p. 1



# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



# Document

Number: 

# 33 ) 11-1-2 5
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:19 AM Sheet 33 of 142

# 91-152. 3
Discussio n o f Implementatio n o f EPA' s Top-Dow n Bac t Guidanc e

Henr y Droeg e Consultan t Olympia , Washingto n Ja y Willenber g Stat e o f Washingto n Departmen t o f Ecolog y

Redmond , Washingto n

AI R & WAST

E MANAGEMEN

T ASSOCIATIO N

• SINC I 190

7 

## *

•:•: . 

# Fo r Presentatio n a t

th e 84t h Annua l Meetin g & Exhibitio n Vancouver , Britis h Columbi a Jun e 1 6 - 21,199 1 h o

### 91-152.3

INTRODUCTIO N EP A require s Bei tAvailabl

e Contro l Technolog

y (BACT ) fo

r an y ne w o r modifie d sourc e subjec tt o Preventio n o f Significan tDeterioratio n (PSD ) review . BAC T I s a n emissio n limi

tdetermine d o n a cas e b

y cas e basis , an d ca n var y fo r differen tlocation s an

d differen tsource categories . Recently , EP A ha s require d tha tal l BAC T determination

s b e o n a "To

p Down ' basis. 1 To p dow n provide s tha tal l available contro

l technologie s b e ranke d i n descendin

g orde r o f contro l effectiveness . Accordin g to EPA' s Guidanc e Document

2 , th e mos tstrin gen talternativ

e is considere

d as BAC T unles s th e applican tca n demonstrat

e to th e permittin

g authorit y tha t thi s mos tstringen tcontro l i s no tachievable becaus e o f

technica l infeasibilit

y o r becaus e o f

energy , environ menta l o r economi c impacts . Th e author s o f thi s pape r sen ta surve y questionnair

e o n To p Dow

n BAC T to eac

h o f th e 4 8 contiguou s state s durin g August , 1990 . Th e purpos e o

f th e surve y wa s t o determin

e ho w th e state s wer

e determinin g BAC T usin g a to p dow n procedur

e fo r thei r tw o mos trecen

tBAC T decisions . Th e question s aske d were : Ho w muc h tim e wa s require d t o revie w th e applications? . Ha s to p dow n change d you r program ? Wa s th e energ

y impact , th e economi c impac

to r th e environmenta

l impac tpar to f th e review ? Wha tis the rol e o

f EP A in th e process ? Twenty-fiv e states responde

d to th e survey . Thi s paper i s a n analysi s an d discussio n o f

th e response s received . 

### RESPONS E FRO M STATE S Genera l Comments Eigh tstate s offere d som e genera l comment

s abou tth e top-dow

n procedures . I

n addition to th e writte

n com ment s I n the surve

y response , on e o

f th e authors , Droege , ha

d a n opportunit

y to Intervie

w th e staf f o f severa l states . Ther

e wa s a wid e rang e o f opinio n abou

tth e top-dow

n approac h from : "Thi

s i s abou tth e sam e as we'v

e bee n doin g al l along, " t o "Disma y an d disagreement ' an

d "insanel y cumbersom

e an d costly, " an

d th e 'top-dow n proces s is dearl y a boo n to lawyer s an d consultants. " . Ther e appea r to b e tw o majo r area s o f disagreementbetwee

n th e states an d EPA . Firs

twa s that, sinc e top dow n guidanc e I s regarde d a s mandatory, EP

A shoul d hav

e establishe

d I tb y rul e making . Th e secon d are a i s whethe r th e environmenta

l Impac ti n th e definitio n o f

BAC T Indude

s the ai r qualit y impact. EPA' s guidanc

e states th e ai r qualit y impac tanalysi s i s to b e conducte d separatel y fro m th e BAC T analysis , an

d th e purpos e o

f th e ai r qualit y analysi s U to demonstrat

e tha tth e sourc e wil

l no tcaus e o r contribut

e to th e violatio n o f

an y Nationa l Ambien tAi r Qualit

y Standar d o r PS D Increment. 3 A tleas ton e stat e believe s tha

tth e air qualit

y anal ysi s i s i n orde r to allocat

e the PS D increment. 4 Th e sam e stat e believe s tha

tan y assessmen to

f lowe r pollutin g alternat e processe s (secon d guessing ) i s a

n Inappropriat

e functio n fo r a stat e ai r pollutio n contro l staff

. A fina l not e is thsteveryon

e wh o expressed a

n opinion , fel

ttha tthe EP A Marc h 15,199 0 draf

tguidanc e wa

s wel l don e an d ver y useful . 

### 91-152.3 Progra m Change s Cause d b y Top-Dow n BAC T Th e state s tha

tresponded to th

e questio n wer

e evenl y divide

d abou twhethe r an

y change s ha d occurred . Te n sai d to p dow n caused changes , an

d te n sai d n o change . Th e comment

s o n thi s questio n range

d fro m "mor e work" an d "mor e tim e required ' t o 'Wha

tw e ba d bee n doin g was th e sam e a s to p down. ' On e stat

e conclude d tha tmor e tim e an d greate r detai l i n analysi s ha

d resulte d i

n decision s tha

twer e mor

e defensible . A commen

t fro m another stat

e wa s tha tal l recen tapplicant

s hav e selecte d th e to p alternative , probabl y to preven

tdela y i n gaining approval . Th e sam e stat e noted tha

tb y sendin g th e applicatio n t o EP A immediately , the

y wer e avoidin g 'lat e hits ' fro

m EPA. 1 Accordin

g to another state , th e emphasi s ha d changed fro

m cos tto 'availability. ' 

### Energ y Th e Clea n Ai r Ac tdearl y require

s a n impact s analysi s as par

to f an y BAC T determination . Th e impact s analy si s mus taddres s 'th e thre

e E's" ; environment

, economics , an

d energy . W e aske d each stat e i

f i tconsidere

d energ y impacts . A s show

n i n Tabl e I , twent

y state s responde d t o thi s ques tion . On e quarte

r o f the states , five, sai

d tha tthe y considere d energ

y impact s o f ai r pollutio n contro

l technolo gies ; th e restdi

d not . O f the five state s tha

tconsidere d energ

y impacts , mostsai

d tha tenerg y wa s no ta n importan tconsideration . Thre

e o f the state s tha

tdid no tconside r energ

y directly , sai

d tha tenerg y i s par to f th e economi c consideration . State s ar e no tgivin

g meaningfu

l consideratio n t o energ

y impacts , despit

e the dea r inten

to f congres s an

d th e EPA . On e o f

th e reason s tha

tenerg y impact s ar e no tgive n mor e consideratio n i s th e difficult y i n evaluatin g energ y impact s within th e confine

s o f a BAC T determination . Th e difficult y involve s evaluatin

g energ y impact s o n a case-by-cas e basi s whil e settin g a n emissio n limit . I

twoul d b e easie r to conside r energ y o n a nationa

l scale . Certainl

y n o singl e facilit

y wil l hav e a n impac to n ou r nationa l energ y policy , no r coul d i

tgreatl y impac t th e cos to f energy . Fo

r example , conside r soli d wast e disposal . EPA' s guidanc e doe s no tallow consideratio n o

f wast e disposa l as a projec

tan d th e relate

d energ y impacts . I

tonl y allows consideratio n o

f a singl e option , lik

e indneration , an

d th e energ

y impact s relate d to controllin g it

s ai r pollution . Th e To p Dow n BAC T polic

y doe s no tallo w considerin g tha

tburnin g soli d wast

e ma y emi tle u pollutant

s then othe r form

s o f generatin g electric ity . No r doe s th e guidanc e allo w fo r recognizin g tha

tburnin g soli d wast

e result s i n additiona

l energ y compare

d to Iandfilling . Whe n congres s require

d energ y impact s in the bes tavailabl e contro l technolog y analysis , the countr

y ha d a n energ y shortage . Then energ

y conservation was a nationa l goal . No w tha

tw e hav e incorporate

d energ y conser vatio n int o ou r econom y i ti s har d to identif

y energ y o r conservatio n as a specifi c goal . I ti s mor e o f a n eco nomi c consideratio n a

s severa l state s ha d said . 

### Environmenta l Impac t Th e definitio n o

f BAC T require

s a n environmenta

l analysi s o

f eac h o f th e propose d options . W e aske d each stat e i f the y evaluate d environmenta

l impacts . Twent

y states responde d t o th e question . Fiftee n state s sai d tha

t the y considere d environmenta l impact s an d five sai d tha tthe y did not . Severa l o f th e state s tha

tconsidere

d environmenta

l impact s sai d tha tthe y compare

d the modelin g resul

twit h th e ai r qualit y standards . Thi s i s no

tconsisten twit

h EPA' s guidance whic

h i s no tto confus e th e environmenta l analysi s wit

h the ai r qualit y impac tanalysis . EPA' s guidanc e say s tha tth e environmenta

l analysis shoul d con centrat e o n impact s othe r tha

n impact s o n the ambientai

r qualit y du e t o emission s o f

the regulate

d pollutants . Th e guidance suggest

s considerin

g wast e generation , wate

r pollution , visibility , an

d emission s o f

unregulated pollutants .

### 91-152.3
BAC T i s a technolog

y determlnatioo require

d fo r significan

tincrease s o f

regulate d pollutants . Th e firsttes tI s alway s th e applicatio n o

f th e technolog

y an d the secon d th e impac

to n ai r quality . Unde r To p Dow n BAC T a

n agenc y shoul d conside r the ai

r qualit y standar d o r Incremen

tconsumptio n onl y 1

/ on e o f the option s woul

d caus e a violatio n o f

a n ambien tai r qualit y standar d o r a PS D increment . Tb e implicatio n is tha tonc e an y agenc y determine s a to p case , al l othe r agenda s mus tus e tha ttam e leve l o f

contro l unles s the applican

tca n Identif y unacceptabl e site-specifi c environmenta l circumstance* . Th e mos tcommo n type o

f environmenta

l analysis tha

tstate s considere d i s tb e effect s o f ai r toxics . Thi s coul d b e a respons e to th e increase d concer n abou tai r toxic a o r a respons e t o tb e Nort h Count y incinerato r remand . State s ar e als o quic k to conside

r wate r pollutio n an

d hazardou s wast

e generate d b

y the contro

l system . Severa

l state * expresse d concer

n tha tammoni a use d fo r NO x contro l woul d caus e storag e an d emissio n problems . On e stat e require d a n offse tfo r a significan

tInaeas e i a VO C emission s i n a n attainmen

tarea . Tha

tare a ha s ha d ozon e level s nea

r the standar

d an d EP A ma y too n designat

e i ta non-attainmen

tarea . Th

e stat e als o wa s concerne d abou tpossibl e ozon e damag

e a tcurren tlevel s in nearb y Clas s I areas . Whil e no tnecessaril

y par to f a BAC T analysis , EP

A guidanc

e for PS D reviews indude s a n evaluation o f

addi tiona l impacts . Thes e impact

s indud e growth , ambien

tair quality , soil s an

d vegetation , an

d visibility . On e stat

e tha tsai d i tdi d no tconside r environmenta

l impact s considere d vegetatio n an d visibilit y impacts . Non e o f th e state s sai

d tha tthe y considered ad d rai

n o r globa l warming . EPA' s guidanc e is silen ti n thes e issues . On

e coul d argu e tha tthe BAC T proces s specificall y exdude s suc

h consideration . Th e BAC T analysis b y definitio n i s a case-by-cas e determinatio n o f significan timpacu . I

ti s unlikel

y tha ta singl e ne

w sourc e o

f SO j o r NO > tha twa s usin g BAC T woul

d hav e a *tg«ir<r-mnt

impac to n regiona

l ad d rain . Similarl

y individua

l source s d o no thav e significan

taffect s o n globa l warming. 

### Economi c Impac t Tabl e I I i s a summar

y tabulatio n o f th e response s o n economi c impact. Sixt y percen to f the state s sai

d yes , a n economi c impac

tha d bee n evaluated . Alternative s eliminate d becaus e o f th e economi c impac

twer e packe d towe r (1) , SCR (8) , water-injectio n (1) , ure a Injectio n (1) , Gore Te

x bag s (1) , C O catalys

t(3) , semi-dr

y scrub bin g (1) , electri c boos t(1) , an d lo w sulfu

r coa l (1) . Th e eliminate d alternativ e costrang

e wa s fro m $2,60 0 pe

r to n t o $38,000 pe

r ton , wit h a media n valu e o f $5,00 0 per ton . Seve n state s indude d informatio n abou tth e Interes

trat e an d economi c lif

e use d fo r the economi c Impac

teval uation . Th e rang

e in interes trat

e w u from 8 % t o 15% , an d tb e rang

e I n economi c lif

e wa s fro m 7 year s to 1 9 years . A majo r elemen tI n calculatin

g cost s i s the Capita

l Recover y Facto r (CRF) , whic

h is calculate

d fro m th e inter es trat e an d economi c lif

e b y th e followin g equation. 6

CUT • 

## _____ 91-152..

wher e i is th e interes trat

e an d n i s th e economi c lif

e o f the equipment . Fo r th e alternative s liste d i n Tabl e II , ther e i s almos ta two-to-on e differenc

e betwee n th

e hig h an d low CRF . Th e interes trate , economi c lif e an d subsequen tCR F fo r th e seve n alternative s ar

e tabulate d below . CRF % Interes trat

e .1 2 .1 0 .1 5 .1 2 .1 0 .1 0 .0 8 economi c Uie , yt-at a 1 5 2 0 1 5 1 0 7 1 9 1 6 14.6 8 11.7 5 17.1 0 17.7 0 20-5 4 11.95 11.3 0 Fo r the lowes tCRF , 1130 % th e annualize d cos to f a million dolla

r capita l expenditur

e i s $113,000 , an

d fo r lh < highes tCRF , 20.54% , th e annualize d cos tfo r the sam e million dollar

s i s $205,400 . 

### BAC T CONSIDERATION S LAE R an d BAC T Th e EP A Draf tGuidance , March , 1990 , say s tha tTechnologie s required unde r lowes tachievabl e emissio n r : (LAER ) determination s ar

e availabl e fo

r BAC T purpose

s an d mus tals o b e include d as contro l alternative s a : usuall y represen

tth e to p alternatives." 7 Th e definitio n o f BACT 8 is : "an emissions limitation (including a visible emission standard) based on tlie maximum degree of reduction foreach pollutant subject to regulation underthe Clean AirAct which would

be emitted from any proposed

majorstationary source ormajormodification which the Administrator, on a case-by<ase basis, taking Into account energy, environmental, and economic Impacts and

other costs, determines Is achievable forsuch source ormodification through application of production processes oravailable methods, systems, and techniques, Including fuel cleaning ortreatment

orInnovative fuel combustion techniques for control of such pollutant. In no event shall application of

best available control

technology result

In emissions of

any pollutant

which would

exceed Ihe emissions allowed by any applicable standard under40 CFR Pans 60 and 61. If the Administrator

detemilnes dial technological

oreconomic limitations on the application of measurement

methodology to a particularemissions unit

would make the Imposition of an emissions standard

infeasible, a design, equipment, work practice, operational standard, orcombination thereof, may be prescribed Instead to satisfy tlie requirement

forthe application of

best available control

technology. Such standard shall, to the degree possible, set

forth the emissions reduction achievable by Implementation of such desig\, equipment, work practice or operation, and

shall provide forcompliance by means which achieve equivalent

results." Th e Lowes tAchievabl e Emission s Rat e (LAER ) i

s th e contro

l level require d o

f a ne w sourc e subjec

tto no n attainmen treview . Th e definitio n o f LAER

9 is : "the more stringent rate of

emissions based

on the following.- (a) The most

stringent emissions limitation iir-tlte implementation plan of any State forsuch class orcategory of

stationary source, unless the owneroroperator of the proposed

stationary source demonstrates that

such limitations are not achievable; or

### 91-152.3

(b) The most

stringent emissions limitation which Is achieved tn practice by such class or category of

stationary sources. This limitation, when applied to a modification, means the lowest achievable emissions rale of the new ormodified

emissions units with a stationary source. In no event shall the application of

the term permit

a proposed

new ormodified

stationary source to emit any pollutant

In excess of

the amount

allowable underan applicable new source standard of performance." Th e conceptua

l differenc e betwee n LAER an

d BAC T is tha

tthe Clea n Ai r Ac trequire s LAER fo

r area s whic h ar e alread y exceeding federa

l standards . Th e majo

r purpose o f

LAE R i s to preven

tan y exacerbatio n o

f advers e impacts , particularl

y healt h impacts . Tb e LAE

R requiremen

tma y requir e substantia

l additiona

l costove r rec ognize d goo d practice , includin

g substantia

l increas e in energ

y use , emission s o f

othe r ai r contaminants , includin g CO ] an d NO * an d increased effluen

ttreatment

. Thes e las

ttw o impact s obviousl y wil l hav e a n increased , albei

tindirect , environmenta

l impac twhe n compare

d wit h accepte d goo d practic

e whic h ma y b e acceptabl e BAC T i n othe r areas . Thu s th e philosoph y tba ton e shoul d "er

r o n th e sid e o f

th e environment " an

d selec tLAER , ma y resul tin increase d tota

l environmenta

l impac twhe n al l impact s ar e considered . 

### Rol e o f EP A W e aske d eac h stat e t o identif y EPA' s rol e i

n the BAC T analysi

s accordin g to th e following :
a ) Direc

tparticipan

t b ) Availabl

e a s a resource i

f neede d e ) No

tInvolve d unti l stat e decisio n I

s mad e d ) Other

. A s show n i n Tabl e I twenty-thre

e state s responded . Severa l o f the state s gav

e tw o responses . Si

x states , 26% , sai d tha tEP A ha d som e direc

tpartldpation , al

l bu ton e o f th e si x woul d us e EP A a s a resource . Mos to

f th e othe r respondin

g state s woul

d als o us e EP

A a s a resource . Nin e states , 39% , sai d tha tEP A woul d no

tge t Involve d unti l th e stat e decided . O f

th e fou r states tha

tsai d tha tEP A ha d som e othe r rol e thre e o f the m sai d tha tEP A coul d commen

tlik e anyon e els e durin

g the commen

tperiod . Th e othe r stat

e sai d tha tEP A is avail abl e a s a resource , bu

tthei r partldpatio n usuall y Involve s "auditing " durin

g th e thirt y da y public commen

t period . Tha

tstat e the n respond s t o EPA' s audi

ta s i twoul d to a public comment . EP A ha s ha d a polic y o f delegatin g PS D revie

w responsibilit

y to th e states . I

f th e state s carr

y ou tthe delegation properly , EP A shoul d b e availabl e as a resourc e an d hav e a n oversigh trole . Sinc e moststate s sai d tha tEP A ha s Util e o r n o direc tinvolvement, th e polic

y seem s to b e working . Apparentl y EP A usuall y exercise s it

s oversigh tdurin g a commen

tperiod . Emissio n Limit s Table s II I an d I V lis tthe emissio n limit

s eac h stat e se ta s a resul to f th e BAC T analysis . Becaus e almos thal f o f th e response s involv e ga s turbines , the

y are liste d separatel

y i n Tabl e III . Examinatio

n o f Tabl e II I indicate s tha

tal l bu ton e o f the NO , limit

s ar e belo w th e NSP

S limit . Th e exception is fo r a simpl e cyd e pipelin

e pumpin g statio n whic

h Kentuck y permitte d befor e 1990 . I

tals o i s Ih

e onl y simpl e cyd e turbin

e i n the group . I

n settin g th e emissio n limit s fo r NO , th e stale s considere d technologie s rangin g fro m combustio

n control s l o selectiv e catalyti c reductio n (SCR) . Th e state s tha

tdid no tse tlimit s based o n SC R wer e primaril y concerned abou

teconomi c cost

s an d ammoni a problems . Ne w York' s determinatio

n fo r SO ] i s particularl

y interesting . I

n tw o determination s fo

r simila r turbines a

t abou tth e sam e time , Ne w Yor

k se tdifferen

tlimit s fo r th e amoun

to f sulfu r i n th e back-u

p oil . 

### 91-152
A tleas tfor th e ga

s turbine s in Tabl e IV , th e BAC T proces s resulte d in emissio n limit s belo w th e NPS P limi

t an d therefor e is achievin

g it s goal . Th e review proces s ma y hav e als o affecte

d th e non-PS D reviewabl e pollutants . 

### Syntheti c Minor s A n applican

tca n avoi d th e BAC T review proces s i n tw o ways . I tca n agree to limit

s belo w th e PS D review l e o r accep tth e agency' s propose d to p case . Source s tha

tagre e to emissio n limit

s belo w PS D revie w are synth e minors . Th e Minnesota' s Wellons woo d wast e cel l boile r i

n Tabl e I V is a n example o

f a syntheti c minor . Th . applican taccepte d a leve

l o f contro l whic h wil l kee p emission s belo w th e PS D revie

w trigge r level . On e stat e sai d tha tapplicant

s agree to th e mos tstringen tcontro l level s to avoi

d a lon g permi treview proces s Ou r ow n experienc

e show s tha tthi s practic e is widespread . Thi s ma y no thav e bee n EPA' s inten twit

h th e to : dow n review process , howeve

r i tdoe s resul ti

n lowe r emissions . O n th e othe r han d som e source s argu

e tha ti to p cas e get s se

tartificiall y hig h becaus e no on e di

d a complet

e BAC T review . Th e opposit e i s a n argumen

t. bottom u p review . Wit

h botto m up , th e reviewing agende s ofte n di d no thav e th e tim e o r resource s t

o mak e stron g cas e fo

r requirin g a mor e stringen tleve l o f control . To p Dow n BAC T shift s th e burde n o f justificaiio i to th e applicant

. 

### CONCLUSION S Congres s ha

d tw o goal s whe

n i tadopte d th e PS D program . On e goa l wa s t o protec

texisting ai

r qualit y an d othe r was t o assur

e tha tal l ne w majo r source s o f

ai r pollutio n wil

l us e BACT . I

n settin g BAC T congres s directe d agencie s t

o conside r th e bestmethod s o f

controllin g ai

r pollutio n considerin g environmental , energ ) an d economi c factors . Energ y consideration s hav

e no tgreatly influence d BAC T determinations . Mos to f the state s tha

tevaluat e energ y impact s consider i

ta n economi c factor only . Bette r guidance coul d hel p agencie s carr

y ou tcongress' ! mandate . Th e guidanc

e migh tidentif y acceptabl e level s o f

energ y to contro

l a give n amoun to f pollution , kilowatt-hour

s pe r gram . Th e guidance coul d als o expan d th e energ

y consideration s t o includ e Indirec tener : considerations . Indirec

tenerg y impact s indud e alternat

e fuel , optiona

l sites , an d off-sit e energ y costs o f ra w materia l an d wast e processing . A majo r proble m wit h implementin

g bot h th e energ

y an d environmenta

l impac tanalysi s requirement

s o f B / i s th e case-by-cas e natur

e o f BACT . I ti s unlikel

y tha ta singl e sourc e coul d hav e a significan

timpac ti n th e nation' s energ

y policy , aci

d rain , o r globa l warming . Thes e ar

e bette r addresse

d o n a nationa

l scale . Congr

c di d thi s wit h aci d rai n i n Titl e I V o f 199 0 amendment

s t o th e federa

l Clea n Ai r Act . EPA' s To p Dow

n BAC T polic

y ha s no tprovide

d a unifor m approac

h t o PS D permitting . State s giv e differ e weightt o differen

tfactor s an d reac h differen tcondusion s base d o n th e sam e facts . Som e state s hav e made BAC T determinations withou tconsiderin g othe r environmenta l factors . Perhap s thi s i s a s i tshoul d b e wit

h case-by-cas e analysis . Bu

tto hav e mor e consistenc

y i n th e BAC T determinations the permi twriters nee d b

t understandin

g o f th e goal s an

d intento f

th e program . The y als o nee d bette r communication s wit h EP A an d eac h other . Th e to p dow

n approac h ha s pushe d th e state s int

o continually identifyin

g an d requirin g mor e stringen tstulc th e ar tlevel s o f control . Th e ga

p betwee n EPA' s new sourc e performanc e standard

s an d actua l permi t requirement

s is growing . Soo

n NSP S wil

l b e a moo texercis e i

n documentin

g pas tpractice . B y the tim e EP . amends a NSP

S o r adopt s a ne w one , th e actua

l permit s fo r ne w source s wil

l b e mor e stringent . Mayb e rul

e makin g i s s o burdensom

e tha tEP A i s usin g th e to p dow

n polic y as a substitut

e o r rul e making .

T J i n

### 91-152.3 TABL E I SUMMAR Y O F RESPONSE S FRO M STATE S 

### 91-152.3

REFERENCE S J. Crai g Pntier . Improvin g Ne w Sourc

e Revie w rNSR . Implementation . EP A Memorandum , Decembe r 1,1987 . U . S . EPA , Offic

e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an d smnd.rds.Tnp-Down " Bes tAvailabl e Contro

l Technolog

y Ouidanc e Document. Draft

, Marc h 15,199 0 EP A Marc h 15,199 0 Texa s Ai r Contro l Board , Respons e to questionnaire . Decembe r 18,1990 . Texa s Ai r Contro l Board , Respons e to questionnaire . Decembe r 18,1990 . EP A Marc h 15,199 0 EP A Marc h 15,199 0 40 CF R 52.21(b ) 40 CF R 52.165(a

)



### \ Stat e

Alabam a Arizon a Arkansa s Californi a Colorad o Connecticu t Delawar e Idah o Iow a Kentuck y Louisian a Marylan d Mlnnaaot a Ne w Jerse y Ne w Yor k Nort h Dakot a Oklahom a Orego n Pennsylvani a Rhod a Islan d Sout h Carolin a Sout h Dakot a Texa s Vermo t Washingto n Progra m Chang *

Ye a N o N o Energ y

Impac t

No 1

N o Economi c

Impac c
Ye *

Ye * Environ .

Impac t
Ye *

N o Revie w

Tim e (Month* ) 2

6 Role 5

o f EP /
d
a o r 1 b Determination s b y Loca l Agencie s 7 N o Ye a No 1

N o N o Ye *

N o Ye * N

o N o - Bu t Ye * a t 2 6 t o 1 2 b & d

b & c a N o Recen t Decision s N o Y e • Ye a N o Ye a Y. a

N o N o Ye a Ye a N o Ye a N

o Ye a Ye a Ye a N o Ye* 2 Yea *

N o Yes * N o N o N o Ye s

Ye * Ye t N o Ye s Ye s Ye s

Ye s

Ye t Ye t N o Ye *

Yes 1 Ye * Ye a Ye * Ye s Ye a

Ye s Ye s Ye s N o Ye s 1 2

4 t o 6 1 0 t o 2 4 2 4 7 t o 1 2 2 4 3 t o 4 4 t o 1 0 9 Fe w 8 t o 1 3 6 t o 1 2 3 t o 4 b

b & c
a & b c
a & b
a t V b d b & c c b d c c Sout h Dakot a ha s no t bee n delegate d PS D Revie w N o N o Ye a N

o N o No 1 N o

Ye s Ye t Ye s

N o Ye * 3 t o 9

0. 5 t o 2 1 t o 3 a o r b

b & c b 6 c 1 . Include d l n Cos t Analysi s 2 . No t Importan t 3 . EP A Rol e a ) Direc t Participan t

b ) Availabl e a s Resourc e I f Neede d - c ) No t Involve d Unti l Stat e Decisio n i s Mad e d ) Othe r y

### 91-152.3

tat s kansa s rkensa s klorad o klawar * bw a Lntuck y bntuck y bntuck y kntuck y bultian a bultlan a innesot a e v Jer»e y k w Yor k klahom a TABL E I I TO

P DOW N BAC T RESULT

S O F ECONOMI

C ANALYSI

S
Sourc e Bar k Boile r Bar k Boile r Ga s Turbin e Ga s Turbin e Boile r Ca s Turbin e Ga s Turbin e Ga s Boile r Ga s Boile r

enntylvanl a hod * Islan d hod * I lan d onio n t F

B Cok e Boile r F B Cok e Boile r Ga s Turbin e Mun i Wast e Co

m Ca s Turbin e Contro l Eliminated 

### ES P Packe d Towe r 

### SC R SC R SC R SC R Wate r Injec t 

### SC R Ure a Injec t

Car b Blac k Plan t Glas s Furnac e
Ga s Turbin e F B Coa l FB Ga s Turbin e 

### SC R GoraTe x Bag s 

### S/To n

NSCR/SC R C O Catalys t 

### SC R Semi-Dr y Electri c Boos t C O Catalys t Lo w Sul f Coa l CO Catalys t 37.77 5 3,59 9 3,09 8 5,00 0

23.40 0 25,80 0 5,50 0 4,40 0 4,25 0 3.46 5 Interes t

X

4,00 0 11.00 0 9,60 0 2,63 1 7,00 0 4,93 8 5,00 0 

### 1 2

1 0 Lif e (Years )



### 1 5
1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0

1 5

1 5 1 5

1 5
1 0
1 9 1 6



### 10 91-152

TABL E II I 1 3 GA S TURBINE S TO P DOW N BAC T EMISSIO

N LIMITS , LBS/MMBT U

1 lbs/h

r 2 lbs/mo

b t u 3 oi l fire d Stat e
Colorad o Conectlcu t Delawar e Delawar e Kentuck y Minnesot a Ne w Jerse y Ne w Yor k Ne w York 1 Ne w Yor k Ne w York ' Orego n Rhod e Islan d Sout h Carolin a Vermon t 

### P

M

2.5 1 0.00 5 0.00 5 0.0 2 0.00 3 0.01 8

0.0 1 

### 45 l
0.00 4 PM1 0



### 5 l

2.5 ' 0.00 5 0.00 5 0.0 2 0.00 3 0.01 8

0.0 1

0.00 4 

### S0 2

2.7 ' 

### 3X S .04X S

0.000 9

0.1X S

0.2Z S

0.002 7
630 1
0.3 1 NO

x PP M 

### 6 5 2 5 4 2 2 5 17 8 3 0 0.043 * 

### 2 5 4 2 9 4 8 4 2 9
308 1 

### 9 VO

C

lOpp m

7pp m 0.004 2 0.00 8 0.0 3 0.00 3 0.00 5
4.1pp m 

### 10 »
30.5 l CO

PP M

14. 4



### 4 0 0.06 1 0.06 1 0.06 1 

### 1 0 4 4 2.1 1 

### 2 5 23 l


### 5 7



### 11

-J

### 91-152.3 TAB U I V OTHE R SOURCE S TO P DO W BAC T EMISSIO

N LIMIT S | Sourc e | Kunl . In c \ Kunl . In c | F.B . Coa l | Botl. r F.B . Coa l Boile r Fulv . Coa l 

### Botl. r 1 F.B . Cok e Boile r 1 CF B Boile r J Ind . Bol l | Staa a Ct n | Ca t Boile r | Ca t Boile r | Woo d Boile r | Bar k Boile r | V.llon t Cal l | Cist s Fur n 1 Car b Blac k Flart t | Car b B Dry* r Car b B Dryt r
Car b B IncI n tn e Con b Engin e Kraf t R F 

### 1 Kraf t R F Kraf t L K Kraf t L X (Oil ) 

### 1 Kraf t F B | Faln c Hanga r L gr/idc f 2 pp n 3 n«nograai/d > Stat e

K D 

## t u F A
R I
S C
L A
O K V T I A A R K Y C T A R K H P A L A
L A O K
O K I A
A L U A A R A R
A R V A

c a F

M 0.01 * 0.01 1 0.01 7
0.0 1
IJO *
0.0 3
22.6 * 0.0 4 0.1 0 0.1 0

O.OS 0.1 9 J.O *

0.02 *
0.08 *

0.024 1 0.027 * 0.0J4 1 0.067 *
0.02 3 

### tT let'A i 5 6 t/da

y PM 1 0 0.01 1 0.01 1 0.01 4
0.0 1
119.4 *

0.0 4

0.01 1

0.1 4 SO ,

J0 > 50 ' 0.13 6
0.002 7
1768 *
0.8 J
590.5 ' 0.J 2

0.000 6

0.0J 2 0.08 0

28. * JJ8 '
176 * 46.9 '
187.6 '

94 * 120 '

I J . J '
0.1 0

, t/"d* NO ,

180 ' 225 ' 0.1 5 9 »
2028 ' 0. 6
382.5 ' O.O S 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 O.J O 0.2 5 275 ' 16.2 '
14.2 ' 1.08 '
4.J2 ' 1.8 '
115 * 95 » 66.5 ' 66.5 '
0.3 0
1 VO

C .0044 * 15 * 0.00 3
4.1 »
63.2 '

4.9 ' 0.008 5

0.2 1

0.0 8 22.6 ' 0.04 5

0.2 *
0.8 '

184 ' I *

0.02 7 109 ' C

O 50 ' 100 *

25 '
520 '
0.1 0
152.5 * O.OJ S

0.0 4

0.2 4 0.1 6

0.6 *
2.4 '

327 *

55 '
0.J 5 Othe r

Dlo x 2 '
HjSO , 1 , 35 '

F b 1.7 *
B e 0.001 '
F J . 2 '

H,S0 , I. J J '

H, S 0.2 ' CS l H, S 0.08 '

TR S 5 ' TR S J '

TR S 8 a



### 12 91-15:
APPENDI X Top Dow n Bact , Genera l Comment s Fro m State s
To p Down " BAC T polic

y i s "regulatio

n b y guidance . Properl

y utilized botto

m u p approac h ca n resul ti n the sam e BAC T determinatio n a s th e to p dow

n method . Ai r qualit

y impac ti s neede d fo

r th e state s to allocat e increment s a s the y se e Ht . A calculatio

n an d decisio n base d o n tota

l cos ta s preferentia

l ove r incrementa

l co s illogical , th e assessmen

to f alternate , lowe

r pollutin g processe s is a typ e o f secon d guessing o

n socia l issue s f ( whic h state d agenc

y staf f hav e no tbee n trained . A L Th e PS D proces s ha

s becom e insanel

y cumbersom e an

d costl y fo r a stat e t o administer . EP

A woul d neve r requir e thi s muc

h wor k i f the y hadn' tdelegate d th e program . DE L Bot h o f th e permit

s discusse d wer e issue d a s syntheti c minor source s sinc e wit h th e BAC T limit

s fo r th e affecte d pollutants , th e potentia

l to emi tdroppe d belo w 25 0 TPY . EPA' s Regio n V s revie w an d concurrent * wit h th e federall

y enforceabl e limit

s wer e sough tthroug h public notificatio n o

f th e permit

. M N Tw o years i s th e approximat e tim e i tloo k t o gai n overall approva

l fo r th e ga s turbin

e facility . Th e 2 yea

r pc i resulte d i n a BAC T determinatio

n usin g SCR an d the us e o

f low sulfu r kerosen e fo

r the bac k u p fuel . O n th . othe r hand , sinc e i

twa s th e eight h RR F to b e permitted , th e Unio n BAC T determinatio n wa s no tprolonged . N J Thi s stat e is i n a transition perio

d fo r reviewin g BAC T determination s fro m a n economi c standpoint

. W e ar t no w requirin

g a tota l cos teffectivenes s t o b e evaluate d fo r eac h level o f control . A n incrementa

l analysi s is i considere d whe

n tw o level s o

f contro l d o no l resul ti n a significan

tdifferenc

e i n emissions . N

Y Th e tw o BAC T determination s wil l onl y giv e a "snapshot " o f

the tw o BAC T reviews . A tru

e pictur e o f th e methodolog y an

d resource

s utilized t

o mak e BAC T determination s ca n b e obtaine d fro

m th e engineerin g reviews whic

h ar e enclosed . P

A W e d o hav e a n "acros s th e board " BAC T requiremen tfo r an y facilit y requirin g a permit

. R I Mobi l Che m wante d t o contro

l VO C vents . W e hav

e confidenc e in condenser s fo r thi s particula

r applicalio r an d pushe d fo r a flare . Not e tha tth e Texa s AC B respons e include d severa l BAC T discussio n reports . A quot e for m on e o f thes e report s is 77i « "top down"approach is clearly a boon forthe lawyers and consultants. It

should be of canca the nation's citizens, the state regulatory agencies, and the regulated

community that

EPA can foixv a ulatory approach with no mle making, provide no specific guidelines and then remand

a permit bcc> the review was not

specific enough. To p Dow n BAC T • A TAC B Perspective , A&WM A S W Sectio n Conferenc

e - Apri l 1989 , Kare

n N Home , P.E .



### 13
T J C B

### 91-152.3
To p Dow n Bac t- An

y Program Changes ?
Tw o basi c changes : First

, EP A receive s a cop y o f an y PS D applicatio n a

s soo n a s w e receiv e it , an d ha s consis tentl y responde

d withi n thirt y days . Thi

s ha s stave d of f "lat e hits " b y EP A o n controversia

l permits ; an

d second , almos tal l applicant

s hav e propose d th e "top " optio n as BAC T t o avoi d permi tdelays du e t o potentia

l EP A objections . A L Ou r APCD' s an

d AQMD' s alread

y us e a To p Down " approach . CA W e ha d no tprocesse d man

y PS D permit s prio r to to p down . Therefore difficul tt o asses s i f substantiall

y different . C O Mor e Work . D E Increase d correspondenc

e betwee n agenc y an d applicant

s unfamilia

r wit h policy . Littl

e effec to n en d product . L A Yes , economi c impac

tan d alternativ

e processe s an

d contro l technolog

y ar e mor e thoroughl

y reviewed . M

N Yes , i tlead s analysi

s awa y fro m questio n o f cos tto questio n o f

"availability* . N

J Thre e state s simpl

y sai d "Yes" . Mor e tim e i s require

d to documen

tBAC T determinations . Thi s result s in determination

s whic h ar c mor e defensible . P

A No . W e us e procedure

s i n th e attache d paper . "Contro l Technology " whic

h EP A regard s a s equa l t o to p down . TX W e hav e change d the progra

m bot h becaus e o

f To p Dow n an d th e state' s Pollution Contro l Hearing Board' s (PCHB ) decisio n o

n the Spokan

e municipa

l incinerato

r tha tw e mus trequir e know n an d reasonabl e technolog

y regardles s o f

environmenta

l impacts . Th e PCH

B sai d tha tth e tes to

f reasonablenes s i s us e elsewhere . W A 

### To p Dow n BAC T - Energ y Impact ?
Generall y w e vie w thi s a s being covere

d in the cos tcalculation s fo r variou s options . A L Energ y cost s include d i n economic costs . C

O Energ y impact s wer e considere

d in evaluatio

n o f BAC T fo r a flui d bed petroleu

m cok e boiler . Question s were : "I s the contro

l technolog

y energ y intensive ? Ho

w doe s thi s affec

tavailabl e resource s and/o r cos to f control'.' * L A Include d i n economi c analysis . M D Energ y impac tno tver y heavil y considered . N

J Impac tconsidered , bu

tno ta n importan

tconsideration in thes e cases . N Y



### 14 9i-i5:
N o recen tBAC T determinations ; however , guidanc e documen

trequire s a consideratio n o f th e energ y effect s th e facilit y , wher e applicable , including energ y consumptio n an

d energ y production . N D Ver y lo w Importance . O R 

### To p Dow n BAC T - Environmenta l Impact ?
Fo r the mostpart

, ambien tconcentratio n difference s ar e considere d fo

r variou s options . Occasionally othe r impacts , suc

h a s wast e volum e o r hazardou s wast e generatio n are considered . Non-criteri a pollutant s ar c sometime s a

n importan

tfactor. A L Possibilit y o f ammonia lea

k considered . D E Impact s o n ambien tar e wer e 'insignificant * a

s proposed . I

W Th e ne tenvironmenta

l impac tassociate d wit

h the contro

l alternativ

e shoul d b e reviewed . Thi s is satisfied w i th e dispersio n modelin g whic h i s performe

d a s a par to f th e PS D review . Th e evaluatio n o f a ga s turbin

e lis t advers e secondar

y ai r impacts , advers e wate

r qualit y impact s an d advers e soli d wast

e impact s fo r SC R an d wate r injectio n controls . K

Y Environmenta

l impact s evaluated were : impac

to n vegetation , creatio n o f soli d waste , toxi c emission s fro m contro l equipmen

tan d visibility . L

A Complianc

e wit h NAAQ S an

d stat e toxi c regulation s wa s evaluated . M D Used modelin g an

d a n ai r toxic s review . M

N SC R an d SNC R cal l fo

r ammoni a injection . Ammoni a storag e hazards considered . Applicantha d to prepa i hazar d analysis . N

J Th e effect s o f ammonia storag e an

d transportatio

n wer e considere d whe

n evaluatin g SCR's . Decide d t o us e aqueou s ammonia . N Y Effec to f S0 2 o n soil , vegetatio n an d visibilit y wa s evaluated . O

K Modelin g impacts . O R Considere d impac to n visibility , soils , an

d vegetation . P

A Determine d whethe r extr

a amoun to f pollutan tremove d ca n b e considere d significan tas compare

d to th e e cost . S C Fo r Boein g w e looke d a

tozone , i n relationship to Ih

e standar d an d fo r impac to n the Clas s I area . W

A 

### Rol e O f EP A I n Applicatio n Approva l
Alabama . Thi s ha

s worke d wel l in th e las t2 years . I ti s al l handle d b y correspondenc e an

d phon e convcrs a tions . EP A doc s no

tsi ti n o n permi tmeeting s o

r dea l directl y wit h applicants .



### 15

### 91-152.3
Colorado d ) Revie w durin g publi c notic e period . Iow a Comment

s - EP A i s th e sam e a s everyon e else . Ne w Yor k d ) EP

A i s availabl e a

s a resource , howeve

r thei r participation usuall

y involve s "auditing " NY

S decision s durin

g 3 0 da y publi c commen tperiod . I

f no tsatisfied , the

y wil l comment ; an

d i f mi l satisfied wit

h final determination , the

y hav e appeale d (on e case) . Pennsylvani

a A cop y o f

the engineerin

g revie w an d draf tpermi tis forwarde

d l o EP A fo r comment. Applicatio n Fee s - Comment s B y Stale s Arizona - Ye s Colorad o • S10

5 pe r hou r Kentuck y - Accordin g t

o established fee schedule Louisian a • Fee s base d o n th e facilit y & productio

n rathe r tha n th e tim e spen

tfo r revie w Marylan d • Fla

tfe e for sourc e typ

e Minnesot a • Permi

tfee s ar e charge d Ne w Jerse y - Fixed permi

tfee s Nort h Dakot a - W e do charg

e th e sourc

e fo r ou r tim e Orego n • Fee s ar

e designe d t

o reflec ttim e spen t Rhod e Islan

d - Permi

tfe e fo r majo r source/modificatio n 525,410.0 0 Texas - Fe e i s based o

n capita l cos to f projec t

NOT E T O FnTTflRc

, Unde r th o new federa l copyrigh tlaw , publicatio n right s t o thi s pape r ar e retaine d b y th e author(s) .



### 16