"Proposed Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations Under the Regional Haze Regulations"
Illinois EPA Response
Contents
Cover Letter to USEPA
217/785-4140
TDD 217/782-9143
September 18, 2001
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20460
Attention: Docket No. A-2000-28
Re: "Proposed Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations Under the Regional Haze Regulations",
63 Fed. Reg. 38108 (July 20, 2001)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) appreciates this opportunity to comment upon the draft Guidelines for BART determinations. The objective of the BART Guidelines is to facilitate visibility improvements in Class I areas, but the Illinois EPA recognizes that public health benefits will also result from its implementation. We support the concept of having such guidelines to assist the states and others in implementing this program, but we believe the Guidelines, as proposed, will not accomplish these goals in an efficient and equitable manner. We offer several suggestions and comments that we believe will improve the proposed Guidelines.
The Illinois EPA has several comments and concerns, which are explained in more detail in the attachment. First, the Illinois EPA believes that the proposed BART Guidelines will impose a tremendous resource burden on states, especially on the industrial states of the Midwest, because of the number of sources involved and the resource intensive nature of the BART determinations for eligible sources. Further, many states, including Illinois, are facing the simultaneous burden of developing control programs to comply with regional haze, the PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and other multi-pollutant mandates. As explained in the attachment, we believe that an easier and more practical approach is possible that will yield the equivalent environmental benefits.
Second, we understand that it is U.S. EPA's intent to coordinate the PM2.5 program with the Regional Haze program and multi-pollutant program efforts. However, we are concerned that the PM2.5 ambient air quality standard has yet to be readopted and could be further delayed, and subsequently challenged. States may, therefore, be required to submit a Regional Haze SIP with BART controls prior to the submittal of a SIP for PM2.5. Efforts needed to comply with the health-based, PM2.5 standards must take precedence, and State resources, which are limited, should be conserved for that purpose. The proposed BART Guidelines should be explicitly coordinated with other control programs that will potentially be implemented covering the same BART sources. The Regional Haze rules may need to be amended to ensure this outcome.
Third, we are concerned that the Guidelines, as proposed, will result in inconsistent control determinations between states and regions. Illinois believes that the BART Guidelines should encourage consistency between states in the implementation of BART on at least a regional basis. Illinois, therefore, recommends the establishment of presumptive control levels for all source categories upon which BART analysis for each source category should be based, similar to the proposed approach for SO2 reductions for boilers. States should still be afforded the flexibility to address unusual circumstances at individual sources, but this approach would encourage consistency between states in the implementation of BART.
Finally, Illinois believes that the BART Guidelines, as proposed, provide a strong disincentive to the implementation of a trading program. The requirement that that states/regions demonstrate a greater emissions reduction, and a greater improvement in visibility, for trading programs than would be achieved through implementation of BART on a case-by-case basis, will discourage states from pursuing this option. A trading program, preferably administered by the U.S. EPA, that achieves equivalent emission reductions should be encouraged in the BART Guidelines.
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Robert Kaleel at the above telephone number.
Sincerely,
David J. Kolaz, Chief
Bureau of Air
Attachment
cc: Bharat Mathur, Director
Air & Radiation Division
U.S. EPA
Comments of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency on the Proposed Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
(July 20, 2001)
I. State Resources
The proposed BART guidelines would impose an excessive resource burden on the States that must be addressed before a viable program can be established by States in an equitable and timely manner.
A) The Illinois EPA believes that the proposed BART guidelines will impose a tremendous resource burden on states because of the number of sources involved and the resource intensive determinations of BART for eligible sources. Illinois estimates that it will have at least 400 affected sources; however, Illinois EPA does not possess the information needed to verify the "in existence", "in operation", or "reconstruction activity" requirements without first reviewing each permit and contacting individual facilities. While Illinois understands that these requirements are, in part, imposed by the statutory requirements of the CAA, we believe that as part of U.S. EPA's promulgation of guidance, an easier and more practical approach is possible (e.g., multi-pollutant regional or source-category engineering analyses).
B) U.S. EPA must recognize the simultaneous burden being placed on states to develop control programs to comply with regional haze, the PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and other multi-pollutant mandates. Efforts needed to comply with the health-based standards must take precedence, and State resources, which are limited, should be conserved for that purpose. In addition, U.S. EPA should provide the states with additional resources (e.g., funding) to implement the BART requirements.
II. Consistency Between Programs:
The proposed BART guidelines should be explicitly coordinated with other control programs that will potentially be implemented addressing the same BART sources. U.S. EPA must ensure that that the Regional Haze SIP including BART controls is due no sooner than the health-based PM2.5 SIP.
We know that it is U.S. EPA's intent to coordinate the PM2.5 program with the Regional Haze program. However, we are concerned that the PM2.5 standard has yet to be readopted and could be further delayed, and subsequently challenged. States may, therefore, be required to submit a Regional Haze SIP with BART controls prior to the submittal of a SIP for PM2.5. The proposed BART guidelines should be explicitly coordinated with other control programs that will potentially be implemented covering the same BART sources. The Regional Haze rules may need to be amended to ensure this outcome. If such an amendment is not adopted, it could result in different control technology requirements for the same sources within roughly the same time period. Further, the BART determinations may be inconsistent with multi-pollutant approaches that are being developed for some of the same source categories.
III. Cumulative Air Quality Analysis:
Critical terms and features of the BART program remain undefined or unsupported in the proposal; e.g., "substantial fraction, "significant contribution," and "region." The proposed BART guidelines need to define and provide adequate support for the key operative terms in the program.
The proposed 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 for the purpose of justifying the installation of BART controls. The proposal states that there is sufficient basis for these controls if it can be demonstrated for any Class I area that any of the following criteria is met: the cumulative visibility improvement is a "substantial fraction" of the achievable visibility improvement from all SIP measures (to be included in the first regional haze SIP - the time period between the baseline period and the year 2018); the cumulative visibility improvement is a "substantial fraction" of the visibility goal; or the cumulative visibility improvement is necessary to prevent any degradation from current conditions on the best visibility days. (66 Fed. Reg. 38131)
We have several concerns about the proposed approach:
A) U.S. EPA has already determined that each state and its eligible BART sources are responsible for a "substantial fraction", despite the fact that these guidelines are supposed to provide the basis for the analysis for visibility improvement. Illinois requests that U.S. EPA further support its assumption that all states and all BART eligible sources are causing impairment.
B) U.S. EPA should provide a definition for what constitutes a "substantial fraction". A clear definition is needed for states to show that BART emission reductions will provide "a sufficient visibility improvement to justify their installation."
C) U.S. EPA needs to address the process outlined in Section 169A(c)(2) of the CAA for exempting sources or groups of sources that do not significantly contribute to visibility impairment. This should be provided for and correlated with the "substantial fraction" discussed above.
D) The guidelines must clarify which BART eligible sources need to be included in making this demonstration for a given Class I area.
E) How is "region" defined? Illinois believes that this term needs to be clearly defined in the guidelines.
IV. Engineering Analysis of BART Options:
The proposed BART Guidelines, insofar as they establish a case-by-case review of individual sources, creates a regulatory framework that will result in inconsistent control determinations. This is especially true in the absence of clear criteria for making determinations and where more than 50 different regulatory agencies will be making the decisions.
A) The guidelines will require that each state perform a top-down engineering analysis for each emission source, starting with the most stringent control option. As stated above, Illinois has concerns that performing a BART analysis for approximately 400 sources will be a tremendous burden. Further, Illinois believes that this approach creates a framework that will result in inconsistent control determinations between states and regions. Illinois believes that the BART guidelines should encourage consistency between states in the implementation of BART on at least a regional basis. Illinois, therefore, recommends the establishment of a consistent set of protocols, or "starting points" (e.g., presumptive control levels for all source categories for each visibility impairing pollutant) upon which BART analysis for each source category should be based, similar to the proposed approach for SO2 reductions for boilers. Such protocols, or starting points should not eliminate the flexibility each state may need to address unusual circumstances at individual sources, but these protocols, or starting points, could eliminate the need for case-by-case review for many sources.
B) In the absence of a presumptive standard, the proposed BART guidelines must contain explicit criteria for determining BART. In addition, the guidelines should include defined criteria for engineering, useful life, and cost.
C) Illinois recommends phasing-in the program whereby the states would be allowed to determine if a subset of the twenty-six categories of sources account for the bulk of the targeted emissions reduction and be allowed to focus on those source categories first.
D) U.S. EPA has requested comment on how to rank control technologies that may reduce only one pollutant against those that may reduce several. U.S. EPA should allow for flexibility as different pollutants have different roles in the formation of regional haze in different regions of the country. Hence, it may be appropriate to rank one technology higher in one region than in another. States and regions should be allowed to make such determinations based on monitoring and modeling.
V. Trading Program and Other Alternatives:
A fully developed trading program should be offered for comment along with the proposed BART guidelines. The proposed guidelines do not provide sufficient information to fully evaluate and comment on the trading alternative.
A) U.S. EPA has requested comment on an approach where the category-wide analysis of BART would allow states to evaluate different levels of BART control options for trading programs. The proposal requires that states/regions demonstrate a greater emissions reduction, and a greater improvement in visibility, for trading programs than would be achieved through implementation of BART on a case-by-case basis. Illinois believes that this requirement provides a strong disincentive to the implementation of a trading program, and, therefore, is not appropriate. Illinois believes that the differences in emission reductions between programs will have only a small incremental effect on visibility. With the modeling techniques currently available, it will be difficult to demonstrate that a trading program provides greater visibility improvement. Trading programs should be encouraged in the BART guidelines because they are generally less expensive to implement, result in greater emission reductions, and simplify and can accelerate the implementation of BART controls.
B) Illinois EPA believes that U.S. EPA should administer the trading program.
C) With respect to trading, Illinois believes the guidance should include provisions for inter-pollutant trading.
D) U.S. EPA has listed trading as the only alternate to individual case-by-case BART analyses. Illinois recommends that U.S. EPA provide an option for adoption of emission standards for individual source categories.
|
