(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 practical potential to control, reduce, or minimize odorous emissions.  For the purposes of this document, in some specific cases a comprehensive, effective odor control plan can 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 under Subparagraph (b)(1) of this Rule shall be evaluated with respect to source specific factors.  A demonstration of technical infeasibility shall be clearly 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 under 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 (cost effectiveness);

(C)          environmental impacts: this shall include any significant or unusual other media impacts (for example, water or solid waste), and, 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 only document, to the satisfaction of the Director, that the proposed control option is indeed 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 under 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 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 has proposed to select the most stringent alternative, in terms of control effectiveness, as maximum feasible controls, he 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 fully documented; and the next most stringent option, in terms of control effectiveness, becomes the primary alternative and is similarly evaluated.  This process shall continue until the control technology evaluated can not 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, not eliminated under Subparagraph (b)(4) of this Rule shall be selected as maximum feasible controls.


History Note:        Authority G.S. 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.107(a)(5);

Eff. April 1, 2001.