DRAFT
Summary
of
Comments
and
Responses
on
the
2004
and
2001
Proposed
Guidelines
for
Best
Available
Retrofit
Technology
(
BART)
Determinations
Under
the
Regional
Haze
Regulations
4.2.3
Presumptive
Emission
Limits
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
4.2.3.1
SO
2
Limits
for
Utility
Boilers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
4.2.3.2
NO
x
Limits
for
Utility
Boilers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
4.2.3.3
General
Comments
Regarding
Presumptive
Limits
.
.
.
.
.
15
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
1
4.2.3
Presumptive
Emission
Limits
4.2.3.1
SO
2
Limits
for
Utility
Boilers
Comment:
Thirty­
four
commenters
said
the
proposed
SO
2
levels
are
reasonable
(
0167,
0171,
0227,
0231,
0232,
0234,
0255,
0256,
0267,
0271,
0314,
0323,
28­
239,
28­
345,
28­
247,
28­
248,
28­
249,
28­
250,
28­
258,
28­
260,
28­
262,
28­
286,
28­
289,
28­
302,
28­
334,
28­
338,
28­
350,
28­
352,
28­
362,
28­
399,
28­
433,
28­
7002,
28­
7016,
28­
7048)
citing
examples
and
references
in
support
of
these
levels
(
0171,
0255,
0256,
28­
302).
Commenter
0323
also
agreed
with
EPA's
approach
of
either
a
specific
emission
rate
limit
or
level
of
control
for
sulfur
dioxide
that
helps
to
provide
equity
among
sources
which
use
higher
sulfur
coal
and
those
using
coal
with
inherently
lower
sulfur
content.

Response:
The
EPA
appreciates
these
comments.

Comment:
Commenters
(
28­
248,
28­
399,
28­
7016)
said
EPA
should
expand
this
presumption
by
applying
it
to
electric
generating
facilities
that
are
under
controlled
for
purposes
of
SO
x.
Commenter
28­
258
said
the
presumptive
BART
level
of
SO
2
controls
should
be
required
at
all
utility
boilers,
not
just
those
with
no
SO
2
controls.

Response:
The
final
BART
presumption
for
coal­
fired
EGUs
with
a
pre­
existing
SO2
controls
are
to
be
determined
by
States
based
on
an
analysis
of
cost­
effective
FGD
upgrades
designed
to
improve
the
average
SO2
removal
efficiency
of
the
existing
system.
The
EPA
is
strongly
encouraging
States
to
the
implement
the
BART
presumptive
limits
on
coal­
fired
EGUs
greater
than
200
MW
and
on
all
oil­
fired
EGUs
regardless
of
capacity.
See
TSD
"
Setting
BART
Presumptive
SO2
Limits
for
Electric
Generating
Units"
for
a
more
detailed
discussion
on
how
EPA
determined
its
final
recommendations.

Comment:
Nine
commenters
said
the
proposed
levels
are
too
stringent
(
0176,
0181,
0217,
0246,
0253,
28­
264,
28­
341,
28­
357,
28­
7007).
Commenter
28­
264
said
the
level
is
too
high
for
western
utilities
that
are
burning
low­
sulfur
coal
where
a
level
of
85­
90%
would
be
more
appropriate.
One
commenter
(
0176)
cited
his
experience
with
eastern
bituminous
waste
and
did
not
believe
the
proposed
emissions
reductions
were
possible.
Commenter
0253
said
any
default
SO
2
control
level
mandating
greater
than
90%
control
are
inappropriate
for
units
utilizing
wet
scrubbers
and
high
sulfur
coals.
Commenter
28­
7007
suggested
a
range
of
70
to
90%
would
be
appropriate.
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
2
Response:
The
EPA
is
finalizing
the
SO2
BART
presumptive
limits
based
on
current
FGD
capabilities
given
the
various
combinations
of
coal
types
and
sulfur
contents
inherent
in
the
BART­
eligible
population
of
units.
The
EPA
is
maintaining
both
an
emission
limit
and
percent
removal
in
the
final
BART
presumptive
limits
to
provide
equity
among
various
unit
specific
characteristics
and
the
removal
capabilities
of
different
FGD
retrofit
systems.
We
also
believe
that
units
burning
higher
sulfur
coals
can
utilize
wet
scrubbers
systems
to
achieve
removal
efficiencies
of
at
least
95
percent
and
units
burning
lower
sulfur
coals
can
utilize
semi­
dry
FGD
systems
to
achieve
an
emission
rate
limit
of
0.15
lb
SO2/
mmBtu
or
less.

Comment:
Commenters
(
0217,
0246,
28­
357)
said
if
presumptive
levels
are
included,
consideration
should
be
given
to
the
levels
reflected
in
the
WRAP
agreement
(
85%
control
efficiency
at
85%
capacity
factor.)
EPA's
presumption
of
90
to
95%
control
efficiency
contradicts
the
consensus
based
level
of
SO
2
reduction
determined
by
the
WRAP
found
to
be
necessary
for
visibility
improvement
in
western
states.
Moreover,
given
that
the
WRAP
stakeholder
agreement
was
determined
to
be
better
than
BART,
the
proposed
guidelines
should
not
be
interpreted
to
require
changes
in
Section
309
SIPs
already
submitted
under
the
regional
haze
rules.

Response:
Kathy
to
respond
to
comment.
In
assessing
whether
the
WRAP
agreement
was
better
than
BART,
EPA
noted
that
for
utility
boilers
that
are
currently
uncontrolled,
emissions
reductions
of
90
percent
or
better
are
readily
achievable.
EPA's
conclusion
that
the
WRAP
agreement
(
which
assumed
85%
control
at
sources
that
are
currently
uncontrolled)
would
achieve
greater
reasonable
progress
than
would
installation
of
BART
was
based
on
the
consideration
of
a
number
of
factors
as
explained
in
that
rulemaking.

Comment:
Commenter
0181
asked
EPA
to
remove
the
presumptive
SO
2
control
level
from
the
final
BART
guidelines.
Instead,
there
should
be
a
BART
determination
process
that
promotes
costeffective
emission
reductions
based
on
specific
boiler
design
features
and
site­
specific
constraints.
The
proposed
presumptive
BART
approach,
as
proposed,
does
not
provide
affected
states
and
sources
with
the
flexibility
needed
to
design
and
install
SO
2
emission
control
systems
in
a
costeffective
manner
to
meet
the
BART
requirements.
Furthermore,
the
presumptive
SO
2
emissions
control
approach
inappropriately
ignores
the
need
for
a
visibility
impact
evaluation
which
is
required
in
step
5
of
the
proposed
case­
by­
case
BART
engineering
analysis.

Response:
The
EPA
believes
the
final
BART
presumptive
limits
promote
highly
cost­
effective
SO2
emission
reductions.
The
EPA
is
maintaining
both
an
emission
limit
and
percent
removal
in
the
final
SO2
BART
presumptive
limits
to
provide
equity
among
unit
specific
characteristics
(
i.
e.
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
3
boiler
design,
coal
types,
sulfur
content,
unit
size,
etc.)
and
potential
FGD
retrofit
systems.
We
believe
our
SO2
presumptive
limits
provide
States
enough
flexibility
to
take
into
account
unit
specific
circumstances.
States
have
the
ability
to
establish
alternate
BART
presumptive
limits
based
on
a
five­
step
BART
analysis
given
the
presence
of
persuasive
evidence.
See
Section
7
part
a,
Visibility
Analysis
for
SO2
and
NOx
emissions
from
EGUs,
in
BART
Preamble.

Comment:
Commenter
28­
341
said
through
switching
to
Powder
River
Basin
(
PRB)
coal,
many
of
Ameren's
facilities
have
met
and
exceeded
the
SO
2
reduction
requirements
of
the
Acid
Rain
program.
Should
BART
guidelines
be
adopted,
however,
they
will
be
forced
to
install
scrubbers.
at
each
one
of
their
facilities
that
employs
the
use
of
low­
sulfur
coal
to
meet
the
proposed
90­
95%
control
levels.

Response:
The
EPA
anticipates
States
to
adopt
the
BART
presumptions
on
all
coal­
fired
BARTeligible
EGUs
greater
than
200
MW.
Analysis
conducted
by
EPA
suggest
that
units
burning
lower
sulfur
coals
and
PRB
coal
can
cost­
effectively
retrofit
with
FGD
systems
to
meet
the
presumptive
limits.

Comment:
Four
commenters
said
the
proposed
presumptive
control
range
is
not
achievable
for
existing
boilers,
and
is
even
more
stringent
than
NSPS
limits
for
new
sources
(
28­
403,
28­
404,
28­
405,
28­
7013).
Commenter
28­
403
said
EPA's
data
do
not
support
such
a
limit
nor
does
EPA
explain
why
the
presumption
is
needed
and
why
the
states'
discretion
should
be
preempted.
Commenter
28­
404
said
this
presumption
will
result
in
excessive
costs
for
older
equipment.
Commenter
28­
405
said
if
presumptive
control
levels
were
to
be
established,
they
should
start
at
the
minimum
level
of
emission
controls,
with
additional
controls
justified
on
the
basis
of
the
source­
specific
balancing
process
Congress
set
forth
in
169A.
Commenter
28­
7013
added
that
the
presumptive
limits
are
more
consistent
with
BACT,
which
is
contrary
is
contrary
to
the
Act's
clear
distinction
between
BART
and
BACT.

Response:
The
EPA
has
recently
proposed
to
revise
the
NSPS
to
represent
the
SO2
control
capabilities
which
are
available
today.
In
the
proposed
NSPS
amendments
EPA
proposed
a
single
limit
without
a
compliance
alternative,
such
as
a
percent
removal
as
allowed
in
BART.
In
setting
the
NSPS
EPA
set
a
higher
emission
limit
than
proposed
in
BART
to
account
for
account
for
the
need
of
future
fuel
diversity,
in
particular
higher
sulfur
coals.
Conversely,
the
BART
presumptions
were
established
based
on
the
defined
population
of
eligible
units
and
were
determined
to
be
achievable
by
all
eligible
units.
The
EPA
would
also
like
to
point
out
the
BART
SO2
limits
are
more
stringent
than
the
NSPS
for
about
90
percent
of
coals.
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
4
Kathy
to
Answer.

Comment:
Eleven
commenters
said
that
the
proposed
presumptive
limits
clearly
exceed
the
statutory
authority
(
28­
270,
28­
342,
28­
353,
28­
354,
28­
356,
28­
360,
28­
386,
28­
390,
28­
392,
28­
778,
28­
7004).
Commenters
(
28­
270,
28­
386,
28­
392,
28­
778)
said
that
the
evaluation
must
be
conducted
according
to
the
statutory
process
and
BART
must
be
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Commenters
(
28­
342,
28­
354,
28­
356,
28­
360,
28­
390)
objected
to
EPA's
proposed
presumptive
limits
for
SO
2
controls
as
a
flagrant
example
of
EPA
usurping
State
authority
and/
or
as
being
arbitrary
and
economically
counterproductive.
Commenter
28­
7004
added
that
the
Act
consciously
addresses
the
need
for
SO
2
scrubbing
in
Title
IV.
The
Act
does
not
envision
or
authorize
a
much
more
onerous
and
expensive
nationwide
SO
2
scrubbing
program
as
part
of
Section
169A.
The
"
guidance"
which
presumes
90
to
95%
SO
2
removal
as
BART
for
uncontrolled
utility
boilers
is
not
supported
by
the
law.

Response:
Kathy
to
answer.
The
CAA
requires
BART
limits
for
certain
power
plants
to
be
determined
pursuant
to
guidelines
issued
by
EPA.
States
have
the
ability
to
take
into
account
the
specific
characteristics
of
individual
sources
in
making
final
BART
determinations.

Comment:
Three
commenters
said
the
proposed
levels
are
too
lenient
(
0221,
28­
263,
28­
7008).
Commenters
(
0221,
28­
263)
said
because
of
the
extended
SIP
timeline,
BART
retrofits
will
not
be
applied
until
2013
and
therefore,
it
is
expected
that
the
"
best"
available
sulfur
removal
technologies
will
routinely
be
able
to
achieve
in
excess
of
95%
removal
efficiencies
and
emission
rates
of
lower
than
0.10
lb/
MMBTU
by
that
time.
Therefore,
the
presumptive
level
of
95%
reduction
or
0.10­
0.15
lb/
MMBTU
SO2
emission
rate
that
is
stipulated
in
the
proposal
should
be
strengthened
to
an
SO
2
removal
efficiency
of
95%
or
better
or
an
emission
rate
of
0.10
lb/
MMBTU
or
better.
Commenter
28­
7008
was
concerned
with
the
effect
that
setting
presumptive
minimums
would
have
in
a
true
top­
down
control
technology
evaluation.
Using
an
artificially
low
presumptive
minimum
could
eliminate
consideration
of
more
effective
control
options
that
are
still
achievable
by
a
given
source.

Response:
The
EPA
believes
the
final
BART
SO2
presumptive
limits
represent
the
removal
efficiencies
of
current
FGD
systems
given
the
identified
universe
of
BART­
eligible
sources.
The
final
BART
presumptive
limits
require
a
removal
efficiency
of
at
least
95
percent
or
control
to
an
emission
rate
of
0.15
lb
SO2/
mmBtu
or
less.
States
have
discretion
to
set
more
stringent
presumptive
limits
based
on
the
findings
of
the
five­
step
BART
analysis
process.

Comment:
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
5
Thirteen
commenters
specified
that
proposed
control
level
must
account
for
fuel
type
and/
or
coal
sulfur
content
(
0171,
0187,
0206,
0213,
0224,
0236,
0241,
0255,
0303,
0314,
28­
335,
28­
347,
28­
770).
Commenter
0213
presented
historical
data
showing
that
the
proposed
emissions
limit
could
not
be
attained
in
certain
cases
depending
upon
the
sulfur
content
of
the
fuel
being
burned.
A
statistical
approach
should
be
utilized
analyzing
the
performance
of
existing
FGD
installations
to
ensure
that
the
worst
case
performers
can
reasonably
be
expected
to
comply
with
the
limit.
Commenters
(
28­
335,
28­
347,
28­
770)
said
the
presumption
should
not
apply
to
oil
or
gas­
fired
utility
boilers.

Response:
The
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
and
reiterates
that
in
establishing
the
BART
presumptive
limits
EPA
accounted
for
variations
in
fuel
type,
fuel
sulfur
content,
existing
SO2
control
systems,
anticipated
unit
cost­
effectiveness
values
and
the
removal
capabilities
of
current
FGD
systems.
The
EPA
is
finalizing
BART
presumptive
limits
which
include
an
emission
rate
limit
and
a
percent
removal
requirement
which
it
feels
to
be
reasonably
achievable
by
all
coal­
fired
BART­
eligible
units
absent
extreme
circumstance.
The
EPA
is
finalizing
SO2
BART
presumptive
limits
for
oil­
fired
EGUs
but
not
gas­
fired
EGUs.

Comment:
Commenters
(
0187,
0226,
0224,
0236,
0241,
0303)
said
the
rationale
used
to
justify
the
default
and
presumptive
BART
SO
2
emission
limitations
for
coal­
fired
units
can
be
applied
to
oilfired
EGUs.
In
contrast
to
coal­
fired
electric
generating
units,
flue
gas
de­
sulfurization
has
not
historically
been
used
at
oil­
fired
facilities
to
comply
with
SO
2
emission
limitations.
To
the
commenter's
knowledge,
there
are
no
existing
oil­
fired
steam
electric
generating
units
in
the
U.
S.
equipped
with
flue
gas
de­
sulfurization
for
control
of
SO
2
emissions.
The
primary
reason
for
this
is
that
the
vast
majority,
if
not
all,
of
the
states
limit
the
sulfur
content
of
the
oil
that
may
be
burned
at
EGUs
as
part
of
their
SIP
strategy
for
complying
with
the
SO
2
NAAQS.

Response:
Analyses
conducted
by
the
EPA
in
determining
the
presumptive
BART
limitations
for
coal­
and
oil­
fired
EGUs
were
based
on
emissions
data,
anticipated
unit
cost­
effectiveness
values
and
current
capabilities
of
SO2
control
technologies
or
methods
and
their
industry
applicability.
The
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
suggestion
pertaining
oil­
fired
units
and
notes
the
final
BART
presumptions
for
oil­
fired
units
is
a
limitation
on
fuel
oil
sulfur
content.

Comment:
Commenter
0314
suggested
setting
the
presumptive
BART
as
a
range
(
0.1
to
0.15
lb/
MMBTU)
allowing
the
State
to
establish
a
specific
level
for
each
plant.

Response:
The
final
BART
presumptive
limits
are
to
be
established
on
a
unit­
by­
unit
basis
by
the
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
6
States.
States
have
the
ability
to
establish
a
SO2
removal
efficiency
of
at
least
95
percent
or
an
emission
rate
limit
of
0.15
lb
SO2/
mmBtu
or
less.

Comment:
Three
commenters
said
that
presumptive
controls
may
need
to
differ
depending
on
the
location
of
the
source
(
0244,
0252,
0306).
Two
commenters
(
0244,
0252)
said
the
presumptive
control
level
of
90%
for
western
units
is
or
may
be
unrealistic.
In
contrast
to
the
presumptive
level
proposed
by
EPA
of
90%
SO
2
reduction,
WRAP
has
conducted
analysis
that
the
presumptive
level
of
control
for
a
scrubber
in
the
west
should
be
set
at
85%.
Commenter
0306
said
EPA
needs
to
consider
the
cold
climate
of
certain
northern
states
when
determining
presumptive
BART
for
SO
2.
Cold
weather
can
cause
icing
of
very
wet
stacks
which
can
lead
to
safety
hazards
and
functional
problems.
Reheat
of
the
stack
may
be
necessary,
to
reduce
or
eliminate
icing
problems.
Reheating
the
flue
gas
by
bypassing
some
of
the
gas
around
the
scrubber
will
reduce
overall
SO
2
removal.
The
proposed
presumptive
BART
may
not
be
achievable
in
cold
climates
without
overly
burdensome
costs.

Response:

Investigations
conducted
by
EPA
show
that
a
large
number
of
power
plants
in
the
US
are
equipped
with
flue
gas
desulfurization
(
FGD)
systems
without
any
flue
gas
reheat.
A
1996
EIA
database
shows
over
100
FGD
system
installations
that
have
been
operating
for
many
years
with
no
flue
gas
reheat.
(
EIA­
767
Database
Annual
Steam­
Electric
Plant
Operation
and
Design
Data
for
1996,
http://
www.
eia.
doe.
gov/
cneaf/
electricity/
page/
eia767hist.
html.)
Several
of
these
installations
are
located
in
states
with
a
cold
climate,
such
as
in
Utah,
North
Dakota,
Pennsylvania,
Ohio,
Indiana,
and
Illinois.
Also,
many
of
these
installations
are
removing
SO
2
at
rates
exceeding
90
percent.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
flue
gas
bypass
is
not
the
only
means
available
to
provide
flue
gas
reheat
at
the
outlet
of
a
scrubber.
Steam
or
electric
heaters
can
also
be
used
for
this
purpose,
without
a
need
to
bypass
a
portion
of
the
flue
gas
at
the
inlet
of
a
scrubber.
Therefore,
EPA
cannot
agree
with
the
commenters
that
the
FGD
installations
in
the
west
would
have
to
be
designed
with
a
gas
bypass
to
provide
flue
gas
reheat.
.

Comment:
Nine
commenters
said
that
the
proposed
control
levels
must
account
for
the
type
of
scrubber
in
place
(
0171,
0210,
0228,
0229,
0241,
0250,
0253,
0254,
0256).
Commenter
described
the
need
for
site­
specific
analyses
to
address
scrubbers
in
place
(
0210,
250).
Commenters
(
0241,
0254)
added
that
EGUs
that
currently
have
SO
2
controls
should
not
be
forced
to
meet
the
presumptive
level
unless
a
full
BART
analysis
is
undertaken
which
shows
that
incremental
visibility
and
cost­
effectiveness
justify
forcing
controlled
EGUs
to
meet
the
more
stringent
limit.
Others
(
0229)
said
that
the
recent
addition
of
controls,
even
if
reductions
fall
below
the
presumptive
levels,
should
be
cause
for
allowing
states
to
screen
such
a
BART­
eligible
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
7
source
out
early
in
the
evaluation
process.
Commenter
0254
said
the
ability
to
upgrade
existing
scrubber
units
will
be
limited
and
for
many,
particularly
dry
scrubbers,
the
presumptive
95%
reduction
level
will
not
be
achievable.
In
addition,
many
of
these
units
have
been
installed
recently,
e.
g.,
since
the
1990
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments,
and
requiring
these
facilities
to
re­
visit
large
investments
in
controls,
after
such
a
short
interval,
imparts
an
excessive
burden
on
those
businesses.

Response:
The
BART
presumptions
for
EGUs
with
pre­
existing
SO2
controls
are
to
be
determined
by
the
States,
as
either
an
emission
rate
limit
or
a
percent
removal,
based
on
a
unit­
specific
analysis
of
potential
system
upgrades
designed
to
increase
the
average
SO2
removal
capability
of
the
pre­
existing
system.
As
the
CAA
identifies
"
any
existing
pollution
control
technology
in
use"
at
a
source
as
one
of
the
factors
to
consider
in
a
BART
determination,
States
are
likely
to
account
for
existing
controls
in
establishing
limits.
In
addition,
the
guidelines
suggest
that
States
may
be
able
to
adopt
more
streamlined
approaches
to
making
BART
determinations
where
consideration
of
one
of
the
factors
clearly
outweighs
the
others.
The
EPA
recognizes
that
semi­
dry
FGD
systems
are
not
typically
designed
to
achieve
removal
efficiencies
of
at
least
95
percent.
For
this
reason,
the
EPA
anticipates
smaller
units
burning
low
sulfur
coals
could
utilize
the
semi­
dry
FGD
technologies
to
achieve
an
emission
rate
of
0.15
lb
SO2/
mmBtu.
The
EPA
also
suggests
there
are
cost­
effective
upgrade
options
for
EGUs
with
pre­
existing
semi­
dry
scrubber
systems.

Comment:
Commenter
0253
said
that
in
largely
focusing
on
the
capabilities
of
state­
of­
the­
art
scrubbers
installed
on
new
generating
units
and
ignoring
the
feasibility
or,
in
many
cases,
infeasibility
of
retrofitting
such
technology
on
existing
units,
EPA's
analysis
is
substantially
flawed.
EPA
overlooks
the
fact
that,
in
many
instances,
it
is
technically
infeasible
to
upgrade
early
generation
scrubbers
to
meet
the
95%
control
level
that
may
be
achievable
with
current
state­
of­
the­
art
scrubbers.

Response:
The
EPA
established
the
BART
presumptive
limits
for
coal­
fired
EGUs
without
existing
SO2
controls
based
on
the
control
levels
achievable
with
current
state­
of­
the­
are
new
and
retrofit
scrubber
installations.
The
BART
presumption
for
EGUs
with
pre­
existing
SO2
controls
are
to
be
established
by
the
States
(
not
necessarily
95
percent
control)
based
on
an
evaluation
of
technically
feasible
upgrade
options
available
for
early
generation
scrubbers
in
order
to
improve
the
average
SO2
removal
of
existing
controls.

Comment:
Commenters
(
0228,
0256)
said
the
SO
2
presumption
should
not
apply
to
sources
that
have
already
installed
and
are
operating
scrubbers,
or
to
sources
that
have
committed
to
specific
levels
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
8
of
scrubbing
through
consent
orders
or
agreements
with
EPA
or
a
state
regulatory
agency.
If
a
source
can
demonstrate
a
reduction
in
visibility
impairment
below
the
specified
threshold
(
whether
that
threshold
is
EPA's
currently
proposed
0.5
deciview
or
an
alternative
level)
with
less
stringent
controls,
EPA
and
the
states
should
not
impose
by
default
more
stringent
reduction
requirements.

Response:
The
presumptions
in
the
guidelines
do
not
apply
to
sources
that
have
existing
scrubbers.
Nonetheless,
EPA's
analysis
suggest
cost­
effective
FGD
system
upgrades
designed
to
improve
average
SO2
removal
efficiencies
are
available
for
some
BART­
eligible
units
with
currently
operational
scrubber
systems.

Comment:
In
contrast,
one
commenter
(
0221)
said
that
under­
controlled
sources
(
i.
e.,
those
previously
retrofitted
to
meet
the
1979
NSP
of
70
percent)
can
meet
removal
efficiencies
of
95%
or
more.
The
performance
of
boilers
already
using
the
wet
limestone
process
can
be
improved
through
the
application
of
"
once­
through
wet
FGD
technology,"
such
as
increasing
sorbent,
reactivity
and
other
upgrades.

Response:
EPA
analyses
suggest
cost­
effective
FGD
system
upgrades
designed
to
improve
average
SO2
removal
efficiencies
are
available
for
BART­
eligible
units
with
currently
operational
scrubber
systems.
See
TSD
"
Setting
BART
Presumptive
SO2
Limits
for
Electric
Generating
Units"
for
a
more
detailed
discussion
on
EPA's
list
of
recommended
upgrade
options
for
wet
FGD
systems.

Comment:
Eight
commenters
discussed
the
role
that
plant
size
and/
or
capacity
should
play
in
applying
a
default
SO
2
control
level
(
0206,
0227,
0241,
0253,
0256,
0267,
0271,
0303).
Some
commenters
said
that
the
presumptive
limits
should
not
apply
to
units
between
250
and
750
MW
(
0206,
0241,
0303).
Commenter
0253
said
EPA
should
clarify
that
only
BART­
eligible
sources
would
be
counted
toward
the
750­
MW
cut­
off.
Commenters
(
0206,
0303)
added
that
Congress
did
not
specify
similar
requirements
for
smaller
plants
(
i.
e.
facilities
below
750
MWs).
The
installation
of
controls
necessary
to
reduce
SO
2
emissions
by
90
to
95
percent
is
more
likely
to
be
uneconomical
at
smaller
facilities
(
0206,
0253,
0303).
The
BART
process
must
be
followed
for
such
a
determination
to
be
made
(
0241).

Response:
The
BART
presumptions
are
binding
for
units
greater
than
750
MW.
EPA
strongly
encourages
States
to
apply
the
BART
presumptive
limits
to
units
greater
than
200
MW
regardless
of
plant
size.
The
EPA's
unit­
specific
economic
analysis
for
BART
eligible
coal­
fired
units
suggests
on
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
9
average
it
is
less
economical
for
units
less
than
200
MW
to
retrofit
with
FGD
systems
than
those
units
greater
than
200
MW.
However,
the
analysis
did
demonstrate
that
some
BART­
eligible
units
less
than
200
MW
were
modeled
to
have
cost
effectiveness
values
comparable
to
those
unit
greater
than
200
MW
and
that
States
are
encouraged
to
apply
the
BART
presumptions
to
such
sources.

Comment:
Commenter
0256
said
EPA's
proposed
distinction
between
the
SO
2
"
default
requirement"
and
the
"
rebuttable
presumption"
based
on
total
power
plant
capacity
is
unsupportable.
Because
BART
applies
on
a
unit
basis,
the
fact
that
the
total
capacity
of
the
plant
is
higher
or
lower
than
750
MW
has
no
obvious
bearing
on
whether
an
individual
unit
can
meet
the
default/
presumption.
Indeed,
if
anything,
units
at
a
larger
plant
would
perhaps
have
more
problems
meeting
the
presumption
than
would
units
at
a
smaller
plant,
because
a
larger
plant
would
tend
to
have
more
units
and
thus
more
potential
for
space
constraints
in
retrofitting
add­
on
controls.
If
EPA
retains
the
SO
2
presumption,
it
should
be
a
rebuttable
presumption
for
all
units
greater
than
250
MW,
regardless
of
total
power
plant
capacity.

In
contrast,
commenters
(
0227,
0271)
said
EPA
should
require
presumptive
controls
for
all
units
at
750
MW
plants,
including
those
between
250
and
750
MW.
Commenter
0271
said
this
conforms
to
the
specific
wording
of
the
Act
(
Sec.
169A(
b)(
2)(
A))
for
controls
on
these
smaller
than
750
MW
units.
Commenter
0267
supported
applying
the
proposed
presumptive
level
to
all
EGUs
greater
than
250
MW.

Response:
The
BART
guidelines
establish
a
presumption
for
uncontrolled
units
200
MW
or
greater
at
power
plants
in
excess
of
750
MW.
The
rationale
for
addressing
these
units
is
set
forth
in
the
relevant
TSD.

Comment:
Commenter
0268
noted
that
Arizona
has
chosen
to
address
visibility
impairment
through
Section
309
of
the
1999
RHR.
In
order
to
pursue
the
309
pathway,
Arizona
has
made
a
demonstration
to
EPA
that
the
state
will
realize
overall
SO
2
reductions
greater
than
the
reductions
that
would
be
achieved
solely
through
imposition
of
BART
controls
at
the
state's
BART­
eligible
sources.
EPA
should
clearly
and
definitively
recognize
that
presumptive
BART
limits
for
SO
2
do
not
apply
to
BART­
eligible
sources
located
in
states
that
have
already
committed
to
"
better
than
BART"
SO
2
reductions
through
Section
309
SIP
submittals.

Response:
The
regional
haze
rule
allows
States
to
adopt
alternative
measures
in
lieu
of
BART.

Comment:
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
10
Twelve
commenters
suggested
alternatives
to
presumptive
control
levels
(
0213,
0215,
0256,
0302,
28­
255,
28­
256,
28­
264,
28­
266,
28­
278,
28­
312,
28­
355,
28­
404).
Commenter
0213
supports
an
emissions
trading
program
to
implement
BART
controls
as
proposed
in
the
June
10,
2004
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
(
CAIR).
However
if
an
individual
unit
program
is
prescribed,
the
commenter
supports
a
percent
removal
limit
as
opposed
to
an
emission
limit.

Response:
EPA
appreciates
these
comments
and
supports
BART­
eligible
units
option
to
opt
into
the
CAIR
in
applicable
states.

Comment:
Commenter
0215
said
EPA
should
retain
the
option
of
complying
with
the
SO
2
default/
presumption
for
EGUs,
either
by
adhering
to
the
straight
percentage
reduction
or
a
set
emission
rate.
Due
to
the
variability
in
coal
and
equipment
types
(
including
vintages),
EPA
must
retain
flexibility
for
those
EGUs
that
must
comply
with
these
BART
requirements.

Response:
The
EPA
appreciates
this
comment.

Comment:
Commenter
0256
agrees
with
EPA
that,
for
units
burning
lower
sulfur
coal,
achieving
95%
reduction
could
be
problematic
and
that
an
emission
limitation
should
be
used.
Other
commenters
(
28­
256,
28­
264,
28­
266,
28­
278,
28­
312,
28­
355,
28­
404)
agreed
if
a
presumptive
approach
is
used,
then
the
presumptive
norms
should
be
explicitly
stated
in
the
rulemaking
and
should
be
no
higher
than
3.0
lb/
MWh
for
SO
2
(
28­
256),
based
on
a
weight
rate
limit
or
other
fuelneutral
basis
to
account
for
facilities
burning
higher
sulfur
coal
(
28­
264,
28­
335),
on
an
emissions
standard
to
allow
sources
to
take
credit
for
improvements
they
have
already
made
(
28­
266,
28­
278,
28­
312,
28­
404).

Response:
The
EPA
conducted
a
unit­
specific
analysis
in
determining
the
BART
presumptive
limits
and
is
finalizing
presumptions
which
it
feels
to
be
achievable
by
the
BART­
eligible
population,
absent
extreme
circumstances.
The
final
BART
presumptive
limits
for
coal­
fired
EGUs
without
existing
SO2
controls
includes
both
an
emission
rate
limit
and
percent
reduction
requirement
to
provide
equity
among
the
units
and
their
various
characteristics
Comment:
Commenter
0302
prefers
the
flexibility
of
a
percentage
control
level
comparable
to
a
performance
level
of
0.1
to
0.15
lbs/
MMBTU
SO
2.
A
percentage
control
level
would
offer
the
non­
EGU
BART­
subject
sources
the
best
controls
that
are
achievable,
for
all
types
of
sources,
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
11
under
reasonable
cost
effectiveness.
Without
the
proper
guidance
for
BART­
subject
sources
that
are
EGUs,
the
commenter
needs
flexibility
in
determining
the
actual
emission
rates
at
which
these
sources
will
be
required
to
demonstrate
compliance.

Response:
States
will
make
BART
determinations
based
on
a
consideration
of
the
five
factors
set
forth
in
the
CAA.
The
presumptions
in
the
guidelines
apply
only
to
EGUs.

Comment:
Two
commenters
(
28­
255,
28­
264)
said
the
presumptive
levels
should
not
be
established
as
absolute
values.
Commenter
28­
255
said
the
values
should
be
presented
as
a
range.
Commenter
28­
264
said
the
presumption
should
not
interfere
with
the
states'
discretion
and
statutory
process.
If
EPA
intends
to
apply
this
"
presumptive
level"
as
a
mandate,
then
EPA
should
establish
it
as
a
national
rule
rather
than
continuing
the
pretense
that
states
are
making
a
case­
by­
case
determination.

Response:
Congress
stated
that
BART
emission
limits
should
be
determined
pursuant
to
guidelines
issued
by
EPA.
As
such,
the
guidelines
do
not
interfere
with
the
discretion
given
to
States
by
Congress.
The
guidelines
are
being
promulgated
through
rulemaking
Comment:
Three
commenters
discussed
the
role
that
the
averaging
period
plays
in
determining
performance
(
0213,
0256,
0314).
Commenter
0213
noted
the
difference
in
performance
over
longer
averaging
times
between
state­
of­
the­
art
technology
and
existing
FGD
installations.
EPA
should
review
existing
installations
to
determine
an
appropriate
level
of
performance
for
determining
an
SO
2
removal
efficiency
limit.
Commenter
0256
said
the
choice
of
0.15
lb/
MMBtu
is
predicated
on
the
use
of
at
least
an
averaging
time
of
30­
day
rolling
or
longer.
The
0.15
lb/
MMBtu
limit
could
not
be
achieved
with
the
use
of
a
shorter
averaging
time.
Commenter
0314
asked
that
an
averaging
period,
i.
e.,
a
30­
day
rolling
average,
for
the
control
levels
be
established
in
the
rule.
A
longer
averaging
period
will
allow
for
lower
annual
emissions.

Response:
The
EPA
recognizes
the
correlation
between
sustainable
FGD
performance
and
length
of
averaging
times.
For
this
reason
it
is
establishing
as
part
of
the
BART
rulemaking
a
30­
day
rolling
averaging
period
for
the
SO2
presumptive
limits.

Comment:
Four
commenters
said
that
EPA
has
underestimated
the
cost
per
ton
of
emissions
removed
(
0187,
0206,
0236,
0303).
Commenters
(
0187,
0236)
provided
an
example
of
the
costeffectiveness
range
for
reducing
SO
2
emissions
to
0.1
to
0.15
lbs/
MMBTU
estimated
to
be
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
12
between
$
1800
and
$
3400
per
ton
of
SO
2
removed
when
burning
Powder
River
Basin
coals.
This
is
much
higher
than
the
$
200­$
1000
per
ton
cost­
effectiveness
range
cited
by
EPA
in
support
of
the
proposed
presumptive
BART
SO
2
limit.
Commenter
0187
gave
an
example
of
an
oil­
fired
unit
exceeding
$
3,000
per
ton
of
SO
2
removed,
which
supports
a
separate
presumptive
SO
2
emission
limit
for
oil­
based
units
based
on
the
maximum
fuel
sulfur
content
in
oil.
Commenters
(
0206,
0303)
were
concerned
about
additional
costs
faced
by
smaller
plants
(
upgrading
fans,
piping,
etc.)
that
can
drive
the
cost
into
the
$
3,000
range.
The
commenters
said
EPA
should
treat
smaller
plants
like
other
major
sources
and
allow
states
greater
flexibility
in
determining
BART
for
such
facilities.

Response:
EPA's
unit
specific
economic
analysis
suggests
an
average
cost
effectiveness,
for
all
BART
units
greater
than
200
MW,
of
$
919
per
ton
SO2
removed,
with
a
majority
of
the
units
anticipated
to
have
cost
effectiveness
values
ranging
from
$
400
to
$
2000
per
ton
SO2
removed,
see
TSD
"
Setting
BART
Presumptive
SO2
Limits
for
Electric
Generating
Units"
for
a
more
detailed
discussion
on
how
EPA
determined
its
final
recommendations.
EPA's
economic
analysis
also
suggested
that
some
unit
greater
than
200
MW
could
experience
expensive
cost
effectiveness
values,
however
States
have
the
flexibility
to
determine
alternate
BART
presumptive
limits
based
on
the
results
of
the
5
part
BART
analysis.
The
EPA
strongly
encourages
States
to
apply
the
BART
presumption
at
units
greater
than
200
MW
because
our
economic
analysis
suggested
higher
average
cost
effectiveness
values
for
units
less
than
200
MW.
However,
EPA
also
recognizes
that
some
units
less
than
200
MW
were
modeled
to
have
reasonable
cost
effectiveness
values.
The
EPA
determined
the
final
BART
presumption
for
oil­
fired
units
to
be
a
limitation
of
fuel
oil
sulfur
content.

Comment:
In
contrast,
commenters
(
0221,
0267)
said
achieving
the
control
levels
are
cost
effective.

Response:
The
EPA
appreciates
these
comments.

Comment:
Six
commenters
provided
other
comments
regarding
SO
2
limits
for
utility
boilers
(
0215,
0224,
0241,
0250,
0255,
0319).
Commenter
0215
said
if
EPA
retains
the
SO
2
default/
presumption,
it
should
make
it
clear
that
if
any
source
is
willing
to
achieve
95%
control
or
somewhere
along
the
scale
of
0.10
to
0.15
lb/
MMBtu,
it
should
automatically
be
exempt
from
the
requirement
to
perform
a
BART
analysis
for
SO
2.
Commenter
0224
said
EPA
might
specify
flue
gas
desulfurization
as
a
presumptive
technology.
Commenter
0255
described
several
options
that
are
available
to
further
reduce
SO
2
emissions
and
improve
the
reliability
of
existing
FGD
systems
to
above
95
%
removal
efficiencies.
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
13
Response:
We
agree
that
under
some
circumstances,
a
State
may
reasonably
find
that
if
a
source
is
willing
to
meet
the
presumptive
limit,
it
need
not
undertake
a
BART
analysis
for
SO
2.
Our
presumptive
limits
for
controlling
SO
2
from
coal­
fired
power
plants
was
based
on
flue
gas
desulfurization,
but
States
may
determine
that
other
technologies
are
appropriate.

Comment:
Commenters
(
0241,
0250)
opposed
establishing
any
SO
2
control
level
for
EGUs
as
presumptive
BART
because
this
usurps
state
authority
and
completely
ignores
the
BART
evaluation
process
required
by
the
Act.
Commenter
0250
said
this
is
especially
inappropriate
for
units
already
equipped
with
scrubbers.

Response:
The
guidelines
do
not
establish
presumptions
for
units
already
equipped
with
scrubbers.

Comment:
Commenter
0319
was
concerned
that
setting
an
emission
rate
goal
incorporating
cap
and
trade
mechanisms
rather
than
a
percent
control
goal
would
encourage
fuel
switching
to
SPRB
coal.
Even
plants
that
meet
the
BART
standards
would
be
encouraged
to
switch
to
SPRB
coal
to
avoid
capital
investment
or
to
profit
from
the
sale
of
surplus
allowances.
Tribal
coal
and
lignite
production
could
be
put
at
risk.
The
commenter
provided
a
proposal
to
address
the
impacts
on
tribal
coal
as
Attachment
A.

Response:
The
final
BART
presumptions
do
not
include
a
cap
and
trade
program
for
EGUs.
EPA
believes
the
BART
presumptive
limits
for
EGUs
are
stringent
enough
that
fuel
switching
alone
will
not
bring
a
unit
into
compliance
with
the
0.15
lb
SO2/
mmBtu
emission
rate
limit.
The
final
BART
presumptions
for
coal­
fired
EGUs
without
pre­
existing
SO2
controls
were
finalized
based
on
what
EPA
believes
are
the
current
capabilities
of
wet
and
semi­
dry
FGD
systems.

4.2.3.2
NO
x
Limits
for
Utility
Boilers
Comment:
Eighteen
commenters
on
the
2001
notice
supported
presumptive
limits
for
NO
x
set
at
90
to
95%
(
28­
245,
28­
247,
28­
248,
28­
255,
28­
260,
28­
262,
28­
302,
28­
325,
28­
334,
28­
338,
28­
350,
28­
352,
28­
358,
28­
362,
28­
390,
28­
399,
28­
433,
28­
7016).
Commenter
28­
302
said
the
combination
of
low­
NOx
burner
(
LNB)
technology
and
SCR
controls
can
routinely
reduce
NO
x
emissions
by
over
90%
and
other
commenters
cited
research
documenting
the
performance
of
controls
(
28­
325,
28­
390)
and
EPA's
own
experience
and
data
(
28­
28­
352,
28­
362,
28­
7016).
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
14
Commenter
28­
256
said
if
a
presumptive
norm
approach
is
used,
then
the
presumptive
norms
should
be
explicitly
stated
in
the
rulemaking
and
should
be
no
higher
than
1.5
lb/
MWh
for
NO
x..

Comment:
Nine
commenters
addressed
whether
the
NO
x
levels
proposed
in
2004
are
too
stringent
(
0167,
0171,
0207,
0227,
0231,
0232,
0255,
0271,
0302).

Two
commenters
supported
the
proposed
NO
x
limit
of
0.2
as
a
reasonable
level
of
control
(
0231,
0302).
Commenter
0232
supported
the
setting
the
presumptive
control
levels
of
NO
x
at
90%.

Three
commenters
said
the
proposed
levels
are
too
stringent
(
0171,
0207,
0227).
Commenter
0171
described
recent
plant
retrofits
using
low­
NO
x
burners
and
low­
NO
x
concentric
firing
systems
that
could
not
practically
achieve
the
0.2
lb/
MMBTU
limit.
Commenter
0207
said
the
presumptive
limit
is
counter
to
available
evidence
and
unreasonable,
especially
for
T­
fired
units
equipped
with
low­
NO
x
burners.
EPA's
experience
in
the
Acid
Rain
program
is
consistent
with
a
higher
emission
rate
and
should
be
reflected
in
setting
the
BART
levels.
The
commenter
concluded
that
the
experience
of
some
of
its
members
with
low­
NO
x
burners,
the
background
information
for
development
of
Group
1,
Phase
II
NO
x
limits,
and,
most
likely,
the
voluminous
NO
x
x
emission
data
reported
to
EPA
from
all
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
units,
all
demonstrate
that
a
presumptive
0.2
lb/
MMBTU
NO
x
emission
limit
for
utility
boilers
is
a
very
unreasonable,
representation
of
BART
for
such
units.
Commenter
0227
was
concerned
that
the
NO
x
presumptive
control
level
EPA
proposed
is
higher
than
the
level
current
technology
can
provide.
EPA
should
review
currently
proposed
NO
x
retrofits
and
consider
lowering
it
presumptive
level
of
0.2
lbs/
MMBTU.

Three
commenters
said
the
proposed
NO
x
levels
are
too
lenient
(
0167,
0255,
0271).
Commenter
0167
urged
EPA
to
require
electric
generating
units
in
the
West
to
meet
rigorous
NO
x
pollution
control
standards.
Commenter
0255
said
the
current
suite
of
best
available
NO
x
technologies,
post
combustion
as
well
as
combustion
controls,
can
achieve
significantly
lower
emission
rates
than
the
proposed
0.2
lb/
MMBtu.
In
2002
ozone
season,
the
air
pollution
control
industry
had
100
units
achieving
a
NO
x
emission
rate
of
less
than
0.2
lb/
MMBtu.
Additionally,
cost
effective
emission
reductions
from
the
industrial
sector
are
feasible
but
have
not
been
adequately
considered
in
the
BART
rule
considering
the
quantity
of
visibility
impairing
emissions.
For
industrial
sources,
setting
an
appropriate
level
of
reduction
with
some
flexibility
such
as
providing
the
option
of
meeting
an
emission
rate
limit
or
percent
reduction
is
one
way
to
assure
significant
emission
reductions.
Commenter
0271
recommended
the
presumptive
control
level
of
0.15
lbs.
of
NO
x
per
MMBTU.
This
level
of
control
has
been
demonstrated
in
the
NO
x
budget
program
in
the
eastern
United
States.
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
15
Comment:
Six
commenters
said
that
the
presumption
is
overly
broad
(
0189,
0206,
0217,
0246,
0303,
0323).
Commenters
(
0189)
said
that
EPA
should
make
clear
(
a)
that
add­
on
NO
x
controls
should
not
be
part
of
BART
for
non­
EGUs
because
of
the
costs
of
the
these
controls
and
(
b)
that
its
presumptive
control
level
of
.2
lbs/
MMBTU
does
not
apply
to
non­
EGUs
because
they
are
unable
to
meet
these
levels
without
the
use
of
add­
on
controls.

Other
commenters
(
0206,
0303)
said
EPA
should
not
establish
a
prescribed
method
of
level
of
control
because
variations
between
small
and
large
facilities,
e.
g.,
between
coal­,
oil­,
and
gas­
fired
units,
and
the
age
of
the
units
make
application
of
such
a
presumption
overbroad.
Commenters
(
0217,
0246)
also
said
disagreed
with
the
presumptive
NO
x
limit
at
0.27
lb/
MMBTU
because
of
the
many
differences
in
coal­
fired
boilers.
BART
determinations
should
be
made
by
individual
states
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
consistent
with
state
discretion.
Commenter
0323
said
EPA
should
consider
a
range
of
emission
rates
that
reflect
recent
advances
in
technology,
particularly
with
respect
to
tangentially
fired
boilers
at
EGUs.

Three
commenters
said
EPA's
characterization
of
the
capabilities
of
control
technology
is
inaccurate.
Commenters
(
0217,
0268)
provided
results
of
a
survey
showing
the
effect
of
adding
advance
combustion
controls
to
existing
units
that
currently
do
not
have
the
most
advanced
controls.
Expected
NO
x
emissions
rates
ranged
from
0.17
to
0.49
lbs/
MMBTU.
The
average
emissions
rate
achievable,
weighted
by
heat
input,
was
0.27
lbs/
MMBtu,
well
in
excess
of
the
presumed
limit
of
0.2
lbs/
MMBTU.
In
contrast,
commenter
0255
described
the
effectiveness
of
SNCR
as
a
candidate
to
meet
or
better
the
proposed
emission
rates.

Comment:
Thirteen
commenters
said
it
is
important
to
consider
the
type
of
coal
or
other
fuel
in
setting
a
presumptive
control
level
(
0186,
0188,
0213,
0214,
0217,
0224,
0238,
0254,
0255,
0275,
0306,
0319,
0321).

Commenters
(
0186,
0275)
said
the
0.2
lb/
MMBTU
presumptive
level
of
NO
x
control
should
not
apply
to
gas
fired
power
plant
boilers
because
combustion
controls
on
gas­
fired
units
can
achieve
a
much
better
(
i.
e.,
lower)
level
of
performance.

Other
commenters
(
0188,
0214,
0238,
0319,
0321)
said
that
the
0.2lb/
MMBTU
level
of
control
has
not
been
demonstrated
using
SCR
technology
on
lignite­
fired
EGUs
and
cited
current
research
supporting
this
claim
(
0188,
0321).
Commenter
0238
added
that
over­
fired
air
will
not
reduce
NO
x
emissions
from
cyclones
to
that
level.
Commenter
0321
said
the
proposed
emission
limit
is
not
appropriate
for
lignite­
fired
cyclone
units
either.
Commenters
(
0214,
0238)
added
that
EPA
should
give
the
states
maximum
flexibility
to
use
the
five
statutory
factors
in
their
BART
NO
x
determinations.
Commenter
0306
said
EPA
should
reexamine
the
presumptive
BART
for
cyclone
boilers
firing
North
Dakota
lignite.
Commenters
(
0319,
0321)
supported
a
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
16
recommendation
for
a
NO
x
limit
of
approximately
0.4
lb/
MMBTU,
or
evaluated
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Commenter
0321
added
that
NO
x
emissions
from
lignite
unite
appear
to
have
less
impact
on
visibility
in
that
region
of
the
country.

Commenter
0217
said
coal
rank
also
accounts
for
differences
in
NO
x
levels.
For
example,
subbituminous
coal
from
the
Powder
River
Basin
has
been
shown
to
yield
lower
NO
x
in
some
units
than
other
coals.
However,
this
is
not
always
true.
In
addition,
unit
operators
must
balance
oxygen
levels
to
attain
proper
NO
x
levels
while
still
maintaining
appropriate
carbon
monoxide
(
CO)
levels.
A
unit
with
a
stringent
CO
emission
limit
may
not
allow
a
plant
operator
to
achieve
the
lowest
NO
x
level
possible
with
existing
controls.

Commenter
0213
said
that
cyclone
boilers
that
burn
bituminous
coal
may
require
a
higher
presumptive
emission
rate
even
after
OFA
retrofits.
Commenter
0254
said
pre­
NSPS
boilers
firing
bituminous
coal
cannot
meet
the
presumptive
limit
with
the
prescribed
control
systems
(
combustion
controls
or
low­
NO
x
burners).
Commenter
0224
described
different
levels
of
performance
between
Western
plants
(
which
could
meet
the
limit)
and
Eastern
plants
(
which
could
not
meet
the
limit).
The
commenter
said
any
presumptive
performance
limits
must
reflect
different
types
of
coal
and
boiler
configurations.

Commenter
0255
said
the
emission
rate
achieved
from
a
particular
unit
depends
on
several
factors,
including
coal
type
and
boiler
configuration.
The
commenter
described
several
examples
of
high
performing
units.

Comment:
One
commenter
(
0270)
cited
studies
showing
the
nitrates
contribute
only
a
few
percent
to
total
light
extinction
except
in
Class
I
areas
downwind
of
Southern
California.
Accordingly,
NO
x
emissions
from
stationary
sources
are
unlikely
to
lead
to
any
perceptible
changes
in
visibility.
Therefore,
it
is
unlikely
that
NO
x
emission
sources
in
the
West
will
be
good
candidates
of
application
of
BART.
The
proposed
presumptive
NO
x
emission
level
is
not
consistent
with
the
Bush
Administration's
publicly
announced
policy
of
"
no
SCR
in
the
West"
under
the
CSA.
EPA
should
conclude
that
application
of
combustion­
based
controls
would
constitute
BART
for
NO
x
emissions
in
the
West,
irrespective
of
the
resulting
emission
level.

Comment:
Seven
commenters
said
that
the
boiler
configuration
should
be
considered
(
0195,
0210,
0217,
0224,
0241,
0256,
0270).
Commenters
(
0210)
said,
if
retained,
the
NO
x
presumption
should
be
modified
to
address
the
appropriate
control
levels
for
all
boiler
types.
EPA's
identified
presumptive
level,
0.2
lbs/
MMBTU,
is
not
reasonable
for
most
boiler
types
because
it
cannot
be
achieved
without
using
combustion
controls
(
0241,
0256,
0270).
EPA
could
establish
more
reasonable
levels
by
reviewing
the
emissions
data
readily
available
from
the
Acid
Rain
program
(
0210).
Commenter
0241
said
states
should
undertake
a
full
BART
analysis,
as
required
by
the
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
17
Act,
to
determine
the
appropriate
NO
x
control
level
that
should
be
established
as
BART
for
EGUs.
If
a
presumption
is
retained,
EPA
should
change
the
presumption
from
a
lb/
MMBtu
emission
limitation
to
a
statement
indicating
that
combustion
controls
installed
after
enactment
of
Title
IV
of
the
Act
should
be
presumed
to
satisfy
the
BART
requirement
for
NO
x.
States
could
then
evaluate
on
a
boiler­
specific
basis
the
emission
limitation
that
could
be
met
using
combustion
controls.
Any
other
approach
is
simply
not
justified
by
the
data
and
would
be
arbitrary
and
capricious.

Commenter
0195
said
NO
x
control
on
cyclone
type
boilers
represent
unique
circumstances
that
make
it
virtually
improbable
to
control
on
a
long
term
basis
below
0.4
lb/
MMBTU.

Commenter
0224
described
different
levels
of
performance
between
Western
plants
(
which
could
meet
the
limit)
and
Eastern
plants
(
which
could
not
meet
the
limit).
The
commenter
said
any
presumptive
performance
limits
must
reflect
different
types
of
coal
and
boiler
configurations.

Commenter
0270
said
it
is
well
known
that
wall­
fired
boilers
can't
achieve
the
same
level
of
NO
x
controls
as
tangentially­
fired
boilers
with
these
types
of
control
technologies.
The
commenter
does
not
believe
that
a
limit
of
0.2
lbs/
MMBTU
can
be
achieved
on
wall­
fired
units
via
retrofit
installation
of
advance
combustion
controls.

Comment:
Three
commenters
(
0195,
0252,
0271)
provided
other
comments
regarding
applicability.
Commenter
0195
supported
the
definitions
for
Combustion
controls
as
defined
in
40
CFR
76.2
Acid
Rain
Nitrogen
Oxides
Emission
Reduction
Program
in
order
to
provide
consistency
across
EPA
programs.
Commenter
0252
analyzed
data
for
eastern
units
and
western
units
with
different
configurations
and
for
units
burning
different
types
of
coal.
The
commenter
concluded
that
EPA
should
not
set
a
presumptive
level
of
control,
since
it
should
be
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Commenter
0271
said
the
presumptive
level
of
control
must
be
applied
to
all
units
at
a
"
powerplant
having
a
total
generating
capacity
in
excess
of
750
megawatts"
even
those
units
less
than
750
megawatts.
This
conforms
to
the
specific
wording
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
Sec.
169A(
b)(
2)(
A))
for
controls
on
these
smaller
than
750
megawatt
units.

Comment:
Nineteen
commenters
discussed
the
use
of
post­
combustion
controls
(
0171,
0179,
0199,
0206,
0217,
0221,
0224,
0232,
0234,
0244,
0246,
0252,
0253,
0255,
0256,
0267,
0271,
0280,
0303).
Commenters
supported
the
presumption
that
BART
can
be
achieved
without
the
use
of
post­
combustion
controls
(
0199).
However
some
types
of
units
or
units
burning
some
types
of
fuel
cannot
meet
the
presumptive
limits
without
installing
controls
(
0199,
0217,
0244,
0252,
0253).
Commenters
described
several
examples.
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
18
Some
commenters
were
concerned
that
the
proposed
rule
would
require
some
plants
to
install
SCR
to
meet
the
NO
x
control
level
proposed
(
0171,
0206,
0217).
Commenter
0171
said
the
implementation
of
the
regional
haze
rule,
including
any
potential
retrofit
of
SCR
technology,
must
consider
the
site
specific
data
of
the
Class
I
area,
the
use
of
current
emission
controls
on
potential
sources,
and
the
degree
of
visibility
improvements.
Commenters
(
0217,
0246)
added
that
individual
EGU
differences
need
to
be
accounted
for
by
states
in
making
their
BART
determination.
Also,
the
guidelines
indicate
that
if
a
state
finds
that
a
source's
visibility
contribution
warrants
the
installation
of
SCR,
it
may
be
allowed.
However,
the
guidelines
need
to
also
provide
for
instances
where
the
visibility
condition
warrant
a
lesser
control
level
than
what
would
be
achieved
by
advanced
combustion
control.
There
is
reference
to
this
concept
in
the
preamble
that
is
not
reflected
in
the
guidelines.
Commenters
(
0206,
0303)
said
the
costs
associated
with
SCR
operations
at
coal­
fired
power
plants
are
not
insignificant.
Annual
operation,
rather
than
only
during
ozone
season,
would
significantly
reduce
catalyst
life,
requiring
more
frequent
replacement.

Commenters
agreed
that
low­
NO
x
burners
should
be
the
presumptive
technology
because
they
are
cost
effective
and
the
incremental
cost
of
adding
SCR
or
SNCR
would
be
substantially
less
cost
effective
(
0224).

Commenter
0255
said
post­
combustion
controls
(
e.
g.
SCR
and
SNCR)
as
well
as
advanced
(
or
second
generation)
low­
NO
x
burners
are
significantly
more
efficient
and
are
currently
the
best
available
control
technologies
for
NO
x.
The
majority
of
the
low­
NOx
burners
currently
on
coal­
fired
units
were
installed
to
meet
the
compliance
deadline
for
the
start
of
Phase
I
and
II
of
the
Acid
Rain
Program
in
1995
and
2000,
respectively.
Units
that
installed
their
low­
NO
x
burners
for
Phase
I
of
the
Acid
Rain
Program
will
have
had
their
air
pollution
control
equipment
in
place
for
almost
20
years
by
the
time
the
BART
rule
is
implemented
in
2013.
Even
the
units
that
installed
low­
NO
x
burners
by
2000
will
have
had
their
equipment
in
place
for
over
10
years
by
2013.
Exemptions
for
existing
low­
NO
x
burner
equipment
that
is
not
meeting
the
0.2
lb/
MMBtu
emission
rate
should
not
be
given
as
technology
performance
has
significantly
improved
since
1995
and
will
continue
to
improve
out
to
2013.
For
these
reasons,
EPA
should
remove
the
provision
that
permits
sources
with
first
generation
low­
NO
x
burners
presumptive
NO
x
emission
rate
and
mandate
that
BART­
eligible
sources
meet
the
0.2
lb/
MMBTU
or
lower
emission
rate.
Commenter
0255
also
provided
information
showing
that
good
performance
of
SCR
on
lignite
burning
units.

Some
commenters
approved
of
including
year­
round
SCR
operation
for
removal
of
NO
x
(
0179,
0221,
0232,
0234,
0271).
Commenters
(
0232,
0234)
would
limit
this
application
to
sources
already
operating
SCR.
Commenter
0221
described
how
the
technology
has
advanced,
is
cost
effective,
and
will
meet
levels
of
0.15
lb/
MMBTU
(
NO
x
SIP
call)
to
0.125
(
IAQR/
CAIR)
at
costs
estimated
by
EPA
to
be
less
than
$
2,000/
ton.
The
commenter
said
that
SCR
represents
the
best
available
technology
for
removal
of
NO
x.
Commenter
0232
said
a
greater
control
efficiency
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
19
is
possible
for
these
sources.

Commenter
0267
said
the
NO
x
level
should
be
lowered
to
require
application
of
postcombustion
controls.
At
a
minimum,
application
of
post­
combustion
controls
for
NO
x
should
not
be
ruled
out
as
BART.
Commenter
0280
agreed
and
said
the
presumptive
NO
x
level
of
0.2
lbs/
MMBTU
should
be
considered
as
the
maximum,
not
minimum,
allowable
emission.
States
should
require
the
lowest
emission
rate
that
can
be
achieved
using
all
available
and
applicable
control
technologies
as
in
BACT.
The
economic
feasibility
should
be
the
limiting
criteria.

Comment:
Six
commenters
provided
other
comments
on
controls
(
0221,
0241,
0244,
0252,
0255,
0256).

Commenter
0241
said
if
EPA
intends
to
retain
a
presumption
regarding
NOx
controls
in
the
final
Guidelines,
EPA
should
specify
only
that
EGUs
should
be
equipped
with
combustion
controls
to
limit
NO
x
emissions
without
identifying
a
presumed
NO
x
emission
rate.
Commenters
(
0244,
0252)
agreed
that
EPA
should
not
set
a
presumptive
level
of
control,
since
it
should
be
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
However,
if
a
limit
must
be
set
as
guidance
for
the
states
it
should
be
higher
than
0.20
lb/
MMBTU,
in
order
to
avoid
forcing
the
use
of
post
combustion
controls
(
e.
g.
SCR
and
SNCR.).

Commenter
0256
said
if
EPA
does
retain
the
presumptions,
at
a
minimum,
the
presumptions
should
not
apply
to
units
that
already
are
controlled
with,
for
SO
2,
scrubbers,
and,
for
NO
x,
combustion
controls
that
were
added
after
enactment
of
Title
IV
of
the
Act.
Units
with
combustion
controls
that
were
added
after
enactment
of
Title
IV
should
be
deemed
to
already
have
the
best
combustion
controls
available,
and
thus
should
not
be
subject
to
the
presumption.
Again,
the
state
should
be
allowed
to
analyze
BART
for
those
units
applying
the
statutory
factors
in
light
of
the
relatively
recent
NO
x
controls
that
were
retrofit
at
the
unit
Commenter
0221
said
that
because
power
plants
account
for
about
one­
quarter
of
the
nitrogen
oxide
emissions
nationally,
and
because
the
Agency
also
has
and
will
have
considerable
"
experience
in
evaluating
NO
x
control
options
for
utility
boilers,"
a
presumptive
control
level
for
NO
x
should
be
presumed
as
"
best
available"
at
the
outset
of
the
required
top­
down
BART
analysis
for
both
controlled
and
uncontrolled
power
plants.
In
order
to
provide
support
for
such
a
presumption,
EPA
should
undertake
a
similar
analysis
of
NO
x
removal
technologies
as
was
done
by
ORD
for
sulfur
dioxide.

Commenter
0255
provided
data
on
100
coal­
fired
units
and
the
majority
are
very
high
performing.
The
incentive
to
control
emissions
under
the
NO
x
SIP
Call
will
become
stronger
over
time,
assuming
electric
demand
continues
to
grow,
as
sources
utilize
their
banked
emissions.
As
the
bank
of
emission
credits
is
reduced,
additional
NO
x
reductions
will
be
required.
Some
sources
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
20
will
be
required
to
install
control
technologies
while
those
with
controls
will
have
an
incentive
to
operate
their
control
technologies
at
their
highest
efficiency
so
they
can
sell
the
emission
credits
that
they
offset.

Comment:
Four
commenters
discussed
the
averaging
period
for
the
emission
limits
(
0207,
0214,
0238,
0314).
Commenters
said
the
averaging
period
is
unclear
and
should
be
annual
vs.
a
shortterm
limit
(
0207,
0214,
0238).
Commenter
0314
suggested
a
30­
day
rolling
average.

Comment:
Eight
commenters
made
general
comments
on
the
proposed
NO
x
levels
(
0181,
0186,
0215,
0225,
0241,
0268,
0275,
0314).
Commenter
0181
said
EPA
should
remove
the
presumptive
NO
x
control
levels
from
the
final
BART
guidelines
and
instead
replace
it
with
a
sitespecific
cost
analysis.
Once
again,
the
presumptive
NO
x
emission
control
approach
inappropriately
ignores
the
need
for
a
visibility
impact
evaluation
which
is
required
in
Step
5
of
the
proposed
case­
by­
case
BART
engineering
analysis.
Commenter
0268
such
a
presumptive
limit
infringes
on
a
state's
authority
to
establish
BART
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
considering
not
only
visibility
improvement,
but
other
factors
as
well.

Commenter
0186
said
EPA's
proposal
for
no
post­
combustion
NO
x
controls
on
power
plants
should
apply
equally
across
all
source
categories;
otherwise,
there
should
be
no
presumptive
control
technology
prohibition
for
any
source
category.

Commenter
0215
said
if
an
EGU
is
achieving
the
default/
presumption
for
NO
x,
it
should
not
be
required
to
do
a
BART
determination
for
that
pollutant.
Such
presumptions
would
streamline
the
BART
process
for
those
sources
willing
to
reach
these
control
levels.

Commenter
0225
said
for
sources
located
within
50
km
of
a
Class
I
area,
the
source
could
be
required
to
perform
an
evaluation
of
control
technologies
that
compare
their
cost
effectiveness.
A
number
of
the
large
power
companies
have
completed
these
types
of
evaluations
and
have
a
good
understanding
of
the
cost
of
the
various
control
scenarios
for
their
units.
States
may
want
to
request
cost
effectiveness
evaluations
from
sources
to
determine
if
a
source
can
cost
effectively
reduce
their
emissions.
Because
a
larger
number
of
sources
outside
of
the
NO
x
SIP
Call
region
have
not
been
required
to
install
many
advanced
NO
x
controls,
cost
effective
reductions
can
be
achieved.

Commenter
0241
said,
for
the
same
reasons
identified
above
with
respect
to
the
presumptive
SO
2
control
level
for
EGUs,
the
commenter
objects
to
EPA'
s
proposal
to
establish
a
presumptive
NO
x
control
level
for
EGUs.

Commenter
0275
supported
EPA's
proposed
finding
that
add­
on
NO
x
controls
would
be
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
21
too
costly
to
be
considered
BART
for
EGUs,
in
most
cases.
Even
more
so,
this
would
hold
true
for
non­
EGU
boilers,
"
smaller
boilers
are
generally
less
cost
effective
to
control."
However,
this
finding
cannot
be
made
unless
a
demonstration
is
made
that
visibility
impairments
do
not
remain.
That
is,
NO
x
add­
on
controls
for
EGUs
and
non­
EGUs
may
be
appropriate
if
modeling
indicates
that
2018
visibility
goals
will
otherwise
not
be
met.

Commenter
0314
expects
continuing
technological
improvement
in
the
future
and
that
a
specific
presumptive
BART
level
set
by
rule,
will
make
it
difficult
for
a
state
to
establish
a
lower
level.
As
proposed
for
SO
2,
the
commenter
suggested
a
range
for
NO
x
that
will
account
for
the
variability
in
the
boilers
as
well
as
technology
improvements
in
the
future.
A
range
of
0.13
to
0.17
lb/
MMBTU
was
suggested.

4.2.3.3
General
Comments
Regarding
Presumptive
Limits
Comment:
Seven
commenters
supported
the
use
of
presumptive
emission
limits
in
the
BART
program
(
0179,
0221,
0255,
0285,
0299,
0323,
28­
266).
Commenters
said
the
limits
are
achievable
(
0179,
0255)
and
are
one
of
the
most
essential
components
of
the
BART
guidelines
because
they
establish
a
starting
point
representing
the
"
best
available
technology"
in
the
required
engineering
analysis
(
0221).
Some
commenters
requested
that
EPA
establish
more
stringent
limits
and
harmonize
the
presumptive
BART
emission
limits
for
EGUs
under
the
regional
haze
program
with
the
BART
guidelines
(
0221).
Commenter
0323
approved
including
a
specific
BART
determination
for
large,
bituminous
coalfired
electric
generating
stations.
These
facilities
constitute
the
largest
emitters
of
sulfur
dioxide
and
nitrogen
oxides
among
all
26
source
categories
subject
to
BART.

Commenters
(
0285,
28­
266)
urged
EPA
to
develop
national
guidelines
and
presumptive
BART
requirements
for
source
types
common
to
several
states
to
make
the
process
more
efficient
and
workable
for
the
states.
Commenters
(
0299,
28­
266)
added
that
the
guidelines
should
encourage
consistency
between
states
and
said
EPA
should
establish
a
consistent
set
of
protocols
upon
which
a
BART
analysis
for
each
source
category
should
be
based.
Commenter
0299
added
that
such
protocols
should
not
eliminate
the
flexibility
each
state
may
need
to
address
unusual
circumstances
at
individual
sources,
but
these
protocols
could
potentially
eliminate
the
need
for
case­
by­
case
review
for
many
sources.
In
the
absence
of
a
presumptive
standard,
the
proposed
BART
guidelines
must
contain
explicit
criteria
for
determining
BART.
In
addition,
the
BART
Guidelines
should
include
defined
criteria
for
"
engineering",
"
useful
life",
and
"
cost".

Comment:
XX
commenters
said
EPA
should
establish
presumptive
limits
for
other
pollutants
and/
or
source
categories
(
28­
248,
28­
255,
28­
358).
Commenter
28­
255
would
also
seek
to
establish
limits
for
source
categories
in
addition
to
utility
boilers
to
make
the
process
more
uniform
and
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
22
consistent
across
the
country
and
easier
for
the
states.
Commenter
28­
358
said
the
SO
2
limits
should
be
expanded
for
all
BART­
eligible
industrial
boilers
in
all
26
categories
and
set
at
95%
to
reflect
control
technology
performance.
Commenter
28­
248
proposed
setting
a
limit
for
particulate
matter
at
90%.

Comment:
Forty­
nine
commenters
opposed
establishing
presumptive
emission
limits
(
0171,
0181,
0184,
0195,
0197,
0198,
0208,
0210,
0211,
0214,
0215,
0217,
0224,
0226,
0228,
0238,
0244,
0246,
0247,
0252,
0253,
0254,
0256,
0268,
0270,
0275,
0276,
0308,
0314,
0321,
28­
243,
28­
264,
28­
267,
28­
305,
28­
333,
28­
340,
28­
342,
28­
347,
28­
354,
28­
356,
28­
357,
28­
360,
28­
385,
28­
390,
28­
401,
28­
402,
28­
748,
28­
7003,
28­
7009).

Commenters
said
this
approach
restricts
the
flexibility
of
the
states
and/
or
sources
to
make
the
control
technology
evaluations
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
(
0171,
1081,
0195,
0197,
0211,
0217,
0247,
0253,
0256,
0268,
0275,
0276,
0321,
28­
243,
28­
305,
28­
333,
28­
340,
28­
342,
28­
349,
28­
354,
28­
357,
28­
360,
28­
385,
28­
390,
28­
748)
without
resulting
in
a
notable
degree
of
improvement
to
visibility
(
0171,
0197).

The
Act
requires
states
to
use
the
statutory
factors
in
making
case­
by­
case
BART
determinations
(
0195,
0197,
0210,
0211,
0217,
0228,
0238,
0244,
0246,
0247,
0252,
0253,
0256,
0268.
0308,
0314,
0321,
28­
264,
28­
267,
28­
347,
28­
355,
28­
357,
28­
359,
28­
360,
28­
385,
28­
390,
28­
401,
28­
402,
28­
747,
28­
748,
28­
7001,
28­
7003,
28­
7009).
Commenters
(
0211,
0217,
0246)
added
that,
rather
than
assist
states
by
providing
them
with
resources,
tools
and
guidance
under
BART
guidelines,
EPA's
use
of
rebuttable
presumptions
will
tend
to
require
significant
levels
of
state
resources
for
states
to
exercise
discretion
in
their
BART
determination
processes.
Most
states
have
limited
administrative
resources
to
address
these
issues
and
therefore,
EPA's
use
of
presumptive
requirements
will
discourage
state
level
discretion
­­
opposite
the
intent
conveyed
by
the
Coin
Growers
decision.

Commenters
(
0198,
0226,
0254)
said
the
presumptive
levels
are
not
achievable
across
the
range
of
boiler
types,
vintage
of
existing
controls
and
coal
composition.
Commenter
0198
preferred
the
use
of
trading
under
CAIR
to
meet
BART
requirements
in
the
most
efficient
and
cost­
effective
manner.
Commenter
0226
said
if
a
presumptive
level
of
control/
emission
rate
is
retained
in
the
final
rule,
the
guidelines
should,
at
a
minimum,
make
it
clear
that
states
have
the
authority
to
select
an
alternative
level
of
control/
emission
rate,
without
an
undue
evidentiary
burden,
given
appropriate
consideration
of
all
the
statutory
BART
factors.
Commenter
0253
asked
that
EPA
either
delete
the
provisions
for
mandatory
default
control
levels
or
provide
a
source
with
the
option
of
using
the
default
control
levels,
rather
than
making
them
mandatory.
Commenter
0276
said
if
EPA
establishes
presumptive
control
levels
for
EGUs,
average
annual
values
are
more
appropriate
than
those
in
the
proposed
regulations.
In
addition,
BART
should
not
be
structured
in
a
way
that
results
in
rigid
technology­
based
limits
that
interfere
with
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
23
established
NO
x
and
SO
2
emission
trading
programs.
Commenter
0314
said
if
EPA
needs
to
define
a
target,
it
should
use
a
range
to
prevent
diminishing
states'
flexibility
in
case­
by­
case
BART
reviews.

Commenters
(
0214,
0215,
0238,
0254)
said
EPA
fails
to
make
clear
how
the
proposed
default
values
for
SO
2
and
NO
x
relate
to
visibility
impairment.
Visibility
is
both
Class
I
area
and
source
specific,
which
is
the
reason
Congress
gave
the
states
the
lead
role
and
discretion
in
the
BART
program
to
determine
which
sources
need
to
install
or
upgrade
controls.
Through
the
use
of
presumptions
and
default
values,
however,
EPA's
prescriptive
process,
as
proposed,
would
make
the
installation
of
maximum
controls
more
likely
without
regard
to
visibility
benefits.
Instead,
as
required
by
statute
and
rules,
EPA
should
give
the
states
maximum
flexibility
to
use
the
five
statutory
factors
in
their
BART
determinations.
Commenters
(
0228,
0247)
said
sources
must
be
allowed
to
assess
the
visibility
improvements
of
a
variety
of
control
options.
Commenter
0308
said
states
should
be
allowed
to
exempt
BART­
eligible
sources
from
BART
requirements
if
these
sources
do
not
impact
or
have
very
little
impact
on
visibility
in
a
Class
I
area.

Commenter
28­
342
said
even
if
a
presumption
were
appropriate
under
the
visibility
protection
program
(
and
it
is
not),
EPA
cannot
adopt
one
now
because
the
Agency
has
not
satisfied
the
conditions
for
creating
a
presumption.
Federal
presumptions
can
be
promulgated
only
when
the
Agency
has
established
(
based
on
generic
application
of
law
to
fact)
that
the
presumption
is
valid.

Commenters
(
0208,
0270)
said
EPA's
default
and
presumptive
control
levels
for
SO
2
and
NO
x
are
inconsistent
with
the
BART
control
efficiencies
proposed
by
the
WRAP
and
should
be
removed
from
the
proposed
guidelines.
In
no
event,
however,
should
BART
force
plants
in
the
West
to
reduce
emissions
to
levels
greater
achievable
using
dry
scrubbing
technology
for
SO
2
and
advanced
low­
NO
x
combustion
technology
for
NO
x.
As
EPA
has
pointed
out
in
its
discussion
of
Clear
Skies
and
CAIR,
wet
scrubbers
and
SCR
are
inappropriate
for
the
arid
West.
In
fact,
the
statute
itself
makes
the
NSPS
a
ceiling
for
BART.
Commenter
0270
said
the
proposed
presumptive
BART
emission
limitations
are
inconsistent
with
the
Regional
Haze
Rule
for
the
GCVTC
states
(
WRAP
Annex
and
SIPs
under
40
CFR
51.309),
the
Administration's
proposed
legislation
for
the
power
generation
sector,
the
CSA,
and
the
proposed
IAQR.

Commenters
(
0184)
said
limits
should
not
be
set
for
those
pollutants
for
which
a
facility
has
no
known
control.

Commenter
0246
said
EPA
should
clarify
that
greater
reasonable
progress
need
not
be
demonstrated
by
achieving
emission
reductions
greater
than
those
that
would
occur
by
applying
the
presumptive
control
levels
proposed
by
EPA
to
all
BART­
eligible
sources.
Such
an
approach
would
undermine
the
fundamental
role
of
the
states
in
determining
BART
or
what
constitutes
greater
reasonable
progress
than
BART.
The
WRAP,
states,
tribes
and
stakeholders
conducted
a
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
24
thorough
analysis
and
balancing
of
the
BART
factors
to
arrive
at
the
WRAP
milestones
 
all
of
this
was
conducted
without
imposing
presumptive
control
levels
during
the
analysis
and
discussion.

If
EPA
does
utilize
the
presumptive
emission
limits,
commenter
0197
said
,
if
a
source
agrees
to
95%
control
or
the
range
of
0.1­
0.15
lb/
MMBTU
for
SO
2,
they
should
be
automatically
exempt
from
the
BART
process.
The
same
goes
for
the
0.2
lb/
MMBtu
for
NO
x.

Comment:
Commenter
0268
questioned
the
legal
authority
of
EPA
to
impose
presumptive
limits
for
sources
between
250
MW
and
750
MW
in
size
because
the
visibility
provisions
of
the
Act
only
specify
evaluation
by
the
states
of
units
with
a
capacity
in
excess
of
750
MW.
Commenter
0184
said
the
statute
requires
state
to
take
a
case­
by­
case
approach
for
non­
EGU
sources.
Discussion
of
such
emission
limits
should
be
explicitly
limited
to
those
large
EGU
facilities
for
which
EPA
has
the
statutory
authority
to
define
BART
and
to
set
such
limits.
Commenter
0237
said
the
presumptive
BART
level
for
utility
boilers
would
impose
hardship
on
industrial
sources
because
there
are
many
practical
differences
in
the
way
industrial
boilers
and
electrical
generating
units
are
operated,
including
short
term
swings
in
demand,
that
make
such
BART
controls
unreasonable.
Therefore,
EPA
must
underscore
in
its
final
guideline
that
these
control
levels
are
not
presumptive
BART
for
industrial
boilers.

Five
commenters
said
EPA
should
consider
the
type
of
emission
unit
(
e.
g.,
coal
type,
boiler
type,
and/
or
emission
controls)
when
making
BART
determinations
(
0195,
0198,
0214,
0238).
Commenters
(
0214,
0238)
added
that
states
and
sources
should
be
focusing
on
the
incremental
costs
and
benefits
from
the
installation
of
additional
controls
or
the
upgrading
of
existing
controls
in
the
BART
determination.

Comment:
Two
commenters
supported
the
use
of
optional
presumptive
limits
as
a
choice
for
source
owners/
operators
to
avoid
a
BART
analysis
(
0210,
0256).
This
approach
would
limit
the
resources
expended
for
many
determinations,
but
would
allow
states
to
consider
all
of
the
statutory
factors
where
appropriate.

Comment:
Six
commenters
said
EPA
needed
to
address
the
averaging
period
associated
with
the
presumptive
limits
(
0195,
0227,
0228,
0268,
0306,
0323).
Some
commenters
suggested
annual
average
limits
(
0195,
0268)
while
others
said
they
should
be
no
less
than
a
30­
day
or
monthly
average
(
0228).
Other
commenters
asked
EPA
to
specify
an
averaging
time
similar
to
the
averaging
time
of
visibility
impact
assessments,
e.
g.,
24­
hour
average
(
0227,
0306).

Comment:
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
25
One
commenter
said
EPA
should
establish
emission
limits
for
PM
because
of
the
magnitude
of
emissions
and
the
availability
of
proven
controls
(
0255).

Comment:
Seven
commenters
made
other
general
comments
regarding
presumptive
emission
limits
(
0195,
0214,
0232,
0238,
0255,
0299,
0306).

Commenters
(
0195,
0214,
0238)
said
exceptions
should
be
made
for
startups,
shutdowns
and
malfunctions
of
control
equipment.

Commenters
(
0214,
0238)
said
EPA
should
make
it
clear
that
if
any
source
is
willing
to
achieve
95%
control
or
somewhere
along
the
scale
of
0.1
to
0.15
lb/
MMBTU,
it
should
automatically
be
exempt
from
the
requirement
to
perform
a
BART
analysis
for
SO
2.
The
same
should
also
be
true
regarding
a
BART
NO
x
analysis
for
sources
willing
to
achieve
the
0.2
lb/
MMBTU
NO
x
x
presumption
for
EGUs.
Such
presumptions
would
streamline
the
BART
process
for
those
sources
willing
to
reach
these
control
levels.
Commenter
0255
said
EPA
should
set
a
high
threshold
for
sources
to
justify
being
exempted
because
the
current
suite
of
best
available
technologies
can
readily
meet
and
go
beyond
the
mandated
limits.
EPA
should
encourage
the
states
to
consider
these
factors
as
well.

Commenter
0232
said
there
should
be
a
provision
to
revisit
appropriate
BART
control
levels
at
a
date
certain.
While
it
is
appropriate
to
provide
clarity
and
certainty
to
industry
for
the
installation
of
retrofit
controls,
it
is
also
important
to
provide
for
application
of
new
controls
with
increased
control
efficiency
due
to
technology
improvements
in
order
to
meet
the
express
requirements
of
the
Act
to
prevent
any
future
and
remedy
any
current
impairment
of
visibility
in
Class
I
areas.

Commenter
0255
noted
that
EPA
did
not
address
emission
of
SO
3
from
power
plants.
This
has
become
an
increase
area
of
concern
for
power
companies
as
states
have
set
emission
standards
for
SO
3
in
the
operating
permits
for
power
plants.
A
number
of
control
technologies
have
been
developed
to
address
this
pollutant
and
are
able
to
achieve
a
high
level
of
removal.

Commenter
0299
said
the
BART
presumptive
level
of
control
proposed
for
EGUs
boilers
for
SO
2
emissions
and
for
NO
x
emissions
should
be
made
consistent
with
other
clean
air
programs.
Specifically,
the
presumptive
level
of
controls
for
EGU
boilers
should
be
consistent
with
the
requirements
adopted
in
the
CAIR,
and
consistent
with
the
requirements
contained
in
the
federal
NO
x
SIP
Call.

Commenter
0306
said
BART
should
be
no
more
stringent
than
a
current
BACT
assessment
for
an
existing
facility.
EPA
should
define
presumptive
BART
in
a
manner
consistent
with
recent
NSR
enforcement
actions.
Presumptive
BART
should
not
be
more
stringent
than
EC/
R
Incorporated
BART
Public
Comment
Summary
Draft
 
do
not
quote
or
cite
March
18,
2005
26
requirements
in
recent
agreements
(
or
proposed
agreements)
that
settled
NSR
violations.
