# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 19)11-1-1 1
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/200810:46:18AM Sheet 19of 142 p. 1P. 2

PROPOSE D CAPCC A3AC T AN O LAE H POLIC Y

CAPCO Aendorse s th e concep t o f BAC T an d LAS H and promote s 11 3 continue d comprehensiv e applicatio n t o ne wan d modifie d scurca a In Calfornla
. CAPCO A bei lava s tha t thi s goa l I s ba3 t accomplishe d throug n th e followin g guideline s t o th e extan t allowe d b ydistric t rule s an d regulations
. Additiona l guideline s ma yb e needa d for th e contro l o f toxi c compounds :
1
. A M basi c equipmen t an d contro l alternative s fo r a projec t shoul d b a evaluate d I n anyapp I IcatIo n fo r a n authorit yt o construct
. Application s no t containin g the ful l rang a o f alternative s an d thei r technica l an d economi c feasibilit yma yb e desee d Incomplete , unles s th e mes t desirabl e basi c equipmen t and th e mos t effectiv e contro l ar e evaluate d In the application
. Adistric t ma ychoos e t o perfor m

par t o r al l o f thl 3 evaluatio n o f alternatives
. 2
. Anydistric t guideline s fcr sourc e applicant s c n 3AC T o r LAE H sncul d Includ e performanc e level s equivalen t t o tha mo3 t 3trlngen t contro l fo r a give n categor yo f source . Wher e alternativ e basi c equipmen t exl3t3
. dl3trlct 3 mayspecif yth e lowes t emittin g device s a 3 par t o f th e 3AC T c r LAE H determination
. 3
. 3AC T o r LAS H shoul d b e ac e I le d t o an

yne wo r modifie d equipmen t wner e th e ne wo r mcdlfle c eculcmen t would , b yItself , emi t a pollutan t a t a leva l greate r than emissio n thresholc s fo r triggerin g SAC T c r LAE H requirements
. 3AC T o r LAS H shcul d als o b e applie d wner e th e cumulativ e emissio n increas e frc mth e Initia l sourc e and subsequen t modification s wcul d trigge r SAC T o r LAE H requirements
. 4
. 3AC T o r LAE H decision s sr.cul' d b e base d c n technologica l feasibility
. I f a distric t cheese s t o conside r cos t I n 3AC T o r LAE H decisions , cos t effectivenes s shoul d onl yb e considere d unde r th e followin g conditions :
Th e aggregatio n o f equipmen t considere d I n th a permittin g actio n I s permitte d t o emi t n o greate r tha n th e followin g amounts : 55 0 pound s pe r daycarbo n monoxide ; 15 0 pound s pa r dayfo r particulat e matter ; 8 2 pcund 3 pe r da yfcr PM10 ; an d 2C 0 pound s pe r da yfc r volatil e organi c compounds , or!de 3 o f nitrogen , an d oxide s o f sulfur
. Th e minimu mcos t pe r ten o f emission s controlle d fo r remedia l o r contro l equipmen t shcul d conside r th e highes t cost-per-to n valu e fo r contro l requirement s I n an yregulatio n adopte d fo r th e applicabl e categor yan d siz e o f sourc e b yanylocal , state , o r federa l governmen t authorit yfo r th e pollutan t I n . ques t Ion
.

c . Cos t effectivenes s ma yno t b e considere d In district s whic h experienc e tw o o r mor e ambien t ai r qualit ystandar d violation s o f greate r than 5 0 percen t o f th e applicabl e stat e o r federa l ai r qualit ystandar d withi n th e las t calenda r yea r . prio r t o applicatio n submittal
.P. 3

DRAF T
DESCRIPTIO N

O F TH E CAPCO A

3AC T AN DLAE H POLIC Y
INTHCOUCTION :

Th a CAPCO A

BAC T an dLAE H Polic y wa s develope db y th a CAPCO A Engineerin g Manager s Committe e t o promot e consisten t an dstringen t BAC T an dLAE H determination s amon g th e ai r pollutio ncontro l district s o f California . It wil l b e submitte dt o tha CAPCO A Hoar do f 0lrector 3 fo r endorsement , an dupo naoorova l mad a availabl e fo r us e b y th e districts . Th e Polic y

contain s guideline s fc r addressin g th a responsibilitie s o f th e applican t an ddistric t I nth e evaluatio no f contro l alternatives , specificatio no f 3ACT/LAE H (bot hterm s appea r In th e Policy : mos t districts ' BAC T I s equivalen t t o LASH , whil e a few district s hav e both) , us e o f a "dua l sourc e definition, " an dcriteri a fo r economi c feasibilit y considerations . Th e guideline s ar e no t Intanda dt o preemp t distric t rule 3 andregulations ; however , district s ma y wis ht o amen dthei r rule s an dregulation s t o b e consisten t wit hth a guidelines . I

naddition , thes e guideline s ar e writte nfc r us e I n conventiona l ne w

sourc e revie w

o f criteri a pollutants , an dma y o r ma y ne t appl y

t o ncn-crltarl a o r toxi c ai r pollutants . 0S3CHIPTIC N

C F GUIDELINES : GLi'rfe ' 'r»

* 1 o f th e Polic y

provide s fo r a comprehensiv e evaluatio no f 3ACT/LAE H Ina napplication . It encourage s district s t o requir e tha t applicant s evaluat e I nthei r app l ica t lcr. 3 th e ful l arra y o f potentia l basi c equipmen t an dcontro l alternative s alon g wit hth e propose dequipmen t an dcontrols . Acallcatlcn s submitte dwithou t sufficientl y

complet e array s o f alternativ e basi c equipmen t an dcontro l technologie s shoul db e rejected .

Fo r examole , a napplicatio nfor a dlesel-flre dengin e wit ha n aftercoole r an dIgnitio nretar dcoul dals o Includ e a nevaluatio no f othe r contro l technique s fo r dlesel-flre dengine s a s wel l a s basi c equipmen t alternative s suc has : electri c motor , gas-fire dengine , o r ga s turbin e (dependin g o nth a circumstances) ; an dth e correspondin g arra y o f control s fo r each . Th e distric t ca nthe nevaluat e th e feasibilit y

o f each , th e rational e o f the applicant , an dmafc e a decision . G-

g Malin ; 2 provide s th e district , upo nreceivin g a complet e application , wit hth a abilit y t o choos e a leve l o f contro l consisten t wit hth a cleanes t technology . I t state s tha t an y distric t guideline , eithe r forma l o r Informal , fo r sourc e applicant s o nBACT/LAE H shoul d alon g wit hdescription s o f contro l technique s o r equipment , als o provid e a performance- 1 ev e I fo r eac hsourc e category . Suc hperformance-level s shcul db e a t a minimu m equivalen t t o th e mo3 t stringen t contro l require d for ' a give ncategor y o f source . Dl3trlct 3 ma y therefor e specif y basi c equipmen t a s par t o f th a BACT/LAE H decision , o r tha t th a correspondin g performanc e leve l b e me t b y whateve r equipmen t I s chose nb y th e applleant . 

## 3

../.'-P. 4

Fo r example , a distric t guidelin e may specif y

tha t an

y reciprocatin g engin e mus t mea t a BACT/LAE H requiremen t o f 1. 5 gm/bhp-nr , whic hcorrespond s t o a leve l achievabl e b y a gas-fired , ric hburnengin e wit ha non-selectiv e catalyti c reductio ncatalyst . I nanapplicatio n for anengine , th e applican t 3hcul dprovid e th e array

o f alternative s andho w the equipmen t proposed . If no t ga3-flred , 'wil l mee t th e 1. 5 gm/bhp— h rlevel .

Not e too tha t applicant s shcul dbe mad e awar e tha t BACT/LAE H requirement s may

chang e durin g the procss3lng o f a napplicatio nan

d durin g th

e publi c commen t perio dIf a mor e appropriat e contro l leve l become s ava I table .

Gu i^»Mn » •

? o f th e Polic y

I s Intendedt

o encourag e district s t o evaluat e th

e applicabilit y

o f BACT/LAE H requirement s bot ho na permit-uni t an

d3tatlonary-scurc e basis . I.e. , unde r a "dua l sourc e definition. " Som e districts ' rule 3 a I le w source s t

o sit e large unit s withou t SACT/LAE H contro l technolog y providing th

e applican t simultaneousl y

recuce 3 a simila r amoun t o f emission s fro m existin g permi t unlt 3 withi nth e stationar y

scurc e ("nettin

g cut") . For example , a district' s threshol dfc r triggering 3ACT/LAE H I s 2C 0 lb/day . A

nexistin g stationar y scurc e suomit s a napplicatio nto sit s a ne

w cogeneratio nturbin e wnlc hwil l emi t 23 0 lb/da y o f NO x emlssicn3 . an

dto sr:u

t dow nanexistin g boile r whic hwil l provid e 18 0 lb/da y o f NO xemissio nreductions . The ne t amission s wil l b e 10 0 lb/day . Unde r sem e distric t rule s 3ACT/LAE H I s no t triggere dbecaus e the ne t chang e I s no t ove r the threshol dleve l o f 2C 0 lb/day . Guidelin e 3 . however , promote s tha t the turbin e shcul dtrigge r SACT/LAE H becaus e b y Itsel f I

t woul dbe ove r tha threshol do f 20 0 lb/day . Guidelin e 3 als o encourage s SACT/LAE H requirement s be applie d t o th e Incrementa l growt ho f a stationary scurc e wner e multipl e permittin g ac t len s o f smalle r permi t unlt 3 bring th e scurc e clcs e to th e threshol dlevel s fc r SACT/LAEH . Cnc s th e next mo

dIfIcatIoncause s th e scurc e t

o excee dthreshol demissio nlevel s fo r SACT/LAEH , tha t uni t an d al l new

unit s woul db

e subjec t t o SACT/LAEH . Fc r example , a

nexistin g stationary scurc e ha s ove r th e year s sinc e th

e adoptio no f a dlstrlct' 3 Ne w Scurc e Review

rul e (wit ha BACT/LAE H threshol do f 2C 0 lb/day) , receivedpermit s fo r 6 spray

booths , eac hemittin g 3 0 lb/da y o f H C i

t submit s a

napplicatio nfor a 7t h sora y booth , als o t

o emi t 3 0 lb/day . B y Itself , th

e 7t hsoray

boot h1 3 no t ove r th

e threshol do f 20 0 lb/day . However , collectivel y wit hth

e 7t hbooth , the stationar y sourc e I s ove r th e threshold . Guidelin e 3 woul dpromot e the applicatio no f 3ACT/LAERto th e 7t hboot han

dto an

y futur e modification s whic htalc s the stationary

sourc e ove r th e threshold . GuMeltr * * state s tha t 3ACT/LAE H decision s shoul dbe base do n technica l feasibility . However , I t a 13 0 acknowledge s a consideratio n for cos t an

dprovide s criteri a b y whic hcos t ca

nb e considere dI

na decision .First , I t provide s a ca p o n tha permittin g actio n fo r naw o r ' "^.
. *• modifie d piece s o f equipment , ove r whic h cos t shoul d no t b e con s I dared . Tha ycorrespon d t o mo3 t districts ' threshold s fo r triggerin g offsat s an d th a EP Athreshold s fo r P M an d PM10
. The yare : 55 0 lb/dayfo r CO , 15 0 lb/da yfo r PM , 8 2 lb/dayfo r PM10 , and 20 0 lb/da yfo r NOx , HC , an d SOx
. Sacondly , I t provide s tha t a cas t evaluatio n shoul d constitut e a compariso n t o th a highes t co3t-per-to n (co3t-affeetIveness ) valu e fo r an yregulatio n adopte d fo r th a applicabl e category , sirs , an d pollutan t source . Thirdly , I t exclude s cos t consideratio n for thos e district s whic h ar e unde r a mor e sever e ai r qualit y3ltuatlcn
. Th e 3tatu 3 I s determine d b

ywhethe r ambien t ai r qualit ystandar d violation s experience d b

ya distric t durin g th e las t calenda r yea r ar e greate r tha n SO S over , eithe r a 3tat e o r federa l standard
. Fo r ozone , th e threshol d concentratio n I s 13. 5 pphmwhic h l 3 5G S ove r the stat e oxidan t AAG S o f 9 pphm
. Therefore , district s experiencin g ozon e concentration s ove r 13. 5 pph m3hcul d no t us e co3 t consideration s I n makin g 3ACT/LAE H decision s fo r H C o r NO x sources .

A n examol e I s wher e a n applican t propose s t o sit e tw o 2 5 MWBtu/h r gas-fire d boiler s t o b e ccerate d les s than 36 5 days/yea r an d les s tha n 2- * hrs/da yI n a distric t wit h a 3ACT/LAE H thresncl d o f 15 0 lb/day
. Eac h 1 3 expecte d t o emi t uncontrolle d 3- Alb/ca yo f NCx
. totallin g 13 3 lb/day
. 3ACT/LAS H I s triggere d for the two units
. Collectivel ythe yar e belc wth e 2C 0 lb/da yca p specifie d In Guidelin e 4
. Also , th e district' s hlgne3 t ozon e violatio n I n the las t calenda r yea r 1 3 1 3 ppnm

(belc wth e 13. 5 pph mca p als o provide d fc r I n Guidelin e 4)
. Therefor e a cos t analysi s ma yb e considered
. T o simplif yth e examole , assum e th e followin g contro l technique s wil l b e evaluated
. I n descendin g effectiveness : SC R (a t 80 % control)
. FG H (a t 60 S control) , an d lo-No x burner s (a t 5C % control) , al l wit h combustio n modifications
.

Fo r comoustlc n sources , the highes t cost-effectivenes s fo r a regulatio n adopte d b ya distric t I s s3.CC0/!c n o f NC x controlle d (th e SCACW D I s conslCerin g a regulatio n wit h a cost-effectivenes s o f S20,0C0/tc n o f NO x controlled)
. Th e rough estimate d cos t unde r th e condition s specifie d fo r th e bolter s fo r the SCR I s siS.CCO/tc n controlled , fo r th e FGH s3,0C0/tc n controlled , an d th e lo^-NC

x burner s S4.000/tc n controlled
. Therefore , the distric t coul d maJce a determinatio n o f FGH a s BACT/LAE H fo r thi s situation
.

Not e tha t fo r district s whic h ar e experiencin g violation s greate r tha n 5C S o f th e standard s woul d no t g o through thi s typ e o f a cos t analy3l 3 In determinin g BACT/LAEH
. 

# W P. 5



# // - fe