## 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### RESCINDED Best Available Control Technol ogy (BACT) Guideline 1.1.1*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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guideline 1.1.2 C

For the purpose of this determination, "small l oad swings" are defined as normal operational load fluctuations which are within the operationalresponse 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 sludgefor H2S reduction (SOx control); 4) Water scrubber for SOx control BACT Status: 

### Best Available Control Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 su lfur fuel oil (0.0015 % S by weight) as backup fuel SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED VOC natural gas as primary fuel with ultra-low su lfur 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guideline 1.2.1 B

f or 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 co mpounds (as S) per 100 scf, or use of a continuously operating SO2 scrubber and either achieving 95% by wei ght 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 co mpounds (as S) per 100 scf, or use of a continuously operating SO2 scrubber and either achieving 95% by wei ght 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 avail able, 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 Co mbustor (biomass-fired) Best Available Control Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 EquipmentCO Steam-assisted or airassisted when steam unavailableNOx 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 GasVOC 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 EquipmentCO Steam assisted or Airassisted or Coanda effect burner, when steam unavailableNOx Steam assisted or Airassisted or Coanda effect burner, when steam unavailablePM10 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 gasrecovery 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 gasrecovery 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 gasrecovery 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 gasrecovery 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guideline 1.4.8 A Emissions Unit: Refinery Flare

Pollutant BACT Requirements CO Engineered flare, with air or steam assisted com bustion, 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 com bustion, 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 equi valent 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 Manu facturing Line, Natural Gas-Fired Best Available Control Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 electrostati c 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 Producti on - Container Glass Lehr Best Available Control Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 emissi ons 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 emi ssions of 60 ppmv NOx @ 3% O2 or 0.073 lb-NOx/MMBtu an d 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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/smokehousewith an electric smoke generator SOx BACT NOT TRIGGERED VOC Natural gas-fired Oven/smokehousewith 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 achi eved 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 - < 20MMBtu/hr, Conveyor-fed Best Available Control Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 EquipmentNOx 0.06 lb/MMBtu, natural gasfired with low NOx burner 1) 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 1.6.25*

*During incineration, NH3 is converted to NOx. Environmentally be neficial 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 achi eved 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 effi ciency - 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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/fus ing, = or < 2.5 MMBtu/hr Best Available Control Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 NSC R; 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 NSC R; 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 NSC R; 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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-Lad en Towels, = or < 950 lb towels/day Best Available Control Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 system30 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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 Technol ogy (BACT) Guid eline 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 achi eved 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