1 -656.0-50 July 8, 1992
2 '
3
4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
5
6 40 CFR PART 52
7
8 [FRL - ]
9
10 State Implementation Plans for Lead
11 Nonattainment Areas; Addendum to the
12 General Preamble for the Implementation
13 of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
14
15 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
16 ACTION: Addendum to General Preamble for future proposed
17 rulemakings.
18 SUMMARY:
19 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie B. Ostrand, Air Quality
20 Management Division, Mail Drop 15, Office of Air Quality Planning
21 and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
22 27711, (919) 541-3277.
23 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NOTE: In accordance with 1 CFR
24 5.9(c), this document is published in the proposed rules
25 category. References cited herein are available from the Public
26 Docket No. A-92-25. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA Air
27 Docket, Room M-1500, Waterside Mall, LE-131, 401 M Street, S.W.
28 Washington, D.C. 20460. The docket may be inspected from 8:30
29 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on weekdays,
\
30 except for legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for
31 copying.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I.
II.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES (RACM) [INCLUDING
REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT)]
A. Introduction
B. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
C. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
D. Previously Approved Lead SIP's
E. SIP's That Demonstrate Attainment
III. REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS (RFP)
IV.
V.
VI.
CONTINGENCY MEASURES
APPENDIX 1 - AVAILABLE
CONTROL MEASURES
A. Background
B. List of Available
FUGITIVE LEAD-BEARING DUST
Control Measures
APPENDIX 2 - RACT DETERMINATIONS
A. Background
B. Technological Feasibility
C. Economic Feasibility
FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3
I.
statutory Background
Any state containing an area designated as nonattainroent
with respect to the lead national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) in effect on the date of enactment of the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments must develop and submit a Part D state
implementation plan (SIP) providing for attainment. [See
sections 191(a) and 192(a) of the Clean Air Act (Act)]. As
indicated in the "General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990" (see 57 FR
13498, April 16, 1992), all components of the lead Part D SIP
must be submitted within 18 months of an area's nonattainment
designation. The general Part D nonattainment plan provisions
are set forth in section 172 of the Act. section 172(c)
specifies that SIP's submitted to meet the Part D requirements
must, among other things, include reasonably available control
measures (which includes reasonably available control
technology), provide for reasonable further progress, include an
emissions inventory, require permits for the construction and
operation of major new and modified stationary sources (see also
section 173), contain contingency measures, and meet the
applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has provided guidance for implementing
some of the above provisions in the April 16, 1992, "General
Preamble." It is important to note that nonattainment lead SIP's
must meet all of the Part D requirements including those
specified in section 172(c) even if EPA does not issue guidance
for each and every provision, e.g., applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2).
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
4
II.
Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
[Including Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT)]
A.
Introduction
As a general rule, most, if not all of the lead
nonattainment areas are attributed to specific stationary
sources. That is, violations of the lead NAAQS are caused by
current and in some cases historical emissions (see discussion
below) from specific stationary sources. Therefore, to meet the
Part D requirements, lead SIP's must contain RACM (including
RACT) which addresses both historical emissions as well as
current direct emissions.
As a general rule, stationary lead sources tend to be dirty
sources. At primary lead smelters, for example, the process of
reducing concentrate ore to lead involves a series of steps some
of which are completed outside buildings or inside buildings
which are not totally enclosed. Over a period of time emissions
from these sources have been deposited in the neighboring
community, e.g., on roadways, parking lots, and yards, off plant
property. This historically deposited lead, when disturbed, is
reentrained in the ambient air. When reentrained, the fugitive
lead-bearing dust may contribute to violations of the lead NAAQS.
B.
Reasonably Available Control Measures
The suggested starting point for specifying RACM in each SIP
is the listing of available control measures for fugitive lead-
bearing dust contained in Appendix 1. If a State receives
substantive public comment demonstrating through appropriate
documentation that additional control measures may well be
reasonably available in a particular circumstance, those measures
should be added to the list of available measures for
consideration for that area. The RACM is then determined for the
affected area's SIP. While EPA does not presume that these
control measures are reasonably available in all areas, EPA
expects States to prepare a reasoned justification for rejection
of any available control measure. If it can be shown that one or
more measures are unreasonable because emissions from the sources
affected are insignificant (i.e., de minimis), those measures may
be excluded from further consideration as they would not
represent RACM for the area.1 The resulting available control
1Where the sources affected by a particular measure contribute
only negligibly to ambient concentrations that exceed the NAAQS,
EPA's policy is that it would be unreasonable and therefore would
not constitute RACM to require controls on the source. In this
regard, it is worth noting that the inherent authority of
administrative agencies to exempt de minimis situations from
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
5
measures should then be evaluated for reasonableness, considering
their technological feasibility and the cost of control in the
area to which the SIP applies. In the case of public se~~or
sources and control measures, this evaluation should consider the
impact of the reasonableness of the measures on the municipal or
other governmental entity that must bear the responsibility for
their implementation (e.g., paving of unpaved public roads); The
EPA anticipates that in some cases, the sources responsible for
depositing lead emissions in the affected community will bear
some of the responsibility for implementation of what are
generally viewed as public sector control measures. It is
important to note that a State should consider the feasibility of
implementing measures in part when full implementation would be
infeasible. The SIP submittal to EPA should contain a reasoned
justification for partial or full rejection of any available
control measures, including those considered or presented during
the State's pUblic hearing process that explains, with
appropriate documentation, why each rejected control measure is
infeasible or otherwise unreasonable.
When the process of determining RACM for an area is
completed, the individual measures should then be converted into
a legally-enforceable vehicle (e.g., a regulation or permit
program) [see sections 172(c)(6) and 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act].
The regulations or other measures submitted should meet EPA's
criteria regarding the enforceability of SIP's and SIP revisions.
These criteria were stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum
(with attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation; Thomas L. Adams, Jr., Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring; and
Francis S. Blake, General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,
entitled "Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for
Enforceability and Legal SUfficiency." As stated in this
memorandum, SIP's and SIP revisions which fail to satisfy the
enforceability criteria should not be forwarded for approval. If
they are submitted, they will be disapproved if, in EPA's
judgement, they fail to satisfy applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements.
The technical guidance that discusses in detail the
suggested initial measures identified in Appendix 1 and that a
State should consider in determining which of the measures in
Appendix 1 are technically feasible and economically reasonable
in a particular area is contained in "Control of Open Fugitive
regulation has been recognized in contexts such as this where an
agency is invoking a de minimis exemption as "a tool to be used in
implementing the legislative design" [see Alabama Power Co. v.
Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360 (D.C. cir. 1979)].
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
6
Dust sources,,,2 (EPA-450j3-88-008), September 1988. This
document has been in use for several years and is based on
substantial input from State and local agencies, trade groups and
associations, and control experts. "Control of Open Fugi~ive
Dust Sources" may serve as an example in analyzing control costs
for a given area. copies of this document may be obtained by
contacting National Technical Information Source, 5285 Port-Royal
Road, springfield, virginia 22161.
C.
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
This guidance follows EPA's historic definition of RACT as
the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is
capable of meeting by the application of control technology that
is reasonablj available considering technological and economic
feasibility. The RACT applies to the "existing sources" of
lead stack, process fugitive, and fugitive dust emissions (e.g.,
haul roads, unpaved staging areas) [see section 172(c)(1)]. The
EPA recommends that stationary sources which actually emit a
total of 5 tons per year of lead or lead compounds measured as
elemental lead be the minimum starting point for RACT analysis4.
2Note: Throughout this document EPA refers to the "Control of
Open Fugitive Dust Sources" document. The reader should be aware
that EPA is reformatting the "Control of Open Fugi ti ve Dust
Sources" document with "Fugitive Dust Background Document and
Technical Information Document for Best Available Control
Measures." Virtually all of the information contained in the first
document is being included in the more recent document. Further,
the more recent document will be designed to be updated as new
information become available. Therefore, in the future, the latter
document should be referred to as a starting point for identifying
available control measures for lead-bearing fugitive dust.
3see, for example, 44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979) and
footnote 3 of that notice. Note that EPA's emissions trading
policy statement has clarified that the RACT requirement may be
satisfied by achieving "RACT equivalent" emission reductions from
existing sources.
4The EPA's regulations define a point source for lead or lead
compounds measured as elemental lead, as any stationary source that
actually emits a total of 5 tons per year or more. [See 40 CFR
51.100(k).] The significance of this definition is that a point
source of lead is required to meet certain control strategy
requirements (see 40 CFR 51.117) and general NSR permitting
criteria (see April 8, 1980 memorandum from Richard G. Rhoads,
Director, Control Programs Development Division, entitled "NSR
Review Requirements for Lead"). The 5 tons per year has been a
historically important threshold level for lead and, as such, has
been selected here to be the minimum starting point for RACT
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
7
Generally, EPA recommends that available control technology be
applied to those existing sources in the nonattainment area that
are reasonable to control in light of the attainment needs of the
area and the feasibility of such controls. Thus, EPA recommends
that a state's control technology analyses for existing
stationary sources include sources which actually emit less than
5 tons per year of lead or lead compounds in the area and that
states require control technology for other sources in the area
that are reasonable to control in light of the area's attainment
needs and the feasibility of control.5 Specific guidance on the
evaluation of the technological and economic feasibility of
control technology for existing stationary sources is contained
in Appendix 2.
analysis.
Note that the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 included a
General Savings Clause which provides that regulations (or
guidance, etc.) in effect before enactment of the Amendments shall
remain in effect after enactment (see section 193 of the amended
Act) . However, the Savings Clause also provides that such
regulations (or guidance, etc.) shall remain in effect "except to
the extent otherwise provided under this Act, inconsistent with the
provision of this Act, or revised by the Administrator." Id.
5Note that Congress has not used the word "all" in conjunction
with RACT in either the earlier law or as now amended. Thus, it is
possible that a State could demonstrate that an existing source in
an area should not be subject to a control technology, especially
where such control is unreasonable in light of the area's
attainment needs or infeasible. Even if EPA was required to impose
control technology on every existing stationary source, where a
State demonstrates that available control technology for a source
is infeasible or otherwise unreasonable, EPA would conclude that
"reasonably" available control technology for that source
constitutes no control or, stated differently, that no control
technology for the source is "reasonably" available.
As referenced above, section 172(c) of the amended Act
provides that RACT should apply to "existing sources in the area."
This is the same language that appeared in the RACT requirements
under the CAA prior to the 1990 Amendments [see section 172(b)(3)
of the pre amended law]. Under the pre-amended law, EPA in effect
interpreted the phrase "existing sources in the area" as it is
interpreted here. The EPA believes that Congress has placed its
imprimatur on, if not adopted, EPA's prior interpretation of RACT
[see, e.g., section 182(a) (2) (A) of the amended Act, see also
section 193 of the amended Act (savings clause preserving prior EPA
guidance except where inconsistent with the Clean Air Act
Amendments) ] .
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
8
D.
Previously Approved Lead SIP's
Since 1979, EPA has taken action to approve a number of lead
area SIP's. For example, for areas that requested attainment
date extensions EPA may have approved SIP's that required RACT
for existing stationary sources of lead. with respect to
controls on stack and process fugitive emission points that -
represented RACT in previously-approved lead SIP's, EPA
specifically recommends that the emission limits be reviewed
under the guidance for nonattainment area RACT provided in this
memorandum in light of any newly identified attainment needs of
the area and improvements in control technology and reductions in
control costs that may now make lower emission limits reasonable
(see Appendix 2). Thus, in those lead nonattainment areas that
have previously-approved lead SIP's, the lead regulations for
existing sources should be reviewed to determine whether: (1)
additional controls are necessary to meet Part D RACT
requirements, and (2) the regulations meet EPA's enforceability
criteria.
section 110(n)(1) of the amended Act specifies that any
provision of any lead SIP, including any revisions, that were
approved or promulgated by EPA before enactment of the 1990
Amendments shall remain in effect until EPA approves or
promulgates a revision to the SIP under the new law. section
110(1) of the Act prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision
that interferes with any applicable requirement of the Act
including, for example, reasonable further progress and
attainment. Further, the General Savings Clause, section 193 of
the Act, states that any control requirement in effect or
required to be adopted by a SIP in effect before enactment of the
1990 Amendments for any area which is a nonattainment area for
any air pollutant may not be modified unless the modification
ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air
pollutant. Thus, under section 110(n)(1), existing provisions of
lead SIP's remain in effect in areas designated nonattainment for
lead until such provisions are revised under the new law.
Further, under section 110(1) EPA is barred from approving a SIP
revision which interferes with any applicable Clean Air Act
requirement. Finally, under section 193, no revision of a
control requirement can occur unless it ensures at least
equivalent emission reductions.
E.
SIP's That Demonstrate Attainment
The SIP's for lead nonattainment areas should provide for
the implementation of control measures for area sources and
control technology for stationary sources of lead emissions which
demonstrate attainment of the lead NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable but no later that the applicable statutory attainment
dates. Therefore, if a State adopts less than all available
measures but demonstrates, adequately and appropriately, that (a)
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
9
reasonable further progress (discussed later) and attainment of
the lead NAAQS are assured, and (b) application of all such
available measures would not result in attainment any faster,
then a plan which requires implementation of less than alTo
technologically and economically available measures may be
approved. 6 The EPA believes it would be unreasonable to require
that a plan which demonstrates attainment include all
technologically and economically available control measures even
though such measures would not expedite attainment. Thus, for
some sources in areas which demonstrate attainment, it is
possible that some available control measures may not be
"reasonably" available because their implementation would not
expedite attainment.
6See. e.a., 44 FR 20375 (April 4, 1979).
(February 11, 1991).
See also 56 FR 5460
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
10
III.
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
Part D SIP's must provide for reasonable further pro~ress
(RFP) [see section 172(c) (2) of the Act]. section 171(1) -'of the
Act defines RFP as "such annual incremental reductions in
emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this
part [Part D] or may reasonably be required by the Administ~ator
for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national
ambient air quality standard by the applicable date."
Historically, for some pollutants, RFP has been met by showing
annual incremental emission reductions sufficient generally to
maintain linear progress toward attainment by the specified
deadline. Requiring linear emission reduction progress to
maintain RFP may be appropriate for pollutants which are emitted
by numerous and diverse sources, where the relationship between
any individual source and the overall air quality is not
explicitly quantified, where there is not a chemical
transformation involved, and where the emission reductions
necessary to attain the standard are inventory-wide. Requiring
linear progress to maintain RFP is less appropriate where there
is a limited number of sources, where the relationships between
individual sources and air quality are relatively well defined,
where there is a chemical transformation, and where emission
controls which result in swift and dramatic improvement in air
quality are utilized.
The EPA believes it may not be reasonable to require linear
reductions in emissions in SIP's for lead nonattainment areas
because the air quality problem is not usually due to a vast
inventory of sources. However, this is not to suggest that
generally it would be unreasonable for EPA to require annual
incremental reductions in emissions in lead nonattainment areas.
The EPA recommends that SIP's for lead nonattainment areas
provide a detailed compliance schedule for the RACM (including
RACT) to be implemented in the area and accurately indicate the
corresponding annual emission reductions to be realized from each
milestone in the schedule. In reviewing the SIP EPA will
determine whether, in light of the statutory objective to ensure
timely attainment of the lead NAAQS, the annual incremental
emission reductions to be achieved are reasonable. Finally, note
that failure to implement the SIP provisions required to meet
annual incremental reductions in emissions (RFP) in a particular
area could result in the application of sanctions as described in
sections 110(m) and 179(b) of the Act (pursuant to a finding
under section 179(a)(4», and the implementation of contingency
measures required by section 172(c)(9) of the Act.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
11
IV.
Contingency Measures
Section 172(c)(9) of the Act defines contingency measures as
measures in a SIP which are to be implemented if an area fails to
maintain RFP or fails to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. Contingency measures become effective without
further action by the State or the Administrator, upon
determination by the Administrator that the area has failed to
(1) maintain reasonable further progress or (2) attain the lead
NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. Contingency measures
should consist of available control measures that are not
included in the primary control strategy.
Contingency measures are important for lead, which is
generally a stationary source problem (as discussed earlier), for
several reasons. First, the current process and area fugitive
emissions from these stationary sources and the reentrainment of
historically deposited emissions are difficult to quantify.
Therefore, the analytical tools for determining the relationship
between reductions in emissions and resulting air quality
improvements can be subject to uncertainties. Second, emission
estimates and attainment analyses can be influenced by overly-
optimistic assumptions about control efficiency with respect to
fugitive emissions.
Examples of contingency measures for controlling area
fugitives include paving more roads, stabilizing more storage
piles, increasing the frequency of street cleaning, etc.
Examples of contingency measures for process fugitive emissions
include increasing enclosure of buildings, increasing air flow in
hoods, increasing operation and maintenance (0 & M) procedures,
etc. Examples of contingency measures for stack sources include
reducing hours of operations, changing the feed material to lower
lead content pending the adoption of a revised SIP, and reducing
the occurrence of malfunctions by increasing 0 & M procedures,
etc.
section 172(c)(9) provides that contingency measures must be
included in the SIP for a lead nonattainment area and shall "take
effect...without further action by the State or the
Administrator." The EPA interprets this requirement to be that
no further rulemaking actions by the State or EPA would be needed
to implement the contingency measures [see generally 57 FR 13512
and 13543-544]. The EPA recognizes that certain actions, such as
the notification of sources, modification of permits, etc., would
probably be needed before a measure could be implemented.
However, States must show that their contingency measures can be
implemented with minimal further action on their part and with no
additional rulemaking actions such as public hearings or
legislative review. After EPA determines that a lead
nonattainment area has failed to maintain RFP or to timely attain
the lead NAAQS, EPA generally expects all actions needed to
-------
12
1
2
3
4
affect full implementation of the measures to occur within 60
days after EPA notifies the state of such failure. The state
should ensure that the measures are fully implemented as
expeditiously as practicable after they take effect.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
13
v.
Appendix 1 - Available Fugitive Lead-Bearing Dust Control
A.
Background
The available control measures listed below apply to all
fugitive lead-bearing dust sources except those to which
reasonably available control technology (RACT) is applicable
(i.e., fugitive lead-bearing dust associated with stationary
sources). Fugitive lead-bearing dust is particulate matter
suspended in the air either by mechanical disturbance of the
surface material or by wind action blowing across the surface.
Mechanical disturbance includes resuspension of particles from
vehicles traveling over roadways, parking lots, and other open
areas. Wind action includes dust blown off inadequately
stabilized open areas. The quantity of fugitive lead-bearing
dust emissions is dependent upon several factors such as the size
of the source, emission rate, and control efficiency. The
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) policy is to reduce
fugitive lead-bearing dust emissions, with an emphasis on
preventing, rather than mitigating, them. For example, past
efforts to control emissions from paved roads have usually relied
on street cleaning to reduce silt loading. The new approach
. would put a higher priority on measures to prevent silt from
getting on the road surface. Mitigative measures should be
reserved for those areas/situations where prevention is not
feasible or the only way to reduce the impact is to remove
historically deposited emissions. Technical guidance on fugitive
dust control measures is found in "Control of Open Fugitive Dust
Sources" (EPA-450/3-88-008 September, 1988).
B.
List of Available Control Measures
1.
Pave, vegetate, or chemically stabilize access points where
unpaved traffic surfaces adjoin paved roads.
2.
Require dust control plans for construction or land-clearing
projects.
3.
Require haul trucks to be covered.
4.
Provide for traffic rerouting or rapid clean up of temporary
(and not readily preventable) sources of dust on paved roads
(water erosion runoff, mUd/dirt carryout areas, material
spills, skid control sand). Delineate who is responsible
for cleanup.
5.
Require paving, chemically stabilizing, or otherwise
stabilizing permanent unpaved haul roads, and parking or
staging areas at commercial, municipal, or industrial
facilities. .
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
14
Develop traffic reduction plans for unpaved roads. Use of
speed bumps, low speed limits, etc., to encourage use of
other (paved) roads.
Limit use of recreational vehicles on open land (e.g.,
confine operations to specific areas, require use permits,
outright ban).
Require improved material specification for and reduction of
usage of skid control sand or salt (e.g., require use of
coarse, nonfriable material during snow and ice season).
Require curbing and pave or stabilize (chemically or with
vegetation) shoulders of paved roads.
Pave or chemically stabilize unpaved roads.
Pave, vegetate, or chemically stabilize unpaved parking
areas.
Require dust control measures for material storage piles.
Provide for storm water drainage to prevent water erosion
onto paved roads.
Require revegetation, chemical stabilization, or other
abatement of wind erodible soil, including lands subjected
to water mining, abandoned farms, and abandoned construction
sites.
Rely upon the soil conservation requirements (e.g.,
conservation plans, conservation reserve) of the Food
Security Act to reduce emissions from agricultural
operations.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
15
VI.
Appendix 2 - RACT Determinations for stationary Sources
A.
Background
Congress has for the second time in amending the Clean Air
Act (Act) specifically required that reasonable available control
technology (RACT) be applied to existing stationary sources-in
areas designated nonattainment. In section 172(b)(3) of the Act,
as amended in 1977, Congress specified that nonattainment area
plans were to "require ... reasonable further progress ...
including such reduction in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum,
of reasonably available control technology. II Thus RACT was
required in SIP's developed for areas that were designated
nonattainment. Now, in section 172(c)(1) of the Act, as amended
in 1990 (Nonattainment Plan provisions - In General), Congress
again requires that nonattainment area plans provide for ". . .
such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the
[nonattainment] area as may be obtained through the adoption, at
a minimum, of reasonably available control technology. II Thus,
RACT is now required for lead nonattainment area SIP's.
The EPA recommends that the nonattainment area RACT for a
particular source continues to be determined on a case-by-case
basis considering the technological and economic feasibility of
reducing emissions from that source (through process changes or
add-on control technology). The following technological and
economic parameters should be considered in determining Part D
RACT for a particular source.
B.
Technological Feasibility
The technological feasibility of applying an emission
reduction method to a particular source should consider the
sources's process and operating procedures, raw materials,
physical plant layout, and any other environmental impacts such
as water pollution, waste disposal, and energy requirements. The
process, operating procedures, and raw materials used by a source
can affect the feasibility of implementing process changes that
reduce emissions and the selection of add-on emission control
equipment. The operation of and longevity of control equipment
can be significantly influenced by the raw materials used and the
process to which it is applied. The feasibility of modifying
processes or applying control equipment is also influenced by the
physical layout of the particular plant. The space available in
which to implement such changes may limit the choices and will
also affect the costs of control.
Reducing air emissions may not justify adversely affecting
other resources by increasing pollution of bodies of water,
creating additional solid waste disposal problems or creating
excessive energy demands. [An otherwise available lead control
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
16
technology may not be reasonable if these other environmental
impacts cannot reasonably be mitigated.] For analytic purposes,
a state may consider a lead control measure technologically
infeasible if, considering the availability (and cost) of--'
mitigative adverse impacts of that control on other pollution
media, the control would not, in the state's reasoned judgment,
provide a net environmental benefit. In many instances, however,
lead control technologies have known energy penalties and adverse
effects on other media, but such effects and the cost of their
mitigation are also known and have been borne by owners of
existing sources in numerous cases. Such well-established
adverse effects and their costs are normal and assumed to be
reasonable and should not, in most cases, justify nonuse of the
lead control technology. The costs of preventing adverse water,
solid waste and energy impacts will also influence the economic
feasibility of the lead control technology.
Approaches to reducing emissions of lead are discussed in
"Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions,"7 Volume I -
Chapters 1 - 3, and Volume II - Chapter 4 - Appendix B, (EPA-
450/2-77-012), December 1977. The many processes that generate
lead air pollutants are described individually in this report.
Information on the selection and performance of alternative
control techniques applicable to lead emitting facilities within
specific source categories is presented. Information on capital
and annualized costs of installing lead emission controls is also
presented. Since it is not possible, in most cases, to
distinguish between costs of particulate control and costs of
lead control, control costs are presented for particulate control
equipment which coincidentally reduce potential lead emissions.
Also presented, for most source categories, are estimates of the
environmental and energy impacts associated with the control of
lead emissions.
Alternative approaches to reducing emissions of particulate
matter (which would include lead) are discussed in "Control
Techniques for Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources" -
Volume I (EPA-450/3-81-005a) and Volume II (EPA-450/3-81-005b),
September 1982. The design, operation and maintenance of general
particulate matter control systems such as mechanical collectors,
electrostatic precipitators, fabric filters, and wet scrubbers
are discussed in Volume I. The collection efficiency of each
system is discussed as a function of particle size. Information
is also presented regarding energy and environmental
considerations and procedures for estimating costs of particulate
matter control equipment. The emission characteristics and
control technologies applicable to specific source categories are
discussed in Volume II. Secondary environmental impacts are also
discussed.
7Note that this document is currently being revised by EPA.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
17
Additional sources of information on control technology are
background information documents for new source performance
standards and "Identification, Assessment, and Control of
Fugi ti ve Particulate Emissions," EPA-600/8-86-023, August~'1986.
In some instances, control technologies more modern or more
advanced than those described in the documents referenced may
exist. In such cases, the state's nonattainment RACT analysis
for a source should consider such available technology.
C.
Economic Feasibility
Economic feasibility considers the cost of reducing
emissions and the difference in costs between the particular
source and other similar sources that have implemented emission
reductions. As discussed above, EPA presumes that it is
reasonable for similar sources to bear similar costs of emission
reduction. Economic feasibility rests very little on the ability
of a particular source to "afford" to reduce emissions to the
level of similar sources. Less efficient sources would be
rewarded by having to bear lower emission reduction costs if
affordability were given high consideration. Rather, economic
feasibility for RACT purposes is largely determined by evidence
that other sources in a source category have in fact applied the
control technology in question.
The capital costs, annualized costs, and cost effectiveness
of an emission reduction technology should be considered in
determining its economic feasibility. The "OAQPS Control Cost
Manual, Fourth Edition," EPA-450/3-90-006, January 1990,
describes procedures for determining these costs. The above
costs should be determined for all technologically feasible
emission reduction options.
states may give substantial weight to cost effectiveness in
evaluating the economic feasibility of an emission reduction
technology. The cost effectiveness of a technology is its
annualized cost ($/year) divided by the amount of lead emission
reduction (i.e., tons/year) which yields a cost per amount of
emission reduction ($/ton). Cost effectiveness provides a value
for each emission reduction option that is comparable with other
options and other facilities.
If a company contends that it cannot afford the technology
that appears to be nonattainment area RACT for that source or
group of sources, the claim should be supported with such
information as the impact on:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Fixed and variable production costs ($/unit),
Product supply and demand elasticity,
Product prices (cost absorption vs. cost pass-through)
Expected costs incurred by competitors,
-------
-r 1£0 47"'\
1lS'-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5.
6.
Company profits, and
Employment.
If a company contends that available control technology is
not affordable and would lead to closing the facility, the costs
of closure should be considered. Closure may incur costs for
demolition, relocation, severance pay, etc.
------- |