P. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1787 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 27 ) ll-B-1 2
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/2008 10:22:19 AM

Sheet 27 of 147

# N S S Fil e C P. 2

• _ » v .€ 0 ST<. 

# USEZ J

A- P

MEMORANDU

M UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECT I

Offic e o f Ai rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a ^[7Ri V 

## o,, i 

## 2 i i l

J 

## p

_ . „ •

_* ».f c 4 ___-**_*<V* « *__ » I i .-__ « _._M , ,_,.!_..-
. I -J l SUBJECT : Implementatio n o f Nort h C o FROM : Geral d A

. Emison , Direc t

Offic e o f Ai rQualit y Recover yPS D Reman d rung"*and'Standard s (MD-10 ) TO : Director , Ai rManagemen t Division , Region s I , III , V , an d I X

Director , Ai ran d Wast e Managemen t Division , Regio n I I Director , Air , Pesticides , an d Toxic s Division , Region s I V an d Director , Ai ran d Toxic s Division , Region s VII , VIII , an d X 

### V I

O nJun e 3 , 1986 , th e Administrato r remande d a preventio no f significan t deterioratio n(PSD ) penni t decision , involvin g th e Nort hCount y Resourc e Recover y

project , t o Regio nI Xfo r thei r reconsideration . Th e permi t wa s fo r a 33-megawatt , 100 0 tons-per-da y facilit y

t o b e locate dinSa nMarcos , California . A

t issu e wa s whethe r appropriat e consideratio nhad bee ngiven , withi nth e bes t availabl e contro l technolog y (BACT ) determination , t o th e environmenta l effect s o f pollutant s no t subjec t t o regulatio nunde r th e Clea nAi r Ac t (Act). * Th e reman dstrongl y

affirm s tha t th e permittin g authorit y

shoul d tak e th e toxi c effect s o f unregulate dpollutant s int o accoun t i nmakin g BAC T decision s fo r regulate dpollutants . Thi s obligatio n arise s from

sectio n169(3 ) o f th e Act , whic hdefine s BAC T a s th e maximu m degre e o f emission s decreas e whic hth e permittin g authorit y determine s i s achievable , takin g int o accoun t "environmenta l .. . impacts. " Essentia l t o thi s proces s i s th e notificatio nt o th e publi c o f how th e effect s o f toxi c ai r pollutants , includin g thos e tha t ar e unregulated , hav e bee n considere di nth e PS D review and th e subsequen t consideratio no f th e comment s i nmakin g th e fina l BAC T decision . Th e purpos e o f thi s memorandum i s t o advis e yo u o f th e impac t o f th e remandonPS D permittin g an d t o provid e implementatio nguidance . Thi s documen t build s upo nan d make s fina l th e draf t guidanc e o f Augus t 1986 . Coverag e Althoug hth e Ac t ha s give nu s th e authorit y t o revie w

directl y

th e considerabl e rang e o f regulate dpollutants , th e reman d clearl y indicate s tha t th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y (EPA ) shoul dincorporat e considera tio no f al l pollutant s withi nit s PS D determination s fo r al l source s subjec t t o PSD . Thi s resul t i s consisten t wit hth e fac t tha t th e PS D permittin g proces s i s charge d" . . . t o protec t publi c healt han d welfar e fro

m an y

* A "regulate dpollutant, " o r "pollutan t subjec t t o regulatio nunde r th e Clea nAi r Act, " i s on e whic hi s addresse db y a nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standard , a ne

w sourc e performanc e standard , o r i s liste dpursuan t t o th e nationa l emissio nstandard s fo r hazardou s ai r pollutant s program .P. 3

actua l o r potentia l advers e effec t . . . fro m ai r pollutio n. . . . " an dtha t increase s i nai r pollutio nshoul db e permitte d" . . . onl y afte r carefu l evaluatio no f al l th e consequence s . . . . " [sectio n160(1 ) an d(2)] . Revision s t o Stat e implementatio nplan s (SIP's) , t o compor t wit hth e Administrator' s decision , shoul dno t b e necessary . Stat e o r loca l agencie s wit hdelegate dPS D program s automaticall y trac k thi s chang e inpolicy . Agencie s implementin g thei r ow nSIP-apDrove dprogram s ar e als o unlikel y t o nee dany regulator y

changes . This : i s oecaus e th e remandi s base dona n interpretatio no f Ac t language , notabl y th e definitio no f BACT , tha t i s in mos t cases already

containe dinth e plan . I as k tha t yo uconfirm thi s wit h you r State s an

dapplicabl e loca l Agencies . ! Transitio nj
A s wit han

y chang e i nth e wa y

EP A doe s business , w e hav e develope da transitio nplanfo r it s implementation . Th e situation s ca nbe addresse d mos t logicall y

b y dividin g al l PS D source s int o thre e group s base do nphas e o f permittin g activity : thos e source s fo r whic hpermi t application s ha d no t bee nfiled , thos e fo r whic hpermit s hadalready bee ngranted , an

dthos e fo r whic happlication s ha dbee nfile dbu t permit s no t ye t granted . First , al l PS D source s fo r whic hcomplet e application s hadno t bee n file da s o f th e Administrator' s Jun e 3 , 1986 , decisio nar e full y subjec t t o th e remand' s requirements . Earlie r application s presen t mor e comple x polic y considerations . On e coul dargue , sinc e th e Administrator' s decisio ni s a ninterpretatio n o f existin g Ac t provisions , rathe r tha na new requirement , tha t al l PS D permit s issue dunde r th e term s o f th e 197 7 Amendment s t o th e Ac t shoul db e subjec t t o th e remand . However , progra m stabilit y

an dequit y

t o sources , i n thi s secondgroup , tha t hav e relie dupo nproperl y issue dPS D permit s militat e strongl y agains t suc ha napproach . Fo r thes e reasons , I hav e decide dt o exemp t fro

m th e requirement s o f th e remandal l source s holdin g finall y issue dpermit s a s o f Jun e 3 , 1986 . (Subsequen t majo r modification s t o suc h existin g source s are , o f course , subjec t t o PS D review , includin g th e applicatio no f th e requirement s o f thi s remand. ) Th e thir dgroupo f source s consist s o f thos e fo r whic hPS D permit s wer e i nth e pipelin e (i.e. , complet e applicatio nfile dbu t permit s no t ye t issued ) a s o f th e dat e o f th e remand . I t i s appropriat e tha t thes e source s als o b e subjec t t o th e terms o f th e remand . However , fo r permi t application s whic hhav e successfull y passe dthroug hth e publi c commen t perio dwithou t environmenta l effect s concern s bein g raised , th e Regiona l Offic e may , a t it s discretion , issu e thes e i nfina l withou t furthe r delay . Th e abov e enunciate dtransitio npolic y applie s directl y

t o al l EP A permi t issuanc e procedure s an dals o t o thos e use db y Stat e agencie s issuin g PS D permit s unde r a delegatio no f authorit y agreemen t pursuan t t o 4 0 CF R 52.21(u) . Thi s transitio npolic y doe s no t automaticall y appl y t o PS DP. 4

permi t decision s b

y State s unde r SIP-approve dPS D programs , excep t t o th e exten t tha t environmenta l effect s issue s ar e raise db y commenters . Th e polic y doe s appl y

prospectivel y

i na uniform

fashio nt o al l application s file dafte r Jun e 3 , 1986 . State s wit hSIP-approve dPS D program s are , o f course , responsibl e fo r enunciatin g reasonabl e transitio nscheme s andI as k tha t youencourag e them t o adop t policie s consisten t wit hthi s one . Thes e transitio nschemes , a s wit hth e substantiv e program itself , ar e unlikel y t o requir e rulemaking ; however , th e policie s shoul db e se t fort hi nforma l statement s s o a s t o furthe r th e goal s o f publi c awarenes s an dconsisten t application . Thes e policie s an dthei r implementatio nwil l b e reviewe d withi nth e Nationa l Ai r Audi t System t o asses s th e nee dt o requir e greate r conformance . Require dAnalyse s Th e BAC T requiremen t outline di nsectio n169(3 ) o f th e Ac t contemplate s a decisio nproces s i nwhic hth e bes t availabl e control s ar e define dfo r eac hregulate dpollutan t tha t a PS D sourc e woul demi t i nsignifican t amounts . Thi s case-by-cas e proces s i s t o tak e int o accoun t energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s an

dothe r costs . Th e toxi c effect s o f unregulate dpollutant s ar e t o be accounte dfo r indecidin g i f th e BAC T otherwis e bein g prescribe d fo r regulate dpollutants.stil l represent s th e appropriat e leve l an dtyp e o f control . I f th e reviewin g authorit y judge s th e potentia l environmenta l effect s o f suc hunregulate dpollutant s t o b e o f possibl e concer nt o th e public , the nth e fina l BAC T decisio nfo r regulate dpollutant s shoul dinal l case s addres s thes e effect s an dreflect , a s appropriate , contro l beyondwha t migh t otherwis e hav e bee nchosen . A recen t remanddeterminatio nmad e b y th e Administrato r i nanothe r cas e provide s furthe r elucidatio no f th e BAC T process . Intha t case , Honolul u Program o f Wast e Energ y

Recover y

(H-Power) , PS D Appea l No . 86-6 , Remand Orde r (June 23 , 1987) , th e Administrato r rule dtha t a PS D permittin g authorit y

ha s th e burde no f demonstratin g tha t advers e economi c impact s ar e s o significan t a s t o justif y th e failur e t o requir e th e mos t effectiv e pollutio ncontrol s technologicall y achievabl e a s BACT . Th e broa dmandat e wit hrespec t t o toxic s tha t i s presente db y th e remandi s no t readil y amenabl e t o highl y

detaile dnationa l guidanc e tha t provide s th e appropriat e permittin g requiremen t i neac hcase . Ther e i s n o specifi c formul a fo r makin g BAC T decisions ; thi s i s a case-by-cas e proces s involvin g th e judgmen t o f th e reviewin g authority . Whil e i t ma y b e possibl e t o develo pa framewor k o f guidanc e base dupo nsuc hfactor s a s ris k assessmen t an dreferenc e doses , thi s woul dentai l a larg e effor t tha t seem s inappropriat e a t thi s time . I t i s mor e practical , however , fo r EPA t o develo pguidanc e fo r specifi c sourc e categorie s tha t ar e o f particula r importance . Th e EP A ha s recentl y

provide dsuc hBAC T guidanc e wit hrespec t t o municipa l wast e combustors . Se e memorandu m entitle d"Operationa l Guidanc e onContro l TechTolog y

fo r New

andModifie dMunicipa l Wast e Combustors, " from Geral dA . Emison , Director , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an

dStandards , date d Jun e 26 , 1987 . Guidanc e o nothe r sourc e categorie s ma y b e issue dfro

m tim e t o i:im e a s appropriate .P. 5 p a

Today' s polic y

charge s th e PS D review authorit y

wit hanalyzin g at th e outse t th e environmenta l impact s o f propose dconstructio nproject s wit h respec t t bai r toxic s whic hmigh t b e o f concern , eve n1 f suc hmatter s ar e no t initiall y

raise db

y th e public . Othe r type s o f environmenta l effect s shoul dals o b e addresse dinrespons e t o publi c concerns , withi nth e limit s o f th e abilit y

t o d o so . Fo r PS D review s consisten t wit hthi s policy , eac h applicabl e permittin g authorit y shoul dinitiat e a nevaluatio no f toxi c ai r pollutant s (unregulate da s wel l a s regulated ) whic hth e propose dprojec t woul demi t i namount s potentiall y o f concer nt o th e public . Th e review authority!shoul devaluat e unregulate dpollutant s fo r bot hcarcinogeni c an d noncarcinpgeni c effects . Th e Nationa l Ai r Toxic s Informatio nClearinghous e (NATICH ) dat a bas e contain s considerabl e Informatio nrelevan t t o evaluatin g th e effect , sources , an dcontro l technique s availabl e fo r unregulate d pollutants . I encourag e yo ut o urg e permittin g authoritie s t o us e NATIC H a s a sourjce o f informatio na s they conduc t th e analyses . Furthe r informatio n ma y b e obtaine db

y callin g th e NATIC H staf f a t 629-5519 . i Th e jrespons e t o th e Administrato r mad e b y EP A Regio nI Xi nit s analysi s o f th e Nojrt

hCount y permittin g decisio ni s attached . Althoug hthi s exampl e illustrate s onl y

on e o f severa l acceptabl e approaches , i t 1 s a wel l though t ou t analysi s tha t provide s a usefu l exampl e t o conside r fo r futur e permittin g exercises . Headquarter s ha s severa l othe r mechanism s 1 neffec t t o suppor t analyse s wit hrespec t t o toxics . Thes e includ e a recen t repor t whic hhelp s t o estimat e toxi c ai r emission s fro m variou s source s (Compilin g Ai r Toxic s Emissio nInventories , EPA-450/4-86-010) . Th e burde no f proo f regardin g emission s estimates , o f course , rest s wit hth e applicant , bu t th e technique s discusse di nth e documen t shoul db e usefu l i ndeterminin g i f th e applicant' s estimate s ar e reasonabl e an daddres s appropriat e pollutants . I naddition , th e Offic e o f Researc han dDevelopmen t (ORD ) ha s release da contro l technolog y manua l whic hi s valuabl e i nevaluatin g ho w contro l device s fo r particulat e matte r an

dvolatil e organi c compound s diffe r 1 nthei r abilitie s t o contro l variou s toxi c specie s o f thes e criteri a pollutant s (Contro l Technologie s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutants , EPA-625/6-86/014) . Suppor t wil l als o b e availabl e ona case-by-cas e basis fro m th e Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y

Plannin g andStandard s (OAQPS ) an dORD . I nparticular , w e hav e forme da contro l technolog y cente r t o provid e assistanc e t o th e revie w authorit y

i ndeterminin g BACT . Thi s cente r ca noffe r a rang e o f activities , includin g evaluatio no f sourc e emissions , identificatio no f contro l techniques , developmen t o f contro l cos t estimates , identificatio no f operatio nan d maintenanc e procedures , and , ina fe w situations , in-dept hengineerin g assistanc e onindividua l problems . Othe r planne dactivitie s includ e th e publicatio no f technica l guidanc e t o assis t i nth e evaluatio no f selecte d type s o f sources . Contac t point s fo r th e contro l technolog y cente r ar e Le e Bec k i nOAQP S (629-0800 ) an dSharo nNole ni nOR D (629-7607) . We expec t thi s suppor t t o limi t th e effor t require do f PS D reviewin g authorities .P. 6

Publi c Participatio n On e o f th e mos t importan t feature s o f thi s polic y i s th e requiremen t tha t th e affecte d publi c b e full y informe d o f th e potentia l toxi c emission s from a propose d projec t and o f wha t th e reviewin g authorit y ha s don e t o minimiz e thi s potentia l withi nth e BAC T decision . A specifi c discussio no f toxic s concern s i na technica l suppor t documen t migh t b e helpfu l i naccom plishin g thi s informatio ntransfer . Additiona l concern s relate d t o th e environmenta l effect s o f unregulate d pollutant s raise d b y commenter s mus t the nb e addresse d i nth e fina l BAC T determination . Thi s proces s i s o f : centra l importanc e t o PS D permittin g an d comment s receive d mus t b e adequatel y addresse d i nth e fina l decision . Stron g publi c participatio ni s consisten t wit hth e PS D goal s containe d i nsectio n16 0 o f th e Act , whic hrelat e to j informin g th e publi c o f increase d ai r pollution , includin g tha t du e t o i unregulate d pollutants . !

t I t shoul d b e note d tha t althoughthes e analyse s ar e use d i nth e BAC T decision , the y

wil l no t b e use d a s th e basi s fo r disapprovin g a project ' tha t ha s agree d t o appl y BACT . Inothe r words , today' s polic y require s tha t toxic s b e copsidere d i nth e contro l o f th e propose d projec t onl y t o th e exten t tha t th e leve l o f contro l chose na s BAC T i s achievable . Enforcemen t
I nth e cas e o f delegate d (a s oppose d t o SIP-approved ) PS D programs , EP A ha s variou s enforcemen t tools . Pursuan t t o 4 0 CF R124.19 , an y part y tha t participate d i nth e publi c proceeding s wit hrespec t t o a propose d permi t may , withi n3 0 day s o f th e fina l permi t decision , petitio nth e Administrato r o f EP A t o revie

w an y conditio no f tha t permi t decision. Th e Administrato r may

als o see k t o review an y suc hpermi t conditio nonhi s ow n initiative . Shoul d thi s appeal s procedur e b e unavailabl e i na particula r case , EP A

ha s th e authority , dependin g upo nth e fact s o f th e case , t o withdra w

th e delegatio nwit hrespec t t o a nindividua l permi t tha t i s bein g orha s bee nissue d inconsistentl y wit hth e term s o f tha t delegation . Thus , EP A ma y b e abl e t o directl y interven e i nth e issuanc e o f a PS D permi t t o ensur e implementatio no f today' s policy . Thi s withdrawa l o f delegatio ni s no t th e preferre d cours e o f actio nbu t i t ma y b e availabl e i f needed . Th e consideratio no f ai r toxic s i nPS D permittin g i s a requiremen t o f th e Ac t and , throug hth e definitio no f BACT , i s incorporate d inth e SIP's . Therefore , violatio no f thi s polic y woul d constitut e a SI P violatio nand b e enforceabl e b

y EPA . Sectio n113(a ) o f th e Ac t provide s fo r Federa l issuanc e o f a notic e o f violatio ni nth e cas e o f a violatio no f a SIP . I f th e violatio ncontinue s fo r mor e tha n3 0 days , sectio n113(b ) provide s tha t th e Administrato r shal l commenc e a nactio nfo r injunctio no r civi l penalty , o r both . I naddition , sectio n16 7 o f th e Ac t specificall y provide s tha t EP A tak e lega l actio nt o preven t th e constructio no f a majo r emittin g facilit y tha t doe s no t conform t o th e requirement s o f PSD . Unde r sectio n167 , EPA ca nissu e a

nadministrativ e orde r o r commenc e a civi l action . Sinc e no iP. 7 t

notic e o f violatio nwoul db e necessary , i nthi s case , EP A ca nus e sectio n 16 7 t o orde r immediat e cessatio no f constructio no r operation . Not e als o tha t thi s sectio nha s bee nconstrue da s providin g EPA wit hauthorit y

t o tak e enforcemen t actio nagains t source s ou t o f complianc e wit hPS D eve ni f the y hav e alread y

bee nconstructed . Thes e remedie s ar e mor e likel y t o b e use d i nth e cas e o f SIP-approve dprogram s tha nwit hdelegate dprograms , fo r whic hanappea l unde r 4 0 CF RPar t 12 4 woul d generall y b e th e preferre d cours e o f action . Enforcemen t action s ar e pursue dafte r reviewin g a rang e o f factor s relevan t t o eac hparticula r case . Fo r thi s reason , I a m no t settin g fort h detaile dprovision s a s t o require denforcemen t measures . Ther e are , however , certai nsituation s i nwhic henforcemen t actio ni s generall y appropriate . Thes e includ e procedura l deficiencies , suc ha s failur e t o solici t publi c commen t onai r toxic s issue s fo r applicabl e permits , andfailur e t o addres s th e ai r toxic s concern s raise d b y publi c comment . Enforcemen t wit hrespec t t o permit s already

i nth e pipelin e shoul dfollow th e transitio nschem e i n today' s polic y

fo r delegate d program s an dth e Stat e o r loca l agreemen t establishe dwit hEP A fo r SIP-approve dprograms . Th e Ac t an

dth e PS D regulation s requir e tha t State s submi t a copy o f th e publi c notic e fo r propose dpermit s t o EPA . I urg e th e Regiona l Office s t o ensur e tha t suc hnotice s ar e submitte d an dar e reviewe dfo r conformanc e wit hth e criteri a containe di nthi s document . Althoug henforcemen t mecha nism s ar e availabl e t o addres s noncomplyin g sources , ou r effort s t o implemen t today' s polic y

wil l b e muc hmor e effectiv e i f take nprospectivel y andi n coordinatio nwit hth e Stat e permittin g process . Conclusio n Today' s guidanc e summarize s th e broa drangin g impac t o f th e Jun e 3 , 1986 , reman

d an d provide s some insigh t int o th e analyse s andpubli c disclosur e tha t no

w shoul dtak e place . We wil l continu e t o suppor t an d monito r subsequen t decision s andt o asses s th e nee dfo r mor e detaile do r expansiv e guidance . Question s o ntoday' s nuidanc e shoul d be addresse dt o Michae l Trutn a (629-5345 ) o r Kir t Coxo f OAQP S (629-5399) . Attachmen t

cc : C . Potte r A . Ecker t D . Cla y Regiona l Administrator , Region s I- X Ai r Branc hChiefs , Region s I-XP. 8

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y REGIO N I X 21 5 Fremon t S trea t Sa n Francisco
. C*. 9410 6

MEMORANDU

M

DATE : Augus t15 , 198 6 SUBJECT : Nort h Count y Resourc e Recover y Associate s

PS D
FROM :



### TO : Da$j#£4Pi7^6i^jKWpy~Wre c to r

Ai r Managemen t DiviMon , Regio n9

i Le e M . Thomas: , Administrato r U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y

Thi s i s i

nrespons e to th

e Jun e 3 , 198 6 reman d o f Regio n9' s Apri l 2 , 198 5 determinatio nto issu e a .Prevention o f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD ) permi t t o the Nort h Count y Resourc e Recovery Associate s for th e constructio n o f a 100 0 tonpe r day resourc e recover y facility . The reman d charge d Region9 wit hreconsiderin g the effect s o f unregulate d pollutant s whe nmakin g PS D determinations . Regio n9 ha s reviewe d th e relevan t BAC T decision s an d ha s prepare d a respons e t o th e Administrator' s remand , a s recommende d inth e Jul y 21 , 198 6 guidanc e memo fro m Geral d A . Emison , Director , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an d Standards . Ou r respons e wit hsupportin g material s i s attached . I f yo u have an

y question s regardin g the enclose d material s pleas e contac t m e a t 454-820 1 (FTS ) o r hav e you r staf f contac t Wayn e A . Blackard , Chie f o f ou r Ne w Sourc e Sectio na t 454-824 9 (FTS) .

Enclosure s


# JP. 9



### RESPONS E T O PS D REMAN D NORT H COUNT

YRECYCLIN

G AN D ENERG YRECOVER

YCENTE R (PS D Appea l No . 85-2 )

O nApri l 2 , 198 5 th e Directo r o f th

e Ai r Managemen t Division , EP

A Regio n9 , made a determinatio nto issu

e a Preventio

n o f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD ) permi t to th e Nort hCount

y Resourc e Recover

y Associate s (NfRRA ) fo r th e constructio

nan d operationo f a 3 3 megawatt , 100 0 to nper da

y resourc e recover

y facility . Durin

g th e followin

g appea l perio

d EP A receive

d thre e petition s file d pursuan t to 4 0 CF R124.1 9 requestin

g th e Administrato r t

o revie w Regio n9' s decisio

nt o issue th

e PS D permit . The Offic e o f th e Administrator reviewed th e petitioners ' comment s an

d Regio n9' s response s t

o th e comment s an

d determine

d tha t Regio

n9 ha d satisfactoril y

addressed al l o f th e petitioners ' allegation s withth e exceptio

no f Regio

n9' s assertiontha t EP A lacked th

e authority

t o "consider " pollutant s no t regulate d b y th e Clea nAi r Act whe

nmakin g a PS D determination . Th e Adminis trator fel t tha

t Regio n9* s assertio

nwa s overl y

broa d an d tha t whe nmakin g a PS D determination , i nparticular a bes t availabl e contro l technolog

y (BACT ) decision , a permittin g agency

mus t conside r no t onl y

th e environmenta l impac t o f th e controlle

d regulated pollutant bu t mus t als o conside r th e environmenta l • impact s o f an

y unregulate

d pollutant s tha

t might b

e affecte

d b y th e choic e o f contro l technology . Fo r thi s reaso

nth e Adminis trator remande

d th e PS D determinatio

nt o Regio n9 fo r recon sideratio

nan d actio nconsisten t withth e abov e interpreta tio no f EP A authority . I nrespons e t

o th e above , Regio

n9 ha s reviewed th e BACT decision s made fo

r th e NCRR A PS D permit . Unde r th e PS D regula tion s NCRR

A mus t appl y

BAC T t o contro l emission s o f SO2 , NO x 

### , lead , mercury , an

d fluoride s fro

m thei r propose

d resourc e recover y facility . BACT i s defined i nth e Clea nAi r Ac t a s "...a nemissio

nlimitatio

nbased o

nth e maximu

m degre e of reductio

no f eac

hpollutant subjec t t o regulatio

nunder thi s Act...ona case-by-cas e basis , takin g int o accoun t energy , environmenta l an

d economi c impact s an d othe r costs... " Under environmenta l impact s ou r revie w o f th e origina l BAC T determinatio n included th

e impact s fro

m bot hregulated an d affecte d unregulate d pollutants . Th

e contro l o f particulates , CO , an d VO C emission s ar e no t directl y

subjec t t

o th e federa l PS D BAC T review , bu t ar e subjec t t

o th e nonattainmen t permittin g regulation s whic h ar e administered b y th e Sa nDiego Ai r Pollutio nContro l District . NCRR A i s proposin

g t o us e a dr

y scrubbe r wit ha baghous e t o contro l emission s o f SO2 , aci d gases , an d particulat e matte r fro m th e propose

d resourc e recover y project . Th

e dr y scrubber consist s o f a spra y drye r an

d a baghouse . Th

e spra y dryer inject s anatomize

d lim e slurr y sorbent int o th

e flu e ga s strean . Th

e baghous e remove s th e drie d sorbent an

d flyash(particulat e matter ) fro m th e flu e gas . Th

e dr y scrubbe r wil l b

e designed fo

r a flu e ga s flo

w o f 225,00 0 acf

m at a ninle t temperatur e of

### -2

-

34 0 degree s F an

d a maxiau

a outle t temperatur e o f 26 5 degree s F
. NCRR Aexpect s the dr yscrubbe r systemt o provid e 83 % remova l o f SO2 and 95 % remova l o f aci d gase s as wel l aa 99.5 % remova l o f particulates
. Recen t test s o f emission s contro l device s fo r wast e fire d boiler s (the lates t being th e Quebe c Cit yTes t Program ) hav e show n tha t properl ydesigne d an d operate d contro l device s ca n significantl yreduc e eaission s fro mresourc e recoveryfacilities
. I n particular , a n aci d ga s scrubbing syste m operatin g a t optima l stoichiometri c ratios , a t low temperature , i n tandem wit h a baghouse;ca n achiev e ver yhig h remova l efficiencie s o f particu

lates , S<p2

r HC1 , organics , an d heav ymetals
. Th e test s indicat e tha t theNCRRA' s propose d emissio n contro l system (lim e slurry spraydr^er , baghouse , low temperatur e flu e gas ) i s th e mos t efficien t fo r controllin g th e unregulate d pollutant s fro m a resourcejrecover yfacility
. Whil e certai n technologie s mayhav e th e potentia l fo r greate r remova l o f regulate d pollutant s (e.g
. a we t scrubbe r ma yyiel d greate r SO 2 removal) , availabl e dat a suggest s tha t greate r contro l o f unregulate d pollutant s wil l no t result
. Regio n 9 believe s tha t the NCRRA' s propose d contro l technolog

ywil l have ver

yhig h collectio n efficiencie s o f dioxins , furans , an d heav ymetals , wit h collectio n efficiencie s o f 95 % fo r HC1 , an d greate r tha

n 90 % fo r mercury . We conclud e tha t a lim

e slurryspra

ydrye r wit h a baghous e provide s the greates t degre e o f contro l currentl yachievabl e fo r th e relevan t ai r toxic s concern s an d therefore , emissio n limitation s base d o n th e operatio n o f a lim e slurryspraydrye r wit h a baghous e and continuou s emissio n monitor s constitut e BAC T fo r th e contro l o f SO2 / lead , mercury , an d fluoride s fro

mth e NCRR

Afacility
. In additio n t o th

e propose d aci d ga s BACT , Regio n 9 als o reviewe d the BAC T decision s mad e fo r controllin g NO x

### emission s fro mthe NCRR

Afacility
. NCRR

Aha s propose d t o contro l NO x 

### emission s wit h low exces s ai r an d stage d combustion
. Afte r reviewin g al l o f the availabl e contro l technologies , Regio n 9 believe s tha t the alternat e NO x

### contro l technologie s currentl y.. . availabl e fo r resourc e recover yd o no t offe r anybette r contro l o f th e affecte d pollutant s (organic s suc h a s dioxin s an d furans ) than d o the control s propose d fo r th e NCRR Afacility
. Ou r revie w include d stage d combustion , selectiv e non-catalyti c reduction ; selectiv e catalyti c reduction , we t flu e ga s de

nitrification , an

d th e differen t categorie s o f sourc e separation'
. Ou r revie w als o took int o accoun t th e effect s o f the distric t permi t requirement s designe d t o reduc e organi c toxi c pollutant s (minimu m1800 * F furnac e temperatur e and minimu m 2 secon

d residenc e time in th e combustio n zone)
. W e conclud e tha t an emissio n limitatio n base d o n the us e o f lo w exces s ai r an d stage d combustio n an d wit h continuou s emissio n monitor s i s BAC T (considering th e effec t o f unregulate d pollutants ) a t thi s tim e fo r th e contro l o f N0 X 

### emission s fro mth e NCRR

Afacility
. A s par t o f ou r BAC T revie w o f th e NCRR APS D permit , Regio n 9 prepare d severa l chart s listing the availabl e SO 2 an d NO r 

### contro l option s fo r th e NCRR Afacility , ranke d in orde r o f contro lP.1 1

\ 

### -3 -

effectiveness , witt hth e extimate d impact s o f th e control s o n th e projects ' othe r ai r pollutants
. Th e chart s wer e prepare d usin g dat a froa existin g Regio n 9 PS D permits , permi t applications , distric t permits , emissio n contro l technologyreport s fro mth e Californi a Ai r Resource s Board an d the Ne w Yor k Cit yDepartmen t o f Sanitation , an

d fro mreport s on th

e Quebe c Cit yTes t Program
. Th e impact s o n othe r pollutant s wer e estimate d usin g ou r bes t engineerin g judgemen t base d o n the availabl e data
. W e hav e include d thes e chart s wit h thi s repor t fo r you r review
. Afte r reviewin g th e abov e facts , Regio n 9 ha s conclude d tha t n o greate r control s fo r th e regulate d pollutant s ca n b e applie d tha t woul d b e mor e effectiv e i n reducin g th e emission s \ o f unregulate d pollutants
. Therefore , th e BAC T propose d byNCRR A and th e BAC T decision s mad e b yRegio n 9 i n the Apri l 2 , 198 5 j PS D determinatio n ar e reaffirme d a s BAC T fo r controllin g SO2 , NO x 

### , lead , mercury , an d fluorid e emission s fro mNCRRA' s propose d Nort h Count yRecycling an d EnergyRecover yCenter
. j

:* •p.1

_



### -4 -

REFERENCE S

1 . Ai r Pollutio

nContro l at Resourc e Recover y Facilities , Californi a Ai r Resource s Board , Ma y 24 , 1984 . 2 . Clarke , Marjori e J. , Emissio nContro l Technologie s fo r Resourc e Recovery , Ne w Yor k City Departmen t o f Sanitation , March15 , 1986 . 3 . Hay , D.J. , Finkelsteim , A. , Klicuis , R. , Masentette , L. , "Th e Nationa l Incinerato r Testin g an d Evaluatio

nProgram : A nAssessment o f A ) Two-Stag e IncinerationB ) Pilo t Scal e Emissio

nControl" , Presented a t th e 79thAnnua l Meetin g o f th e Ai r Pollutio

nContro l Association , June 22-27 , 1986 , Minneapolis , Minnesota .ti_oj«cc i nort hCb'u,.L r ___. . EP A (Ranke d i n D e

Contro l Option s

Spra y Dryer , Alkalin e Slurry , Baghous e Spra y Dryer , Lim e Slurry , Baghous e Spr.i y Dryer , Alkalin e Slurry , ESP Dr y Injection , Sodiu m Sorbent , Baghous e Spra y Dryer , Lim e Slurry , EES P Dr y Injection , Lime , Baghous e We tScrubbing , Alkaline .
Dr y Injection , Sodiu m Sorbent , ES

P Dr y Injection , Lime , ES P Regio n 9 - Ne w Sourc e Sectio n BAC T ANALYSIS creasin g Orde ro f

Oontro l Effectiveness )

% Contro l

80-9 5
75-9 0
75-9 0
70-8 5
65-8 5
65-8 0
50-90 +
50-7 5
40-7 0 Emissio n

Rate s lbs/to n (ppm ) U 0.26-1.0 4 (9-35 ) 0.52-1.3 0 (18-44 ) 0.52-1.3 0 (18-44 ) 0.78-1.5 6 (26-53 ) 0.78-1.8 2 (26-62 ) 1.04-1.8 2 (35-62 ) 0.52-2.6 1 (18-88 ) 1.30-2.6 1 (44-88 ) 1.56-3.1 3 (53-106 ) Emission s

(tons/yr )
53-21 2

106-26 5
106-26 5
159-31 8
159-37 1
212-37 1
106-53 0
265-53 0
318-63 6 Heav y

Metal s Ex c
Ex c
goo d
Ex c
Good
Goo d
Poor - - -
Fai r
Fai r Projec tC Projec tT Pollutan t Date tA

ategory tResourc e Recover y ype t111 3 TFD , RDF , 3 6 K W t K b u g 15 , 1$8 6 Projec tEngineer : Bo b Bake r

Contro l Effectivenes s o n Othe rPollutant s Dioxi n Furan s Ex c
Ex c
goo d
Poo r
Goo d

Poo r
—Poo r
Poo r
Poo r HC

1

Ex c
Ex c
Ex c
Ex c
Ex c
Ex c
EX C
Exc
Goo d H

g
Good
Goo d
Fai r
Poo r
Fai r
Poo r
Fai r
Poo r
Poo r Lea d

Ex c
Ex c
Good
Goo d
Good
Good
Fai r
Pai r
Fai r

(1 . Correcte dt o 12 % 002 / 2 4 hou r averag e i * -EP A Regio n9 - Ne w

Sourc e Sectio n BAC T ANALYSI S (Ranke dinDecreasin g Orde r o f Contro l Effectiveness ) Pag e 2

Contro l Option s

Dr y Injection , Limestone , ES P
We tScrubbing , Wate r
Sourc e Separatio n % Contro l

25-4 0

20-3 0
5-1 0

( 1 Correcte d t o 12

% CD 2 , 2

4 hou raverage . Emissio n Rate s lbs/to n (pem ) ( 1 3.13-3.9 1 (106-132 ) 3.65-4.1 7 (124-141 ) 4.69-4.9 5 (159-168 ) Emission s

(tons/yr ) ti.ojecLt_Nort n Cbuit y * -

Projec tULe^ty , ^sourc e RECSS TM Projec tTypet^mrm^^jiF , 3 6 M W Pollutant ! ^5 T - Date : AJJ

Q ls/lSfl£ — Prr\ias*t- rv_^7—__

___ . . - ...__v | XJ

I JLJO O Projec t Engineer t Bo bBake r

Oontro l Effectivenes s o n Othe r Pollutant s Lea 3 TEP ARegio n 9 - Ne w Sourc e Sectio n BAC T ANALYSI

S (Ranke di n Decreasin g Orde r o t Contro l Effectiveness ) Project > Nort h Ooupt y RR F Projec t Category ; Resourc e Recover y Projec t Type : 111 3 1PD , RDF , 3 6 m

tO Y Pollutant : Date : Aug 15 , 198 6 Projec t Engineer : Bo

b Bake r

Contro l Option s % Contro l Emissio n Rate s lbs/to n (ppm ) d Emission s

(tons/yr ) Contro l Effectivenes s o n Othe r Pollutant s Dioxi n Furan s VO

C C

O Heav y Metal s Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n (SCR) < 2 We t Flu e Gas Deqitrif i tio n (FSD J ( 2 ca Selectiv e Non-Catalyti c Reductio n (SNCR

) Lo w Exces s Air/Stage d Oontoustio n Flu e Ga s Recirculatio n
Sourc e Separatio n 90-9 5
80-9 0
30-6 0
30-3 5
10-1 5
Minima l 0.31-0.6 1

(15-30 ) 0.61-1.2 1 (30-60 ) 2.43-4.2 5 (110-200 ) 3.94-4.2 5 (185-200 ) 5.16-5.4 6 (240-260 ) 65-12 9

129-25 8
473-86 0
795-86 0
1032-111 8 Un k

Non e
None
Un k

Worse n
Eai r Poo r

None

._None
Un k
Worse n
Poo r Poo r

Non e
None
Un k
Worse n
Poo r Non e

Poo r
None
Non e
None
Poo r

( 1 Correcte dt o 12

% CO2 , 2

4 hou r average . « ( 2 Thi s contro l technolog y ha s no t ye t bee n applie dt o refus e cocrbustion , an dha s no t bee n considere da s a transferabl e technolog y du e t o a s ye t unresolve dtechnologica l problems

. * *EP ARegio n 9 - Ne w Sourc e Sectio n BAC T ANALYSI S (Ranke d i n Decreasin g Orde r o t Contro l Effectiveness ) Project : Nort h OouQt yRR F / Projec t Category ; Resourc e Recover y\ Projec t Type : 111 3 1PD , RDF , 3 o N W Pollutant : ; NO' y• - m Date : Au g 15 , 198 6 Projec t Engineer : Bo b Bake r

Oontro l Option s % Oontro l Emissio n Rate s lbs/to n (ppm ) d Emission s

(tons/yr ) Contro l Effectivenes s o n Othe r Pollutant s Dioxi n Furan s VO

C C

O Heav y Metal s Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n (SCR

) < 2 We t Flu e Gas Denitrifica

tio n (EGD n) < 2 Selectiv e Non-Catalyti c Reductio n (SNCR

) Lo w Exces s Air/Stage d Combustio n Flu e Gas Recirculatio n
Sourc e Separatio n 90-9 5
80-9 0
30-6 0
30-3 5
10-1 5
Minima l 0.31-0.6 1

(15-30 ) 0.61-1.2 1 (30-60 ) 2.43-4.2 5 (110-200 ) 3.94-4.2 5 (185-200 ) 5.16-5.4 6 (240-260 ) 65-12 9

129-25 8
473-86 0
795-86 0
1032-111 8 Un k

None
None

un k

Worse n
Fai r Poo r

None
None
Un k

Worse n
Poo r Poo r

None
None
Un k

Worse n
Poo r None

Poo r
None
None
None
Poo r

( 1 Correcte dt o 12

% OO2 , 2

4 hou r average . ( 2 Thi s contro l technolog y ha s no t ye t bee n applie dt o refus e combustion , an dha s no t bee n considere da s a transferabl e technolog y du e t o a s ye t unresolve dtechnologica l problems

.