Section R18-2-1706. Case-by-case HAPRACT Determination

A.      The applicant shall include in the application sufficient docu- mentation to show that the proposed control technology or methodology meets the requirements of A.R.S. § 49-426.06 and this Section.

B.       An applicant subject to R18-2-1705(B) shall propose HAPRACT for the new source or modification, to be included in the applicant’s permit or significant permit revision. The applicant shall document each of the following steps:

1.        The applicant shall identify the range of applicable con- trol technologies, including:

a.         A survey of similar emission sources to determine the emission limitations currently achieved in prac- tice in the United States;

b.        Controls applied to similar source categories, emis- sions units, or gas streams through technology trans- fer; and

c.         Innovative technologies that are demonstrated to be reliable, that reduce emissions for the HAP under review at least to the extent achieved by the control technology that would otherwise have been pro- posed and that meets all the requirements of A.R.S.

§ 49-426.06 and this Section.

2.        The applicant shall propose as HAPRACT one of the control technologies identified under subsection (B)(1), and shall provide:

a.         The rationale for selecting the specific control tech- nologies from the range identified in subsection (B)(1);

b.        Estimated control efficiency, described as percent HAP removed;

c.         Expected emission rates in tons per year and pounds per hour;

d.        Expected emission reduction in tons per year and pounds per hour;

e.         Economic impact and cost effectiveness of imple- menting the proposed control technology;

f.         Other environmental impact of the proposed control technology; and

g.        Energy impact of the proposed technology.

3.        The applicant shall identify rejected control technologies identified in subsection (B)(1), and shall provide for each rejected control technology:

a.         The rationale for rejecting the specific control tech- nologies identified in subsection (B)(1);

b.        Estimated control efficiency, described as percent HAP removed;

c.         Expected emission rates in tons per year and pounds per hour;

d.        Expected emission reduction in tons per year and pounds per hour;

e.         Economic impact and cost effectiveness of imple- menting the rejected control technologies;

f.         Other environmental impact of the rejected control technology; and

g.        Energy impact of the rejected control technologies.

C.      The Director shall determine whether the applicant’s HAPRACT selection complies with A.R.S. § 49-426.06 and this Section, based on the documentation provided in subsec- tion (B).

1.        If the Director finds that the applicant’s proposal com- plies with A.R.S. § 49-426.06 and this Section, the Direc- tor shall include the applicant’s proposed HAPRACT selection in the permit or permit revision.

2.        If the Director finds that the applicant’s proposal fails to comply with A.R.S. § 49-426.06 and this Section, the Director shall:

a.         Notify the applicant that the proposal fails to meet requirements;

b.        Specify the deficiencies in the proposal; and

c.         State that the applicant shall submit a new HAPRACT proposal according to the licensing time-frames provisions in Chapter 1, Article 5 of this Title.

3.        If the  applicant  does  not submit a new  proposal,  the Director shall deny the application for a permit or permit revision.

4.        If the Director finds that the new proposal fails to comply with A.R.S. § 49-426.06 and this Section, the Director shall deny the application for a permit or permit revision.

D.      If the Director finds that a reliable method of measuring HAP emissions is not available, the Director shall require, in the permit, the applicant to comply with a design, equipment, work practice or operational standard, or combination of these, but shall not impose a numeric emissions limitation upon the applicant.

E.       The Director shall not impose a control technology that would require the application of measures that are incompatible with measures required under Article 11 or 40 CFR 63. An applica- ble control technology for a source or source category that is promulgated by the Administrator shall supersede control technology imposed by the Director for that source or source category.

Historical Note

New Section made by final rulemaking at 12 A.A.R.

1953, effective January 1, 2007 (Supp. 06-2).