p.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

33) 11-1-25 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:19 AM Sheet 33 of 142 
91-152.3 

Discussion of Implementation of EPA's 

Top-Down Bact Guidance 

Henry Droege 

Consultant 

Olympia, Washington 

Jay Willenberg 

State of Washington Department of Ecology 

Redmond, Washington 

AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT 

ASSOCIATIO N 

• 

SINCI 1907 

* 

•:•:. 

For Presentation at the 

84th Annual Meeting & Exhibition 

Vancouver, British Columbia 

June 16 - 21,1991 

ho 
91-152.3 

INTRODUCTION 

EPA requires Beit Available Control Technology (BACT) for any new or modified source subject to 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review. BACT Is an emission limit determined on a case by case 

basis, and can vary for different locations and different source categories. Recently, EPA has required that all 

BACT determinations be on a "Top Down' basis.1 Top down provides that all available control technologies be 

ranked in descending order of control effectiveness. According to EPA's Guidance Document2, the most stringent alternative is considered as BACT unless the applicant can demonstrate to the permitting authority that 

this most stringent control is not achievable because of technical infeasibility or because of energy, environmental or economic impacts. 

The authors of this paper sent a survey questionnaire on Top Down BACT to each of the 48 contiguous states 

during August, 1990. The purpose of the survey was to determine how the states were determining BACT using 

a top down procedure for their two most recent BACT decisions. The questions asked were: 

How much time was required to review the applications?. 

Has top down changed your program? 

Was the energy impact, the economic impact or the environmental impact part of the review? 

What is the role of EPA in the process? 

Twenty-five states responded to the survey. This paper is an analysis and discussion of the responses received. 

RESPONSE FROM STATES 

General Comments 

Eight states offered some general comments about the top-down procedures. In addition to the written comments In the survey response, one of the authors, Droege, had an opportunity to Interview the staff of several 

states. There was a wide range of opinion about the top-down approach from: "This is about the same as we've 

been doing all along," to "Dismay and disagreement' and "insanely cumbersome and costly," and the 'top-down 

process is dearly a boon to lawyers and consultants." . 

There appear to be two major areas of disagreement between the states and EPA. First was that, since topdown guidance Is regarded as mandatory, EPA should have established It by rule making. The second area is 

whether the environmental Impact in the definition of BACT Indudes the air quality impact. EPA's guidance 

states the air quality impact analysis is to be conducted separately from the BACT analysis, and the purpose of 

the air quality analysis U to demonstrate that the source will not cause or contribute to the violation of any 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard or PSD Increment.3 At least one state believes that the air quality analysis is in order to allocate the PSD increment.4

 The same state believes that any assessment of lower polluting 

alternate processes (second guessing) is an Inappropriate function for a state air pollution control staff. 

A final note is thst everyone who expressed an opinion, felt that the EPA March 15,1990 draft guidance was 

well done and very useful. 

91-152.3 

Program Changes Caused by Top-Down BACT 

The states that responded to the question were evenly divided about whether any changes had occurred. Ten 

said top down caused changes, and ten said no change. The comments on this question ranged from "more 

work" and "more time required' to 'What we bad been doing was the same as top down.' One state concluded 

that more time and greater detail in analysis had resulted in decisions that were more defensible. A comment 

from another state was that all recent applicants have selected the top alternative, probably to prevent delay in 

gaining approval. The same state noted that by sending the application to EPA immediately, they were avoiding 

'late hits' from EPA.1 According to another state, the emphasis had changed from cost to 'availability.' 

Energy 

The Clean Air Act dearly requires an impacts analysis as part of any BACT determination. The impacts analysis must address 'the three E's"; environment, economics, and energy. 

We asked each state if it considered energy impacts. As shown in Table I, twenty states responded to this question. One quarter of the states, five, said that they considered energy impacts of air pollution control technologies; the rest did not. Of the five states that considered energy impacts, most said that energy was not an 

important consideration. Three of the states that did not consider energy directly, said that energy is part of the 

economic consideration. 

States are not giving meaningful consideration to energy impacts, despite the dear intent of congress and the 

EPA. One of the reasons that energy impacts are not given more consideration is the difficulty in evaluating 

energy impacts within the confines of a BACT determination. The difficulty involves evaluating energy impacts 

on a case-by-case basis while setting an emission limit. It would be easier to consider energy on a national 

scale. Certainly no single facility will have an impact on our national energy policy, nor could it greatly impact 

the cost of energy. For example, consider solid waste disposal. EPA's guidance does not allow consideration of 

waste disposal as a project and the related energy impacts. It only allows consideration of a single option, like 

indneration, and the energy impacts related to controlling its air pollution. The Top Down BACT policy does 

not allow considering that burning solid waste may emit leu pollutants then other forms of generating electricity. Nor does the guidance allow for recognizing that burning solid waste results in additional energy compared 

to Iandfilling. 

When congress required energy impacts in the best available control technology analysis, the country had an 

energy shortage. Then energy conservation was a national goal. Now that we have incorporated energy conservation into our economy it is hard to identify energy or conservation as a specific goal. It is more of an economic consideration as several states had said. 

Environmental Impact 

The definition of BACT requires an environmental analysis of each of the proposed options. We asked each 

state if they evaluated environmental impacts. Twenty states responded to the question. Fifteen states said that 

they considered environmental impacts and five said that they did not. 

Several of the states that considered environmental impacts said that they compared the modeling result with 

the air quality standards. This is not consistent with EPA's guidance which is not to confuse the environmental 

analysis with the air quality impact analysis. EPA's guidance says that the environmental analysis should concentrate on impacts other than impacts on the ambient air quality due to emissions of the regulated pollutants. 

The guidance suggests considering waste generation, water pollution, visibility, and emissions of unregulated 

pollutants. 
91-152.3 

BACT is a technology determlnatioo required for significant increases of regulated pollutants. The first test Is 

always the application of the technology and the second the impact on air quality. Under Top Down BACT an 

agency should consider the air quality standard or Increment consumption only 1/ one of the options would 

cause a violation of an ambient air quality standard or a PSD increment. Tbe implication is that once any 

agency determines a top case, all other agendas must use that tame level of control unless the applicant can 

Identify unacceptable site-specific environmental circumstance*. 

The most common type of environmental analysis that states considered is tbe effects of air toxics. This could 

be a response to the increased concern about air toxica or a response to tbe North County incinerator remand. 

States are also quick to consider water pollution and hazardous waste generated by the control system. Several 

state* expressed concern that ammonia used for NOx control would cause storage and emission problems. 

One state required an offset for a significant Inaease ia VOC emissions in an attainment area. That area has 

had ozone levels near the standard and EPA may toon designate it a non-attainment area. The state also was 

concerned about possible ozone damage at current levels in nearby Class I areas. 

While not necessarily part of a BACT analysis, EPA guidance for PSD reviews indudes an evaluation of additional impacts. These impacts indude growth, ambient air quality, soils and vegetation, and visibility. One state 

that said it did not consider environmental impacts considered vegetation and visibility impacts. 

None of the states said that they considered add rain or global warming. EPA's guidance is silent in these 

issues. One could argue that the BACT process specifically exdudes such consideration. The BACT analysis 

by definition is a case-by-case determination of significant impacu. It is unlikely that a single new source of SOj 

or NO> that was using BACT would have a *tg«ir<r-mnt impact on regional add rain. Similarly individual sources 

do not have significant affects on global warming. 

Economic Impact 

Table II is a summary tabulation of the responses on economic impact. Sixty percent of the states said yes, an 

economic impact had been evaluated. Alternatives eliminated because of the economic impact were packed 

tower (1), SCR (8), water-injection (1), urea Injection (1), Gore Tex bags (1), CO catalyst (3), semi-dry scrubbing (1), electric boost (1), and low sulfur coal (1). The eliminated alternative cost range was from $2,600 per 

ton to $38,000 per ton, with a median value of $5,000 per ton. 

Seven states induded information about the Interest rate and economic life used for the economic Impact evaluation. The range in interest rate wu from 8% to 15%, and tbe range In economic life was from 7 years to 19 

years. 

A major element In calculating costs is the Capital Recovery Factor (CRF), which is calculated from the interest rate and economic life by the following equation.6 

CUT • _____ 

91-152.. 

where i is the interest rate and n is the economic life of the equipment. For the alternatives listed in Table II, 

there is almost a two-to-one difference between the high and low CRF. The interest rate, economic life and 

subsequent CRF for the seven alternatives are tabulated below. 

CRF% 

Interest rate 

.12 

.10 

.15 

.12 

.10 

.10 

.08 

economic Uie, yt-ata 

15 

20 

15 

10 

7 

19 

16 

14.68 

11.75 

17.10 

17.70 

20-54 

11.95 

11.30 

For the lowest CRF, 1130% the annualized cost of a million dollar capital expenditure is $113,000, and for lh< 

highest CRF, 20.54%, the annualized cost for the same million dollars is $205,400. 

BACT CONSIDERATIONS 

LAER and BACT 

The EPA Draft Guidance, March, 1990, says that Technologies required under lowest achievable emission r: 

(LAER) determinations are available for BACT purposes and must also be included as control alternatives a: 

usually represent the top alternatives."7 The definition of BACT8 is: 

"an emissions limitation (including a visible emission standard) based on tlie maximum 

degree of reduction for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act which would b

emitted from any proposed major stationary source or major modification which the Administrator, 

on a case-by<ase basis, taking Into account energy, environmental, and economic Impacts and othe

costs, determines Is achievable for such source or modification through application of production pro

cesses or available methods, systems, and techniques, Including fuel cleaning or treatment or Innova

tive 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 emission

allowed by any applicable standard under 40 CFR Pans 60 and 61. If the Administrator detemilnes 

dial technological or economic limitations on the application of measurement methodology to a particular emissions unit would make the Imposition of an emissions standard infeasible, a design, 

equipment, work practice, operational standard, or combination thereof, may be prescribed Instead 

satisfy tlie requirement for the application of best available control technology. Such standard shall, 

the degree possible, set forth the emissions reduction achievable by Implementation of such desig\, 

equipment, work practice or operation, and shall provide for compliance by means which achieve 

equivalent results." 

The Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) is the control level required of a new source subject to non 

attainment review. The definition of LAER9 is: 

"the more stringent rate of emissions based on the following.-

(a) The most stringent emissions limitation iir-tlte implementation plan of any State for suc

class or category of stationary source, unless the owner or operator of the proposed stationary sour

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 or modified emissions units with a stationary source. In no 

event shall the application of the term permit a proposed new or modified stationary source to emit 

any pollutant In excess of the amount allowable under an applicable new source standard of 

performance." 

The conceptual difference between LAER and BACT is that the Clean Air Act requires LAER for areas which 

are already exceeding federal standards. The major purpose of LAER is to prevent any exacerbation of adverse 

impacts, particularly health impacts. Tbe LAER requirement may require substantial additional cost over recognized good practice, including substantial increase in energy use, emissions of other air contaminants, 

including CO] and NO* and increased effluent treatment. These last two impacts obviously will have an 

increased, albeit indirect, environmental impact when compared with accepted good practice which may be 

acceptable BACT in other areas. Thus the philosophy tbat one should "err on the side of the environment" and 

select LAER, may result in increased total environmental impact when all impacts are considered. 

Role of EPA 

We asked each state to identify EPA's role in the BACT analysis according to the following: 

a) Direct participant 

b) Available as a resource if needed 

e) Not Involved until state decision Is made 

d) Other. 

As shown in Table I twenty-three states responded. Several of the states gave two responses. Six states, 26%, 

said that EPA had some direct partldpation, all but one of the six would use EPA as a resource. Most of the 

other responding states would also use EPA as a resource. Nine states, 39%, said that EPA would not get 

Involved until the state decided. Of the four states that said that EPA had some other role three of them said 

that EPA could comment like anyone else during the comment period. The other state said that EPA is available as a resource, but their partldpation usually Involves "auditing" during the thirty day public comment 

period. That state then responds to EPA's audit as it would to a public comment. 

EPA has had a policy of delegating PSD review responsibility to the states. If the states carry out the delegation 

properly, EPA should be available as a resource and have an oversight role. Since most states said that EPA 

has Utile or no direct involvement, the policy seems to be working. Apparently EPA usually exercises its oversight during a comment period. 

Emission Limits 

Tables III and IV list the emission limits each state set as a result of the BACT analysis. Because almost half of 

the responses involve gas turbines, they are listed separately in Table III. 

Examination of Table III indicates that all but one of the NO, limits are below the NSPS limit. The exception is 

for a simple cyde pipeline pumping station which Kentucky permitted before 1990. It also is Ihe only simple 

cyde turbine in the group. In setting the emission limits for NO, the stales considered technologies ranging 

from combustion controls lo selective catalytic reduction (SCR). The states that did not set limits based on 

SCR were primarily concerned about economic costs and ammonia problems. 

New York's determination for SO] is particularly interesting. In two determinations for similar turbines at 

about the same time, New York set different limits for the amount of sulfur in the back-up oil. 

91-152 

At least for the gas turbines in Table IV, the BACT process resulted in emission limits below the NPSP limit 

and therefore is achieving its goal. The review process may have also affected the non-PSD reviewable 

pollutants. 

Synthetic Minors 

An applicant can avoid the BACT review process in two ways. It can agree to limits below the PSD review le 

or accept the agency's proposed top case. Sources that agree to emission limits below PSD review are synthe 

minors. The Minnesota's Wellons wood waste cell boiler in Table IV is an example of a synthetic minor. Th. 

applicant accepted a level of control which will keep emissions below the PSD review trigger level. 

One state said that applicants agree to the most stringent control levels to avoid a long permit review process 

Our own experience shows that this practice is widespread. This may not have been EPA's intent with the to: 

down review process, however it does result in lower emissions. On the other hand some sources argue that i 

top case gets set artificially high because no one did a complete BACT review. The opposite is an argument . 

bottom up review. With bottom up, the reviewing agendes often did not have the time or resources to make 

strong case for requiring a more stringent level of control. Top Down BACT shifts the burden of justificaiioi 

to the applicant. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Congress had two goals when it adopted the PSD program. One goal was to protect existing air quality and 

other was to assure that all new major sources of air pollution will use BACT. In setting BACT congress 

directed agencies to consider the best methods of controlling air pollution considering environmental, energ) 

and economic factors. 

Energy considerations have not greatly influenced BACT determinations. Most of the states that evaluate 

energy impacts consider it an economic factor only. Better guidance could help agencies carry out congress'! 

mandate. The guidance might identify acceptable levels of energy to control a given amount of pollution, 

kilowatt-hours per gram. The guidance could also expand the energy considerations to include Indirect ener: 

considerations. Indirect energy impacts indude alternate fuel, optional sites, and off-site energy costs of raw 

material and waste processing. 

A major problem with implementing both the energy and environmental impact analysis requirements of B/ 

is the case-by-case nature of BACT. It is unlikely that a single source could have a significant impact in the 

nation's energy policy, acid rain, or global warming. These are better addressed on a national scale. Congrc 

did this with acid rain in Title IV of 1990 amendments to the federal Clean Air Act. 

EPA's Top Down BACT policy has not provided a uniform approach to PSD permitting. States give differe 

weight to different factors and reach different condusions based on the same facts. Some states have made 

BACT determinations without considering other environmental factors. Perhaps this is as it should be with 

case-by-case analysis. But to have more consistency in the BACT determinations the permit writers need bt 

understanding of the goals and intent of the program. They also need better communications with EPA and 

each other. 

The top down approach has pushed the states into continually identifying and requiring more stringent stulc 

the art levels of control. The gap between EPA's new source performance standards and actual permit 

requirements is growing. Soon NSPS will be a moot exercise in documenting past practice. By the time EP. 

amends a NSPS or adopts a new one, the actual permits for new sources will be more stringent. Maybe rule 

making is so burdensome that EPA is using the top down policy as a substitute or rule making. 

TJ 

in 
91-152.3 

TABLE I SUMMARY OF RESPONSES FROM STATES 

91-152.3 

REFERENCES 

J. Craig Pntier. Improving New Source Review rNSR. Implementation. EPA Memorandum, 

December 1,1987. 

U. S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and smnd.rds.Tnp-Down" Best Available Control 

Technology Ouidance Document. Draft, March 15,1990 

EPA March 15,1990 

Texas Air Control Board, Response to questionnaire. December 18,1990. 

Texas Air Control Board, Response to questionnaire. December 18,1990. 

EPA March 15,1990 

EPA March 15,1990 

40 CFR 52.21(b) 

40 CFR 52.165(a) 

\ 

State 

Alabama 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Idaho 

Iowa 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maryland 

Mlnnaaota 

New Jersey 

New York 

North Dakota 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhoda Island 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Texas 

Vermot 

Washington 

Program 

Chang* 

Yea 

No 

No 

Energy 

Impact 

No1 

No 

Economic 

Impacc 

Ye* 

Ye* 

Environ. 

Impact 

Ye* 

No 

Review 

Time 

(Month*) 

2 

6 

Role5 

of EP/ 

d 

a or 1 

b 

Determinations by Local Agencies 

7 

No 

Yea 

No1 

No 

No 

Ye* 

No 

Ye* 

No 

No - But 

Ye* 

at 

2 

6 to 12 

b & d 

b & c 

a 

No Recent Decisions 

No 

Ye • 

Yea 

No 

Yea 

Y.a 

No 

No 

Yea 

Yea 

No 

Yea 

No 

Yea 

Yea 

Yea 

No 

Ye*2 

Yea* 

No 

Yes* 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Ye* 

Yet 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yet 

Yet 

No 

Ye* 

Yes1 

Ye* 

Yea 

Ye* 

Yes 

Yea 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

12 

4 to 6 

10 to 24 

24 

7 to 12 

24 

3 to 4 

4 to 10 

9 

Few 

8 to 13 

6 to 12 

3 to 4 

b 

b & c 

a & b 

c 

a & b 

a tV b 

d 

b & c 

c 

b 

d 

c 

c 

South Dakota has not been delegated PSD Review 

No 

No 

Yea 

No 

No 

No1 

No 

Yes 

Yet 

Yes 

No 

Ye* 

3 to 9 

0.5 to 2 

1 to 3 

a or b 

b & c 

b 6 c 

1. Included ln Cost Analysis 

2. Not Important 

3. EPA Role a) Direct Participant 

b) Available as Resource If Needed -

c) Not Involved Until State Decision is Made 

d) Other 

y 
91-152.3 

tats 

kansas 

rkensas 

klorado 

klawar* 

bwa 

Lntucky 

bntucky 

bntucky 

kntucky 

bultiana 

bultlana 

innesota 

ev Jer»ey 

kw York 

klahoma 

TABLE II TOP DOWN BACT RESULTS OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

Source 

Bark Boile r 

Bark Boile r 

Gas Turbine 

Gas Turbine 

Boile r 

Cas Turbine 

Gas Turbine 

Gas Boile r 

Gas Boile r 

enntylvanla 

hod* Island 

hod* I land 

onion t 

FB Coke Boile r 

FB Coke Boile r 

Gas Turbine 

Muni Waste Com 

Cas Turbine 

Control 

Eliminated 

ESP 

Packed Tower 

SCR 

SCR 

SCR 

SCR 

Water Inject 

SCR 

Urea Inject 

Carb Black Plant 

Glass Furnace 

Gas Turbine 

FB Coal FB 

Gas Turbine 

SCR 

GoraTex Bags 

S/Ton 

NSCR/SCR 

CO Catalyst 

SCR 

Semi-Dry 

Electric 

Boost 

CO Catalyst 

Low Sulf Coal 

CO Catalyst 

37.775 

3,599 

3,098 

5,000 

23.400 

25,800 

5,500 

4,400 

4,250 

3.465 

Interest 

X 

4,000 

11.000 

9,600 

2,631 

7,000 

4,938 

5,000 

12 

10 

Life 

(Years) 

15 

12 

10 

10 

10 

15 

15 

15 

15 

10 

19 

16 

10 

91-152 

TABLE III 13 GAS TURBINES TOP DOWN BACT EMISSION LIMITS, LBS/MMBTU 

1 lbs/hr 

2 lbs/mob tu 

3 oil fired 

State 

Colorado 

Conectlcut 

Delaware 

Delaware 

Kentucky 

Minnesota 

New Jersey 

New York 

New York1 

New York 

New York' 

Oregon 

Rhode 

Island 

South 

Carolina 

Vermont 

PM 

2.51 

0.005 

0.005 

0.02 

0.003 

0.018 

0.01 

45l 

0.004 

PM10 

5

l 

2.5' 

0.005 

0.005 

0.02 

0.003 

0.018 

0.01 

0.004 

S02 

2.7' 

3XS 

.04XS 

0.0009 

0.1XS 

0.2ZS 

0.0027 

6301 

0.31 

NOx 

PPM 

65 

25 

42 

25 

178 

30 

0.043* 

25 

42 

9 

48 

42 

9 

3081 

9 

VOC 

lOppm 

7ppm 

0.0042 

0.008 

0.03 

0.003 

0.005 

4.1ppm 

10» 

30.5l 

CO 

PPM 

14.4 

40 

0.061 

0.061 

0.061 

10 

44 

2.11 

25 

23l 

57 

11 

-J 
91-152.3 

TABU IV OTHER SOURCES TOP DOW BACT EMISSION LIMITS 

| Source 

| Kunl. Inc 

\ Kunl. Inc 

| F.B. Coal 

| Botl.r 

F.B. Coal 

Boiler 

Fulv. Coal 

Botl.r 

1 F.B. Coke 

Boiler 

1 CFB Boiler 

J Ind. Boll 

| Staaa Ctn 

| Cat Boiler 

| Cat Boiler 

| Wood Boiler 

| Bark Boiler 

| V.llont Call 

| Cists Furn 

1 Carb Black 

Flartt 

| Carb B Dry*r 

Carb B Drytr 

Carb B IncIn 

tne Conb 

Engine 

Kraft RF 

1 Kraft RF 

Kraft LK 

Kraft LX 

(Oil) 

1 Kraft FB 

| Falnc Hangar 

L gr/idcf 

2 ppn 

3 n«nograai/d> 

State 

KD 

tu 

FA 

RI 

SC 

LA 

OK 

VT 

IA 

AR 

KY 

CT 

AR 

KH 

PA 

LA 

LA 

OK 

OK 

IA 

AL 

UA 

AR 

AR 

AR 

VA 

ca 

FM 

0.01* 

0.011 

0.017 

0.01 

IJO* 

0.03 

22.6* 

0.04 

0.10 

0.10 

O.OS 

0.19 

J.O* 

0.02* 

0.08* 

0.0241 

0.027* 

0.0J41 

0.067* 

0.023 

tT let'Ai 

5 

6 t/day 

PM10 

0.011 

0.011 

0.014 

0.01 

119.4* 

0.04 

0.011 

0.14 

SO, 

J0> 

50' 

0.136 

0.0027 

1768* 

0.8J 

590.5' 

0.J2 

0.0006 

0.0J2 

0.080 

28.* 

JJ8' 

176* 

46.9' 

187.6' 

94* 

120' 

I J. J' 

0.10 

, t/"d* 

NO, 

180' 

225' 

0.15 

9» 

2028' 

0.6 

382.5' 

O.OS 

0.20 

0.10 

0.10 

0.20 

O.JO 

0.25 

275' 

16.2' 

14.2' 

1.08' 

4.J2' 

1.8' 

115* 

95» 

66.5' 

66.5' 

0.30 

1 

VOC 

.0044* 

15* 

0.003 

4.1» 

63.2' 

4.9' 

0.0085 

0.21 

0.08 

22.6' 

0.045 

0.2* 

0.8' 

184' 

I* 

0.027 

109' 

CO 

50' 

100* 

25' 

520' 

0.10 

152.5* 

O.OJS 

0.04 

0.24 

0.16 

0.6* 

2.4' 

327* 

55' 

0.J5 

Other 

Dlox 2' 

HjSO, 1, 35' 

Fb 1.7* 

Be 0.001' 

F J. 2' 

H,S0, I.J J' 

H,S 0.2' 

CSl 

H,S 0.08' 

TRS 5' 

TRS J' 

TRS 8a 

12 

91-15: 

APPENDIX 

Top Down Bact, General Comments From States 

Top Down" BACT policy is "regulation by guidance. Properly utilized bottom up approach can result in the 

same BACT determination as the top down method. Air quality impact is needed for the states to allocate 

increments as they see Ht. A calculation and decision based on total cost as preferential over incremental cos 

illogical, the assessment of alternate, lower polluting processes is a type of second guessing on social issues f( 

which stated agency staff have not been trained. AL 

The PSD process has become insanely cumbersome and costly for a state to administer. EPA would never 

require this much work if they hadn't delegated the program. DEL 

Both of the permits discussed were issued as synthetic minor sources since with the BACT limits for the 

affected pollutants, the potential to emit dropped below 250 TPY. EPA's Region Vs review and concurrent* 

with the federally enforceable limits were sought through public notification of the permit. MN 

Two years is the approximate time it look to gain overall approval for the gas turbine facility. The 2 year pci 

resulted in a BACT determination using SCR and the use of low sulfur kerosene for the back up fuel. On th. 

other hand, since it was the eighth RRF to be permitted, the Union BACT determination was not prolonged. 

NJ 

This state is in a transition period for reviewing BACT determinations from an economic standpoint. We art 

now requiring a total cost effectiveness to be evaluated for each level of control. An incremental analysis is i 

considered when two levels of control do nol result in a significant difference in emissions. NY 

The two BACT determinations will only give a "snapshot" of the two BACT reviews. A true picture of the 

methodology and resources utilized to make BACT determinations can be obtained from the engineering 

reviews which are enclosed. PA 

We do have an "across the board" BACT requirement for any facility requiring a permit. RI 

Mobil Chem wanted to control VOC vents. We have confidence in condensers for this particular applicalior 

and pushed for a flare. 

Note that the Texas ACB response included several BACT discussion reports. A quote form one of these 

reports is 

77i« "top down"approach is clearly a boon for the 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. 

Top Down BACT • A TACB Perspective, A&WMA SW Section Conference - April 1989, Karen N 

Home, P.E. 

13 

TJ 

CB 
91-152.3 

Top Down Bact - Any Program Changes? 

Two basic changes: First, EPA receives a copy of any PSD application as soon as we receive it, and has consistently responded within thirty days. This has staved off "late hits" by EPA on controversial permits; and second, 

almost all applicants have proposed the "top" option as BACT to avoid permit delays due to potential EPA 

objections. AL 

Our APCD's and AQMD's already use a Top Down" approach. CA 

We had not processed many PSD permits prior to top down. Therefore difficult to assess if substantially 

different. CO 

More Work. DE 

Increased correspondence between agency and applicants unfamiliar with policy. Little effect on end product. 

LA 

Yes, economic impact and alternative processes and control technology are more thoroughly reviewed. MN 

Yes, it leads analysis away from question of cost to question of "availability*. NJ 

Three states simply said "Yes". 

More time is required to document BACT determinations. This results in determinations which arc more 

defensible. PA 

No. We use procedures in the attached paper. "Control Technology" which EPA regards as equal to top down. 

TX 

We have changed the program both because of Top Down and the state's Pollution Control Hearing Board's 

(PCHB) decision on the Spokane municipal incinerator that we must require known and reasonable technology 

regardless of environmental impacts. The PCHB said that the test of reasonableness is use elsewhere. WA 

Top Down BACT - Energy Impact? 

Generally we view this as being covered in the cost calculations for various options. AL 

Energy costs included in economic costs. CO 

Energy impacts were considered in evaluation of BACT for a fluid bed petroleum coke boiler. Questions were: 

"Is the control technology energy intensive? How does this affect available resources and/or cost of control'.'* 

LA 

Included in economic analysis. MD 

Energy impact not very heavily considered. NJ 

Impact considered, but not an important consideration in these cases. NY 

14 

9i-i5: 

No recent BACT determinations; however, guidance document requires a consideration of the energy effects 

the facility , where applicable, including energy consumption and energy production. ND 

Very low Importance. OR 

Top Down BACT - Environmental Impact? 

For the most part, ambient concentration differences are considered for various options. Occasionally other 

impacts, such as waste volume or hazardous waste generation are considered. Non-criteria pollutants arc 

sometimes an important factor. AL 

Possibility of ammonia leak considered. DE 

Impacts on ambient are were 'insignificant* as proposed. IW 

The net environmental impact associated with the control alternative should be reviewed. This is satisfied wi 

the dispersion modeling which is performed as a part of the PSD review. The evaluation of a gas turbine list 

adverse secondary air impacts, adverse water quality impacts and adverse solid waste impacts for SCR and 

water injection controls. KY 

Environmental impacts evaluated were: impact on vegetation, creation of solid waste, toxic emissions from 

control equipment and visibility. LA 

Compliance with NAAQS and state toxic regulations was evaluated. MD 

Used modeling and an air toxics review. MN 

SCR and SNCR call for ammonia injection. Ammonia storage hazards considered. Applicant had to prepai 

hazard analysis. NJ 

The effects of ammonia storage and transportation were considered when evaluating SCR's. Decided to use 

aqueous ammonia. NY 

Effect of S02 on soil, vegetation and visibility was evaluated. OK 

Modeling impacts. OR 

Considered impact on visibility, soils, and vegetation. PA 

Determined whether extra amount of pollutant removed can be considered significant as compared to the e 

cost. SC 

For Boeing we looked at ozone, in relationship to Ihe standard and for impact on the Class I area. WA 

Role Of EPA In Application Approval 

Alabama. This has worked well in the last 2 years. It is all handled by correspondence and phone convcrsa 

tions. EPA docs not sit in on permit meetings or deal directly with applicants. 

15 
91-152.3 

Colorado d) Review during public notice period. 

Iowa Comments - EPA is the same as everyone else. 

New York d) EPA is available as a resource, however their participation usually involves "auditing" NYS 

decisions during 30 day public comment period. If not satisfied, they will comment; and if mil 

satisfied with final determination, they have appealed (one case). 

Pennsylvania A copy of the engineering review and draft permit is forwarded lo EPA for comment. 

Application Fees - Comments By Stales 

Arizona - Yes 

Colorado • S105 per hour 

Kentucky - According to established fee schedule 

Louisiana • Fees based on the facility & production rather than the time spent for review 

Maryland • Flat fee for source type 

Minnesota • Permit fees are charged 

New Jersey - Fixed permit fees 

North Dakota - We do charge the source for our time 

Oregon • Fees are designed to reflect time spent 

Rhode Island - Permit fee for major source/modification 525,410.00 

Texas - Fee is based on capital cost of project 

NOTE TO FnTTflRc, 

Under tho new federal copyright law, 

publication rights to this paper are 

retained by the author(s). 

16