Current through Register Vol. 39, No. 6, September 16, 2024
(a) Scope. This Rule sets out procedures for
determining maximum feasible controls for odorous emissions. The owner or
operator of the facility shall be responsible for providing the maximum
feasible control determination.
(b)
Process for maximum feasible control determinations. The following sequential
process shall be used on a case-by-case basis to determine maximum feasible
controls:
(1) Identify all available control
technologies. In the first step, all available options for the control of
odorous emissions shall be listed. Available options include all possible
control technologies or techniques with a potential to control, reduce, or
minimize odorous emissions. For the purposes of this document, a comprehensive
and effective odor control plan may be listed among the possible odor control
technologies as a viable and satisfactory maximum feasible control technology
option. All available control technologies shall be included on this list
regardless of their technical feasibility or potential energy, human health,
economic, or environmental impacts.
(2) Eliminate technically infeasible options.
In the second step, the technical feasibility of all the control options
identified pursuant to Subparagraph (b)(1) of this Rule shall be evaluated with
respect to source specific factors. A demonstration of technical infeasibility
shall be documented and shall show, based on physical, chemical, or engineering
principles, that technical difficulties preclude the successful use of the
control option under review. Technically infeasible control options shall then
be eliminated from further consideration as maximum feasible
controls.
(3) Rank remaining
control technologies by control effectiveness. All the remaining control
technologies, which have not been eliminated pursuant to Subparagraph (b)(2) of
this Rule, shall be ranked and then listed in order of their ability to control
odorous emissions, with the most effective control option at the top of the
list. The list shall present all the control technologies that have not been
previously eliminated and shall include the following information:
(A) control effectiveness;
(B) economic impacts, including cost
effectiveness;
(C) environmental
impacts: this shall include any media impacts (for example, water or solid
waste), at a minimum the impact of each control alternative on emissions of
toxic or hazardous air pollutants;
(D) human health impacts; and
(E) energy impacts.
However, an owner or operator proposing to implement the
most stringent alternative, in terms of control effectiveness, need not provide
detailed information concerning the other control options. In such cases, the
owner or operator shall provide documentation to the Director the proposed
control option is the most efficient, in terms of control effectiveness, and
provide a review of collateral environmental impacts.
(4) Evaluate most effective
controls and document results. Following the delineation of all available and
technically feasible control technology options pursuant to Subparagraph (b)(3)
of this Rule, the energy, human health, environmental, and economic impacts
shall be considered in order to arrive at the maximum feasible controls. An
analysis of the predicted and associated impacts for each option shall be
conducted. The owner or operator shall present an objective evaluation of the
impacts of each alternative. Beneficial and adverse impacts shall be analyzed
and, if possible, quantified. If the owner or operator proposed to select the
most stringent alternative, in terms of control effectiveness, as maximum
feasible controls, he or she shall evaluate whether impacts of unregulated air
pollutants or environmental impacts in other media would justify selection of
an alternative control technology. If there are no concerns regarding
collateral environmental impacts, the analysis is ended and this proposed
option is selected as maximum feasible controls. In the event the most
stringent alternative is inappropriate, due to energy, human health,
environmental, or economic impacts, the justification for this conclusion shall
be documented. The next most stringent option, in terms of control
effectiveness, shall become the primary alternative and be similarly evaluated.
This process shall continue until the control technology evaluated cannot be
eliminated due to source-specific environmental, human health, energy, or
economic impacts.
(5) Select
maximum feasible controls. The most stringent option, in terms of control
effectiveness, that is not eliminated pursuant to Subparagraph (b)(4) of this
Rule shall be selected as maximum feasible controls.