San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/26/2009

RESCINDED

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.1*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

1.1.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 7.9 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Doane Pet Care References: ATC #: N-4113-1-0; Project #: N980722

Location: Ripon, CA Date of Determination: 2/22/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.1 A

Emissions Unit: Boiler - Animal Feed

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 20 ppmv @ 3% O2 - Low NOx burner system

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.1.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: < or = 20.0 MMBtu/hr

Facility: n/a References: ATC #: District Proactive BACT

Determination

Location: n/a Date of Determination: 6/30/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.1 B

Emissions Unit: Boiler, Natural gas fired

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 20.0 ppmvd @ 3% O2 (0.024 lb/MMBtu/hr) Low NOx burner system

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.1.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 8.4 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Insituform Technologies References: ATC #: C-3524-3-0

Project #: C-1001106

Location: Multiple Location Date of Determination: 11/22/2000

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

1) 9.0 ppmvd @ 3% O2 (0.0108 lb/MMBtu/hr) Selective Catalytic

Reduction, or equal; 2) 15.0 ppmvd @ 3% O2 (0.018 lb/MMBtu/hr) Low NOx 

burner

system

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.1 C

Emissions Unit: Propane fired boiler

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 20.0 ppmvd @ 3% O2 (0.024 lb/MMBtu/hr) Low NOx burner system

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.1.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/26/2009

RESCINDED

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.2*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

1.1.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 182 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Los Gatos Tomato References: ATC #: C-787-7-0; Project #: C980686

Location: Huron, CA Date of Determination: 1/8/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.2 A

Emissions Unit: Boiler, Single Steam Source, Load-following

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO Natural Gas Fired

NOx 9.0 ppmv @ 3% O2 (0.0108 lb/MMBtu/hr)

Ultra Low NOx burner system

PM10 Natural Gas Fired

SOx Natural Gas Fired

VOC Natural Gas Fired

1.1.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: > 20.0 MMBtu/hr

Facility: n/a References: District Proactive BACT 

Determination

Location: n/a Date of Determination: 6/30/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.2 B

* For the purpose of this determination, "small load swings" are defined as normal operational load fluctuations which 

are within the operational response range of an Ultra-Low NOx burner system(s).

Emissions Unit: Unit: Boiler - Natural gas fired,

base-loaded or with small load

swings.*

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 9.0 ppmv @ 3% O2 (0108 lb/MMBtu), Ultra-Low NOx Burner, or equal.

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.1.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: Main Burner: 98 MMBtu/hr

Igniter: 4.0 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Hershey Chocolate and Confectionary Corp. References: ATC: N-1968-23-0; Project #: N1010803

Location: Oakdale, CA Date of Determination: 6/30/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.2 C

For the purpose of this determination, "small load swings" are defined as normal operational load

fluctuations which are within the operational response range of an Ultra-Low NOx burner

system(s).

Emissions Unit: Boiler – using the igniter

to keep the unit warm on weekends.

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT IS NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 9.0 ppmvd @ 3% O2 (0.0108 lb/MMBtu/hr) Selective Catalytic Reduction,

Low Temperature Oxidizer, or equal and a < 30 ppmv NOx@ 3% O2 igniter

system ( if the igniter system is used to heat the boiler at low fire).

PM10 BACT IS NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT IS NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT IS NOT TRIGGERED

1.1.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/26/2009

RESCINDED

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.3*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

1.1.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: >20 MMBtu/hr

Facility: N/A References: District Proactive BACT 

Determination

Location: N/A Date of Determination: 6/30/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.3 A

* For the purpose of this determination, "highly variable loads and high turndown ratio" are defined as

normal operational load fluctuations and requirements which exceed the operational response range of an

Ultra-Low NOx burner system(s) operating at 9 ppmv NOx.

** BACT will be established on a case-by-case basis to assure the lowest achievable emission rate, taking into

account the unique facility characteristics.

Emissions Unit: Boiler - Natural gas fired, with highly variable 

loads or high turndown ratios.*

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx ≤ 15.0** ppmvd @ 3% O2 (0.018 lb/MMBtu/hr) Ultra-Low NOx burner

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.1.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 182.5 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Ingomar Packing References: ATC #: N-1276-9-0

Project #: N-990667

Location: Los Banos, CA Date of Determination: 7/25/2000

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

9.0 ppmvd @ 3% O2 (0.0108 lb/MMBtu/hr)

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.3 B

* For the purpose of this determination, "highly variable loads and high turndown ratio" are defined as

normal operational load fluctuations and requirements which exceed the operational response range of an

Ultra-Low NOx burner system(s) operating at 9 ppmv NOx.

** BACT will be established on a case-by-case basis to assure the lowest achievable emission rate, taking into

account the unique facility characteristics.

Emissions Unit: Boiler - Natural gas fired, with highly variable 

loads

or high turndown ratios.*

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx ≤ 15.0** ppmvd @ 3% O2 (0.018 lb/MMBtu/hr) Ultra-Low NOx burner system

PM10 Natural Gas Fired with LPG as a backup fuel

SOx Natural Gas Fired with LPG as a backup fuel

VOC Natural Gas Fired with LPG as a backup fuel

1.1.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/26/2009

RESCINDED

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.4*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

1.1.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 3.525 MMBtu/hr

Facility: City of Turlock Water Control Facility References: ATC #: N-3669-1-0

Project #: 960146

Location: 901 S Walnut Road, Turlock Date of Determination: 8/1/1996

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

1) Dry scrubber for SOx control; 2) Wet caustic scrubber for SOx control; 3) 

Chemical addition to the digester sludge for H2S reduction (SOx control); 4) 

Water scrubber for SOx control

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.4 A

Low NOx burner - 30 ppmvd @ 3% O2

Natural gas as supplemental fuel

Emissions Unit: Digester Gas Fired Boiler

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Low NOx burner - 30 ppmvd @ 3% O2

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx 300 ppmv H2S in the digester gas fuel, Natural gas as supplemental fuel

VOC Natural Gas as supplemental fuel

1.1.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/26/2009

RESCINDED

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.5*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

1.1.5
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: < or = 5.0 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Kern Medical Center References: ATC #: S-1678-11-0; Project #: 

960594

Location: Bakersfield, CA Date of Determination: 1/27/1997

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

Low NOx burners with FGR

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.5 A

Emissions Unit: Boiler, Dual fueled

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx No control technology found to be cost effective

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.1.5
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 3.78 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Doctors Medical Center References: ATC #: N-2333-10-0

Project #: 970333

Location: Modesto, CA Date of Determination: 1/5/1998

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.5 B

Emissions Unit: Natural gas fired boiler with #2 fuel as backup

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx NOx emission concentration of 30 ppmvd @ 3% O2 for the primary fuel

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx Natural gas as primary fuel with low sulfur #2 fuel oil (0.05% sulfur by weight or

less) as backup

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.1.5
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 10.2 MMBtu/hr

Facility: NAS Lemoore References: ATC #: C-2106-144-0

Project #: C-980507

Location: Lemoore, CA Date of Determination: 3/5/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

SCR and 20 ppmv Low NOx burner system

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.5 C

* BACT will be established on a case-by-case basis to assure the lowest achievable emission rate, taking into account 

unique facility characteristics.

Emissions Unit: Boiler - Natural Gas with

Diesel #2 as a backup fuel.

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx < 30* ppmv corrected to 3% O2, (Low NOx burner system)

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.1.5
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: Facilities which require a 

liquid

backup fuel.

Facility: N/A References: District Proactive BACT

Determination

Location: N/A Date of Determination: 6/30/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.5 D

* BACT will be established on a case-by-case basis to assure the lowest achievable emission rate, taking into account 

unique facility characteristics.

Emissions Unit: Boiler - Dual Fuel

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 20.0 - 30.0* ppmv @ 3% O2 ( 0.024 - 0.036 lb/MMBtu/hr) Low NOx burner system.

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.1.5
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 12.5 MMBtu/hr for 3 boilers; 

7.0 MMBtu/hr for 2 boilers

Facility: Kaiser Foundation Hospital References: ATC # N-7192-3-0 though '-7-0; 

Project N-1052075

Location: Modesto, CA Date of Determination: 12/15/2005

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

9.0 ppmvd @ 3% O2 (0.0109 lb/MMBtu) Selective Catalytic Reduction, Low 

Temperature Oxidizer, or equal

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.5 E

Emissions Unit: Boilers

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 15.0 ppmvd @ 3% O2 ultra-low NOx burner system for the primary fuel

PM10 natural gas as primary fuel with ultra-low sulfur fuel oil (0.0015 % S by weight) as backup fuel

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC natural gas as primary fuel with ultra-low sulfur fuel oil (0.0015 % S by weight) as backup fuel

1.1.5
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/26/2009

RESCINDED

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.6*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

1.1.6
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: All

Facility: N/A References: District Proactive BACT

Determination

Location: N/A Date of Determination: 6/30/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.6 A

* BACT will be established on a case-by-case basis to assure the lowest achievable emission rate, taking into account 

unique facility characteristics.

Emissions Unit: Boiler - High Ammonia fuel

Pollutant BACT Requirements

NOx <30.0* ppmvd @ 3% 02 (0.036 lb/MMBtu) Low-NOx burner system

1.1.6
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/26/2009

RESCINDED

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.7*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

1.1.7
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 71.4 MMBtu/hr

< 9 billion Btu/year

Facility: J.R. Simplot Co. References: PTO#: C-705-1-4

C-990459

Location: Helm, CA Date of Determination: 2/16/2000

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.7 A

Emissions Unit: Limited Use Boiler, Natural

Gas Fired,

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 30.0 ppmv @ 3% O2 (0.036 lb/MMBtu)

Low NOx burner system

PM10 Natural gas fired with LPG as a backup fuel

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC Natural gas fired with LPG as a backup fuel

1.1.7
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 7.8 MMBtu/hr; < 9 billion 

Btu/yr

Facility: Saint Agnes Medical Center References: ATC#: C-1059-24-0; Project#: C1053649

Location: Fresno, CA Date of Determination: 4/13/2006

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

SCR (6 ppmvd NOx), 9 ppmvd Low NOx Burner, 12 ppmvd Low NOx Burner

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.7 B

Emissions Unit: Limited User Boiler, Natural Gas Fired

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 15.0 ppmv @ 3% O2 (0.018 lb/MMBtu)

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.1.7
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/26/2009

RESCINDED

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.8*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

1.1.8
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 259 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Thermal Energy Development Corp, Ltd References: ATC #: N-1026-1-7; Project # N1040687

Location: Tracy, Ca Date of Determination: 9/28/2004

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.1.8 A

Emissions Unit: Biomass-fired Boiler - Grate Systems

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO 400 ppmvd @ 3% O2

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.1.8
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/26/2009

RESCINDED

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.2.1*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

1.2.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 62.5 MMBtu/hr

Facility: CalResources References: PTO#: S-1547-683-0

Project #920924

Location: Western Kern County Oil Fields Date of Determination: 11/30/1993

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.2.1 A

Emissions Unit: Steam Generator

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO 0.02 lb/MMBtu, Natural gas fired and O2 controller

NOx 0.036 lb/MMBtu, Natural gas fired, flue gas recirculation and O2

controller

PM10 0.005 lb/MMBtu, Natural gas fired

SOx 0.0006 lb/MMBtu, PUC quality natural gas fired

VOC 0.003 lb/MMBtu, Natural gas fired with O2 controller

1.2.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 62.5 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Texaco California Inc. References: PTO#: S-1141-431-0

Project #980823

Location: Western Kern County Oil Fields Date of Determination: 3/31/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.2.1 B

for VOC, SOx, CO, and PM10

Emissions Unit: Steam Generator - Oilfield

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO Natural gas, treated waste gas or recovered gas as a primary fuel.

LPG as backup fuel.

NOx 14 ppmv @ 3% O2 (0.018 lb/MMBtu), Natural gas, treated waste gas

or recovered gas as a primary fuel. LPG as backup fuel.

PM10 Natural gas, treated waste gas or recovered gas as a primary fuel.

LPG as backup fuel.

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC Natural gas, treated waste gas or recovered gas as a primary fuel.

LPG as backup fuel.

1.2.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: All

Facility: N/A References: District Proactive BACT

Determination

Location: N/A Date of Determination: 6/30/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.2.1 C

Emissions Unit: Steam Generator - Oilfield

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 20.0 ppmv @ 3% O2 (0.024 lb/MMBtu), Natural gas, treated waste

gas or recovered gas as a primary fuel. LPG as backup fuel.

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.2.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: > or = 5 MMBtu/hr

Facility: n/a References: District Proactive BACT 

determination

Location: n/a Date of Determination: 5/24/2004

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.2.1 D

Emissions Unit: Oil Field Steam Generator

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO 50 ppmv @ 3% O2

NOx 14 ppmv @ 3% O2

PM10 natural gas, LPG, waste gas treated to remove 95% by weight of sulfur compounds or treated such that the 

sulfur content does not exceed 1 gr of sulfur compounds (as S) per 100 scf, or use of a continuously 

operating SO2 scrubber and either achieving 95% by weight control of sulfur compounds or achieving an 

emission rate of 30 ppmvd SO2 at stack O2

SOx natural gas, LPG, waste gas treated to remove 95% by weight of sulfur compounds or treated such that the 

sulfur content does not exceed 1 gr of sulfur compounds (as S) per 100 scf, or use of a continuously 

operating SO2 scrubber and either achieving 95% by weight control of sulfur compounds or achieving an 

emission rate of 30 ppmvd SO2 at stack O2

VOC gaseous fuel

1.2.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 84 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Berry Petroleum References: ATC# S-3585-8-4; Project# S1044033

Location: Heavy Oil Central Date of Determination: 3/11/2005

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.2.1 E

NOx

SOx, PM10, and VOC

Emissions Unit: Oil Field Steam Generator (> or = 5 MMBtu/hr)

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 7 ppmvd @ 3% O2 with SCR; 9 ppmvd @ 3% O2 with Low NOx burner

PM10 Natural gas, treated waste gas or recovered gas as a primary fuel. LPG as backup fuel.

SOx Natural gas, treated waste gas or recovered gas as a primary fuel. LPG as backup fuel.

VOC Natural gas, treated waste gas or recovered gas as a primary fuel. LPG as backup fuel.

1.2.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/26/2009

RESCINDED

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.2.2*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

1.2.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 20.4 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Foster Farm Commodities References: ATC#: C-505-11-0

Project # 980591

Location: Burrell, CA Date of Determination: 2/9/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.2.2 A

Emissions Unit: Steam Generator - Vertically oriented 

w/counterflow heat transfer

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 15.0 ppmvd @ 3% O2 (0.018 lb/MMBtu/hr), unless demonstrated

infeasible, then 20 ppmvd @ 3% O2 (0.024 lb/MMBtu/hr) Low NOx

burner system.

PM10 Natural gas fuel

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.2.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 5/1/2004

Oilfield Steam Generator/TEOR Gas Incinerator **RESCINDED - part of 5/04 

update to guideline 1.2.1**

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.2.3*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

1.2.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 62.5 MMBtu/hr

Facility: CalResources References: ATC #: S-1547-75-11

Project #: 950698

Location: Western Kern County Oil Fields Date of Determination: 11/9/1996

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.2.3 A

Emissions Unit: 62.5 MMBtu/hr Natural Gas

Fired Oilfield Steam

Generator/TEOR Gas

Incinerator

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx Continuously operating alkali flue gas SO2 scrubber achieving 95% control or

continuously operating alkali flue gas scrubber achieving maximum 30 ppmv SO2

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.2.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 8/27/2005

Fluidized-Bed Combustor => 272 MMBtu/hr, Cogeneration Operation, Fired with 

Delayed Petroleum Coke (DPC)

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.3.1*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO natural gas and fuel oil as 

auxiliary fuel

NOx 28 ppmvd (as NO2 corrected 

to 3% O2), ammonia 

injection (less than 30 

ppmvd ammonia slip) and 

natural gas and fuel oil as 

auxiliary fuel)

PM10 0.005 gr/dscf corrected to 

12% CO2, baghouse, natural 

gas and low sulfur fuel oil as 

auxiliary fuel

SOx 20.2 ppmvd (as SO2 

corrected to 3% O2) (DPC 

with 2% sulfur by weight) or 

lowest sulfur content fuel 

available when 2% sulfur by 

weight fuel is not available, 

Sorbent injection and natural 

gas and low-sulfur fuel oil 

(15 ppmvd sulfur or less), as 

auxiliary fuel

lowest sulfur content DPC fuel available, 

with Sorbent Injection and scrubber; 

natural gas and low-sulfur fuel oil (15 

ppmvd sulfur or less), as auxiliary fuel

VOC 0.008 lb/MMBtu, natural gas 

and fuel oil as auxiliary fuel

1.3.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 272 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Hanford, LP References: PTO#: C-603-1-1

Project # 920077

Location: Hanford, CA Date of Determination: 3/2/1993

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.3.1 A

Emissions Unit: Fluidized-Bed Combustor (Delayed Petroleum 

Coke)

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO Natural gas and fuel oil as auxiliary fuel

NOx 28 ppmvd (as NO2 corrected to 3% O2), Ammonia injection (less than

30 ppmvd ammonia slip) and natural gas and fuel oil as auxiliary fuel

PM10 0.005 gr/dscf corrected to 12% CO2, Baghouse, natural gas and low

sulfur fuel oil as auxiliary fuel

SOx 20.2 ppmvd (as SO2 corrected to 3% O2), Sorbent injection and natural

gas and low sulfur fuel oil as auxiliary fuel

VOC 0.008 lb/MMBtu, Natural gas and fuel oil as auxiliary fuel

1.3.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 30 MW (up to 320 MMBtu/hr)

Facility: Hanford LP References: ATC C-603-1-5; 1043492

Location:

Hanford, CA

Date of Determination:

8/27/2005

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

SOx scrubber

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.3.1 B

Emissions Unit: Fluidized Bed Combustor Fueled by Petroleum 

Coke, Natural Gas, and #2 Fuel Oil

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO natural gas and fuel oil as auxiliary fuel

NOx 28 ppmvd (as NO2 corrected to 3% O2), ammonia injection (less than 30 ppmvd ammonia slip) and natural 

gas and fuel oil as auxiliary fuel

PM10 0.005 gr/dscf corrected to 12% CO2, baghouse, natural gas and low sulfur fuel oil as auxiliary fuel

SOx 20.2 ppmvd (as SO2 corrected to 3% O2) (DPC with 2% sulfur by weight) or lowest sulfur content fuel 

available when 2% sulfur by weight fuel is not available, Sorbent injection and natural gas and low-sulfur fuel 

oil (15 ppmvd sulfur or less) as auxiliary fuel

VOC 0.008 lb/MMBtu, natural gas and fuel oil as auxiliary fuel

1.3.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 11/21/2002

Fluidized Bubbling Bed Combustor (biomass-fired)

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.3.2*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO 183 ppmvd, natural gas 

auxiliary fuel

NOx 0.10 lb/MMBtu, ammonia 

injection and natural gas 

auxiliary fuel

fluidized circulating 

bed combustor w/NH3 

injection

PM10 0.045 lb/MMBtu, baghouse 

or ESP, and natural gas 

auxiliary fuel

SOx 23 ppmvd, limestone 

injection and natural gas 

auxiliary fuel

VOC 0.02 lb/MMBtu, natural gas 

auxiliary fuel

1.3.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 315 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Delano Energy Company, Inc References: PTO #: S-75-11-1

Project #: 920608

Location: Delano, CA Date of Determination: 9/21/1992

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.3.2 A

Emissions Unit: Fluidized-Bed Combustor (Biomass)

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO 183 ppmvd @ 3% excess O2, Natural gas auxiliary fuel

NOx 63 ppmvd @ 3% excess O2, Ammonia injection and natural gas

auxiliary fuel

PM10 0.045 lb/MMBtu, Baghouse

SOx 23 ppmvd @3% excess O2, Limestone injection and natural gas as

auxiliary fuel

VOC 0.024 lb/MMBtu, Natural gas as auxiliary fuel

1.3.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: all

Facility: AES Delano Inc References: S-75-11-18, S-1020710

Location:

Delano, Ca

Date of Determination:

11/21/2002

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.3.2 B

(revised)

Emissions Unit: Fluidized Bubbling Bed Combustor (biomassfired)

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO 183 ppmvd @ 3% excess O2 (0.14 lb/MMBtu), natural gas as auxiliary fuel

NOx 0.10 lb/MMBtu, ammonia injection and natural gas as auxiliary fuel

PM10 0.045 lb/MMBtu, baghouse. 0.010 gr/dscf @ 12% CO2 (filterable particulates) and 14.08 lb/hr (including 

condensable particulates).

SOx 23 ppmvd @ 3% excess O2, limestone injection and natural gas as auxiliary fuel

VOC 0.02 lb/MMBtu, natural gas as auxiliary fuel

1.3.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 11/9/1995

Waste Gas Flare - 15.3 MMBtu/hr, Serving a Tank Vapor Control System

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.1*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO Steam-assisted or airassisted when steam 

unavailable

NOx Steam-assisted or airassisted when steam 

unavailable

PM10 Steam-assisted with 

smokeless

combustion or Air-assisted 

flare

with smokeless combustion 

when

steam unavailable. Pilot Light

Fired Solely on LPG or 

Natural

Gas

SOx Pilot Light Fired Solely on 

LPG

or Natural Gas

VOC Steam-assisted or airassisted when

steam unavailable

1.4.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 15.30 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Naftex Holdings Ltd References: ATC #: S-1122-4-2

Project #: 950570

Location: Graham Fee Tank Farm Date of Determination: 11/9/1995

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.1 A

Emissions Unit: 15.30 MMBtu/hr (250 MSCFD)

Air-Assisted Flare Serving Tank

Vapor Control System

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO Steam-assisted or air-assisted when steam unavailable

(1.57 lb/MMBtu)08

NOx Steam-assisted or air-assisted when steam unavailable

(emissions @ 0.088 lb/MMBtu) LPG

PM10 Steam-assisted with smokeless combustion or Air-assisted flare with smokeless

combustion when steam unavailable

and

Pilot Light Fired Solely on LPG or Natural Gas

(less than 5% opacity and 0.020 lb/MMBtu)

SOx Steam-assisted or air-assisted when steam unavailable

Pilot Light Fired Solely on LPG or Natural Gas

(0.6 lb/MMscf)

VOC Steam-assisted or air-assisted when steam unavailable

(0.084 lb/MMBtu)

1.4.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 12/31/1998

Waste Gas Flare - Incinerating Produced Gas

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.2*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO Steam assisted or Airassisted or Coanda effect 

burner, when steam 

unavailable

NOx Steam assisted or Airassisted or Coanda effect 

burner, when steam 

unavailable

PM10 Steam assisted or Airassisted or Coanda effect 

burner, when steam 

unavailable

Pilot Light fired solely on 

LPG or

natural gas.

SOx Steam assisted or Airassisted or Coanda effect 

burner, when steam 

unavailable

Pilot Light fired solely on 

LPG or

natural gas.

Precombustion SOx

scrubbing system

(non-emergency

flares only.)

VOC Steam assisted or Airassisted or Coanda effect 

burner, when steam 

unavailable

1.4.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 4.20 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Texaco Exploration & Production Inc References: ATC #: S-1132-15-0 &

S-1132-19-0

Project #: 950588

Location: Tulare Lease 34-1 & 34-2 Date of Determination: 3/12/1996

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.2 A

Emissions Unit: 4.20 MMBtu/hr (100 MSCFD)

Air-Assisted Flare Incinerating

Produced Gas

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Coanda-effect flare

(emissions @ 0.068 lb/MMBtu)

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC Coanda-effect flare

(emissions @ 0.088 lb/MMBtu)

1.4.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 625 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Aera Energy LLC References: ATC #: S-1548-177-0

Project #: 981027

Location: Light Oil, Western Stationary Source Date of Determination: 12/31/1998

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.2 B

Emissions Unit: 625 MMBtu/hr Emergency Flare

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO Air-assisted or Coanda-effect flare (steam unavailable)

NOx Air-assisted or Coanda-effect flare (steam unavailable)

PM10 Air-assisted or Coanda-effect flare (steam unavailable) and

pilot light fired solely on natural gas or LPG.

SOx Air-assisted or Coanda-effect flare (steam unavailable) and

pilot light fired solely on natural gas or LPG.

VOC Air-assisted or Coanda-effect flare (steam unavailable)

1.4.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 1/8/2001

Landfill Gas Vapor Collection System

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.3*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx 0.06 lb-NOx/MMBtu 0.05 lb/MMBtu

PM10 Air assist fan Steam injection

SOx Wet Scrubber with 98%

control efficiency

VOC Flare with a control efficiency

of (= or >) 98% or a 

controlled

VOC (measured as 

methane) of

(= or <) 20 ppmv @ 3% O2

1.4.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 24 MMBtu/hr Enclosed Flare 

System

Facility: Geer Road Landfill References: ATC #: N-3104-2-0

Project #: N-950062

Location: Modesto, CA Date of Determination: 10/1/1995

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

SOx Scrubber

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.3 A

Emissions Unit: Landfill Gas Vapor

Collection System

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx NOx Emission Concentration Of 0.05lb/MMBtu

PM10 Air assist fan with a PM10 Emission Concentration of 0.1 lb/MMBtu

SOx SOx Emission Concentration Of 0.04 lb/MMBtu

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.4.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 5.0 MMBtu/hr Flareed Flare

Facility: San Joaquin County -

Corral Hollow Landfill

References: ATC #: N-4363-1-0

Project #: N-1000298

Location: Tracy, CA Date of Determination: 1/8/2001

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.3 B

Emissions Unit: Landfill Gas Vapor

Collection System

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC Flare with a control efficiency of (= or >) 98% or a controlled VOC (measured as

methane) emission concentration of (= or <) 20 ppmv @ 3% O2.

1.4.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 5/16/2006

Digester Gas-Fired Flare

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.4*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO operating in accordance with 

the manufacturers' 

specifications in order to 

minimize CO emissions

NOx enclosed flare and NOx 

emissions <= 0.06 lb/MMBtu

Ultra Low-NOx flare with NOx emissions 

<= 0.03 lb/MMBtu

PM10 smokeless combustion and a 

LPG or natural gas fired pilot

SOx LPG or natural gas fired pilot 1. Dry absorption of H2S from the fuel gas

2. Wet absorption of H2S from the fuel 

gas

3. Influent fuel H2S reduction by addition 

of chemicals to the digester gas sludge

4. Water scrubbing of H2S from the fuel 

gas

VOC enclosed flare and VOC 

emissions =< 0.068 

lb/MMBtu

1.4.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 36 MMBtu/hr

Facility: City of Stockton Municipal

Utilities Department (Regional

Waste Water Control Facility)

References: ATC #:N-811-18-0

Project #: 950303

Location:

Stockton, CA

Date of Determination:

12/20/1995

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

1. Dry scrubber for SOx control

2. Wet caustic scrubber for SOx control

3. Chemical addition to the digester sludge for H2S reduction (SOx control)

4. Water Scrubber for SOx control

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.4 A

Smokeless combustion and a LPG or natural gas fired pilot

Emissions Unit: Digester Gas Flare fired pilot

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO CO emission concentration of 1.57 lb/MMBtu

NOx NOx emission concentration of 0.06 lb/MMBtu

PM10 PM10 emission concentration of 0.02 lb/MMBtu, smokeless combustion and a

natural gas or LPG fired pilot

SOx Natural gas or LPG fired pilot

VOC VOC emission concentration of 0.07 lb/MMBtu

1.4.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 140 ft^3/min

Facility: City of Turlock Water Control References: ATC # N-3669-6-0; project # N1053183

Location: Turlock, CA Date of Determination: 5/16/2006

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.4 B

Emissions Unit: Digester Gas-Fired Flare

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx enclosed flare, VOC emission concentration of 0.068 lb/MMBtu

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx natural gas-fired pilot

VOC enclosed flare, NOx emission concentration of 0.06 lb/MMBtu

1.4.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 3/10/1994

Oilfield Waste Gas Incinerator

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.5*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO Natural gas auxiliary fuel Natural gas or LPG auxiliary fuel

NOx Natural gas auxiliary fuel Natural gas or LPG auxiliary fuel

PM10 Vapor control system and 95% sulfur 

removal by scrubber or vapors no greater 

than 0.2 gr S/100 dscf and natural gas or 

LPG auxiliary fuel

SOx Vapor control system and

95% sulfur removal by

scrubber or vapors no greater

than 0.2 gr S/100 dscf and

natural gas or LPG auxiliary

fuel

VOC Natural gas auxiliary fuel Natural gas or LPG auxiliary

fuel

1.4.5
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 906,000 scf/day waste gas

Facility: ARCO Western Energy References: PTO #: S-1135-138-4

Project #: 910614

Location: Western Kern County Oil Fields, CA Date of Determination: 3/10/1994

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.5 A

Emissions Unit: Oilfield Waste Gas Incinerator

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO Natural gas auxiliary fuel

NOx Natural gas auxiliary fuel

PM10 50% PM10 control, Scrubber and natural gas auxiliary fuel

SOx 95% SOx control, Scrubber and natural gas auxiliary fuel

VOC Natural gas auxiliary fuel

1.4.5
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 1/20/1998

Biogas-Fired Flare: = or > 10.9 MMBtu/hr, Limited Use

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.6*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx 0.06 lb/MMBtu

VOC 0.03 lb/MMBtu

1.4.6
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 10.9 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Biorecycling Technologies, Inc References: ATC #: C-3100-4-0

Project #: 970673

Location: Kerman, CA Date of Determination: 1/20/1998

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.6 A

Emissions Unit: Limited Use Biogas-Fired Flare

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx NOx emissions of 0.06 lb/MMBtu

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC VOC emissions of 0.03 lb/MMBtu

1.4.6
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 8/27/1999

Waste Gas Flare - Oilfield Well Drilling and Testing Operation, < 50 MMscf/day

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.7*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

VOC Elevated Flare with propane

fueled pilot light

1.4.7
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: < 50 MMscf/day98

Facility: Berkeley Petroleum References: PTO #: S-3581-1-0

Project #: 990738

Location: Lost Hills, CA Date of Determination: 8/27/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.7 A

Emissions Unit: Waste Gas Flare - Oilfield Equipment Well 

Drilling and Testing

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC Natural gas auxiliary fuel

1.4.7
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Last Update: 9/1/2006

Refinery Flare

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.8*

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO Engineered flare, with air or 

steam assisted combustion, 

staged combustion, and/or 

equivalent District approved 

controls. Flare shall be 

equipped with a flare gas 

recovery system for nonemergency releases.

NOx Engineered flare, with air or 

steam assisted combustion, 

staged combustion, and/or 

equivalent District approved 

controls. Flare shall be 

equipped with a flare gas 

recovery system for nonemergency releases.

Engineered flare or enclosed burner with 

air or steam assisted combustion, staged 

combustion, and/or equivalent District 

approved controls, and having 

demonstrated emissions of NOx of less 

than 0.068 lb/MM Btu. Flare shall be 

equipped with a flare gas recovery 

system for non-emergency releases.

PM10 Engineered flare designed 

for and operated without 

visible emissions, except as 

allowed by 40CFR 

60.18(c)(1) and District Rule 

4101 and equipped with air 

or steam assisted 

combustion, staged 

combustion, and/or 

equivalent District approved 

controls. Flare shall be 

equipped with a flare gas 

recovery system for nonemergency releases. Pilot 

and sweep fuel shall be 

natural gas, treated refinery 

gas or LPG.

SOx Flare shall be equipped with 

a flare gas recovery system 

for non-emergency releases. 

Pilot and purge gas shall be 

natural gas, treated refinery 

gas or LPG.

1.4.8
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

VOC Engineered flare designed 

with a VOC destruction 

efficiency of ≥ 98%. Flare 

design shall include air or 

steam assisted combustion, 

staged combustion, and/or 

equivalent District approved 

controls. Flare shall be 

equipped with a flare gas 

recovery system for nonemergency releases, a 

continuous pilot or District 

approved alternative and a 

method for detecting flame. 

Pilot and sweep fuel shall be 

natural gas, treated refinery 

gas or LPG.

Enclosed ground level flare or any other 

engineered flare designed with a VOC 

destruction efficiency of ≥ 98.5%. Flare 

design shall include air or steam assisted 

combustion, staged combustion, and/or 

equivalent District approved controls. 

Flare shall be equipped with a flare gas 

recovery system for non-emergency 

releases, a continuous pilot or District 

approved alternative and a method for 

detecting flame. Pilot and sweep fuel 

shall be natural gas, treated refinery gas 

or LPG.

1.4.8
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 22.4 MM ACF/HR (‘413-0) 

and 0.45 MM ACF/HR (‘414-

0)

Facility: Big West of California, LLC References: S-33-413- 0 and ‘414-0

Location:

Bakersfield, CA

Date of Determination:

9/1/2006

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.4.8 A

Emissions Unit: Refinery Flare

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO Engineered flare, with air or steam assisted combustion, staged combustion, and/or equivalent District 

approved controls. Flare shall be equipped with a flare gas recovery system for non-emergency releases.

NOx Engineered flare, with air or steam assisted combustion, staged combustion, and/or equivalent District 

approved controls. Flare shall be equipped with a flare gas recovery system for non-emergency releases.

PM10 Engineered flare designed for and operated without visible emissions, except as allowed by 40CFR 

60.18(c)(1) and District Rule 4101 and equipped with air or steam assisted combustion, staged combustion, 

and/or equivalent District approved controls. Flare shall be equipped with a flare gas recovery system for 

non-emergency releases. Pilot and purge gas shall be natural gas, treated refinery gas or LPG.

SOx Flare shall be equipped with a flare gas recovery system for non-emergency releases. Pilot and purge gas 

shall be natural gas, treated refinery gas or LPG.

VOC Engineered flare designed with a VOC destruction efficiency of ≥ 98%. Flare design shall include air or 

steam assisted combustion, staged combustion, and/or equivalent District approved controls. Flare shall be 

equipped with a flare gas recovery system for non-emergency releases, a continuous pilot or District 

approved alternative and a method for detecting flame. Pilot and purge gas shall be natural gas, treated 

refinery gas or LPG.

1.4.8
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 8/17/2006

Fiberglass Production Furnace and Manufacturing Line, Natural Gas-Fired

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.1*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO Natural gas firing and use of 

cullet > 30% annual 

average; 1.0 lb-CO/ton

NOx 1.45 lb/ton with no nitrate, 

4.0 lb/ton with nitrate (Oxyfuel natural gas or 

equivalent) at final stack 

(including manufacturing line 

except forehearths)

electric furnace with 

cullet > 30% annual 

average

PM10 Electrostatic Precipitator in 

series with Scrubber (98% 

CE); 0.25 lb-PM10/ton

SOx Scrubber, natural gas firing 

with low sulfur backup fuel 

oil (< 0.0015% sulfur by 

weight), and use of cullet > 

30% annual average

electric furnace with 

cullet > 30% annual 

average

VOC Natural gas firing and use of 

cullet (scrap glass) > 30% 

annual average; 0.25 lbVOC/ton

electric furnace with 

cullet > 30% annual 

average

1.5.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: All

Facility: Certainteed Corporation References: ATC #: C-261-2-3

Project #: 940509

Location: Chowchilla, CA Date of Determination: 12/15/1996

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

Electric Furnace

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.1 A

Emissions Unit: Fiberglass Production

Furnace

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Natural gas fired Oxy-furnace and use of cullet > 15% annually

PM10 Electrostatic precipitator plus scrubber (98% CE)

SOx Scrubber, natural gas firing with low sulfur backup fuel oil (< 0.05% sulfur by

weight) and use of cullet > 15% annually

VOC Natural gas firing and use of cullet (scrap glass) > 15% annually

1.5.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: All

Facility: Certainteed Corporation References: ATC#: C-261-2-21; Project# C1043510

Location: Chowchilla, CA Date of Determination: 8/17/2006

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.1 B

Emissions Unit: Fiberglass Production Furnace and 

Manufacturing Line

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO Natural gas firing and use of cullet > 30% annual average; 1.0 lb-CO/ton

NOx 1.45 lb/ton with no nitrate, 4.0 lb/ton with nitrate (Oxy-fuel natural gas or equivalent) at final stack (including 

manufacturing line except forehearths)

PM10 Electrostatic Precipitator in series with Scrubber (98% CE); 0.25 lb-PM10/ton

SOx Scrubber, natural gas firing with low sulfur backup fuel oil (< 0.0015% sulfur by weight), and use of cullet > 

30% annual average

VOC Natural gas firing and use of cullet (scrap glass) > 30% annual average; 0.25 lb-VOC/ton

1.5.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 5/15/1998

Flat Glass Production Float Furnace, Natural Gas Fired

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.2*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO Electric Furnace

NOx 1. Oxy-Firing Furnace System with 

DeNOx system = 15% cullet

2. Oxy-Firing Furnace System with =15% 

cullet

3. Natural Gas with PPG supplemental 

burner system, DeNOx system, and = 

15% cullet

4. Natural Gas Fired with 3RTechnology 

system and 15% cullet

5. Natural Gas with DeNOx system and = 

15% cullet

6. Natural Gas with =15% cullet

Electric Furnace

PM10 Natural Gas Primary Fuel and

Electrostatic Precipitator

SOx Natural Gas-Firing with low sulfur

fuel (<0.05% sulfur by weight) and 

scrubber

VOC Natural Gas-Firing with fuel oil as

backup Gas

Electric Furnace

1.5.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: > 525 tons/day

Facility: PPG Industries Inc References: ATC #: C-948-11-5

Project #: 980173

Location: Fresno, CA Date of Determination: 5/15/1998

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.2 A

Emissions Unit: Flat glass production furnace

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Natural gas fired with DeNOx system, =15% cullet and PPG supplemental burner system or emissions less 

than 192 lb NOx/hr

PM10 Natural gas primary fuel and electrostatic precipitator

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.5.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 4/8/1996

Existing flat glass furnace with a 3R system and a backup thermal De-NOx 

system

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.3*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO 1. ESP and Catalytic Oxidizer

2. 112 ppmv @ 15% O2 dry

VOC 1. ESP and Catalytic Oxidizer

2. 3.4 ppmv @ 15% O2 dry

(as Methane)

1.5.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 200 MMBtu/hr and 750 

tons/day of raw materials

Facility: Libbey Owens Ford References: ATC #: N-477-10-2

Project #: 960137

Location: Lathrop, CA Date of Determination: 4/8/1996

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.3 A

Emissions Unit: Flat glass furnace fired on gaseous fuels 

equipped with a 3R system for primary NOx 

control and a thermal De-NOx system for 

backup NOx control

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO 112 ppmv @ 15% O2 dry

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC 3.4 ppmv @ 15% O2 dry (as Methane)

1.5.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 6/18/1996

Metal Melting Crucible/Furnace

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.4*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx Natural gas Electric Furnace

PM10 Clean charge Baghouse

1.5.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 2,000 lb/day

Facility: Lamar Tool & Die Casting References: ATC #: N-3412-1-0

Project #: 950066

Location: Modesto, CA Date of Determination: 6/18/1996

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.4 A

Emissions Unit: Brass melting Crucible Furnace

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Natural Gas

PM10 Clean Charge

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.5.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/19/2000

Glass Bottle Label Curing Lehr - < 10 MMBtu/hr, Natural Gas Fired

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.5*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx Natural Gas or LPG Fuel

1.5.5
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 6.35 MMBtu/hr total

(0.08 MMBtu/hr per burner)

Facility: Quest Industries References: ATC #: N-4423-1-0

Project #: 1000967

Location: Stockton, CA Date of Determination: 10/19/2000

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.5 A

Emissions Unit: Glass Bottle Label Curing Lehr

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Use of Natural Gas Fuel

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.5.5
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 11/4/2003

Natural Gas-Fired Metal Heating Furnace

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.6*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx 30 ppmv NOx @ 3% O2 at 

the final stack

Electric Heater

1.5.6
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 7,8 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Betts Spring Company References: ATC #:C-199-9-0; project #: 

1030111

Location: Fresno, CA Date of Determination: 11/4/2003

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

Electric Heater

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.6 A

Emissions Unit: Furnace Spring Manufacturing

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 30 ppmv NOx @ 3% O2 at the final stack

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.5.6
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 8/17/2006

Glass Furnace Forehearth

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.7*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx natural gas/propane-fired 

and good combustion 

practices

electric forehearth

SOx natural gas/propane-fired 

and good combustion 

practices

electric forehearth

VOC natural gas/propane-fired 

and good combustion 

practices

electric forehearth

1.5.7
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 4.66 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Certainteed Corporation References: ATC# C-261-4-5; Project# C1043510

Location: Chowchilla, CA Date of Determination: 8/17/2006

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.7 A

electric forehearth (not applicable to modifications)

Emissions Unit: Glass Furnace Forehearth

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx natural gas/propane-fired and good combustion practices

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx natural gas/propane-fired and good combustion practices

VOC natural gas/propane-fired and good combustion practices

1.5.7
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 6/19/2006

Container Glass Production - Container Glass Distributor

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.8*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO Natural gas-fired container 

glass distributor with good 

combustion practices, using 

LPG backup fuel, and CO 

emissions of 0.084 lb/MMBtu

Electric glass distributor

NOx Natural gas-fired container 

glass distributor with good 

combustion practices, using 

LPG backup fuel, and NOx 

emissions of 0.10 lb/MMBtu

Electric glass distributor

PM10 Electric glass distributor

SOx Electric glass distributor

VOC Electric glass distributor

1.5.8
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 10.00 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. References: ATC# C-801-19-0; Project # C1053187

Location: Madera, CA Date of Determination: 6/19/2006

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.8 A

(NOx and CO) Electric Glass Distributor

NOx, SOx, PM10, CO, and VOC

Emissions Unit: Natural Gas-fired Container Glass Distributor

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO Natural gas-fired container glass distributor with good combustion practices, using LPG backup fuel, and CO

emissions of 0.084 lb/MMBtu

NOx Natural gas-fired container glass distributor with good combustion practices, using LPG backup fuel, and 

NOx emissions of 0.10 lb/MMBtu

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.5.8
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 6/8/2006

Container Glass Production - Furnace

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.9*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO natural gas-fired oxy-fuel 

furnace with CO emissions 

of < or = 0.20 lb/ton of glass 

pulled (on a pounds per day 

basis)

electric furnace

NOx natural gas-fired oxy-fuel 

furnace using LPG backup 

fuel and NOx emissions of < 

or = 1.5 lb/ton of glass pulled

natural gas-fired oxy-fuel furnace using 

LPG backup fuel and NOx emissions of < 

or = 1.3 lb/ton of glass pulled

electric furnace

PM10 natural gas-fired oxy-fuel 

furnace with an electrostatic 

precipitator (ESP) in series 

with a semi-dry scrubber, 

using LPG backup fuel, and 

PM10 emissions of < or = 

0.45 lb/ton of glass pulled

electric furnace

SOx natural gas-fired oxy-fuel 

furnace using LPG backup 

fuel and NOx emissions of < 

or = 0.8 lb/ton of glass pulled

electric furnace

VOC natural gas-fired furnace with 

VOC emissions of < or = 0.2 

lb/ton of glass pulled

natural gas-fired furnace with a catalytic 

oxidizer and VOC emissions of < or = 

0.01 lb/ton of glass pulled (95% control 

efficiency)

natural gas-fired oxy-fuel furnace with 

LPG backup fuel, and VOC emissions of 

< or = 0.01 lb/ton of glass pulled (95% 

control efficiency)

natural gas-fired furnace with VOC 

emission of 3.4 ppmv at 15% O2 dry and 

VOC emissions of < or = 0.184 lb/ton of 

glass pulled (block 24-hour average) (8% 

control efficiency)

electric furnace

1.5.9
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 85.0 MMBtu/hr oxy fuel-fired 

with 3,600 kVa of electric 

boost

Facility: Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. References: ATC # C-801-2-8; Project# C1053187

Location: Madera, CA Date of Determination: 6/8/2006

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

Oxidation Catalyst (CO and VOC)

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.9 A

(NOx, SOx, PM10, CO, and VOC) Electric Furnace (not applicable to modifications)

NOx

SOx, PM10, CO, and VOC

Emissions Unit: Natural Gas-fired Oxy-fuel Container Glass 

Furnace

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO natural gas-fired oxy-fuel furnace with CO emissions of < or = 0.20 lb/ton of glass pulled (on a pounds per 

day basis)

NOx natural gas-fired oxy-fuel furnace using LPG backup fuel and NOx emissions of < or = 1.3 lb/ton of glass 

pulled

PM10 natural gas-fired oxy-fuel furnace with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) in series with a semi-dry scrubber, 

using LPG backup fuel, and PM10 emissions of < or = 0.45 lb/ton of glass pulled

SOx natural gas-fired oxy-fuel furnace using LPG backup fuel and NOx emissions of < or = 0.8 lb/ton of glass 

pulled (85% Control Efficiency)

VOC natural gas-fired oxy-fuel furnace with LPG backup fuel, and VOC emissions of < or = 0.01 lb/ton of glass 

pulled

1.5.9
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 6/19/2006

Container Glass Production - Container Glass Lehr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.10*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO Natural gas-fired container 

glass lehr with emissions of 

20 ppmv CO @ 3% O2 or 

0.015 lb-CO/MMBtu and 

using LPG backup fuel

Electric Lehr

NOx Natural gas-fired container 

glass lehr with emissions of 

60 ppmv NOx @ 3% O2 or 

0.073 lb-NOx/MMBtu and 

using LPG backup fuel

Electric Lehr

PM10 Electric Lehr

SOx Electric Lehr

VOC Electric Lehr

1.5.10
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 8.0 and 10.0 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. References: ATC # C-801-20-0 and '-21-0; 

Project # C-1053187

Location: Madera, CA Date of Determination: 6/19/2006

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.10 A

(NOx, SOx, PM10, CO, and VOC) electric lehr

NOx and CO

Emissions Unit: Natural Gas-fired Container Glass Lehr

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO Natural gas-fired container glass lehr with emissions of 20 ppmv CO @ 3% O2 or 0.015 lb-CO/MMBtu and 

using LPG backup fuel

NOx Natural gas-fired container glass lehr with emissions of 60 ppmv NOx @ 3% O2 or 0.073 lb-NOx/MMBtu and

using LPG backup fuel

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.5.10
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 6/16/2006

Container Glass Production - Mold Swabbing Operation

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.11*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

PM10 Using best management 

practices and the judicial use 

of mold swabbing material (< 

or = 0.106 lb of material per 

ton of glass produced with 

70% volatilization) with 

PM10 emissions of 0.074 

lb/ton of glass formed

1.5.11
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 1,050 tons glass formed/day

Facility: Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc References: ATC # C-801-11-3; Project # C1053187

Location: Madera Date of Determination: 6/16/2006

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.5.11 A

Emissions Unit: Mold Swabbing Operation

Pollutant BACT Requirements

PM10 Using best management practices and the judicial use of mold swabbing material (< or = 0.106 lb of material 

per ton of glass produced with 70% volatilization) with PM10 emissions of 0.074 lb/ton of glass formed

1.5.11
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 2/5/2005

Vegetable Roasting Operation

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.1*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx Use of natural gas fuel and 

operating the burner within 

manufacturer's specification 

to minimize NOx emissions

1) 9 ppmvd @ 3% O2 or less utilizing an 

SCR or LTO system.

2) Use of a low NOx burner system 

operating at a NOx emissions 

concentration of < or = 30 ppmv @ 3% 

O2

1.6.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 3.2 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Quality Assured Packing References: ATC #: N-657-6-0

Project #: 970128

Location: Stockton, CA Date of Determination: 6/4/1997

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.1 A

Emissions Unit: Tomato Roaster

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Operation of burner within manufacturer’s specification to minimize NOx emissions

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 3.5 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Gilroy Foods References: ATC #N-1787-14-0; N-1041983

Location:

Modesto, Ca

Date of Determination:

2/5/2005

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Low Temperature Oxidation (LTO) 

Systems

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.1 B

Emissions Unit: Conveyorized Vegetable Branding/Roasting 

Chamber with Open Flame Burners

Pollutant BACT Requirements

NOx Use of a low NOx burner system operating at a NOx emissions concentration of = or < 30 ppmv @ 3% O2

1.6.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 6/23/2005

Oven - Tortilla, <= 5 MMBtu/hr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.2*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx natural gas fired with 

optional LPG as backup fuel

1.6.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 4.0 MMBtu/hr burner

Facility: Eagle Snacks, Inc References: PTO #: S-159-4-1

Project #: 940419

SCAQMD 17

Location: Visalia, CA Date of Determination: 5/22/1995

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.2 A

Emissions Unit: Tortilla Oven

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 0.095 lb NOx/MMBtu, natural gas fuel or LPG backup

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: <= 5 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Ruiz Food Products, Inc. References: ATC S-1325-32-0; S-1050757

Location:

Dinuba, CA

Date of Determination:

6/23/2005

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.2 B

Emissions Unit: Oven - Tortilla, <= 5 MMBtu/hr

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx natural gas fired with optional LPG as backup fuel

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 3/20/1995

Fryer - Potato Chip

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.3*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO Natural gas and LPG backup fuel

NOx Low NOx burner @ 0.036

lb/MMBtu, natural gas and LPG

backup fuel

PM10 Natural gas and LPG backup fuel,

incineration with > 0.3 second

retention time at > 1400 F

SOx PUC quality natural gas and LPG

backup fuel

VOC Natural gas and LPG backup fuel

1.6.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 20 MMBtu/hr frying oil 

heater/exhaust incineration, 

38.4 tons of chips 

produced/day

Facility: Eagle Snacks References: ATC #: S-159-38-0

Project #: 940841

Location: Visalia, CA Date of Determination: 3/20/1995

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.3 A

Emissions Unit: Potato Chip Fryer

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 0.036 lb/MMBtu, Natural gas fuel

PM10 0.174 lb/ton chips produced, Natural gas and LPG backup fuel, incineration with > 0.3 second retention time 

at > 1400 F

SOx 0.001 lb/MMBtu, PUC quality natural gas fuel and LPG backup fuel

VOC 0.005 lb/MMBtu, Natural gas fuel and LPG backup fuel

1.6.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 6/16/1999

Oven - Snack Food

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.4*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO Natural gas and LPG as 

backup fuel

Catalytic Oxidation

NOx Natural gas and LPG as 

backup fuel

Selective Catalytic Reduction

PM10 Natural gas and LPG as 

backup fuel

SOx Natural gas and LPG as 

backup fuel

1.6.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 7.5 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Recot, Inc References: ATC #: S-2076-21-0

Project #: 950709

Location: Bakersfield, CA Date of Determination: 10/1/1995

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.4 A

Emissions Unit: Tortilla Chip Oven

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Natural gas fuel of LPG backup 0.10 lb/MMBtu for natural gas, 0.15 lb/MMBtu

for propane

PM10 Natural gas fuel or LPG backup 0.012 lb/MMBtu for natural gas or propane

SOx Natural gas fuel or LPG backup 0.2 gr/100 scf of natural gas, 15.4 gr/100 scf of

propane gas vapor

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 4.0 MMBtu/hr (Limited

to 2.5 MMBtu/hr by

permit condition).

Facility: Recot, Inc References: ATC #: S-2076-19-0

Project #: 990407

Location: Bakersfield, CA Date of Determination: 4/22/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

Selective Catalytic Reduction

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.4 B

Emissions Unit: Pretzel Coating Drying Oven

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Natural gas fuel

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 6.9 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Recot, Inc References: ATC #: S-2076-13-4; -14-4

Project #: 990138

Location: Bakersfield, CA Date of Determination: 6/16/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

Selective Catalytic Reduction (NOX), Oxidation Catalyst (CO)

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.4 C

Emissions Unit: Tortilla Chip Oven

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO Natural gas fuel

NOx Natural gas fuel

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 7/5/1996

Cornnut (tm) cooker

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.5*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

PM10 Mist eliminator followed by a

variable throat Venturi 

scrubber

with cyclonic separator

(Control Efficiency within 80 

to

95%)

Thermal incinerator

1.6.5
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 8,000 lb corn/hr

Facility: Cornnuts, Incorporated References: ATC #: C-375-1-1

Project #: 960421

Location: Fresno, CA Date of Determination: 7/5/1996

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

Incineration

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.5 A

Emissions Unit: Heat & Control Cornnut

cooker Model CNC5516.5

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 Mist Eliminator followed by a Sly Manufacturing variable throat Venturi

scrubber with a cyclonic separator. Minimum control efficiency of 80%

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.5
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 5/13/1999

Peanut Roasting Operation

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.6*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx 1. Low NOx burner

2. Operating practices to

minimize NOx emissions

(burner to be operated within

manufacturer specifications)

PM10 0.19 lb/ton of product roasted 1. Fabric filter baghouse

2. Electrostatic precipitator

3. Thermal Incinerator

VOC Thermal incineration

1.6.6
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: < or = 21 ton of peanuts/day

Facility: Security Trust/Safeway Inc References: ATC # N-3839-3-0

Project #: 970139

Location: Merced, CA Date of Determination: 6/30/1997

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.6 A

Emissions Unit: Peanut Roasting Operation

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Operating practices to minimize NOx emissions (burner to be operated within

manufacturer specifications)

PM10 0.54 lb/ton product roasted

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC 0.1 lb/ton product roasted

1.6.6
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 4.4 MMBtu/hr (two 1.6

MMBtu/hr and one 1.2 

MMBtu/hr burners)

and maximum processing 

rate of 60

tons/day

Facility: Security Trust/Safeway Inc References: ATC # N-3839-3-1

Project #: 990281

Location: Merced, CA Date of Determination: 5/13/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.6 B

Emissions Unit: Peanut Roasting Operation

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 0.19 lb/ton product roasted

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.6
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 1/27/1994

Pistachio Roasting Operation

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.7*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx Natural gas fuel

PM10 Fabric Filter Baghouse After burner with 0.3 sec

retention time @ 1400 F

SOx Natural gas fuel

VOC Natural gas fuel

1.6.7
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 3.2 MMBtu/hr and 52.5 

ton/day

Facility: Homa Ranch References: PTO #: S-713-4-2

Project #: 930205

Location: Lost Hills, CA Date of Determination: 1/27/1994

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.7 A

Emissions Unit: Pistachio Roasting Operation

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 0.0952 lb/MMBtu, Natural gas fuel

PM10 0.060 lb/ton product roasted and

0.003 lb/ton product cooled, Fabric filter baghouse

SOx 0.0006 lb/MMBtu, Natural gas fuel

VOC 0.005 lb/MMBtu, Natural gas fuel

1.6.7
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 4/14/1995

Pistachio Nut Dryer

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.8*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO Natural gas with LPG as

backup fuel

NOx Low NOx burner @ 0.083

lb/MMBtu and natural gas 

fuel

PM10 Natural gas with LPG as

backup fuel

SOx PUC quality natural gas

with LPG as backup fuel

VOC Natural gas with LPG as backup fuel

1.6.8
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 6.9 MMBtu/hr

480,000 lb pistachios/day

Facility: Monarch Nuts References: ATC #: S-130-1-1

Project #: 950063

Location: Delano, CA Date of Determination: 4/14/1995

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.8 A

Emissions Unit: Pistachio Nut Dryer

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 0.083 lb NOx/MMBtu, natural gas fuel

PM10 BACT exempt, uncontrolled emissions are not greater than 2 lb/day

SOx BACT exempt, uncontrolled emissions are not greater than 2 lb/day

VOC BACT exempt, uncontrolled emissions are not greater than 2 lb/day

1.6.8
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/30/1996

Dryer - Almond Processing, < 10 MMBtu/hr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.9*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx Low NOx burner (utilizing

stage combustion technology)

1.6.9
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 1.2 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Gold Hills Nut Company References: ATC #: N-3290-4-0

Project #: 960098

Location: Ballico, CA Date of Determination: 10/30/1996

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.9 A

Emissions Unit: Almond Dryer

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx No achieved in practice control found

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.9
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 7/30/1998

Oven - Wheat Drying, < or = 10 MMBtu/hour

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.10*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

PM10 1D- 3D Cyclones

1.6.10
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 8.1 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Sunnyland Bulgur Wheat References: ATC #: C-1968-2-2

Project #: 980473

Location: Fresno, CA Date of Determination: 7/30/1998

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.10 A

Emissions Unit: Wheat Drying Oven

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 1D-3D Cyclone Collector

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.10
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 7/27/1995

Dryer - Milk Spray, > or = 20 MMBtu/hr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.11*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO Natural gas with LPG as

backup fuel

NOx Low NOx burner fired on

natural gas with LPG as

backup fuel

PM10 Baghouse and natural gas 

with

LPG as backup fuel

SOx Natural gas with LPG as

backup fuel

VOC Natural gas with LPG as

backup fuel

1.6.11
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 30 MMBtu/hr

Facility: California Milk Producers References: ATC #: S-1346-4-1

Project #: 950355

Location: Tipton, CA Date of Determination: 7/27/1995

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.11 A

Emissions Unit: Milk Spray Dryer with Sifter

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 0.065 lb/MMBTU, Low NOx burner and natural gas or LPG backup fuel

PM10 0.344 lb/ton of product, Baghouse and natural gas or LPG backup fuel

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.11
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 4/22/1999

Dryer - Whey, Filtermat,< 50 MMBtu/hr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.12*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

PM10 1. Venturi Scrubber

2. Wet Dynamic Scrubber

3. Cyclonic Collector

1.6.12
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 32 MMBtu/hr

4.25 tons whey/hr

Facility: Kraft Foods, Inc. References: ATC #: S-843-10-5

Project #: 990214

Location: Tulare, CA Date of Determination: 4/22/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

NOx control: burners with SCR and low NOX burners. PM10 control baghouse

NSCR

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.12 A

Emissions Unit: Whey Dryer - Filtermat

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 Wet Dynamic scrubber (0.56 lb PM10/ton of whey)

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.12
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 6/26/1998

Dehydrator - Vegetable, Continuous Process

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.13*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx 1. Low-NOx Burner with SCR

(<0.036 lb/MMBtu)

2. Low NOx Burner (0.036 lb/MMBtu)

3. Natural Gas Fired Burner

(<0.06lb/MMBtu)

PM10 PUC-quality natural gas fuel and vents 

ducted to a cyclone (>90% control 

efficiency) on product transfer points.

baghouse

VOC Use of PUC-quality natural gas fuel

1.6.13
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 70MMBtu/hr

Facility: DeFrancesco & Sons, Inc. References: ATC #: C-412-12-0

Project #: 970315

Location: Firebaugh, CA Date of Determination: 6/26/1998

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

NOx control: burners with SCR and low NOX burners. PM10 control: baghouse

NSCR not technologically feasible

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.13 A

Emissions Unit: Natural Gas-Fired Onion and

Garlic Dehydrator Tunnel,

Continuous Process

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Natural Gas Combustion, NOx emissions of 0.06 lb/MMBtu

PM10 Natural Gas Combustion in burners; Texas A&M design 1D-3D or 1D-2D

cyclones to provide 90% + control on product transfer points

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC Natural Gas Combustion

1.6.13
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 5/18/1998

Dehydrator Tunnel - Fruit, Natural Gas Fired

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.14*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx Natural Gas or Propane-Fired

Burner (<0.16 lb/MMBtu)

1. Natural Gas or PropaneFired Ultra Low NOx burner

(<0.012 lb/MMBtu)

2. Natural Gas-Fired or

Propane-Fired Low NOx

burner (<0.060 lb/MMBtu)

Electrical Heater

SOx Natural Gas, LPG Gas Fuel, 

or

Propane as fuel

1. Wet Scrubber with 85% SOX

control

Electrical Heater

1.6.14
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 3.0 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Zoria Farms, Inc. References: ATC #: C-1411-2-2

Project #: 970661

Location: Madera, CA Date of Determination: 5/18/1998

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

Ultra Low NOx burner, Natural Gas Low NOx burner and Wet Scrubber with 

98% SOx control

Electrical Heater

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.14 A

Emissions Unit: Fruit Dehydrator Tunnel

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Propane-Fired Burner with NOx emissions <0.16 lb NOx / MMBtu

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx Propane-Fired Burner

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.14
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 8/4/1999

Dryer - Milk Spray, < 20 MMBtu/hr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.15*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx 20 ppmv Low NOx burner 

fired

on natural gas with LPG as

backup fuel

9 ppmv NOx @ 3% O2

Selective Catalytic

Reduction, Low

Temperature Oxidation,

or equal.

PM10 Baghouse and natural gas 

fuel

with LPG as backup fuel

1.6.15
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 13.5 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Hilmar Cheese Company References: ATC #:N-1275-17-0

Project #: 990535

Location: Hilmar, CA Date of Determination:

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

1. SCR, 2. LTO

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.15 A

Emissions Unit: Milk Spray Dryer

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 18 ppmv @ 3% O2 (Low NOx burner)

PM10 Baghouse and natural gas fuel with LPG backup fuel

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.15
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 8/26/1999

Dryer - Seed Processing, < 20 MMBtu/hr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.16*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx 20 ppmv Low NOx burner

fired on natural gas with

LPG as backup fuel

9 ppmv NOx @ 3% O2

Selective Catalytic Reduction,

Low Temperature Oxidation,

or equal.

1.6.16
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 12 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Celpril Industries, Inc References: ATC #:N-189-1-3

Project #: N-990664

Location: Manteca, CA Date of Determination: 8/26/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

SCR, LTO

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.16 A

Emissions Unit: Seed Processing Dryer

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 20 ppmv @ 3% O2 (Low NOx burner)

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.16
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 7/10/1998

Food Preparation Oven, <800 degrees Fahrenheit, = or < 3.7 MMBtu/hr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.17*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx Natural Gas-Fired

burner (83-30 ppmv @

3 ppmv O2)

1. Ultra Low-NOx Burner (<10 ppmv @ 3 

ppmv O2)

2. Low-NOx Burner (10-30 ppmv @ 3 

ppmv O2)

Electric

Heater

1.6.17
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 0.88 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Harris Ranch Beef References: ATC #: C-616-4-0

Project #: C-980273

Location: Selma, CA Date of Determination: 7/10/1998

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

Ultra Low NOx Burner

Electrical Heater

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.17 A

Emissions Unit: Beef Processing Oven -<800 degrees 

Fahrenheit.

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Natural Gas Fired, Low Nox Burner (30-20 ppm @ 3% O2)

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.17
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 12/6/1999

Chicken Fryer - Natural Gas-Fired, Continuous Process, = or < 7 tons/hr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.18*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

PM10 50% Control, 0.13 lb/ton from

fryer (Oil Mist Eliminator)

Wet Scrubber

1.6.18
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: = or < 7 tons/hr

Facility: Del Mesa Farms References: ATC #: S-3591-3-0; Project #: S990809

Location: Porterville, CA Date of Determination: 12/6/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.18 A

Emissions Unit: Chicken Fryer -

Natural Gas-Fired,

Continuous Process

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 50% control (Oil Mist Eliminator) 0.13 lb/ton processed from fryer

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.18
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 5/30/2000

Meat Smokehouse - Natural Gas-Fired,< or = 2 MMBtu/hr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.19*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

PM10 Natural gas-fired 

Oven/smokehouse with a 

natural gas-fired smoke 

generator

1. Thermal incinerator (Afterburner)

2. Electrostatic precipitator and wet 

scrubber.

3. Electrostatic precipitator

4. Wet Scrubber

5. Natural gas-fired oven/smokehouse 

with an electric

smoke generator.

Use of Liquid

Smoke

VOC Natural gas-fired 

oven/smokehouse with a 

natural gas-fired smoke 

generator

1. Thermal incinerator (Afterburner)

2. Wet Scrubber

3. Natural gas-fired

oven/smokehouse with an electric

smoke generator.

Use of Liquid

Smoke

1.6.19
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 1.0 MMBtu/hr Smokehouse

9.5 KW electric smoke 

generator

Facility: Alpine Packing References: ATC #: N-19-3-2

Project #: N-990569

Location: Stockton, CA Date of Determination: 5/30/2000

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.19 A

Emissions Unit: Meat Smokehouse - Natural Gas-Fired,

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 Natural gas-fired Oven/smokehouse with an electric smoke generator

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC Natural gas-fired Oven/smokehouse with an electric smoke generator

1.6.19
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 7/11/2001

Feather Meal Processing Rotary Dryer - Natural Gas Fired, High Ammonia 

Environment

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.20*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx 1. 9 ppmvd @ 3% oxygen (Selective 

Catalytic Reduction system)

2. 30 ppmvd @ 3% oxygen (Low NOx 

burner system)

PM10 Natural gas fired with LPG 

as a backup fuel

SOx Natural gas fired with

LPG as a backup fuel.

VOC Natural gas fired with LPG 

as a backup fuel

1.6.20
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 25 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Foster Foods References: ATC #: N-1252-2-3

Project #: N-990446

Location: Livingston, CA Date of Determination: 7/11/2000

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

9 ppmvd NOx SCR

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.20 A

30 ppmvd NOx final exhaust concentration

Natural Gas Fired

Emissions Unit: Rotary Drum Feather Dryer, high ammonia 

environment.

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 30 ppmvd @ 3% Oxygen Final Exhaust Concentration (Low NOx Burner with Flue Gas Recirculation system)

PM10 Natural Gas Fired

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC Natural Gas Fired

1.6.20
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 25 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Foster Food Products References: ATC #: N-1252-2-6

Project #: N-101063

Location: Livingston, CA Date of Determination: 7/11/2001

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.20 B

Emissions Unit: Rotary Drum Feather Dryer

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx Natural gas fired with LPG as a backup fuel

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.20
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/31/2002

Flake Cereal Dryer - < 20 MMBtu/hr, Conveyor-fed

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.21*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx 30 ppmv @ 3% Oxygen

(Low-NOx burner, or

equal)

1. 9 ppmv @ 3% Oxygen

(Ultra-Low-NOx burner, or

equal)

2. 20 ppmv @ 3% Oxygen

(Low-NOx burner, or equal)

1.6.21
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 8 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Kraft Foods Inc. References: ATC #: N-1933-3-4

Project #: N1021060

Location: Modesto, CA Date of Determination: 10/31/2002

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

9 ppmv Ultra-Low NOx

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.21 A

Emissions Unit: Natural-gas fired,

conveyor-fed, flake cereal dryer.

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 20 ppmv @ 3% Oxygen Low-NOx burner system

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.6.21
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 8/15/2006

Wood Drying Kiln

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.22*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

VOC natural gas fuel 1) VOC capture and thermal incineration

2) VOC capture and catalytic incineration

3) VOC capture and carbon adsorption 

(provided the contaminated air stream 

does not contain any ingredient that 

could combust as a result of adsorption 

to carbon)

1.6.22
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 42,000 board-feet/charge

Facility: Thunderbolt Wood Treating References: N-3015-4-0

Location:

Riverbank, CA

Date of Determination:

8/15/2006

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.22 A

Emissions Unit: Wood Drying Kiln

Pollutant BACT Requirements

VOC natural gas fuel

1.6.22
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 7/10/2007

Pistachio, Almond, and Walnut Dryers (<10 MMBtu/hr and <2,160 hr/yr)

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.23*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx 0.06 lb/MMBtu, natural gasfired with low NOx burner1) 0.012 lb/MMBtu, natural gas-fired with 

low NOx burner

2) 0.024 lb/MMBtu, natural gas-fired with 

low NOx burner

SOx PUC quality natural gas with 

LPG as backup fuel

PM10 Natural gas with LPG as 

backup fuel

CO Natural gas with LPG as 

backup fuel

VOC Natural gas with LPG as 

backup fuel

1.6.23
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

1.6.23
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 2/12/2008

Commercial Bakery Oven

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.24*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx 30 ppmvd @ 3% O2 

equivalent to 0.036 lb/MMBtu

Low Temperature-Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Electric Oven

VOC VOC capture and 95% 

control efficiency - 

thermal/catalytic incineration, 

or equivalent

1.6.24
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: All

Facility: Premier Bakers, Inc References: ATC #: N-7752-3-0 & '-4-0, 

Project#: 1073369

Location: Modesto Date of Determination: 2/12/2008

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.24 A

Emissions Unit: Commercial Bakery

Pollutant BACT Requirements

VOC Capture and 95% control with catalytic oxidizer

NOx 30 ppmvd @ 3% O2 (equivalent to 0.036 MMBtu/hr)

1.6.24
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 5/2/2008

Blood Drying Operation

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.25*

*During incineration, NH3 is converted to NOx. Environmentally beneficial technologically feasible option is only triggered if the conversion 

of NH3 to NOx results in NOx emissions greater than 2.0 lb/day.

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

VOC 90% overall capture and 

control efficiency 

(incineration at 1,200 F for 

not less than 0.3 seconds, or 

equal)

95% overall capture and control 

efficiency (incineration at 1,600 F for not 

less than 0.5 seconds, or equal)

PM10 98% overall capture and 

control efficiency (primary 

product cyclone, high 

efficiency cyclone, and 

regenerative thermal oxidizer 

connected in series, or equal)

NH3 94% overall capture and 

control efficiency (venturi 

scrubber vented to packed 

bed scrubber, or equal)

if incineration is used, 90% overall 

capture and control efficiency (NH3 wet 

scrubber, or equal) - environmentally 

beneficial solution to reduce NOx 

emissions*

1.6.25
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: All

Facility: Harris Ranch Beef Company References: ATC # C-616-11-0; Project # 

1073658

Location: Selma, CA Date of Determination: 5/2/2008

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

NH3 capture and wet scrubbing

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.25 A

Emissions Unit: Blood Drying Operation

Pollutant BACT Requirements

VOC 95% overall capture and control efficiency - regenerative thermal oxidizer

PM10 98% overall capture and control efficiency - primary product cyclone, high efficiency cyclone, and 

regenerative thermal oxidizer connected in series

1.6.25
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 3/25/2008

Rotary Kiln Dryer for Poultry Litter* Processing

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.26*

For the purposes of this guideline, poultry litter is defined as a mixture of poultry manure and bedding material such as rice hulls

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

PM10 baghouse or equal 

technology

VOC 1. thermal oxidizer

2. catalytic oxidizer

3. biotrickling filter

4. wet scrubber

NH3 1. catalytic oxidizer

2. wet scrubber

3. biotrickling filter

1.6.26
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: processing rate of 25 ton/hr

Facility: Foster Poultry Farms - Kopro References: ATC # N-1248-4-9; Project # N1072904

Location: Livingston, CA Date of Determination: 3/25/2008

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

1. thermal oxidizer

2. catalytic oxidizer

3. biotrickling filter

4. wet scrubber

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.6.26 A

Emissions Unit: Rotary Kiln Dryer

Pollutant BACT Requirements

PM10 baghouse or equivalent

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOX BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC None

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NH3 None

1.6.26
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 4/3/2000

Oven - Polyethylene Curing, = or < 20 MMBtu/hr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.7.1*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx Natural Gas or Propane Fuel 1. 20 ppmv @ 3% O2

(low-NOx Burner)

2. 30 ppmv @ 3% O2

(low-NOx Burner)

1.7.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 5.6 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Toter, Incorporated References: ATC #: C-43-6-0

Project #: 960053

Location: Sanger, CA Date of Determination: 8/21/1996

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.7.1 A

Emissions Unit: 5.6 MMBtu/hr

polyethylene product

curing oven

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Natural gas fuel

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.7.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 4 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Earth & Ocean Sports References: ATC #: C-2041-5-0

Project #: 980256

Location: Madera, CA Date of Determination: 4/3/2000

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.7.1 B

Emissions Unit: Polyethylene product curing

oven, propane fired

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 20 ppmv @ 3% O2 (low-NOx Burner)

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.7.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 8/19/1996

Oven - Plastisol curing/fusing, = or < 2.5 MMBtu/hr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.7.2*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx Natural gas fuel used in the 

fusing oven

Natural gas fuel used in the fusing oven 

with a Low NOx burner.

VOC Plastisol with ≤ 2% VOC by 

weight and natural gas fuel

used in the fusing oven

Plastisol with ≤ 0.2% VOC by weight and 

natural gas fuel used in the fusing oven

1.7.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 2.5 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Parker Hannifin Corp, Racor Division References: ATC #: N-2089-4-0

Project #: 960342

Location: Modesto, CA Date of Determination: 8/19/1996

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.7.2 A

Plastisol with < or = 0.2% VOC by weight, natural gas fuel in the fusing oven with a low NOx 

burner

Plastisol with < or = 2% VOC by weight, natural gas as fuel

Emissions Unit: Plastisol curing operation

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Natural gas fuel in the fusing oven with a low NOx burner - 0.062

lb/MMBtu

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC Plastisol with ≤ 0.2% VOC by weight and natural gas fuel used in the

fusing oven

1.7.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 8/13/1999

Oven - Parts Cleaning, Burnoff or Burnout

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.7.3*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO Natural Gas Fuel

NOx Natural Gas Fuel

PM10 Natural Gas Fuel

SOx Natural Gas Fuel

VOC 99% control (Afterburner with

0.5 sec or greater retention

time and operating 

temperature

of 1400 degrees F.)

1.7.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 0.3 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Don's Electric References: ATC #: N-2319-1-0

Project #: 920355

Location: Bakersfield, CA Date of Determination: 2/11/1993

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.7.3 A

Emissions Unit: Electric Motor

Burnout Oven

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO 0.17 lb/MMBtu, natural gas fuel

NOx 0.055 lb/MMBtu, natural gas fuel

PM10 0.03 lb/MMBtu, natural gas fuel

SOx 0.0006 lb/MMBtu, Natural gas fuel

VOC 0.04 lb/MMBtu, Afterburner with retention time 0.5 sec or greater and

operating temperature of 1400 F and natural gas fuel

1.7.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 1.5 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Brake Parts, Inc References: ATC #: C-1580-9-0

Project #: C-990389

Location: Bakersfield, CA Date of Determination: 7/13/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.7.3 B

Emissions Unit: Brake Parts Cleaning -

Burnoff Oven

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC Afterburner with retention time 0.5 sec or greater and

operating temperature of 1400oF and natural gas fuel

1.7.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/26/2009

RESCINDED

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.1*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

1.8.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 47.1 MMBtu/hr

Facility: San Joaquin Refining Company References: ATC #: S-36-51-1

Project #: S-950782

Location: Bakersfield, CA Date of Determination: 1/31/1996

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

1) Natural gas with SCR, low-NOx burners, and FGR; 2) Natural

gas with SCR; 3) Natural gas with NSCR, low-NOx burners, and

FGR; 4) Natural gas with NSCR; 5) Natural gas with chemical

injection; 6) Natural gas with Ultra low-NOx forced-draft burners

and FGR; 7) Natural gas and/or LPG with low-NOx burners and

internal FGR achieving 25 ppmvd @ 3% 02

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.1 A

Emissions Unit: Process Heater - Refinery

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 30.0 ppmvd @ 3% 02 (0.036 lb/MMBtu) Natural gas and/or LPG with

combustion modifications (low-NOx burners and internal FGR)

PM10 Natural gas and/or LPG

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC Natural Gas and/or LPG

1.8.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 10.5 MMBtu/hr

Facility: San Joaquin Refining

Company

References: ATC #: S-36-51-1

Project #: S-950782

Location: Bakersfield, CA Date of Determination: 1/31/1996

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

1) Natural gas with SCR, low-NOx burners, and FGR; 2) Natural

gas with SCR; 3) Natural gas with NSCR, low-NOx burners, and

FGR; 4) Natural gas with NSCR; 5) Natural gas with chemical

injection; 6) Natural gas with Ultra low-NOx forced-draft burners

and FGR; 7) Natural gas and/or LPG with low-NOx burners and

internal FGR achieving 25 ppmvd @ 3% 02

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.1 B

Emissions Unit: Process Heater -

Refinery

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Natural gas and/or LPG with combustion modifications (low-NOx burners and

internal FGR) achieving 30 ppmvd @ 3% 02 (0.036 lb/MMBtu)

PM10 Natural gas and/or LPG

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC Natural gas and/or LPG

1.8.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 8.4 MMBtu/hr

Facility: San Joaquin Refining Company References: ATC #: S-36-51-1

Project #: S-950782

Location: Bakersfield, CA Date of Determination: 1/31/1996

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

1) Natural gas with SCR, low-NOx burners, and FGR; 2) Natural

gas with SCR; 3) Natural gas with NSCR, low-NOx burners, and

FGR; 4) Natural gas with NSCR; 5) Natural gas with chemical

injection; 6) Natural gas with Ultra low-NOx forced-draft burners

and FGR; 7) Natural gas and/or LPG with low-NOx burners and

internal FGR achieving 25 ppmvd @ 3% 02

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.1 C

Emissions Unit: Process Heater - Refinery

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Natural gas and/or LPG with combustion modifications (low-NOx burners and

internal FGR) achieving 30 ppmvd @ 3% 02 (0.036 lb/MMBtu)

PM10 Natural Gas and/or LPG

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC Natural Gas and/or LPG

1.8.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 200 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Equilon Enterprise References: ATC #: S-33-348-1

Project #: S-980277

Location: Bakersfield, CA Date of Determination: 10/2/1998

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

1. Natural gas or treated refinery gas @ 0.0075 grains H2S/dscf

(12.88 ppmv H2S) and 2. Natural gas or treated refinery gas @

0.0621 grains H2S/dscf (100 ppmv H2S)

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.1 D

Emissions Unit: Process Heater - Refinery

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 Natural Gas and/or LPG

SOx Natural gas or treated refinery gas @ 0.10 grains H2S/dscf (161 ppmv H2S)

VOC Natural Gas and/or LPG

1.8.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: = or < 50.0 MMBtu/hr

Facility: n/a References: District Proactive BACT

Determination

Location: n/a Date of Determination: 6/30/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.1 E

* BACT will be established on a case-by-case basis to assure the lowest achievable emission rate,

taking into account unique facility characteristics.

Emissions Unit: Process Heater - Refinery

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 30.0* ppmvd @ 3% 02 (0.036 lb/MMBtu) Low-NOx burner system

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.8.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: All

Facility: Equilon Enterprise References: ATC #: Withdrawn

Project #: S-990010

Location: Bakersfield, CA Date of Determination: 1/4/2001

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.1 F

Emissions Unit: Process Heater - Refinery

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx Natural gas or treated refinery gas @ 0.0621 grains H2S/dscf (100 ppmv H2S)

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.8.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 47 MM Btu/hr (feed heater) 

and 35 MM Btu/hr 

(fractionator feed heater)

Facility: Big West of California LLC References: S-33-408-0

Location:

Bakersfield, CA

Date of Determination:

9/1/2006

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.1 G

NOx

VOC, PM10, SOx and CO

Emissions Unit: Refinery Process Heater, Fired on Refinery 

Fuel Gas and/or Natural Gas

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO 50 ppmv @ 3% O2 (good combustion practices with ultra low NOx burners)

NOx 20 ppmv @ 3% O2 (ultra low NOx burners or equivalent)

PM10 Treated refinery fuel gas with no more than 100 ppmv total reduced sulfur

SOx Treated refinery fuel gas and/or natural gas with no more than 100 ppmv total reduced sulfur (3-hour rolling 

average)

VOC Good combustion practices

1.8.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/26/2009

RESCINDED

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.2*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

1.8.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 92 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Equilon Enterprises LLC References: ATC #: S-33-17-7

Project #: S-981236

Location: Bakersfield, CA Date of Determination: 6/11/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

- Natural gas or treated refinery gas @ 100 ppmv H2S

- Selective Catalytic Reduction

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.2 A

Emissions Unit: Process Heater - Refinery

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 30.0 ppmvd @ 3% 02 (0.036 lb/MMBtu) Ultra Low NOx burner with FGR.

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx Treated Refinery gas with a sulfur content of 0.10 grains H2S/dscf (161 ppmv

H2S) with natural gas as a supplemental fuel.

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.8.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: = or > 50.0 MMBtu/hr

Facility: n/a References: District Proactive BACT

Determination

Location: n/a Date of Determination: 6/30/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.2 B

Emissions Unit: Process Heater - Refinery

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 9.0 ppmvd @ 3% 02 (0.0108 lb/MMBtu) SCR

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.8.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: All

Facility: Equilon Enterprise References: ATC #: Withdrawn

Project #: S-990010

Location: Bakersfield, CA Date of Determination: 1/4/2001

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.2 C

Emissions Unit: Process Heater - Refinery

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx Natural gas or treated refinery gas @ 0.0621 grains H2S/dscf (100 ppmv H2S)

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.8.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 641 and 215 MM Btu/hr

Facility: Big West of California LLC References: S-33-407-0 and ‘411-0

Location:

Bakersfield, CA

Date of Determination:

9/1/2006

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.2 D

PM10

VOC, NOx, SOx and CO

Emissions Unit: Refinery Process Heater, Refinery Fuel Gas 

and/or Natural Gas

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO 10 ppmv @ 3% O2 (SCR and burner tuning)

NOx 5 ppmv at 3% O2, (15 minute average) (Low NOx burners and SCR)

PM10 Treated refinery gas and/or natural gas with no more than 100 ppmv total reduced sulfur (3-hour rolling 

average)

SOx Treated refinery gas and/or natural gas with no more than 100 ppmv total reduced sulfur (3-hour rolling 

average)

VOC Good combustion practices

1.8.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/26/2009

RESCINDED

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.3*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

1.8.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 750 MMBtu/hr, 27 MM 

scf/day gas throughput

Facility: Unocal/ Fresno County Gas Production References: ATC #: C-1659-82

Project #: 940412

Location: Coalinga, CA Date of Determination: 12/7/1994

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.3 A

Emissions Unit: Gas Dehydration Plant (Glycol Reboiler)

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC 95% destruction efficiency, Still column combustor (thermal oxidizer)

1.8.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 2.5 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Bakersfield Energy Resources References: ATC #: S-1630-30-0

Project #: 960313

Location: Bakersfield, CA Date of Determination: 7/4/1996

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

Low NOx burner with FGR

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.3 B

Emissions Unit: Gas Dehydration Plant (Glycol Reboiler)

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Natural gas fired burner

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.8.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/26/2009

RESCINDED

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.4*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

1.8.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 12.6 MMBtu/hr

Facility: McFarland Energy References: ATC #: S-1549-114-8

Project #: S-990732

Location: Kern County, CA Date of Determination: 1/31/2000

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

Catalytic oxidation system

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.4 A

Emissions Unit: Heater treater

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO 111 ppmv @ 3% O2 Natural gas or propane with LPG back up fuel)

and good combustion practices.

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.8.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 14.0 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Berry Petroleum Company (Poso Heater Treater 

Project)

References: ATC S-3585-11-0, 1043750

Location: Section 14, T27S, R27E Date of Determination: 7/23/2005

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

1. 9 ppmv @ 3% O2 (low temperature oxidation (LTO), selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR), or equal)

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.4 B

Emissions Unit: Heater Treater

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 15 ppmv @ 3% O2, low-NOx burner

PM10 natural gas with LPG backup or propane and good combustion practices

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.8.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 16.8 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Chevron USA Inc. References: ATC S-1141-586-0 and '-587-0; 

Project 1050790

Location: Section 9, T32S, R23E Date of Determination: 9/12/2005

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

1) 9 ppmv NOx @ 3% O2 (low temperature oxidation (LTO), selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR), or equal)

2) 90% CO reduction with catalytic oxidation system

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.4 C

Emissions Unit: Heater Treater

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO 111 ppmvd @ 3% O2, (natural gas with LPG back up fuel and good combustion practices)

NOx 15 ppmv at 3% O2, (low-NOx burner)

PM10 0.0076 lb/MMBtu, (natural gas with LPG backup fuel and good combustion practices)

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC 0.0055 lb/MMBtu, (gaseous fuel and good combustion practices)

1.8.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 10.0, 7.0 and 8.0 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Plains Exploration and Production References: ATC #: S-1372-142-2, -150-3, 

and -151-2; Project#: 1061007

Location: Westside Kern County Date of Determination: 7/18/2006

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.4 D

Emissions Unit: Heater Treater

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx PUC quality natural gas with LPG as backup

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.8.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/26/2009

RESCINDED

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.5*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

1.8.5
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: < or = 20 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Occidental of Elk Hills, Inc References: ATC # S-2234-178-0, Project # S1063316

Location: SW/4 section 35, T30S, R23E Date of Determination:

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.8.5 A

Emissions Unit: Process Heater (non-refinery)

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO natural gas with LPG backup or propane fired

NOx 12 ppmv @ 3% O2 (low NOx burner)

PM10 natural gas with LPG backup or propane fired

VOC natural gas with LPG backup or propane fired

1.8.5
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 1/27/1998

Metal Parts Washer - Natural Gas-fired

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.1*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx 1. Selective catalytic

reduction (SCR)

2. Natural gas fuel

1. Electric heater

1.9.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 6.3 MMBtu/hr (total)

Facility: Pelco References: ATC #: C-922-6-0

Project #: 960459

Location: Fresno, CA Date of Determination: 1/27/1998

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

SCR

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.1 A

Emissions Unit: Five stage metal parts washer with

natural gas-fired burners

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx NATURAL GAS FUEL

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.9.1
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 7/2/1996

Sulfuric Acid Plant Start-up Heater - < 15 MMBtu/hr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.2*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx 1. Selective catalytic reduction

2. Natural gas fuel with LPG

backup, Low-NOx burner

3. Natural gas fuel with LPG backup

1.9.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 15 MMBtu/hr

Facility: J.R. Simplot References: ATC #: N-767-58-1

Project #: 960206

Location: Lathrop, CA Date of Determination: 7/2/1996

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

1. Selective catalytic reduction

2. Low-NOx burner

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.2 A

Emissions Unit: Sulfuric Acid Plant Start-up Heater

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Natural Gas Fuel

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.9.2
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 6/1/2005

Crematory - Natural Gas Fired

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.3*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx natural gas fuel 1. 9 ppmv NOx @ 3% O2 (0.011 

lb/MMBtu) SCR or equiv.

2. 20 ppmv NOx @ 3% O2 (0.024 

lb/MMBtu) Low NOx burner

PM10 natural gas fuel and a 

secondary combustion 

chamber (afterburner) => 

1600 degrees F

1. Natural gas fuel with baghouse

2. Natural gas fuel with venturi scrubber

SOx natural gas fuel 1. Natural gas with a dry scrubber and a 

baghouse

2. Natural gas fuel with a wet scrubber

VOC natural gas fuel and a 

secondary combustion 

chamber (afterburner) => 

1600 degrees F

1.9.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 2.8 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Fresno Pet Cemetery References: ATC #: C-3537-1-0

Project #: C-990381

Location: Fresno, CA Date of Determination: 7/28/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

1. Selective catalytic reduction 2. Low-NOx burner

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.3 A

Emissions Unit: Crematory for Pet

Cemetery

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Natural Gas Fuel

PM10 Natural Gas Fuel and Secondary Combustion Chamber (Afterburner),

> or = 1600 degrees F

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.9.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 2.0 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Evergreen Cremation

Services of California

References: ATC #: C-3733-1-0

Project #: N-1000890

Location: Fresno, CA Date of Determination: 7/11/2000

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

1. Selective catalytic reduction 2. Low-NOx burner

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.3 B

Emissions Unit: Crematory at Funeral

Home

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Natural Gas Fuel

PM10 Natural Gas Fuel and Secondary Combustion Chamber (Afterburner), = or > 1600 degrees F

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.9.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 100 lb/hr of remains (type 4) 

and associated containers 

(type 0)

Facility: Cherokee Memorial Park References: N-198-5-0, 1043515

Location:

Lodi, CA

Date of Determination:

6/1/2005

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.3 C

Emissions Unit: Crematorium Retort

Pollutant BACT Requirements

NOx natural gas fuel

PM10 natural gas fuel and a secondary combustion chamber (afterburner) => 1600 degrees F

SOx natural gas fuel

VOC natural gas fuel and a secondary combustion chamber (afterburner) => 1600 degrees F

1.9.3
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/4/1999

Dryer - Natural Gas Fired, Solvent-Laden Towels, = or < 950 lb towels/day

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.4*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO 0.348 lb CO/MMBtu

natural gas fired burner

0.0375 lb CO/MMBtu natural gas

fired burner

Electrical Dryer

NOx 0.061 lb NOx /MMBtu

natural gas fired burner

0.025 lb NOx /MMBtu natural gas

fired burner

Electrical Dryer

VOC 1. VOC capture and control with

thermal oxidation.

2. VOC capture and control with

catalytic oxidation.

3. VOC capture and control with

carbon adsorption.

1.9.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 950 lb towels/day

Facility: Aramark Uniform Cleaners References: ATC #: C-45-11-0

Project #: 980778

Location: Fresno, CA Date of Determination: 10/4/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

1. VOC Capture and control a catalytic or thermal

oxidizer or carbon adsorbed, 2. Low-NOx burners, 3.

NOx Control with SCR

Electrical dryer

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.4 A

Emissions Unit: Dryer for Solvent-Laden

Towels

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO 0.348 lb CO/MMBtu natural gas burner

NOx 0.061 lb NOx/MMBtu natural gas burner

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC 5.5 lb VOC/MMscf natural gas burner

1.9.4
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/4/1999

Gas Absorption Chiller - Natural Gas Fired,

< 20 MMBtu/hr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.5*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx 0.036 lb NOx /MMBtu

natural gas fired burner

1. 0.0108 lb NOx /MMBtu (LTO,

SCR, or equal)

2. 0.024 lb NOx /MMBtu (Low

NOx natural gas fired burner)

1.9.5
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: < 20 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Federal Bureau of Prisons References: ATC #: S-2718-7-0 & 8-0

Project #: S-990375

Location: Taft, CA Date of Determination: 10/4/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

NOx Control with Low Temperature Oxidation (LTO) or

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.5 A

Emissions Unit: Gas Absorption Chiller -

Natural Gas Fired

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 0.024 lb NOx/MMBtu natural gas burner

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.9.5
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 1/6/2000

Asphalt-Surface-Repair Heater, Propane Fired, < 20 MMBtu/hr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.6*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

CO 0.021 lb NOx /MMBtu

propane fired burner

NOx 0.15 lb NOx /MMBtu

propane fired burner

0.036 lb NOx /MMBtu Low-NOx

burner

1.9.6
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 9.1 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Silva Construction References: ATC #: C-3547-1-0 to

C-3547-3-0

Project #: C-990412

Location: Multiple Location, CA Date of Determination: 1/6/2000

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.6 A

Emissions Unit: Asphalt-Surface-Repair

Heater, Propane Fired

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO 0.021 lb CO/MMBtu propane fired burner

NOx 0.15 lb NOx/MMBtu propane fired burner

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.9.6
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 3/14/2000

Auxiliary Burner System, Dryer, Natural Gas Fired,

< 20 MMBtu/hr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.7*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx 1. 9.0 ppmv @ 3% O2 (Low

Temperature Oxidation, SCR, or

equal)

2. 15 ppmv @ 3% O2 (Low NOx

burner, or equal)

3. 20 ppmv @ 3% O2 (Low NOx

burner, or equal)

PM10 Natural Gas Fuel

1.9.7
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 14.7 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Dynamis-Sangar Power and

Feed

References: ATC #: C-445-10-0

Project #: C-990515

Location: Multiple Location, CA Date of Determination: 3/14/2000

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.7 A

NOx

VOC

Emissions Unit: Auxiliary Burner Dryer

for Hydromulch (TM)

Manufacturing System

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 0.15 lb NOx/MMBtu (Low NOx burner)

PM10 Natural Gas Fuel

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.9.7
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 4/14/2000

Municipal-waste Incinerator - < 750 lb waste/hr feed rate

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.8*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx Natural gas fuel 1. 20 ppmv @ 3% O2 (Low NOx

burner, or equal).

2. 213 ppm @7% O2 (NSCR)

PM10 Natural gas firing with a

secondary combustion

chamber (> 1500

degrees Fahrenheit

afterburner)

1. Natural gas fired with baghouse.

2. Natural gas fired with Venturi

scrubber.

SOx Natural gas fuel 1. Dry scrubber and baghouse.

2. Wet scrubber

VOC Multichamber incinerator

with afterburner, Starved

Air Design (> 1500

degrees Fahrenheit

afterburner)

1.9.8
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: < 750 lb waste/hr feed rate

Facility: National Diversified Sales References: ATC #: S-3337-3-0

Project #: S-990233

Location: Lindsey, CA Date of Determination: 4/14/2000

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

1. Low NOx burners and NSCR for NOx;

2. Baghouse and scrubbers for PM10; and

3. Wet and dry scrubbers for SOx.

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.8 A

Emissions Unit: Waste Incinerator

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx Natural gas fuel

PM10 Natural gas firing with a secondary combustion chamber (> 1500 degrees

Fahrenheit afterburner)

SOx Natural gas fuel

VOC Multichamber incinerator with afterburner, Starved Air Design (> 1500

degrees Fahrenheit afterburner)

1.9.8
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 2/20/2001

Molded Paper Products Dryer - Natural Gas Fired,

< 20 MMBtu/hr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.9*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx 80 ppmv @ 3% O2

(standard burner)

1. 9 ppmv @ 3% O2 (Ultra lowNOx Burner, SCR, or equal)

2. 20 ppmv @ 3% O2 (low-NOx

burner)

1.9.9
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 4.8 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Molded Fiber Technology References: ATC #: S-3777-1-0

Project #: S-1001478

Location: Visalia, CA Date of Determination: 2/20/1999

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.9 A

Emissions Unit: Molded Paper Products

Manufacturing with a

Natural gas fired

Dryer.

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 80 ppmv @ 3% O2 (Standard burner)

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.9.9
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 2/2/2001

Mineral Products Spray Dryer - Natural Gas Fired,

< or = 20 MMBtu/hr

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.10*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx 20 ppmv NOx @ 3%

O2 (low NOx burner)

15 ppmv NOx @ 3% O2 (low NOx

burner)

1.9.10
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 8.0 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Mineral King Minerals, Inc References: ATC #: C-780-8-0

Project #: C990905

Location: Hanford, CA Date of Determination: 2/2/2001

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.10 A

Emissions Unit: 15 ppmv NOx @ 3% O2 (low NOx

Zinc Sulfate spray drying

process with a natural gas fired burner

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx 20 ppmv @ 3% O2 (Low-NOx Burner)

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.9.10
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 2/19/2003

Commercial Laundry Dryer - < 5 MMBtu/hr,

Natural Gas Fired

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.11*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

PM10 75% Control (Lint

Collector and natural

gas fuel, or equal)

1. 99% Control (Baghouse and

natural gas fuel, or equal.)

2. 90% Control (Venturi Scrubber

and natural gas fuel, or equal.)

1.9.11
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: = or < 10 tons linen/day

Facility: Angelica Health Services

Group

References: ATC #: C-859-4-1

Project #: C-1021197

Location: Fresno, CA Date of Determination: 2/19/2003

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.11 A

Emissions Unit: Commercial Laundry

Dryer, natural gas fired.

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 Lint Collector and Natural gas fired burner

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.9.11
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/4/2005

Transportable Diesel-Fired Nitrogen Vaporizer

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.12*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx diesel fuel achieving 155 

ppmv @ 3% O2

1. Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) (9 

ppmv @ 3% O2)

2. Propane fuel (9 ppmv @ 3% O2)

3. Low NOx burner with amber fuel (27 

ppmv @ 3% O2)

4. Low NOx burner with diesel fuel (26 

ppmv @ 3% O2)

PM10 very low sulfur diesel fuel (15 ppmw 

sulfur or less)

1.9.12
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 12 MMBtu/hr, < 537 hr/yr, > 

250,000 scfh or > 70 

degrees F

Facility: Praxair Services, Inc References: ATCs # C-6050-1-0 and '-2-0; 

Project # C-1043960

Location: Various Location, SJVAPCD Date of Determination: 10/4/2005

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

Transportable Diesel-Fired Nitrogen Vaporizer

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.12 A

Emissions Unit: Transportable Diesel-Fired Nitrogen Vaporizer

Pollutant BACT Requirements

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

NOx heat recovery unit or diesel fuel achieving 155 ppmv @ 3% O2

PM10 very low sulfur diesel fuel (15 ppmw sulfur or less)

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.9.12
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 10/19/2006

Blood Meal Processing Ring Dryer Burner

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.13*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx Natural gas fired with LPG 

as a backup fuel

9.0 ppmvd @ 3% O2 (0.011 lbNOx/MMBtu) low NOx burner system

30 ppmvd @ 3% O2 (0.036 lbNOx/MMBtu) burner system

1.9.13
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 3.0 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Central Valley Meat Co References: C-2282-6-0

Location:

Hanford, CA

Date of Determination:

10/19/2006

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.13 A

Emissions Unit: Blood Meal Processing Ring Dryer Burner

Pollutant BACT Requirements

NOx natural gas fired with LPG as a backup fuel; 9.0 ppmvd @ 3% O2 (0.011 lb-NOx/MMBtu) ultra low NOx 

burner system

1.9.13
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 2/9/2007

Natural Gas Fired Dryer with High Turndown Ratio**

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.14*

**For the purpose of this determination, a "high turndown ratio" is one that exceeds the turndown ratio of an ultra-low NOx burner system 

operating at 2.2 ppmv NOx @ 19% O2 or 1.1 ppmv NOx @ 19% O2.

***BACT will be established on a case-by-case basis to assure the lowest achievable emission rate, taking into account unique facility 

characteristics

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOx <= 8.9 ppmvd*** @ 19% O2 

(0.1 lb/MMBtu) low NOx 

burner

4.3 ppmvd @ 19% O2 (0.048 lb/MMBtu) 

low NOx burner, or equal

Electric Dryer

1.9.14
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 2.5 MMBtu/hr

Facility: Dopaco, Inc References: ATC#: N-4680-10-1; Project#: N1070161

Location: Stockton, CA Date of Determination: 2/5/2007

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

electric dryer

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.14 A

Emissions Unit: Natural Gas Fired Dryer Used to Dry Prints on 

Polyethylene (or Other Similar Material) Coated 

Web

Pollutant BACT Requirements

NOx 4.3 ppmvd @ 19% O2 low NOx burner system

VOC BACT NOT TRIGGERED

CO BACT NOT TRIGGERED

PM10 BACT NOT TRIGGERED

SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED

1.9.14
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

*This is a Summary Page for this Class of Source - Permit Specific BACT Determinations on Next Page(s)

Last Update: 8/26/2009

Jet Aircraft Fire Training Facility

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.15*

BACT is the most stringent control technique for the emissions unit and class of source. Control techniques that are not achieved in practice 

or contained in s a state implementation plan must be cost effective as well as feasible. Economic analysis to demonstrate cost effectiveness 

is requried for all determinations that are not achieved in practice or contained in an EPA approved State Implementation Plan.

Pollutant Achieved in Practice or 

contained in the SIP

Technologically 

Feasible

Alternate Basic 

Equipment

NOX Use of Natural Gas or 

LPG/Propane Fuel

PM10 Use of Natural Gas or 

LPG/Propane Fuel

CO Use of Natural Gas or 

LPG/Propane Fuel

VOC Use of Natural Gas or 

LPG/Propane Fuel

1.9.15
San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Equipment Rating: 54.3 MMBtu/hr

Facility: NAS Lemoore References: ATC#: C-2106-131-3; Project#: 

1093293

Location: NAS Lemoore air station in Lemoore, CA Date of Determination: 8/26/2009

Achieved in Practice

Small Emitter

T-BACT

Technologically feasible BACT

At the time of this determination achieved in practice BACT was equivalent to 

technologically feasible BACT

Contained in EPA approved SIP

The following technologically feasible options were not cost effective:

Alternate Basic Equipment

The following alternate basic equipment was not cost effective:

BACT Status:

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Guideline 1.9.15 A

Emissions Unit: Jet Aircraft Fire Training Facility

Pollutant BACT Requirements

NOX Use of Natural Gas or LPG/Propane Fuel

SOX

PM10 Use of Natural Gas or LPG/Propane Fuel

CO Use of Natural Gas or LPG/Propane Fuel

VOC Use of Natural Gas or LPG/Propane Fuel

1.9.15