissions trading market. Programs involving emissions trading markets are particularly effective at reducing overall costs when individual affected sources face significantly different emissions control costs. A wider range in control costs among affected sources creates greater opportunities for cost-reducing trades. Thus, for example, areas which face relatively high stationary source control costs relative to mobile source control costs benefit most by including both stationary and mobile sources in a single emissions trading market.

Programs involving emissions trading markets have generally been designated as either emission allowance or emission reduction credit (ERC) trading programs. The Federal Acid Rain Program is an example of an emission allowance trading program, while “bubbles” and “generic bubbles” created under the EPA's 1986 Emission Trading Policy Statement are examples of ERC trading. Allowance trading programs can establish emission allocations to be effective at the start of a program, at some specific time in the future, or at varying levels over time. An ERC trading program requires ERC's to be measured against a pre-established emission baseline. Allowance allocations or emission baselines can be established either directly by the EIP rules or by reference to traditional regulations (e.g., RACT requirements). In either type of program, sources can either meet their EIP requirements by maintaining their own emissions within the limits established by the program, or by buying surplus allowances or ERC's from other sources. In any case, the State will need to establish adequate enforceable procedures for certifying and tracking trades, and for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the EIP.

The definition of the commodity to be traded and the design of the administrative procedures the buyer and seller must follow to complete a trade are obvious elements that must be carefully selected to help ensure a successful trading market that achieves the desired environmental goal at the lowest cost. An emissions market is defined as efficient if it achieves the environmental goal at the lowest possible total cost. Any feature of a program that unnecessarily increases the total cost without helping achieve the environmental goals causes market inefficiency. Thus, the design of an emission trading program should be evaluated not only in terms of the likelihood that the program design will ensure that the environmental goals of the program will be met, but also in terms of the costs that the design imposes upon market transactions and the impact of those costs on market efficiency.

Transaction costs are the investment in time and resources to acquire information about the price and availability of allowances or ERC's, to negotiate a trade, and to assure the trade is properly recorded and legally enforceable. All trading markets impose some level of transaction costs. The level of transaction costs in an emissions trading market are affected by various aspects of the design of the market, such as the nature of the procedures for reviewing, approving, and recording trades, the timing of such procedures (i.e., before or after the trade is made), uncertainties in the value of the allowance or credit being traded, the legitimacy of the allowance or credit being offered for sale, and the long-term integrity of the market itself. Emissions trading programs in which every transaction is different, such as programs requiring significant consideration of the differences in the chemical properties or geographic location of the emissions, can result in higher transaction costs than programs with a standardized trading commodity and well-defined rules for acceptable trades. Transaction costs are also affected by the relative ease with which information can be obtained about the availability and price of allowances or credits.

While the market considerations discussed above are clearly important in designing an efficient market to minimize the transaction costs of such a program, other considerations, such as regulatory certainty, enforcement issues, and public acceptance, also clearly need to be factored into the design of any emissions trading program.

B. Fee Programs

A fee on each unit of emissions is a strategy that can provide a direct incentive for sources to reduce emissions. Ideally, fees should be set so as to result in emissions being reduced to the socially optimal level considering the costs of control and the benefits of the emissions reductions. In order to motivate a change in emissions, the fees must be high enough that sources will actively seek to reduce emissions. It is important to note that not all emission fee programs are designed to motivate sources to lower emissions. Fee programs using small fees are designed primarily to generate revenue, often to cover some of the administrative costs of a regulatory program.

There can be significant variations in emission fee programs. For example, potential emissions could be targeted by placing a fee on an input (e.g., a fee on the quantity and BTU content of fuel used in an industrial boiler) rather than on actual emissions. Sources paying a fee on potential emissions could be eligible for a fee waiver or rebate by demonstrating that potential emissions are not actually emitted, such as through a carbon absorber system on a coating operation.

Some fee program variations are designed to mitigate the potentially large amount of revenue that a fee program could generate. Although more complex than a simple fee program, programs that reduce or eliminate the total revenues may be more readily adopted in a SIP than a simple emission fee. Some programs lower the amount of total revenues generated by waiving the fee on some emissions. These programs reduce the total amount of revenue generated, while providing an incentive to decrease emissions. Alternatively, a program may impose higher per-unit fees on a portion of the emissions stream, providing a more powerful but targeted incentive at the same revenue levels. For example, fees could be collected on all emissions in excess of some fixed level. The level could be set as a percentage of a baseline (e.g., fees on emissions above some percentage of historical emissions), or as the lowest emissions possible (e.g., fees on emissions in excess of the lowest demonstrated emissions from the source category).

Other fee programs are “revenue neutral,” meaning that the pollution control agency does not receive any net revenues. One way to design a revenue-neutral program is to have both a fee provision and a rebate provision. Rebates must be carefully designed to avoid lessening the incentive provided by the emission fee. For example, a rebate based on comparing a source's actual emissions and the average emissions for the source category can be designed to be revenue neutral and not diminish the incentive.

Other types of fee programs collect a fee in relation to particular activities or types of products to encourage the use of alternatives. While these fees are not necessarily directly linked to the total amount of emissions from the activity or product, the relative simplicity of a usage fee may make such programs an effective way to lower emissions. An area source example is a construction permit fee for wood stoves. Such a permit fee is directly related to the potential to emit inherent in a wood stove, and not to the actual emissions from each wood stove in use. Fees on raw materials to a manufacturing process can encourage product reformulation (e.g., fees on solvent sold to makers of architectural coatings) or changes in work practices (e.g., fees on specialty solvents and degreasing compounds used in manufacturing).

Road pricing mechanisms are fee programs that are available to curtail low occupancy vehicle use, fund transportation system improvements and control measures, spatially and temporally shift driving patterns, and attempt to effect land usage changes. Primary examples include increased peak period roadway, bridge, or tunnel tolls (this could also be accomplished with automated vehicle identification systems as well), and toll discounts for pooling arrangements and zero-emitting/low-emitting vehicles.

C. Tax Code and Zoning Provisions

Modifications to existing State or local tax codes, zoning provisions, and land use planning can provide effective economic incentives. Possible modifications to encourage emissions reductions cover a broad span of programs, such as accelerated depreciation of capital equipment used for emissions reductions, corporate income tax deductions or credits for emission abatement costs, property tax waivers based on decreasing emissions, exempting low-emitting products from sales tax, and limitations on parking spaces for office facilities. Mobile source strategies include waiving or lowering any of the following for zero- or low-emitting vehicles: vehicle registration fees, vehicle property tax, sales tax, taxicab license fees, and parking taxes.

D. Subsidies

A State may create incentives for reducing emissions by offering direct subsidies, grants or low-interest loans to encourage the purchase of lower-emitting capital equipment, or a switch to less polluting operating practices. Examples of such programs include clean vehicle conversions, starting shuttle bus or van pool programs, and mass transit fare subsidies. Subsidy programs often suffer from a variety of “free rider” problems. For instance, subsidies for people or firms who were going to switch to the cleaner alternative anyway lower the effectiveness of the subsidy program, or drive up the cost of achieving a targeted level of emissions reductions.

E. Transportation Control Measures

The following measures are the TCM's listed in section 108(f):

(i) Programs for improved public transit;

(ii) Restriction of certain roads or lanes to, or construction of such roads or lanes for use by, passenger buses or high occupancy vehicles;

(iii) Employer-based transportation management plans, including incentives;

(iv) Trip-reduction ordinances;

(v) Traffic flow improvement programs that achieve emission reductions;

(vi) Fringe and transportation corridor parking facilities serving multiple-occupancy vehicle programs or transit service;

(vii) Programs to limit or restrict vehicle use in downtown areas or other areas of emission concentration particularly during periods of peak use;

(viii) Programs for the provision of all forms of high-occupancy, shared-ride services;

(ix) Programs to limit portions of road surfaces or certain sections of the metropolitan area to the use of non-motorized vehicles or pedestrian use, both as to time and place;

(x) Programs for secure bicycle storage facilities and other facilities, including bicycle lanes, for the convenience and protection of bicyclists, in both public and private areas;

(xi) Programs to control extended idling of vehicles;

(xii) Programs to reduce motor vehicle emissions, consistent with title II, which are caused by extreme cold start conditions;

(xiii) Employer-sponsored programs to permit flexible work schedules;

(xiv) Programs and ordinances to facilitate non-automobile travel, provision and utilization of mass transit, and to generally reduce the need for single-occupant vehicle travel, as part of transportation planning and development efforts of a locality, including programs and ordinances applicable to new shopping centers, special events, and other centers of vehicle activity;

(xv) Programs for new construction and major reconstruction of paths, tracks or areas solely for the use by pedestrian or other non-motorized means of transportation when economically feasible and in the public interest. For purposes of this clause, the Administrator shall also consult with the Secretary of the Interior; and

(xvi) Programs to encourage the voluntary removal from use and the marketplace of pre-1980 model year light-duty vehicles and pre-1980 model light-duty trucks.

[59 FR 16715, Apr. 7, 1994]

Appendix Y to Part 51—Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule
top
Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Overview

A. What is the purpose of the guidelines? B. 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? E. What are the BART requirements in EPA's regional haze regulations? F. What is included in the guidelines? G. Who is the target audience for the guidelines? H. Do EPA regulations require the use of these 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 the BART categories 2. Step 2: Identify the start-up dates of the 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”

IV. The BART Determination: Analysis of BART Options

A. What factors must I address in the BART Analysis? B. What is the scope of the BART review? C. How does a BART review relate to maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards under CAA section 112? D. What are the five basic steps of a case-by-case BART 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? 3. Step 3: How do I evaluate technically feasible alternatives? 4. Step 4: For a BART review, what impacts am I expected to 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. What do we mean by cost effectiveness? c. How do I calculate average cost effectiveness? d. How do I calculate baseline emissions? e. How do I calculate incremental cost effectiveness? f. What other information should I provide in the cost impacts analysis? g. What other things are important to consider 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. Impact analysis part 4: What are examples of non-air quality environmental impacts? k. How do I take into account a project's “remaining useful life” in calculating control costs? 5. Step 5: How should I determine visibility impacts in the BART determination? E. How do I select the “best” alternative, using the results of Steps 1 through 5? 1. Summary of the impacts analysis 2. Selecting a “best” alternative 3. In selecting a “best” alternative, should I consider the affordability of controls? 4. SO2 limits for utility boilers 5. NOX limits for utility boilers
V. Enforceable Limits/Compliance Date

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, we published regulations to protect against a particular type of visibility impairment known as “regional haze.” The regional haze rule is found in this part at 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.309. These regulations require, in 40 CFR 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 “the mandatory Class I Federal Areas * * * where visibility is an important value.” 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 the Interior—Fish and Wildlife Service or the Department of Agriculture—U.S. 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 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 all Class I areas. 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?

1. Under section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA, States must require certain existing stationary sources to install BART. The BART provision applies to “major stationary sources” from 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 be subject to BART. The BART provision applies to sources that existed as of the date of the 1977 CAA amendments (that is, August 7, 1977) but which had not been in operation for more than 15 years (that is, not in operation as of August 7, 1962).

2. The CAA requires BART review 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:

(a) The costs of compliance,

(b) The energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance,

(c) Any existing pollution control technology in use at the source,

(d) The remaining useful life of the source, and

(e) The degree of visibility improvement which may reasonably be anticipated from the use of BART.

3. The CAA further requires States to make BART emission limitations part of their SIPs. As with any SIP revision, States must provide an opportunity for public comment on the BART determinations, and EPA's action on any SIP revision will be subject to judicial review.

D. What types of visibility problems does EPA address in its regulations?

1. We addressed the problem of visibility in two phases. In 1980, we 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 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.307.

2. On July 1, 1999, we 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 slightly modified 40 CFR 51.300 through 51.307, including the addition of a few definitions in §51.301, and added new §§51.308 and 51.309.

E. What are the BART requirements in EPA's regional haze regulations?

1. In the July 1, 1999 rulemaking, we added a BART requirement for regional haze. We amended the BART requirements in 2005. You will find the BART requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e). Definitions of terms used in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) are found in 40 CFR 51.301.

2. 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 the 26 source categories, were put in place during the 15-year window of time from 1962 to 1977, and 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, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) requires that States identify the level of control representing BART after considering the factors set out in CAA section 169A(g), as follows:

—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, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of visibility improvement that may be expected from available control technology.

3. After 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 may establish design, equipment, work practice or other operational standards when limitations on measurement technologies make emission standards infeasible.

F. What is included in the guidelines?

1. The guidelines provide a process for making BART determinations that States can use in implementing the regional haze BART requirements on a source-by-source basis, as provided in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). States must follow the guidelines in making BART determinations on a source-by-source basis for 750 megawatt (MW) power plants but are not required to use the process in the guidelines when making BART determinations for other types of sources.

2. The BART analysis process, and the contents of these guidelines, are as follows:

(a) Identification of all BART-eligible sources. Section II of these guidelines outlines a step-by-step process for identifying BART-eligible sources.

(b) 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.

(c) The BART determination process. For each source subject to BART, the next step is to conduct an analysis of emissions control alternatives. This step includes the identification of available, technically feasible retrofit technologies, and for each technology identified, an analysis of the cost of compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, and the degree of visibility improvement in affected Class I areas resulting from the use of the control technology. As part of the BART analysis, the State should also take into account the remaining useful life of the source and any existing control technology present at the source. For each source, the State will determine a “best system of continuous emission reduction” based upon its evaluation of these factors. Procedures for the BART determination step are described in section IV of these guidelines.

(d) Emissions limits. States must establish emission limits, including a deadline for compliance, consistent with the BART determination process for each source subject to BART. Considerations related to these limits are discussed in section V of these guidelines.

G. Who is the target audience for the guidelines?

1. The guidelines are written primarily for the benefit of State, local and Tribal agencies, and describe a process for making the BART determinations and establishing the emission limitations that must be included 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. We have used this format to make the guidelines simpler to understand, but we recognize that States have the authority 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. We also recognize that data collection, analysis, and rule development may be performed by Regional Planning Organizations, for adoption within each SIP or TIP.

2. The preamble to the 1999 regional haze rule discussed at length the issue of Tribal implementation of the requirements to submit a plan to address visibility. As explained there, requirements related to visibility are among the programs for which Tribes may be determined eligible and receive authorization to implement under the “Tribal Authority Rule” (“TAR”) (40 CFR 49.1 through 49.11). Tribes are not subject to the deadlines for submitting visibility implementation plans and may use a modular approach to CAA implementation. We believe there are very few BART-eligible sources located on Tribal lands. Where such sources exist, the affected Tribe may apply for delegation of implementation authority for this rule, following the process set forth in the TAR.

H. Do EPA regulations require the use of these guidelines?

Section 169A(b) requires us to issue guidelines for States to follow in establishing BART emission limitations for fossil-fuel fired power plants having a capacity in excess of 750 megawatts. This document fulfills that requirement, which is codified in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B). The guidelines establish an approach to implementing the requirements of the BART provisions of the regional haze rule; we believe that these procedures and the discussion of the requirements of the regional haze rule and the CAA should be useful to the States. For sources other than 750 MW power plants, however, States retain the discretion to adopt approaches that differ from the guidelines.

II. How To Identify BART-Eligible Sources

This section provides guidelines on how to identify BART-eligible sources. A BART-eligible source is an existing stationary source in any of 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 the 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.

Figure 1. How to determine whether a source is BART-eligible:

Step 1: Identify emission units in the BART categories

Does the plant contain emissions units in one or more of the 26 source categories?

&rtarr2; No &rtarr2; Stop &rtarr2; Yes &rtarr2; Proceed to Step 2
Step 2: Identify the start-up dates of these emission units

Do any of these emissions units meet the following two tests?

In existence on August 7, 1977
AND

Began operation after August 7, 1962 &rtarr2; No &rtarr2; Stop &rtarr2; Yes &rtarr2; Proceed to Step 3
Step 3: Compare the potential emissions from these emission units to the 250 ton/yr cutoff

Identify the “stationary source” that includes the emission units you identified in Step 2. Add the current potential emissions from all the emission units identified in Steps 1 and 2 that are included within the “stationary source” boundary. Are the potential emissions from these units 250 tons per year or more for any visibility-impairing pollutant? &rtarr2; No &rtarr2; Stop &rtarr2; Yes &rtarr2; These emissions units comprise the “BART-eligible source.”
1. Step 1: Identify Emission Units in the BART Categories

1. 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,

(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.

2. Some plants 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 an electric steam generating plant and a coal cleaning plant. You would identify emission units associated with the electric steam generating plant and the coal cleaning plant, because they are listed categories, but not the mine, because coal mining is not a listed category.

3. 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”). This same list of categories appears in the PSD regulations. 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:

(1) “Steam electric plants of more than 250 million BTU/hr heat input.” Because the category refers to “plants,” we interpret this category title to mean that boiler capacities should be aggregated to determine whether the 250 million BTU/hr threshold is reached. This definition includes only those plants that generate electricity for sale. Plants that cogenerate steam and electricity also fall within the definition of “steam electric plants”. Similarly, combined cycle turbines are also considered “steam electric plants” because such facilities incorporate heat recovery steam generators. Simple cycle turbines, in contrast, are not “steam electric plants” because these turbines typically do not generate steam.

Example: A 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.

(2) “Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 250 million BTU/hr heat input.” We interpret this category title to cover only those boilers that are individually greater than 250 million BTU/hr. However, an individual boiler smaller than 250 million BTU/hr should be subject to BART if it is an integral part of a process description at a plant that is in a different BART category—for example, a boiler at a Kraft pulp mill that, in addition to providing steam or mechanical power, uses the waste liquor from the process as a fuel. In general, if the process uses any by-product of the boiler and the boiler's function is to serve the process, then the boiler is integral to the process and should be considered to be part of the process description.

Also, you should consider a multi-fuel boiler to be a “fossil-fuel boiler” if it burns any amount of fossil fuel. You may take federally and State enforceable operational limits into account in determining whether a multi-fuel boiler's fossil fuel capacity exceeds 250 million Btu/hr.

(3) “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.

(4) “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.

(5) “Charcoal production facilities.” We interpret this category to include charcoal briquet manufacturing and activated carbon production.

(6) “Chemical process plants.” and pharmaceutical manufacturing. Consistent with past policy, we interpret the category “chemical process plants” to include those facilities within the 2-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)code 28. Accordingly, we interpret the term “chemical process plants” to include pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities. (continued)