Section R18-2-1707. Case-by-case AZMACT Determination

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

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

1.        The applicant shall identify all available control options, taking into consideration the measures cited in R18-2- 1701(5). The analysis shall include a survey of emission sources to determine the most stringent emission limita- tion currently achieved in practice in the United States. The survey may include technologies employed outside of the United States, and may include controls applied through technology transfer to similar source categories and gas streams.

2.        The applicant shall eliminate options that are technically infeasible because of source-specific factors. The appli- cant shall clearly document the demonstration of techni- cal infeasibility, and shall base the demonstration upon physical, chemical and engineering barriers that would preclude the successful use of each control option that the applicant has eliminated.

Department of Environmental Quality – Air Pollution Control

3.        The applicant shall list the remaining control technolo- gies in order of overall removal efficiency for the HAP under review, with the most effective at the top of the list. The list shall include the following information, for the control technology proposed and for any control technol- ogy that is ranked higher than the proposed technology:

a.         Estimated control efficiency, described by percent of HAP removed;

b.        Expected emission rate in tons per year and pounds per hour;

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

d.        Economic impact and cost effectiveness;

e.         Other environmental impact; and

f.         Energy impact.

4.        The applicant shall evaluate the most effective controls, listed according to subsection (B)(3), and document the results as follows:

a.         For new major sources, the applicant shall consider the factors described in subsection (B)(3) to arrive at the final control technology proposed as AZMACT.

i.         The applicant shall discuss the beneficial and adverse economic, environmental, and energy impacts and quantify them where possible, focusing on the direct impacts of each control technology.

ii  If the applicant proposes the top alternative in the list as AZMACT, the applicant shall con- sider whether other environmental impacts mandate the selection of an alternative control technology. If the applicant does not propose the top alternative as AZMACT, the applicant shall evaluate the next most stringent technol- ogy in the list. The applicant shall continue the evaluation process until the applicant arrives at a technology that the applicant does not elimi- nate because of source-specific, economic, environmental or energy impacts.

b.        For a modification, the applicant shall evaluate the control technologies according to subsection (B)(4)(a). AZMACT for a modification may be less stringent than AZMACT for a new source in the same source category but shall not be less stringent than:

i.         In cases where the applicant has identified 30 or more sources, the average emission limita- tion achieved by the best performing 12% of the existing similar sources, which the appli- cant shall include in the permit application; or

ii.        In cases where the applicant has identified fewer than 30 similar sources, the average emission limitation achieved by the best per- forming five sources, which the applicant shall include in the permit application.

5.        The applicant shall propose as AZMACT for the HAP under review:

a.         The most effective control technology or methodol- ogy not eliminated in the evaluation described in subsection (B)(4); or

b.        An innovative technology that reduces emissions to the extent achieved by the control technology that the applicant otherwise would have proposed under subsection (5)(a), and that  meets all the require- ments of A.R.S. § 49-426.06 and this Section.

C.      The Director shall not approve a control technology or meth- odology less stringent than any applicable federal New Source

Performance Standard (NSPS) at 40 CFR 60 or National Emis- sion Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR 61.

D.      The Director shall determine whether the applicant’s AZMACT proposal complies with A.R.S. § 49-426.06 and this Section.

1.        If the Director determines that the applicant’s proposal complies with A.R.S. § 49-426.06 and this Section, the Director shall include the applicant’s proposed AZMACT selection in the permit or permit revision.

2.        If the Director determines that the applicant’s proposal does not comply with A.R.S. § 49-426.06 and this Sec- tion, the Director shall:

a.         Notify the applicant that the proposal does not meet the requirements;

b.        Specify the deficiencies; and

c.         State that the applicant shall submit a new AZMACT proposal according to the provisions on licensing time-frames in Chapter 1, Article 5, of Title 18 of the Arizona Administrative Code.

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 determines 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.

E.       If a reliable method of measuring HAP emissions is not avail- able, the Director shall require the applicant to comply with a design, equipment, work practice or operational standard, or combination of these, to be included in the applicant’s permit, but shall not impose a numeric emissions limitation.

F.       The Director shall not impose a control technology that would require the application of measures that are incompatible with measures required under Chapter 2, Article 11, of Title 18 of the Arizona Administrative Code, 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).