1. Best Available Retrofit Technology Rule - Colorado David R. Ouimette Colorado Air Pollution Control Division

2. Disclaimer! All the materials presented today and provided in handouts are draft and subject to change. Use with caution.

3. Overview Why the rush? Why is a State BART rule needed? What does the Colorado rule do? Applicability BART eligible Subject to BART BART determination Questions and Issues

4. Why the rush? SIP due to EPA in December 2007 Legislative review Jan. – May 2007 RH SIP hearing December 2006 RH SIP completed by Sept. 2006 Division needs BART determinations from sources for review by April 1, 2006 BART rule hearing December 2005 BART rule request September 2005

5. Why is a State BART Rule needed? To establish deadlines for sources to submit BART determinations To establish BART analysis procedures To connect BART to Title V permitting To clarify the appeals process

6. What does the Colorado BART rule do? Defines who is BART eligible Requires the Division to determine who is subject to BART (through modeling) Requires sources subject to BART to submit a BART determination analysis Requires the Division to approve/disapprove BART analysis Establishes presumptive emission Limits for EGUs >750 MW

7. What does the Colorado BART rule do? Requires sources subject to BART to submit a Title V modification application Requires fees for review of the Title V application Allows for appeals

8. Who is BART eligible? Emission units in one of the 26 subject categories Unit was “in existence” on 8/7/77 Unit began operation after 8/7/62 PTE from all identified units  250 TPY for at least pollutant Colorado has about 16 eligible sources

9. Who is BART eligible? Option: State has discretion to include or exclude VOC and Ammonia sources Proposal: Focus only on NO X, SO 2, and particulate for BART eligibility. (Note: SIP may ultimately need to address other pollutants.)

10. Who is subject to BART? Option: state may use default trigger or some other number Proposal: Identified units contributing  0.5 deciview of impairment are subject to BART

11. BART determination Option: State must decide if there is a de minimis level for BART within a facility. EPA Rule indicates BART not required for SO 2 or NO x sources with PTE < 40 TPY or PM 10 PTE < 15 TPY (plant wide basis) Proposal: Adopt de-minimis levels

12. BART determination- 5 factors  Identify all available retrofit control technologies  Eliminate technically infeasible options  Evaluate control effectiveness of remaining control technologies  Evaluate impacts and document the results  Evaluate visibility impacts

13. Questions and Issues Will Colorado participate in a “BART alternative” program? Response: Don’t know, but EPA indicates state could opt in at a later date. For now, we are pursuing the BART path.

14. Questions and Issues Should BART determinations be placed in the SIP? Response: yes, required by EPA rule. Are Title V permit mods. needed? Response: yes, required by EPA.

15. Questions and Issues Can BART determinations be changed after they are in the SIP? Response: Yes/maybe using the “White Paper 2” process, or source-specific SIP revision.

16. Questions and Issues What is the appropriate emission rate for use in the subject-to-BART analysis? Response: the Division will use 24-hour allowable rate, but will also allow 24-hour actual peak rate. Consultation will be needed to determine how that number will be obtained.

17. Questions and Issues Can a source use emissions averaging within its facility to meet BART emissions limits? Response: yes, but only for BART eligible units.

18. Questions and Issues Which generating units are added together to determine if they total 750 MW and, therefore, presumptive limits apply? Response: only the BART eligible units are added together.

19. Questions and Issues What if a source cannot meet the presumptive limits for EGUs? Response: the 5-factor analysis needs to be done to support such a conclusion. The Division then either agrees or disagrees with the source’s determination.

20. Questions and Issues Are the presumptive BART limits a “floor” or “ceiling?” Response: Neither. This implies all subject-to-BART sources must perform a BART determination analysis to determine the appropriate emissions limit.

21. Questions and Issues May additional controls be required for sources that install BART? Response: possibly, if required to meet reasonable further progress. Additional control is one of many policy choices states must make to meet RFP.

22. Questions and Issues Does the source need to consider the value of SO2 emissions “allowances” when conducting a BART determination? Response: Possibly, but we are still researching this.

23. Questions and Issues Can the state set a de minimis visibility improvement level below which BART would not need to be installed? Response: not clear; the BART guidance suggests this is possible as part of an evaluation of the five factors, but all factors need to be assessed.

24. Questions and Issues Can a facility obtain a synthetic minor permit w/ limitations that would allow it to avoid BART? Response: yes, according to EPA.

25. End

26. BART Determination Process (Detailed slides)

27. Identify all available retrofit control technologies  BACT, LAER, NSPS  Pollution Prevention  Add on controls (existing and additional)

28. Eliminate technically infeasible options Stages for Control Technology  Concept  Research and patenting  Bench or Laboratory testing  Pilot Scale Testing  Licensing and commercial demonstration  Commercial sales

29. Eliminate technically infeasible options Demonstration for infeasible options Commercially not available Specific circumstances preclude application Physical and chemical characteristics of source not compatible. Vendor guarantees/Lack of guarantee

30. Evaluate control effectiveness Use most stringent limit Consider improvements to existing controls

31. Evaluate impacts  Cost of compliance  Energy impacts  Non- air quality environmental impacts  Remaining useful life

32. Evaluate impacts - Cost of compliance Average cost effectiveness Incremental cost effectiveness Document unusual circumstances

33. Evaluate impacts - Energy impacts Energy impacts for the control technology Direct energy consumption Locally scarce fuels

34. Evaluate impacts - Non- air quality environmental impacts Solid or Hazardous waste, waste water discharge from control technology Water scarcity, spent catalyst, wastes

35. Evaluate impacts - Remaining useful life Difference between Date controls to be added Date facility permanently stops operations Federally enforceable shut down date

36. Evaluate visibility impacts Modeling Net Visibility improvement determination Modeling done for BART eligibility Modeling of source with projected controls