p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1787 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 22 ) ll-B- 7 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

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

Sheet 22 of 147P. 2

it.'. . 

# «'••" *. rt--?o.-37

.*--'> s '--.- , /***- , .1.; « UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y £AA'/x d /

WASHINGTON
. D.C
. 2046 0



# JA N 

# 4 197

3 OFFIC E O F

AI R AN O WAST E MANAGEMEN T 

### SUBJECT : Guidanc e fo r Determinin g BAC T Unde r PS D FROM : Davi dG . Hawkins , Assistan t Administrato r

fo r Air , Noise , an

dRadiatio n TO : Regiona l Administrators , I- X 

# >£-

. f 

### Th e 197 7 Clea nAi r Ac t amendment s pertainin g t o th e Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD ) requir e tha t th e determinatio no f bes t availabl e contro l technology (BACT ) be performe dona case-by-cas e basi s considerin g energy , environmental , an deconomi c impact s an dothe r costs . Th e enclose ddocumen t provide s guidanc e t o assis t yo ui ndeterminin g BAC T i nth e PS Dreview . Thi s documen t ha s bee ncirculate di ndraf t for m an dreviewe db

y you r staff . Th e purpos e o f th e guidelin e i s t o provid e th e framewor kfo r a consisten t approac hi ndeterminin g BACT . Th e guidanc e i s rathe r general , focusin g onthe parameter s whic hshoul db e considere di nthe analysi s supportin g th e propose dcontro l system . Unfortunately , n o specifi c criteri a ca nbe develope da priori , no r ca nquantitativ e factor s relatin g t o th e weightin g an

devaluatio no f energy , environmental , an deconomi c consideratio nbe prescribed . However , consideratio no f th e same se t o i parameter s shoul dcontribut e t o mor e consisten t decision s amon g th e Regions . I recogniz e tha t th e case-by-cas e BAC T determinatio ni s a difficul t tas kan don e whic hma y

be resourc e intensive . T o minimiz e th e resourc e requirements , the primar y responsiblit y

fo r defendin g the propose dcon tro l system

mus t be place donth e .source . Th e guideline s sugges t a significan t effor t b y th e sourc e t o provid e dat a an danalysi s t o suppor t a permi t application . M y offic e wil l continu e t o provid e assistanc e fo r th e engineerin g aspect s o f contro l technology selectio nthroug hoperatio n o f the OAQP S ne

w sourc e review

clearinghouse . Enclosur e cc : Assistan t Administrator s an dOffic e Director s Director , Ai r an

dHazardou s Material s Division , Region s I- X Director , Facilitie s Technology Division , Regio nI I Director , Enforcemen t Division , Region s I-X B? J. i• • ! ; ; l 

# 2 5 *• • - \ c J - it.; .P. 3

V GUIDELINE S FO RDETERMININ G BES T AVAILABL E CONTRO L TECHNOLOG Y(BACT )

DECEMBE R197 8

Offic e of'Afr,"Noise , andRadiatio n Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin qandStandard s U . S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc yJli : v

• .• : * " '

'•/•> . • *

;-.:•. , 

### GUIDELINE S FO R DETERMININ GBES T AVAILABL E CONTRO L TECHNOLOG Y(BACT ) < \ ; - ,» , •



## i

•$£• 

# m _>*ij i 

### INTRODUCTIO N

T h e 197 7 Clea nAi r Ac t Amendment s establis hmor e restrictiv e 

## i * condition s fo r th e approva l o f pre-constructio npermi t application s unde r t h e Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD ) program . On e o f th e .'.tip: • M ne

w requirement s i s fo r bes t availabl e contro l technology (BACT ) t o be % * ; 

### -% installe dfo r al l pollutant s regulate dunde r th e Act . Unde r th e revise d •J?%: Act , BAC T i s t o b e determine do na case-by-cas e basi s rathe r tha nauto - • -V- ' 

### ..;/ | maticall y applyin ga napplicabl e Federa l Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standar d .£i | (NSPS) , a s wa s th e cas e unde r th e previou s regulation . Concer nha s bee n

• :& & •3-Ti 

### v* ^ expresse dtha t thes e determination s shoul db e consisten t fro m are at o " # area . I nth e contex t o f case-by-cas e BACT , consistenc y doe s no t ne 

# I t

- ^ cessaril y mea ntha t a ne w

facilit y i non e are awil l hav e a nidentica l J% emissio nlimi t a s th e sam e typ e o f facilit y i nanothe r area . Consis -
•''•9, " 

### S<. tenc y

mean s tha t a consisten t approac hi s use di ndeterminin gBAC T an d ^ tha t th e impact s o f alternativ e emissio ncontro l system s ar e measure db y '•'"•*'•? • 

### •f$ th e sam e se t o f parameters , althoug hevaluatio no f specifi c parameter s .*:€ i s don e o na case-by-cas e basis . : 

### % PURPOS E -f ; Thi s guidelin e i s intende dfo r us e b y (1 ) EP A Regiona l Office s i n -'-' • determinin gBAC T durin gth e interi m perio dbefor e th e State s adop t

• w *Pollutant s subjec t t o Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standards , Standard s o f Performanc e fo r Ne w Stationar y

Sources , Nationa l Emissio nStandard s f o r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutants , an dEmissio nStandard s fo r Movin gSources .

•¥V*'-<CT*r>~*..**'"-'f'-**"?i*-"^=fcV"***^ ^ *•'-£*'• •::?yrr_ Jswsr;^-^'-'"--;:•••••( ••[•-••r-vivi-*-•••*• •:••.:-••:. •;-.-r'-v.^'^ i :* A ;;;*^^Y^. : *s^^W''*" r -i ; .v ' ••<'• •<•**.••*•-•'-/

• "*".* . -.*• • -v~" . •••'-• • : - - ••- ; . ; •• •1 . •- •• •* - ••..'-.. . '.'.- . - . •:.- • • r.L*.:-.:-

... . •••.. . . •.•... •••;• •,-...•. . '^-3__'^!« y " •* '. , ..'. ' ; : ' isLH JiiP. 5

' , i ,

u *•*. . '•JiU

• «| * *'.* # *,"V" " -*?>S 

# m

%M -.w /.V*- * •- ^ 

### 2

Stat e Implementatio nPlan(SIP ) provision s fo r implementin gthe PS D program , (2 ) b

y State s inwritin gPS Dregulation s o r determinin gBAC T an d(3 ) b y individua l source s i npreparin gPS Dpermi t applications . Th e purpos e o f th e guidelin e i s t o provid e th e framewor kfo r a con sisten t approac ht o determinin gBACT . Th e emphasi s i s o nth e type s o f dat a whic hshoul db e require dina pre-constructio npermi t applica tio nandhow

th e dat a shoul dbe use di norde r t o determin e BACT . Th e guidelin e addresse s th e technologica l questio no f whethe r the emissio n ••/•*». • •-*$ • 

### i^: : contro l system propose dinth e permi t applicatio nrepresent s BAC T o r
•**:>r ' *V"2
- 

### v j whethe r a mor e stringen t leve l o f emission<«contro l i s appropriat e 3 | considerin gavailabl e technology an deconomic , energy , an denvironmen ta i impacts . Th e guidelin e assume s accomplishmen t o f al l othe r ai r qualit y review requirement s including , fo r example , th e requiremen t tha t ai r qualit y

standard s an

dappropriat e PS Dincrement s ar e met , 3 | stac kheight s ar e appropriate , an dsitin gi s acceptable . .o pInaccomplishin gthi s purpose , th e guidelin e list s a numbe r o f ;* j factor s whic hca nbe considere dinassessin genergy , environmental , an d economi c impacts . Whil e the ful l lis t represent s th e magnitud e o f the analysi s tha t coul dbe require dfo r a ver y larg e andcomple xsource , many | $ o f thes e factor s wil l no t be relevan t t o the typica l BAC T review . Th e

inclusio no f an

y facto r shoul db

e base donit s relativ e meri t consid erin gsuc hinfluence s a s sourc e size , natur e o f th e proces s an dcontro l options , an

dloca l conditions . I t i s the clea r inten t o f EP A no t to requir e a

nanalysi s o f th

e ful l proportio ndescribe dherei nfo r smal l source s o r fo r the us e o f conventiona l contro l equipmen t whos e impact s 

# 1P. 6

< J ,

->.•••.£• < } 4 » « '.r^r. -•? & .• ' . V. * •j&• •'.'.'iSs . *

' .***;:* .

• • ^ 

## -3$ 

## . 

## J S '•. •vS t Jrfli s / 3i*'i £ ":&* ? 

# m
"ii'-w f -.-V- * -•rt £ •;£ &
• » *5"< a ** & 

# ;* i -.•**• &

•.**• & 

### •$ 3

••••V-w *

•;•••-* & 

# 3

« ar e wel l established . Inshort , th e BAC T analysi s shoul db e hel dt o a

minimum wit hth e dept ho f analysi s bein g dependen t onth e difficult y o f th e decision . PHILOSOPH YO F BAC T Th e primar y

purpos e o f BAC T i s t o optimiz e consumptio no f PS Dai r qualit y increment s thereb y enlargin g th e potentia l fo r futur e economi c growt hwithou t significantl y degradin g ai r quality . Th e Ac t place s th e responsibilit y

o f determinin g BAC T wit hth e Stat e onc e a PS DSI P revisio n i s approved . Th e BAC T decisio ni s t o tak e int o accoun t energy , environ mental , an deconomi c impact s an dothe r cost s associate dwit happlicatio n o f alternativ e contro l systems . Thi s case-by-cas e approac hallow s adoptio no f improvement s i nemissio ncontro l technolog y t o becom e widesprea d mor e rapidl y

tha nwoul doccu r throug hth e unifor m Federa l ne w

sourc e o r hazardou s emissio nstandards . I nsettin g th e NSPS , fo r example , emissio n limit s ar e selecte dwhic hca nreasonabl y be me t b

y al l new

o r modifie d source s i na nindustria l category , eve nthoug hsome individua l source s ar e capabl e o f lowe r emissions . Additionally , becaus e o f resourc e limitation s i nEPA , revisio no f ne w sourc e standard s mus t la g somewha t behindth e evolutio no f new o r improve dtechnology . Accordingly , new o r modifie dfacilitie s i nsome sourc e categorie s ma y b e capabl e o f achievin g lowe r emissio nlevel s tha t NSP S withou t substantia l economi c impacts . Th e case-by-cas e BAC T approac hprovide s a mechanis m fo r determinin g an d applyin g th e bes t technolog y i neac hindividua l situation . Hence , NSP S an dNESHAP S ar e Federa l guideline s fo r BAC T determination s andestablis h minimum acceptabl e contro l requirement s fo r a BAC T determination .



## •'-: 

## ii§

W , *-"tt**?^^?* < - t W '•••;• •,-••••.- . .'-l.- . •.,,•••»-, " . • '-LJ. . - -,.•••-• •- •••-• •. .-••••— \s-J~J__-y'_:._
. .r_ ^ .:••* . • --'lY*-,-:- ? -J ...... . f."-.^.- - • • - -„j,^,., i ^.V',,iJ*'.-«: M - , ,__.__,-_i_M^\, 'i.'Xg W r * * '* - '-•" ' •--*•--•--*••-'••-—• •--••• »
' . ..-•••••••.. ••-•• ••••*•• ••: r-*r?^3..
. . . * , - •••.•••*•*•'* • V..- JP. 7

i f

*£ •:\ * ' • ' 4 

### ? * \ Wher e Federa l standard s d o no t exist , guidanc e o n well-controlle dsource s £ ' . i s availabl e throug hth e OAQP S clearinghous e (discusse dlater) .

Acritica l decisio ni n th e BAC T analysi s i s th e relativ e weigh t ••£. ' assigne dt o th e energy , environmental , and economi c impacts . Congres s {%; . '.. implie dtha t thi s decisio nshoul d b e mad e b yth e State , thu s allowin g '-<ri ••+..-. 

### -j l j som e flexibilit yi n emissio ncontro l requirement s dependin g o n loca l 'm energy , environmental , an deconomi c condition s an dloca l preferences . : 

### j f Fo r example , i n a n are a wit hunusuall yhig hunemployment , th e economi c 

# § 1 j, * impact s ma yb e weighte dmor e heavil yi f th e applicatio no f a stric t BAC T ••%emissio nrequiremen t woul dreduc e productio no r jobs . O n th e othe r 'K- hand , i f visibilit yprotectio ni s a majo r valu e o f th e area , the n •fjj: environmenta l impact s coul db e Weighte dmor e heavily . Thi s flexibl e
^ 5 approac hallow s th e permittin g authorit yt o conside r a numbe r o f loca l £< f factor s (fo r exampl e th e siz e o f th e plant , th e amoun t o f th e ai r

qualit yincremen t tha t woul db e consumed , an d desire deconomi c growt h •3 § i n th e area ) i n decidin g o n a weightin g scheme . Stat e judgmen t an d :li th e Federa l emissio nstandard s ar e th e foundation s fo r th e BAC T deter
- . W- 5 mination . Accordingly , EP Adoe s no t conside r i t appropriat e t o assig n •JS ? •,?l nationall yapplicabl e weightin g factor s i n thi s guideline . : U GENERA LGUIDELINE S

. v 

### > Th e recommende dapproac ht o determinin g BAC T i s t o plac e o n th e 4 applican t th e responsibilit yfo r presentin g an d defendin g th e technolog y : i selection. * Thi s approac hrecognize s tha t th e applican t i s bes t ,".. - suite dfo r assessin g th e costs , environmenta l residuals , an d energ y

•Preliminar ymeeting s betwee nth e applican t an d th e permittin g authorit y ar e encourage da s a mean s o f promotin g efficienc yi n th e revie wprocess .

•\«v^:7yvfE-A*' * .•* ••-*•— * 7 - •<Vt7^ r "i , ^--;«.v . .•••••J*^'-- -

* -''-..! ' ?-^ - i v : •.•-•9 - ~i

• .*• " • . -.-\--u-
. .":-- " :.: > •I??*.-!**-, 3 y 3 •_::- '•"'. - •••• •-•-•—- . ••'. " •.•**' " •""*.••• ••:•.">;• . .. . .'*. . '*?'Z,y.<

' • " .'«,- • ... .L

,V.«r-. - , - l_PJ _ 

### jf. '• . 5 „ r y ." * penaltie s associate dwit halternativ e contro l option s a s the y appl y "4? | » • t o hi s processes . Th e permi t applicatio nshould , contai nth e followin g : 

### '&- element s relativ e t o BACT : •JJy:- * 

### H;|- ; * . (1 ) Proposa l o f a contro l syste m representin gBACT . 3AC T shoul d

••'-'*'•'< • * p |
_ - addres s contro l o feac h emissio n poin t a t a facility , includin g fugi - '$&• » 

### : H | . tiv e process , fugitiv e dust , an dstac kemissions . Technolog y selectio n / shoul dconside r applicatio no f flu e ga s treatment , fue l treatment , an d

processe s o r technique s whic har e inherentl y low-polluting . I nn o circumstanc e shoul da syste m b e propose dfo r an y

emissio npoin t unles s i t i s a t leas t a s stringen t a s th e applicabl e SI P o r Federa l emissio n requiremen t (whicheve r i s mor e stringent) . I ncase s wher e technolog W ica l o r economi c limitation s on*th e applicatio no f measuremen t technique s

woul dmak e th e impositio no f a nemissio nstandar dinfeasible , a design , operating , o r equipmen t standar dma y b e established . (2 ) Presentatio no f alternativ e system s tha t coul dachiev e a || | highe r degre e o f emissio ncontrol . Fo r eac hpollutant , th e BAC T permi t - •; ' •••j*-* /

-.-i**,* ?

••ffS3r . T""i<*-« - 

### 'vp £ applicatio nshoul dpresen t contro l alternative s whic hhav e greate rcontro l •" s 

### " ' capabilitie s tha nth e syste m propose da s BAC T an dwhic hhav e bee nuse do r Vn.f i 'Cr_t

•ViStS? *3

- *y*9.-
yfiiJk .:y_k 

### propose dfo r th e sam e o r simila r applications . I nsom e cases , th e BAC T Jy-j j decisio nma y requir e a trade-of f o f contro l amon gpollutants . Tha t is , •j&£; a technolog y ma y d oslightl y

wors e i ncontrollin gon e pollutant , bu t d o Cj ? significantl y bette ri ncontrollin ganothe rair , water , o r soli dwast e .•ai** , 

### '%. residual . Suc halternative s shoul dno t b e exclude dfro m consideration , b u t i njustifyin g3AC T fo r a give npollutan t onl y thos e alternative s whic hhav e greate rcontro l capabilitie s fo r tha t pollutan t nee dbe presente di nth e permi t application .

IN**8!5i9!ttt(-**S®S8S

W ••*•*"---;-*• • •••.'-•• • - ^ ••-••-•:-.-•** . '..-!.- . •• • -**•- • •••>*-•••*••,•.—ii u*-*•• - ,.",-'- . *,-*..*-~V : •;; • •-}tvt . y-y.- y -"i- ' - ; -,-•••• - ?•_.- , - . '.•••J. . .^,.'" « • A ,P. 9

-•'•IK ' .'•£??• •V'r'ii

rir&r v?s.**, v



# ' W

-"Wiit . :•_*•'£!-

--V*** * -**j£3£ v *f->--.*>"
- «
•*«5fe 3 

## '#* f

• * -"TR.- M


# Wi I f n o bette r contro l technolog yi s availabl e fo r a n emissio n point ,

the n suc hfindin g shoul d b e state d an d supported , and n o furthe r analysi s i s required . Othe r equipmen t wit hsimila r contro l capabilitie s nee d no t b e presente d (e.g. , a baghous e versu s a n equivalen t ES P at- a particulat e emitter) . Unrealisti c alternative s nee d no t b e presente d suc ha s placin g i n serie s contro l equipmen t whic hi s normall yuse d alon e (e.g. , a n ES P followe d bya baghouse) . I n som e cases , a bette r contro l technolog yma y b e availabl e fo r a genera l typ e o f operation , bu t uniqu e processin g equipmen t o r procedure s ma ycreat e a vali d technica l reaso n whic hwoul d preclud e it s selectio n a s BACT . Suc hsituation s shoul d b e full ysupported . (3 ) Defens e o f th e BAC T selection . Th e BAC T selectio n fo r a parti
cula r pollutan t i s defende d b ydemonstratin g tha t eac halternativ e contro l syste m(representin g a mor e stringen t leve l o f contro l fo r tha t pollutant) , woul d caus e unreasonabl yadvers e energy , environmental , o r economi c impacts . Th e rational e fo r rejectin g eac halternativ e shoul d b e presente d i n th e for mo f a n incrementa l analysi s o f th e impact s o f eac halternativ e syste mrelativ e t o th e propose d BAC T system . Relevan t energy , environmenta l an d economi c impact s ar e describe d below . IMPAC T ANALYSI S Thi s sectio n outline s th e type s o f impact s tha t shoul d b e recognize d byth e permittin g authorit ya s relevan t issue s i n assessin g th e energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s o f alternativ e contro l systems . Fo r instance , i f a n applican t wishe s t o rejec t a n alternativ e contro l system , h e woul d d o s o b

ydemonstratin g th e advers e impact s whic hv/ould resul t fro mth e selectio n o f tha t alternativ e system . Thi s sectio n list s

_.~^___**•^.^__.*&ysf&?*i --:- , -*-> • ?.%i$z$&^•'•^•f^^'T^'-^^CP.1 0

••y3 . ; 7 '.->3jj : '' , specifi cenergy , environmental , an d economi cimpact s whic h ma ybe addresse d

- ..*-*< » 

### v^ j . % 

### i nthi s impac t analysi s an dexplain s th e dat a requirement s fo r documentin g >|£ ' , a nadvers e impact . Eac ho f th e factor s discusse dbelo w nee dno t b e addresse di newery

permi t application . Rathe r thi s guidelin e present s a se t o f potentia l impact s an y numbe r o f whic hma y

b e addresse di na •:'••-'"'<• " *-.?>*' , •A^l** . 

### $0% t 

### permi t applicatio ndependin go nth e individua l situation . Fo r example , ••i n • * 

### 'Msk f 

### eve nthoug ha contro l syste m ma y produc e soli dwast e by-products , suc h %j& impact s nee dno t b e presente di nth e PS Dpermi t applicatio nunles s th e

applican t wishe s t o us e soli dwast e impac t a s a nargumen t agains t selectio n .$! £ o f a particula r contro l alternativ e a s BACT .

I ngeneral , th e BAC T analysi s shoul dfocu s o nth e direc t (on-site ) % § impact s o f alternative contro l systems . Indirec t energ y or environmenta l -ili>- 

### *S* a impact s ar e no t require dbu t ma y b e considere dwher e suc himpact s ar e foun d ••-••-&$• •

-*fFtr.

•i.<1 

### jl-s pt o b e significan t an dwel l quantified . Indirec t energ y impact s includ e j§?§ suc himpact s a s energ y t o produc e ra w

material s fo r constructio no f ^ss * . contro l equipment , increase dus e o f foreig noil , o r increase doi l us e i n 

# ;ft * 

# " fW th e utilit y grid . Indirec t environmenta l impact s includ e suc hconsider - 

# M J0%ation s as pollutio n a t a n off-sit e manufacturin g facilit ywhic h produce s *•*• $material s neede d t o construc t o roperat e a propose d contro l system .

- . •*j-.r f 

### jm ••w

: ?J': :i*& $

•- . / ...' •

•'Si"* Indirec t impact s wil l generall yno t be considere d i n th e BAC Trevie w sinc e th e complexit yo fconsumptio n pattern s i n th e economymakes thos e impact s difficul t t o quantify
. Fo rexample , sinc e manufacturer s purchas e capita l equipmen t an d supplie s fro m manysuppliers , wh o i n tur n purchas e good s fro m th e othe rsuppliers , accurat e tracin g o findirec t impact s ma yno t

••'V^.?5^~*!»*-^VJ-*-*^*.*v.* ^

'''" ' •"""*•' • * • '•''- • ..-'< • * ' ' *"•••.• • *•••*'••' • • * ' -' : ' - •••••.*•'•.-•..*.'•.••**?'i-'.-'-l':."-'..'- ' • ' -!x. •-.*••::->: .'- *

### 8 p. n

* -.'.9 .

..-•> • w•
.y.t.,-4- 

# 1 1

rftPi.

* aSfe :

^ b e possible . Ra w material s ma y

b e neede dt o operat e contro l equipment , andsupplier s o f thes e resource s ma y chang e ove r time . Similarly , i t generall y

wil l no t be possibl e to determin e specifi c powe r station s and fue l source s whic hwoul dbe use dt o satisf y electrica l deman dove r th e lifetim e o f a contro l device . Duplicativ e analyse s wil l no t b e require di npreparin g th e 8AC T permi t application . An y studie s previousl y performe dfo r Environmenta l Impac t Statements , wate r pollutio npermits , Stat e Ne w Sourc e Review , o r othe r program s ma y

b e use dwhe nappropriat e t o demonstrat e anadvers e energy , environmental , o r economi c impaet . Thes e guideline s ar e applicabl e t o bot hne w an dmodifie dsources . Wher e appropriate , however , th e revie w ma y conside r any

specia l economi c o r physica l constraint s whic hmigh t limi t th e applicatio no f certai ncontro l technique s t o a modificatio nproject . Tha t is , the leve l o f contro l require dfo r a proces s undergoin g modificatio no r reconstructio n ma y no t b e a s stringen t a s tha t whic hwoul db e require di f th e same pro ces s wer e bein g constructe da t a grass-root s facility . Suc hfindings , however , mus t be mad e o na case-by-cas e basi s b y th e permittin g authorit y considerin g th e relevan t economi c andenvironmenta l impacts . Th e followin g discussion , unde r eac ho f thre e heading s o f energy , environmental , andeconomi c impacts , list s an dbriefl y describe s a numbe r o f factor s whic hma y be addresse dinth e respectiv e impac t analyses . Thes e factor s ar e guideline s onl y an dar e no t intende da s anexclusiv e lis t o f consideration s fo r 8ACT . Some o f thes e factors ma y no t be appropriat e



## mm
•-.V V .*'-.'-:.•>•- * ty.rV$*"J'-"V.---rv-- ' "£*&: "•• • -•".«- ,P.1 2


# m

•-^--•.* . *V*fi* '

i'V"-* ;

•r-rS-^i '2%*>1 -3S»
-

•••"•A j v* 3

.Z.-% i nal l cases , while , i n othe r instances , factor s whic har e no t include d

her e ma yb e relevan t t o th e BAC T determination . Th e guidelin e doe s no t addres s th e evaluatio no f eac hfacto r no r th e weightin g o f an yfacto r relativ e t o another . Suc hdetermination s shoul db e mad e o n a case-by
cas e basi s b yth e permittin g authority . Fo r purpose s o f thi s discussion , term s suc ha s "emissio ncontro l system " o r "BAC T system " refe r t o design , equipment , o r operatin g standard s an d non-pollutin g processe s a s wel l a s flu e ga s contro l equipment . I . Energ yImpac t Energ yimpact s shoul daddres s energ yus e associate dwit ha contro l syste man d th e direc t effect s o f suc henerg yus e o n th e facilit yan d th e community . A s note dearlier , indirec t energ yimpact s (suc ha s energ yt o produc e ra wmaterial s fo r constructio no f contro l equipment ) ar e no t require dbu t ma yb e considere di f th e permittin g authorit ydetermines , base d o na showin g b yth e applicant , tha t th e impac t i s significan t an d tha t t h e impac t ca n b e wel l quantified . Som e specifi c consideration s fo r energ yimpact s ar e presente dbelow . A . Energ yConsumptio n Th e amount , typ e (e.g. , electric , coal , natura l gas) , an d sourc e o f energ yrequire db yeac halternativ e emissio ncontro l syste mshoul d b e identifie dan d compare dt o th e quantitie s an d type s o f energ yre quire db yth e propose dBAC T system . I n analyzin g fo r energ yconsumption , variou s alternative s ca n b e compare di n term s o f a ) energ yconsumptio n pe r uni t o f pollutio nremove d(fo r example , Btu/to nhydrocarbo nremoved )

.-'- : '•* * ~~Ji 3®

'?2S!S?^'! B ?-*^-$^ ^ " *

••; . • *••-- • '•*><••" * yy- '?-•'*•.'!?*»'*;'..>*• . • -•:*- ' •>*'^> : -;-- ; - , J : J -':. - • -y_..y : ..,•.:•.-•-•*•-••••-• • :..' • -••*».•••• • • ..•.. ; -- \ •••.., :

••••--*••• • .; • ••••• - • "H r , • ^— .

_; : . .••••••.-. . - • . 3-^r,^__i— ; ••-^--•r.-—- i"«* » •'.-? % &->_ 

# M


# m
'"*-£•*. ' •.-•**i*:' : 

# m -'•'if ) "•2 3 

# m / # .-.i*'*" >

.-.*v « '"'-".? •
•••- ' '••i i ' i''. '

. . '.iv ' 1 0

an d b ) energ yconsumptio n versu s th e portio n o fth e remainin g PS D incremen t whic h i s preserve d fo rfutur e growth . I fsuc h comparison s ar e made , the yshoul d be compute d o n bot h a n overal l an d a n incrementa l basi s B . Impac t o n Scarc e Fuel s Th e typ e an d amoun t o f scarc e fuel s (e.g. , natura l gas , distillat e oil ) whic har e require d t o compl ywit heac halternativ e contro l require
men t shoul d b e identifie d an d compare d wit hth e 8AC T requirement . Th e designatio n o f a scarc e fue l ma yvar yfro mare a t o area , bu t i n genera l a scarc e fue l i s on e whic hi s i n shor t suppl ylocall yan d ca n bette r b e use d fo r alternativ e purposes , o r on e whic hma yno t b e reasonabl y

.«*•• • availabl e t o th e sourc e eithe r a t presen t o r i n th e future . C . Impac t o n Locall yAvailabl e Coa l Alternative s whic hrequir e th e us e o f a fue l othe r tha n locall yo r regionall yavailabl e coa l shoul d b e discourage d i f suc ha requiremen t cause s significan t loca l economi c disruptio n o r unemployment . D . Energ yProductio n Impact s (electri c utilities ) Th e 197 7 Ac t Amendment s impose d mor e stringen t BAC T requirements , whic hma yaffec t electri c utilit yunit s tha t wer e wel l alon g i n th e plannin g proces s prio r t o adoptio n o f EP Aregulation s i n Jun e 1973 . Wher e th e start-u p o f th e mor e stringen t PS D progra mwoul d resul t i n constructio n delay s fo r thes e units , th e BAC T determinatio n ma yconside r suc himpacts . Th e impac t o f dela yplan t operatio n shoul d b e assesse d i n term s o f reserv e capacities , syste mreliability , an d additiona l cost s implie d b

ysuc hdelays .

•* • *'tV^^r*? * ft, 1 "*"*- - - .^'^\-! . • •. • • '•' , "* ? . *."*-

v • -'.- . "•.-—-.,'.•.'•*•* • ••.''.-.--V . •-;- * - ; •'.'•' • - ^ •'. * 5 *''"•." . •'•»'; — '. - ".'•!.'- . '• " •*..: - ." . , ' -''"*-. . •','•.••''''"- . -* . . ' '•' ' '•'['' ( - • '\'.v---->^.-r f f< ri'*''t:x ^^ s '•* ?P.1 4
1 1 I I . Environmenta l Inmac t 

# i i 'V:'»

• * - • *.< • ••-'.• « • • ..•:*.• . a

. , '-"/i t

'•"-fi *

.v*3 f ••*r *

••',-C &

ii** ^

x* ^

'.\t y* i
- Th e ne t environmenta l impac t associate d with , eac halternativ e

emissio n contro l syste mshoul d b e determined . Bot hbeneficia l impact s (e.g. , reduce d emission s attribute d t o a contro l system ) an d advers e impact s (e.g. , exacerbatio n o f anothe r pollutio n proble mthroug hus e o f a contro l system ) shoul d b e discusse d an d quantified . A s pointe d ou t above , indirec t environmenta l impact s (suc ha s pollutio n impact s a t a n off-sit e plan t whic hmanufacturer s chemical s fo r us e i n pollutio n contro l equipment ) normall ynee d no t b e considered . Th e analysi s shoul d b e presente d i n th e for mo f th e incrementa l impac t o f alternativ e contro l system s relativ e t o th e syste mpropose d a s BAC T i n th e permi t application . Som e specifi c consideration s ar e presente d below . A . Ai r Pollutio n Impac t

• Th e impac t o f ai r pollutant s emitte d fro ma ga s strea mo r a fugitiv e emissio n sourc e ca n b e assesse d term s o f quantit yo f emissions , modele d effect s o n ai r quality , o r both . I f applicatio n o f a contro l syste mdirectl yremove s o r release s othe r ai r pollutant s (o r precursor s t o othe r ai r pollutants) , the n th e pollutant s affecte d an d th e impac t o f thes e emissio n change s shoul d b e identified . Th e analysi s ca n conside r anypollutan t affectin g loca l ai r qualit yincludin g pollutant s whic har e no t currentl yregulate d unde r th e Act , bu t whic hma yb e o f specia l concer n locally . I n th e absenc e o f a mor e systemati c techniqu e (e.g. , market-typ e systems , etc. ) fo r allocatin g PS D increments , BAC T determination s ar e importan t fo r executin g suc hallocations . PS D program s whic hdepen d o n BAC ! determination s t o implemen t th e allocatio n o f increment s shoul d orojec t

-'**.^>BJJM**.* ?

• _"" I i^T^'-^->'''.'^'7

, T'vyT^''~ ??*i ! ir\ ~ " .•••.:;•:.•.-..- • 3rf-~yZ?y*C!;iS.3 y

_ •-.,-:. . -.:-;-^ < ;!rr-*;'-i.^r:;- v ,.»\-..y. : , » v . : :-'^-r^*^*-;-*;^-*:~^ f * S ' •

, . - • . " . r~^v- m ~ . '-

- "rrs^^^'sy?

..*:* • .i:v-j£5$v''•"---'"• " -:-' *

' • • ' ..j-i-fl?- . •.*•% . .-V'.-^j ?P.1 5

-•& < • " 1 2 .•*-**"* ' 

### • ^ * ' desire dlevel s o f growt hi n a n are a s o tha t BAC T determination s fo r eac h •J%sourc e wil l serv e t o insur e tha t th e tota l ai r impact s o f futur e growt h ;.:¥«; ' ' ar e n o greate r tha nth e availabl e increments . I n th e firs t year s o f '•''•y'f. •OV-'" 1 ' : 

### 0i .' th e PS D program , man yarea s may.hav e neithe r a functionin g marke t syste m

• •"* • t 

### fo r allocatin g increment s no r accurat e projection s o f desire dgrowth . « • Durin g thi s initia l period , i t i s importan t tha t suc harea s us e th e BAC T 3H I determination s t o conserv e th e remainin g increment s a s muc ha s possibl e

unti l mor e systemati c allocatio nmechanism s ar e pu t i n place . B . Wate r Impac t Relativ e quantitie s o f wate r use dandwate r pollutant s produce d anddischarge da s a resul t o f us e o f eac halternativ e emissio ncontro l
^ syste mshoul db e identified . Wher e possible , th e analysi s shoul dasses s ~0. thei r effec t o n groun dwate r and suc hloca l surfac e wate r qualit y •""•55 E

'.•-.*•* ;
-"••**:'•. •

• » > ' 

### '$$ parameter s a s pH , turbidity , dissolve doxygen , salinity , toxi c chemica l
.-•s *

• *>'**3 f 

### '.£ ? level s and anyothe r importan t considerations . Th e analysi s shoul d -•\i ? 

### :;;"> ; conside r whethe r applicabl e wate r qualit ystandard s ar e me t and th e 'rM availabilit yandeffectivenes s o f variou s technique s t o reduc e potentia l

advers e effects . C . Soli dWast e Disposa l Impac t Th e qualit yandquantit yo f soli dwast e (e.g. , sludges , solids ) tha t mus t b e store dan

d dispose do f o r recycle da s a resul t o f th e applica
tio no f eac halternativ e emissio ncontro l syste mshoul db e compare d wit hth e qualit yandquantit yo f waste s create di f th e emissio ncontro l syste mpropose da s BAC T i s used . Th e compositio nand variou s othe r
^ characteristic s o f th e soli dwast e (suc ha s permeability , wate r retention ,

rewaterin g o f drie dmaterial , compressio nstrength , leachabilit yo f dissolve dions , bul k density , abilit yt o suppor t vegetatio ngrowt han d -:>'*V *


### s ?

'•*.'.•»*-» • -Vt- -

•'. -Ji

### -s 3 \ 1 3 )0{ 

### \ t 

### hazardou s characteristics ) whic har e significan t wit hregar d t o potentia l '% 

### ../•$ surfac e wate r pollutio no r transpor t int o an d contaminatio no f sub
- •','•'$ ' surfac e water s o r aquifer s shoul d b e considered . Al l practicabl e soli d : -:. v?'i ; 

### •-£ $ .' • wast e managemen t option s (suc ha s sanitar ylandfill , incineration , and

recycling ) shoul d b e investigate d an d th e relativ e advantage s and r


### . disadvantage s discussed .

D . Irreversibl e o r Irretrievabl e Commitmen t o f Resource s Th e BAC T decisio nma yconside r th e exten t t o whic hth e alternativ e emissio ncontro l system s ma yinvolv e a trade-of f betwee nshort-ter m •; & environmenta l gain s a t th e expens e o f long-ter menvironmenta l losse s '•?$ . and th e exten t t o whic hth e alternativ e system s ma yresul t i n irrever
- : 

### ;| | sibl e o r irretrievabl e commitmen t o f resource s (fo r example , us e o f

. **$ 

### W scarc e wate r resources) . :•* « > 

### ^ E . Othe r Environmenta l Impact s 

# i . m
?;-**• '

-v ?

• -. 1 -.-'.s » .c a 

### Incrementa l difference s i n nois e levels , radian t heat , o r dis
- | sipate d stati c electrica l energ yshoul d b e considere d wher e appropriate .

III . Economi c Impac t Thi s analysi s shoul d addres s th e economi c impact s associate d wit h | ? th e incrementa l cost s o f installin g an d operatin g alternativ e contro l .•?? * system s abov e th e economi c impac t associate d wit hth e syste mpropose d -\i a s BACT . Th e revie wshoul d includ e a complet e explanatio no f pro j%cedure s fo r assessin g economi c impact s an d an ysupportin g data . A s "h outline d below , economi c consideration s ca n addres s direc t economi c ':•[;_impact s o n th e firman d impact s o n loca l economi c growth . •;' j A . Direc t Economi c Impact s o n th e Plan t '-••] Dired t economi c impact s o n th e plan t shoul d b e examine d throug h
^ ] evaluatio no f th e following : 

# I

3—, — ' • ' •••• . ' " • '•••"'- —«•"".' • : ~ '•• - "'••••' • •" • •'•' "" " '•-'•'•••• " '-J-'IM'.''->'.-•••— ••.'-•-.; [ ,•' ; n'v - y_ - :';-j-^-'-'-'n,;^;:.^.::<,-..«'; ' \ ^' • •;••*.,"..' ; T.."^'v'v•••'- • '•••.



### IP.1 7

- - '

. •«-. - <*•«£• ;

. : *•« * •%^-u 

### M -•'V 3

. " *V. ' ;*> ^
;'-.»' • v•*••*• *

. ^ * . -' . A 4 c?? 3 

## r # •7- y .-SJ H 

### >i*« f t-"^ B S * 

## § H
•s'-V j :i>>J! * * <
?

• • •
t «- • \



# ? !

•'-s s

•> S

.•.••I ' •-5 5
• 3 | .••'i t 

### 1 4

1 . Direc t Cost s Th e direc t cos t fo r eac hcontro l alternativ e shoul db e presente d bot ho n a n incrementa l an do n a n overal l basis . Investmen t costs , operation s an dmaintenanc e cost s andannualize dcost s shoul d b e presente d separately . Annualize dcost s ar e operation s an dmaintenanc e cost s plu s depreciatio nandinteres t charge s o n th e investment . Cost s shoul d b e itemize dan dexplained . Credi t fo r ta xincentive s shoul db e include d alon g wit hcredit s fo r produc t recover ycost s andby-produc t sale s generate dfro m

th e us e o f contro l systems . Th e lifetim e "o f th e invest
men t shoul db e stated . Wher e possible , cost s shoul db e broke ndow n int o proces s chang e cost s (cost s o f les s pollutin g productio nprocess ) . an ddirec t pollutio nabatemen t cost s (cos t o f pollutio ncontro l equipment) . Th e cost s o f ai r treatment , wate r treatmen t an dsoli dwast e disposa l shoul db e presente dseparately . Th e analysi s shoul dals o includ e th e tota l investmen t cos t o f th e ne wfacility . A s a guid e i ndeterminin g whe ncontro l cost s becom e excessive , alternativ e contro l system s ca nb e compare di n term s o f certai ncos t effectivenes s ratios . Suc hratio s ma yinclud e th e following : *M °

rati o o f tota l contro l cost s t o tota l investmen t costs . ° cos t pe r uni t o f pollutio nremove d(fo r example , dollars/ton) . ° cos t versu s additiona l portio no f remainin g PS D incremen t preserve dfo r futur e growth . c 

### uni t productio ncost s (fo r example , mill/kw-hr , dollars/to n o f steel) . I nsom e cases , th e uni t o f productio noutpu t ma yb e difficul t t o determine , a s i n th e cas e o f a plan t producin g man ydifferen t products . In suc h cases , uni t productio ncost s ca nb e expresse da s cos t ?er dolla r o f tota l sales .

;iJi*f,*--***-9«j5-j»-*-^ ^

### 1 5

•vi s '•JS

•'? $ 

# i **>i 

### V . i r 2 . Capita l Availabilit y

Capita l availabilit yaddresse s th e difficult ytha t som e source s ma yfac e i n financin g alternativ e contro l systems . Proo f o f suc h claim s shoul d b e full ydocumented . B . Loca l Economi c Impact s Loca l economi c impact s addres s th e economic feasibilit yo f al
ternativ e BAC T requirement s and th e impac t o f th e productio n decision s o f th e fir m

i n respons e t o alternativ e level s o f control . Fo r example , a BAC T alternativ e ma yalte r th e economic s o f a projec t t o th e poin t wher e th e decisio n woul d b e mad e t o cance l the . constructio n o r expan sio n o f a facility , t o relocat e a plant , t o reduc e th e scal e o f opera tion , o r t o chang e th e productio n mix . Th e loca l economi c impact s o f • suc hdecision s shoul d b e assesse d i n term s o f loca l employmen t effect s includin g numbe r o f jobs , dollar s pai d i n salaries , and change s i n employe e skil l level s required . Th e guidelin e doe s no t impl ytha t th e BAC T decisio n shoul d forc e ne wproject s t o th e brin k o f cancellation . Th e BAC T decisio n mus t b e base d o n soun d judgment , balancin g environment benefit s wit henergy , economic , and othe r impacts . Loca l economic impact s als o ca n addres s th e effec t o f variou s BAC T alternative s o n ai r qualit yincremen t consumptio n and th e subsequen t impac t o n futur e growt hpotentia l i n th e surroundin g area . Th e BAC T decisio n shoul d reflec t polic ydecision s t o conserv e th e availabl e ai r qualit yincremen t fo r futur e growth . IV . Othe r Cost s Othe r cost s associate d wit halternativ e emissio n contro l system s ma yb e considere d wher e appropriate .

• ,tf£_



### « J •., . .,.-9... .....^

....... -*-^y t -*; . --y---'y- ,--•'?••' ; r** * •*••";•' •• . * ' i'",-* ' ". * * « "*-i ' L V.-' i r**' i -j 'YV?ify*yi n ''y"-'i •'• I ' •'•'•• * ** *?*• > . ^ I .** , .* [ jjj^..yli-'U'"* » . ' •' . .'. • ' y...'..-'v . ' -^4P.1 9

5^-1 •VS.*( V

' J*** , v * . 

## • I V

•-:* V i



# rn-

*•"* * '"*?• • 

# # 1

..•-TV *

' • C- * • i": c ; - i ; r r = •

ASSISTANC E INDE^RKIMN GBAC " Assistanc e t o tn e state s ar c Regiona l Office s technolog ywil l continu e t c b e proviae c tiirougr th : revie wclearingnous s ; . Augus t 1 , 197 7 memo , Walte r C . Ssroe r t c Regiona l Offices , "OAQP S Assistanc e fo r 5ACT/RACT/LAE R Determinations''.' . Throuc n it s repositor yo f informatio n o n pas t BACT/RACT/LAE R decisions , th e clearinghous e provide s a communicatio n lin k fo r aavisin g reviewin g authoritie s o f eac n other' s determinations , thereb yDrometin g consistenc y i n BAC T determinations . Th e degre e t o whic hth e clearingnous s wil l b e effectiv e a s a consistency-improvin g too l wil l dec-en d or ; th e cegrs e t o whic hth e BAC T determination s ar e repcrte a t o OAQPS . Al l Region e 1 Office s are requeste d t c submi t 3AC T finding s t c th e cl=arincnouse . I n adcitio n t o tn e repository , th e clearinghouse , systerr-als c provide s a foca l ooin t •^o r answerin g Question s relate d t o polic yissue s an d contro l technology . Wit hrespec t t o contro l technclogv , OAQP S ca n assis t i n establishin g th e rang e o f alternativ e control s fo r a particula r orocess , bu t canno t evaluat e case-by-cas e energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s o r selec t BAC T emissio n levels . I n s'nort , tn e clearinghous e car : b e an importan t inpu t t o th e reviewin g authority' s decision , ru t i t canno t substitut e fo r th e case-by-cas e analysi s require d t c selec t th e ctorcr-"" : et : contro l technology .

•*>:S** V

_f