P. 1 

# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 30 ) 11-1-2 2 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:19 AM Sheet 30 of 142P. 2

4 » 

# /?-9t-37

n > 

### ^25199 5

NESCAU M BAC T GUIDELIN E

Octobe r 198 8 Committe e Draf

t- March 199 1 revision s ar e note d i n italic s i , INTRODUCTIO N Th e Northeas t

State s fo r Coordinate d Ai r

Us e Managemen

t (NESCAUM ) i s a

n interstat e associatio n o

f the ai r qualit y division s in th

e Northeas t

states : Connecticut , Maine , Massachusetts , New Hampshire , Ne w Jersey , Ne w York , Rhod e Island , and Vermont. NESCAUM' s purpos e i s t

o promote cooperatio n and coordinatio n o f technica l an d polic y issue s amon g it s membe

r states . T o accomplis h this , NESCAU M sponsor s frequen

t ai r qualit y trainin g programs , participate s in nationa l debates , and promote s avariet y of researc h initiatives . Eac h o f di e NESCAU

M state s adroinister s program s fo r th e preconstructio n review of ne w source s an d modification s of existin g sources . Som

e state s administe

r adelegate d versio n of th e Federa

l Preventio n of

Significan t Deterioratio n (PSD ) regulations whil e other s hav e develope d thei r own regulation s which , upon approva l b y th e U.S . Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA) , provid e the stat e th e authorit

y t o issu e federall

y enforceabl e permits . The minimumsiz e o f source s subject

to revie w varie s fro

mstat e t o state , but al l state s requir

e tha t source s review availabl e contro l technologie s an d tha t th e sourc e selec t

th e Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology (BACT) . Fo r new majo r source s o r majo r modification s in nonattainmen t areas , the contro l technology required i s Lowes t Achievabl e Emissio n Rat

e (LAER) . The original

polic y wa s adopte d b

y the NESCAU

M Boar d o f Director s a

t their meetin g o n October

11,1988 . Revisions to the policy were reviewed and approved by the Directors on —

, 1991. This polic y doe s not chang e regulation s i n an

y stat e o r an y existin g PS D requirement

fo r atop-down BAC T analysis . Rather , i t i s intende d to promot

e consistenc y between membe r state s in method s of

determinin g BAC T an d to provide prospectiv e applicant s wit

h guidanc e o

n th e level o f analysi s appropriat

e t o suppor t a propose d contro l technology . Thi s polic y define s atop-down analysi s a s identifying th e mos t stringent contro l availabl e fo

r asimila r o r identica l sourc e o r sourc e category . Workin g fromtha

t "top " case , th e applican

t begin s th e BAC T analysis . 

### H , BACKGROUN

D I n th e 197 7 Amendment s to the Clea n Ai r Act , Congres s adopte d the Federa l Preventio n o

f Significan t Deterioratio n Program . Th e progra mwa s designe d to prevent

air qualit y fromdeterioratin g i

n area s wher

e it was alread

y bette r tha n th e nationa

l ambien t air DRAF T 1 4/1/9 1P. 3

qualit y standards . Thi s objectiv e wa s approache d in tw o ways . First , the progra m establishe d increment s to limi t the amoun

t o f additiona l sulfu r dioxide an

d particulat

e matte r allowe d t o b e emitte d abov e th e baselin e (which i s existin g ai r quality) . Second , th e progra mrequire d that , regardles s of existin g air

quality , ne

w emissio n source s subjec t to PS D woul d b e controlle d t o aleve l tha t represent s BACT . Thi s requiremen t no t onl y preclude s potential applicant s fro mshoppin g fo

r area s wit h les s stringen

t emissio n limitations , but

als o promote s th e research and developmen t of mor e efficien t an d more economi c alternativ e technologies . EP A adopte d regulation s t

o implemen

t th e requirement s o f

th e 1977 Clea

n Ai r Ac t Amendments . Thes e regulation s wer e challenge d by bot

h industr y an d environmenta

l organizations . I

n December

1979 , i n th e cas e of

Alabam aPowe

r e t al. , vs . Costl e (1 3 ER C 1225) , th e Washington , D.C . Circui t Cour t uphel d som

e provision s whil e overturnin g others . Subsequendy , EP A promulgate d change s to th e regulatory requirements fo

r ne w sourc e revie w i n amendment s t o Tid e 4 0 o f th e Cod e o f Federal Regulation s o n Augus t

7,1980 . On October

17,1988, EPA promulgated a final rule which adopted

PSD increments

for nitrogen oxides. As of

March 1991, thes e provision s constitute th e regulator

y requirement s fo

r th e revie w o

f new source s an d majo

r modification s of

existin g source s tha

t al l program s mus t

mee t These provisions may be changed as a result

of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of

1990.

m . PURPOS E Th e purpos e o f

thi s document

i s t o promot

e consistent

analysi s o f propose d contro l technologie s an d consistent procedure s fo

r reviewin g BAC T determination s fromstate to state . Establishin g aunifor mse t o f requirement s will no t

onl y ensur e equitabl e treatment fo r prospectiv e applicants , but will als o reduc e pressure o n reviewing agencie s resultin g fro mth e argument

tha t asimila r sourc e locate d elsewher

e woul d no t

b e subjecte d t o th e same requirements . I t

i s als o intende d t

o provid e prospectiv e applicant s wit h guidanc e o n th e BAC T analysi s process . Additional guidance may be obtained from EPA's draft

New Source Review Workshop Manual (October 1990). Th e U.S . EP

A require s top-dow n BAC T analysis . Thi s guidelin e state s tha t th e NESCAUM state s wil l us e atop-dow n BAC T analysis . Thi s approac h i s base d o n identifyin g th e bes t

technolog y solution , allowin g fo r environmental , energy , an d economi c considerations . Thi s guidelin e focuse s o n th e typ e o f dat arequired in apreconstructio n permittin g applicatio n an d ho w th e dat ashoul d b e use d in order to determin e BACT . Th e guidelin e addresse s ho w th e emissio n contro l systempropose d in th e permittin g applicatio n i s determine d t o b e BAC T o r wh y amor e stringen t leve l o f emissio n contro l migh

t b e appropriate , considerin g availabl e technolog y an d economic , energy , an d environmenta

l factors . Th e Clea

n Ai r Ac t place s th e responsibility fo r proposin g BAC T wit

h th e applicant and th e responsibility of

deteiminin g BAC T wit

h th e permittin g agency . Th e top-dow n approac h place s th e additiona l responsibilit

y on th e sourc e t

o present an d defend it s proposal . Th e leve l o f

analysi s (o r

documentation ) to suppor

t aBAC T deteiminatio h shoul d b e consisten t

fro mare at o area . Sinc e BAC T i s acase-by-cas e process , consistenc y doe s no t necessarily mea

n tha t ane w facilit

y i n on e are awill hav e a

n emissio n limit

identica l t o tha t o f th e same typ e o

f facilit y in anothe

r area . Usin g aconsistent

approach t o determin e DRAF T 2 4/1/9 1P. 4

BAC T shoul d ensur

e tha t th e impact s o

f alternativ e emissio n contro l system s ar e measure d b y th e sam

e set o f parameters . IV . APPLICABILITY Th e applicabilit

y criteri afo

r impositio n o

f th e BAC T requiremen

t var y fromstat

e to state . I n general , BAC T i s require d of thos e ne w source s an d modification s t o existin g source s whic h excee d som

e specifie d trigger

level . Th e trigge

r i s base d o n emissio n rates . State s wil l hav e differing guideline s o n calculatin g emissions . Therefore , th e appropriat e state permittin g official s (se e Appendi x I ) mus t b e consulte d a

t thi s stag e i n th e process . V . DEFINITION S Thi s guideline use s "permit " to refe r to wha t differen t state s cal l permits , licenses , approvals , an d plant

approvals . Th e specifi c definition s of term s ma y var y fromstate t o state . Th e applicant

mus t wor k wit h eac h states ' definitions . Therefore , the stat e permittin g official s liste d in Appendix I shoul d b e consulted . VT . IDENTIHCATIO N O F CONTROL ALTERNATIVE S I n carryin g out

atop-dow n BAC T analysis , th e applican t mus t first identif y th e mos t stringen t contro l possibl e (usuall

y referre d t o a s Lowes t

Achievabl e Emissio n Rate , o r LAER ) an d then quantif

y emissions . Sinc e other

alternative s will b e compare d agains t thi s to p case , applicant s shoul d concu r wit h th e appropriat

e stat e contact s o n wha

t represent s th e mos t stringen t contro l case . A

t thi s ste p o f the BAC T review process , n o technically feasibl e alternativ e shoul d b e rule d out a s apossibl e BAC T candidate . Identifying contro l alternative s shoul d not

b e limite d t

o simply reviewin g existin g control s fo r th e sourc e categor y i n question . Th e revie w mus t b e broa d enough t o tak e into accoun

t control s applie d to simila

r sourc e categorie s and innovativ e contro l technologies . Finally , th e alternative s identified shoul d include the contro l alternative s representative o f LAE Rfo r th e sourc e o r categor y o f source . Th e startin g assumptio n fo

r th e top-dow n approac h i s tha t th e mos t stringent contro l possibl e i s BACT . Th e burden o f proo f for applyin g ales s stringen

t contro l rest s i n th e applicant' s cas e specifi c evaluatio n o f th e contro l alternatives . I

f th e mos t stringen t contro l for aspecifi c pollutan

t i s selected , th

e BAC T evaluatio n fo

r tha t pollutan t i s stopped . However , furthe

r evaluatio n o

f tha t contro l option' s effectivenes s o n othe r pollutant s ma

y b e required . Failin g to addres s the to

p cas e i n a n attemp t to avoi d stringen

t control s will result

i n th e proces s bein g delaye d whil e th e applican t i s required t

o reasses s alternative s agains t th e contro l optio n the permittin g authorit y determine s to b e th e top case . When searching th e recor

d to identif y th e top case , th e applican t mus t see k informatio n o

n contro l technologie s use d throughout th e Unite d States , a s wel l a s applicabl e foreig n contro l technologies . Fo r example , Scandinavia

n pulpin g facilit

y controls , Germa

n boile r an d incinerator

technolog y and operatio n controls , an d Japanes e control s fo r flue gas desulfurization hav e traditionally met ver y stringen t emissio n contro l limits . Also , emissio n testin g information o n thes e technologie s ma y b e availabl e to hel

p establis h th e level o

f performanc e achievabl e wit h th e specifi c technology . DRAF T 3 4/1/9 1P. 5

A . Type s o

f Control s Whe n identifyin g th e top cas e an d alternativ e contro l technologies , th e followin g type s of control s shoul d b e considered . 1 . Existin g Contro l Technology : acontro l technolog y which ha s been proven in practic e fo r th e sourc e category . Thi s shoul d include bot h emissio n limitation s impose d b y other jurisdiction s and tes t

result s which reflect

wha t wa s actually achieve d i n performance . 2 . Technicall y Feasibl e Alternatives : acontro l technology which ha s bee n demonstrate d in practic e on other

sourc e categorie s but

ha s no t bee n demonstrate d i n practic e o n th e clas s o r categor y of sourc e under

review . Applyin g acontro l technolog y t o asourc e categor y i n whic h i t ha s no t bee n demonstrate d i s calle d contro l technolog y transfer . 3 . Innovativ e Contro l Technology : acontro l technolog y tha t ha s never been applie d to an

y sourc e o n afull scale , continuousl y operatin g basis . Thi s technolog y ma y b e chose n o n th e basi s o f bilo t scal e o r short-ter mtesting . I

n selectin g a

n innovativ e contro l technology , ther e mus t b e som e reasonabl e leve l of

expectatio n tha

t the innovativ e option s wil l out perfor mth e demonstrate d control . 4 . Usin g Productio n Processes . Fuels , an d Coating s Tha

t Ar e Inherentl y Lower

Pollutin g Thes e option s ma

y b e evaluate d alon e or

i n combinatio n wit

h add-o n pollutio n contro l devices . Example s includ e adjustin g ra w materia l fee d to reduc e emissions , usin g methano l fo

r lo w NO x applications , an d usin g powde r coating s instea d o f

solvent born e coating s wher

e technicall y feasible . I

n considerin g thes e options , i t i s especiall y important t o wor k closel y wit

h the appropriate stat

e permittin g official s sinc e muc h of th e require d informatio n ma

y b e confidentia

l o r proprietary . 5 . Specifi c Desig n o r

Operationa

l Parameters : Thes e option s ma y includ e such factor s a s combustio n zon e temperature , combustio n zone residenc e time, automati c combustio n controls , pressure dro p acros s contro l equipment , etc . Bot h th e sourc e applicant

an d the reviewing agency shoul d consider th e us e o f clea n processes , fuels , an d solvent s tha t are inherently lowe

r pollutin g tha

n wha t ha s bee n historicall y employe d by aparticula r industry . Th e analyse s fo

r thes e alternative s shoul d b e conducte d i n th e sam

e manner a s th e analyse s fo

r mor e conventiona

l BAC T alternative s (describe d in later

sections) . A reviewin g agenc y shoul d seriously consider requirin g di e us e o f suc h alternative s i f

th e BAC T analysi s justifie s their us e base d o n environmental , economic , an d energ y factors . Example s includ e th e us e of adr y proces s cement

plan t vs . awe t design ; powder

coating s vs . solvent-born e coatings ; ga s vs . fue l oil ; electri c boos t

o r all-electri c glas s furnace s vs . fossi l fue l fired; fluidize d bed coa

l combustio n vs . conventional firing , lo w sulfu r residual oil , etc . B . Source s o

f Informatio n o n Contro l Alternative s Ther e ar e numerou s source s o

f information o n contro l alternative s fo r variou s sourc e categories . Th e followin g source s of informatio n wil l b e checke d b y th e perr_dttin g authority . Henc e the y mus t b e considere d by th e applican t preparin g aBAC T analysis . 1 . BACT/LAE

RClearinghous e Al l applicant s shoul d check th e B ACT/LAE

RGearinghous e prio r

t o submittin g a

n application . Th e informatio n containe d in th e Clearinghous e shoul d b e summarize d in th e application . Reviewin g agencie s shoul d verif y tha t thi s informatio n i s correc t

an d up-to date . DRAF T 4 4/1/9 1P. 6

2 . EPA/State/Loca

l Ai r Qualit y Permit s Applicant s shoul d b e awar

e of permit s issue d fo

r their industry . A

n effor t mus t b e made to obtai n current

informatio n o n BAC T fo

r thes e sources . Permittin g agencie s shoul d maintain documentatio n o

f recen t BAC T determinations . 3 . Federal/State/Lcca

l Perrmmng Engineer s Permittin g engineer s an d engineerin g manager s ca n provide information o n project s under revie w fo r

whic h BAC T information ma y b e available . BAC T analyse s under consideratio n wil l b e availabl e fromthes e individual s befor e i t appears in the Qearinghous e manual . 4 . Contro l Equipmen

t Vendor s Vendor s hav e information on th e mos t recent contro l technology , cos t

information , emissio n guarantees , an d tes t results . 5 . Trad e Association s Association s servin g on e sector ofte n maintain permittin g an

d emission tes t

reports. Example s include th e Nationa l Council fo

r Ai r an d Strea mImprovemen

t (NCASI) fo

r pul p an d paper industry , Electri c Powe

r Research Institut

e (EPRI ) fo

r electri c generator s and America n Ga s Cleanin g Institut

e (AGO ) fo

r information on ai

r pollution contro l equipmen t 6 . Agencie s o r

Companie s Outsid

e th e Unite d State s Thes e group s shoul d b e consulte d fo r informatio n on th e mos t

recen t advance s in contro l technologies , contro l costs , tes t results, etc . 7 . Inspection/Performanc e Tes t Report s Recen t tes t dat ama y b e usefu l in establishin g emissio n limitation s fo r sources . Inspectio n an d performanc e tes t datama y als o revea

l potentia l problem s wit

h acontro l technolog y o r

specifi c equipmen t 8 . Technica

l Paper s an

d Journal s VTI . EFFECTIVENES S RANKIN G O F CONTRO

L ALTERNATIVE S Onc e th e applican

t ha s identified th e appropriat e contro l alternatives , th e applican t shoul d rank

the mi n orde

r o f contro l effectiveness , wit

h th e mos t effective contro l alternativ e a

t th e top . Thi s lis t

shoul d presen

t a n arra y of contro l alternatives , showin g contro l efficiencies , expecte d emissions , economi c costs , environmenta l benefits , energ y costs , and other

costs . The applican

t should prepar

e achar t fo r eac h pollutan

t and fo r eac h emission s unit , o r

small group o

f unit s i n th e BAC T analysis . Thes e chart s shoul d b e use d t o compar e th e contro l alternative s an d t o focu s the selectio n o

f acontro l option a s BACT . Vm . EVALUATIO

N O F CONTRO

L ALTERNATIVES Thre e criteri aar

e to b e use d i f the applican

t propose s usin g acontro l technolog y les s effective tha

n the top case . Thes e thre e criteri aare : 1 . energ y impact s 2 . environmenta

l impacts , and 3 . economi c impacts . DRAF T 5 4/1/9 1P. 7

Sinc e th e permittin g agenc y wil l us e thes e criteri ai n it s decisio n makin g process , i t i s important

tha t applicant s provide full

y documente d estimate s of the emission s usin g alternativ e contro l a s wel l a s quantitativ e and qualitativ e environmental , energy , and economi c impact s a s describe d i n Sectio n D C Th e evaluatio n proces s shoul d b e conducte d i n an incrementa

l manner , fromth e top-down . Th e first step i n thi s approac h i s t o determine , fo

r the emissio n sourc e i n question , th e mos t stringen t contro l availabl e fo

r a simila r o r identica l sourc e o r sourc e category . I

f i t ca n b e shown tha

t thi s leve l of

contro l i s technically o r

economically inappropriat

e fo r th e sourc e i n question , the

n the applicant shoul d determin e th e nex t

mos t stringent leve l o f contro l an d evaluate i t

similarly . Thi s proces s continue s unti l th e BAC T leve l unde r consideratio n canno t

b e eliminate d b y an

y substantia l o r uniqu e technical , environmental , o r economi c objections . Thus , th e top dow n approac h shift s th e burden o f proo f t o th e applicant

wh o mus t justif y why th e propose d sourc e i s unabl e t o apply th e bes t technolog y available . I t

als o differ s fro mother processe s i n tha

t i t require s th e applican

t t o analyz e acontro l technolog y only i f th e applicant oppose s tha

t leve l of control ; other

processe s require afull analysi s of al l possibl e type s an d level s of

contro l abov e th e baselin e case . If the applicant

accepts the top alternative in the listing as BACT from an economic energy standpoint, the applicant proceeds to consider

whether collateral

environmental

impacts would

justify selection of

an alternative control

option. TX. IMPAC T ANALYSI S O F CONTROL ALTERNATIVE S There ar e thre e mai n impact s to b e examine d in aBAC T analysis . Thes e are : a . environmenta

l impact s b . energ y impact s c . economi c impact s Althoug h th e impac t

analyse s ar

e di e importan

t par t o f th e selectio n process , th e effectivenes s o

f the contro l alternative s wil l b e th e decisiv e facto r affectin g BAC T selection . 

### A , Environmenta l Impact s Th e firs t analysi s i s fo

r environmenta

l impacts . Th e applican

t shoul d estimate th e ne t environmenta

l impac t associate d wit

h eac h contro l alternative . Bot

h beneficia

l impact s an d advers e impact s shoul d b e discusse d and quantified , wher e possible . Th e analyse s shoul d b e presente d i

n th e for mo f the incrementa

l impac t o f each contro l alternativ e relativ e t o th e mos t stringen t systemidentifie d a s acontro l alternative . Th e BAC T determination , however , i s totall y independent o f di e amount

o r increment on air qualit y resources available . Insignifican t ai r qualit y impac t canno t provide abasi s fo r acceptin g ales s stringent

contro l technology . Th e only cas e wher e th e modele d impac t of the propose d emission s shoul d influenc e the emissio n limitatio n i s when tha t modelin g show s exceedance s o f di e ai r qualit y standard s o r

increments . I

n dii s case , di e applicant mus t choos e between usin g acontro l mor e stringent tha n BAC T o r

changin g th e sit e location . When weighin g environmenta l impacts , th e applicant

shoul d consider

al l ai r pollutant s and th e impac t

o f other environmenta

l area s affected b y th e contro l alternative . Thi s include s air

pollutant s which ar

e not currend y regulate d unde

r di e Clea n Ai r Ac t but whic h ma y hav e asignifican

t environmenta

l impac t O n Jun e 3,1986 , th e Administrato r o f di e EPA remanded aPS D permittin g t o Regio n 9 , instructin g th e Regio n t o consider di e effects of unregulate d ai r

pollutant s whe

n makin g aBAC T determinatio n fo r regulate d pollutants . Th e analysi s o f unregulate d air

pollutant s shoul d b e directe d a t developin g a

n inventor y of potentia l pollutant s fro

mapropose d sourc e an d evaluatin g the impac t o n thos e pollutant s o f

eac h contro l alternativ e bein g considere d for BACT . DRAF T 6 4/1/9 1P. 8

Th e followin g i s abrief

outlin e o f some , bu t by n o mean s alL

, o f th e environmenta

l categorie s tha

t shoul d b e considere d durin g a n analysi s of

environmenta

l impacts . 1 . Impact s o n air

qualit y visibl e emission s odo r visibilit y impairmen

t toxi c air pollutant s noncriteri aai r

pollutant s dioxin/furan s heavy metal s aci d gase s non-photochemically reactive o r toxi c solvent s etc . 2 . Impact s on water

qualit y 3 . Soli d wast

e disposal impact s 4 . Othe r environmenta

l Impact s 5 . Nois e 6 . Stea mplume s fromcoolin g tower s 7 . Potentia

l fo r accidenta l releases 8 . Reliabilit

y (or di e potentia

l fo r rnalfunctio

n an d downtime ) Wher e approximatel

y the sam e degre e o f emissio n reductio n ca

n b e achieve d b

y differen t technologies , preferenc e should b e give n t o th e technolog y dia

t achieve s di e reductio n wit

h th e greates t

degre e o f pollutio n prevention . Fo r

example , us e o

f eithe r lo w VO C coating s o r

utilizin g carbo n adsorptio n wit h reus e o f th e solven

t ar e generall y preferable t

o utilizin g atherma

l o r catalyti c incinerator . B , Energ y Impact s Th e secon d analysi s i s fo

r energ y impacts . In analyzin g energ y impacts , th e applican t shoul d estimat

e the direc t

energy impact s o

f the contro l alternative s in unit s o f energ y consumptio n (Btus , kWh , barrel s o f oil , ton s of

coal , etc.) . Th e energ y requirement s o

f di e contro l option s should b e show n i n term s o f tota l an d incrementa

l (unit s o f energ y per

to n o f reduction ) energ y costs . The analysi s of

energ y impact s shoul d als o identif y the typ e an

d amoun t of scarc e fuel s in th e region dia

t woul d b e required. Th e analysi s shoul d als o recognize th e peril s of relying o n inherendy lo w pollutin g fuel s i n lie u o f control s sinc e such decision s coul d result in greate r emission s in di e futur

e du e t o unforesee

n nationa l energ y policie s o r availability . C . Economi c Impact s The third analysis is

for economic impacts. I

n evaluatin g th e economic s of variou s BAC T contro l options , primar y consideratio n shoul d b e given t o the cos t effectivenes s of a n optio n and no t

t o di e economi c situatio n o f th e sourc e applican t

Fo r contro l technologie s tha

t hav e bee n proven fo

r di e sourc e categor

y unde r review , the economi c impac t o f requirin g thi s technolog y on asourc e under review i s les s imponant

tha n th e cost effectiveness . There are two measures of cost effectiveness. These include: average cost effectiveness (total

annualized costs of

control divided by annual

emissions reduction, or the difference between baseline emission rate and the controlled

emission rate), and incremental

cost effectiveness (dollarsper

incremental

ton removed). Incremental costs should not be used

as the basis

for justifying the elimination of a control option. However, in limited circumstances, such as when comparing two levels of control for the same DRAF T 7 4/1/9 1P. 9

control device, incremental

cost may be utilized

in conjunction with the average cost effectiveness to justify the elimination of the more stringent

control level. I n th e analysi s o

f economi c impacts , di e applican t should estimat

e di e approximat

e cost s o f th e differen

t emissio n contro l alternatives . Th e analysi s shoul d includ e acomplet e explanatio n o

f procedure s use d fo

r assessin g th e economi c impacts , an y supportin g data , an d a n itemizatio n an d explanatio n o f al l costs . Credit

fo r ta x incentive s shoul d b e included , alon g wit

h credit s fo

r produc t recover y cost s an d by-produc t

sale s generate d fromth e us e of

di e contro l system . I n evaluatin g th e relativ e cos t effectivenes s o

f alternatives , calculation s shoul d b e base d on allowabl e emission s a t maximu mdesig n capacit

y fo r 8,76 0 hour s pe r

year . If permi t condition(s ) limi t

operatio n to les s tha

n 8,760 hour s per

year , th e analysi s ma

y als o includ e dat abase d o n th e allowe d operation . Baseline emissions used to determine the degree of pollution reduction must

be based on a realistic scenario of the upper bound of uncontrolled

emissions from the source, and

must be derived

in a manner

consistent

with the procedures specified

in EPA's Draft

New Source Review Workshop Manual (October 1990). Emission reduction credit can be taken

for using inherently lower

polluting processes. Annua l cost s shoul d include th

e operatio n an

d maintenanc e cos t

plu s di e annualize d cos t fo r capito l an d desig n engineering . Th e capitalizatio n shoul d b e base d o n th e averag e useful lif e o f equipment . The economic life of a control system typically varies between 10 and 20years and

longer and should be determined

consistent with data

from EPA cost support documents and

IRS Class Life Asset

Depreciation Range System. Applicant s ar

e responsibl e fo

r full y documentin g al l relevant cos t information . Vendo r quotation s o r

other reliable mean s shoul d b e di e primar y basi s fo r estimates . Cos t estimate s shoul d b e derive d usin g di e mos t recent method s include d i n OAQPS Control Cost Manual (EPA 450/3-9-006, January 1990), and Appendix B (Estimating Control Costs) of EPA's Draft

New Source Review Workshop Manual (October 1990), an d an y subsequent

revision s t

o thes e manuals . Wheneve r th e cos t estimate s are outsid e di e rang e containe d i n thes e documents , di e applican t i s responsibl e fo

r substantiatin g di e estimates . Th e applicant

mus t not e th e yea r use d i n cos t estimate s and adjus t

al l calculation s t o reflect cost s fo r that year . The limits of

the process segr

->n ro be costed

(or control system battery limits) should

be specified

in the BACT

analysis and

should have design parameters consistent with those that

would achieve the emission estimates used in other portions of the application (i.e., dispersion modeling inputs, permit emission limits). Table 1 below summarizes some design parameters that are important

in determining system costs. Table 1 Control

System Design Parameters Examples Control Design Parameter Example Wet Scrubbers Scrubber liquor (water, chemicals, etc.) Gas pressure drop Liquid! gas ratio Carbon Absorbers Specific chemical species Gas pressure drop lbs. carbon! lbs. pollutant Condensers Condenser type Outlet temperature DRAF T 8 4/1/9 1P.1 0

Incineration Residence time Temperature Specific collection area (fYflcfm) Voltage density Air to cloth ratio Pressure drop Space velocity Ammonia to NOx

molar ratio Pressure drop Catalyst life SOURCE: EPA Draft

New Source Review Workshop Manual (October 1990). Electrostatic Precipitator Fabric Filter Selective Catalytic Reduction

A complet e economi c analysi s shoul d compar e cost s o f control s bot

h within th e specifi c sourc e categor

y under revie w and , a s acompariso n o f costs , fo r other industries , o n di e basi s o

f dollar s pe r to n of pollutant removed. The analysi s shoul d als o represent th e contro l optio n cost s i n term s o f cos t pe r uni t o f productio n a

t ful l capacit y (8,76 0 hour s pe r year ) an d di e contro l cos t

a s apercen

t o f th e tota l project cos t I f permi t condition(s ) limit operatio n t o les s tha

n 8,76 0 hour s pe r

year , th e analysi s ma

y als o include dat abase d on di e allowe d operation . Th e analysi s mus t

b e sourc e specific , bu

t shoul d als o be genera

l enough t o conside r norma l cost s fo r doin g busines s i

n agive n field . A demonstratio n by a n applican t dia t i t canno t affor d to construc t

afacilit y usin g th e mos t stringen t technolog y doe s not

allo w the mor e stringen t technolog y to b e rejected a s BACT . Rathe r i t i s astatemen

t o f whethe r di e applican t i s financially capabl e o

f conductin g busines s in tha

t field. X . ENFORCEABIL-TY The BACT determinatio n fo r each pollutan

t must result in afederall

y enforceable permi t BAC T mus t

be specifie d no t

only in term s o

f acontro l technology , bu

t als o in term s o f emissio n limit s and/o r

design , equipment , wor

k practice , o r

operationa

l standard s (temperature , pressur

e drop , flow rates , p H control , etc. ) tha t ar e federally enforceable . Th e BAC T limit s mus t

b e point specifi c an

d mus t include appropriat

e averaging times, • referenc e tes t

methods , an

d ametho d fo

r ensurin g continuou s compliance .

Thi s guideline was adopte d b y di e NESCAU

M Boar d o f Director s on ??':

DRAF T 4/1/9 1P.1 1



### APPENDI X I STAT E BAC T CONTACT S CONNECTICUT S . Amarello , E . Bouffard , S . Pepla u 203 / 566-823 0 Connecticut

Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Protectio n Burea u of Ai r Managemen

t 16 5 Capito l Avenu e Hartford , CT 0610 6 

### MAIN E M . Cone , E . Kennedy 207 / 289-243 7 Main e Depanment

o f Environmenta

l Protectio n Burea u of Ai r Qualit y Contro l State Hous e Statio n 1 7 Augusta , M E 0433 0 MASSACHUSETT S J . Belsky , D . Howland , D . Squires , V . Steeve s 617 / 292-563 0 Massachusett s Departmen

t of Environmenta

l Protectio n Divisio n of

Ai r Qualit y Contro l 

### On e Winte r Street , 8t

h Floo r Boston , MA 0210 8 NEW HAMPSHIR

E A . Bodnarik , D . Davi s 603 / 271-137 0 New Hampshir

e Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Service s Ai r Resource s Divisio n 6 4 Nort h Mai n Street , Caller

Bo x 203 3 Concord , N H 03302-203 3 

### NE W JERSE Y Mino r Sourc e Ai r

Pollutio n Contro l Permit s Chief , Burea u o f Ne w Sourc e Review Ne w Jersey Departmen

t of Environmenta

l Protectio n Divisio n o f

Environmenta

l Qualit y 40 1 Eas t State Street , C

N 02 7 Trenton , NJ 0862 5 Majo r Sourc e Ai r

Pollutio n Contro l Permit s Chief , Burea u of Engineerin g an

d Regulator

y Development Ne w Jersey Depanment

o f Environmenta

l Protectio n Divisio n o f Environmenta

l Qualit y 40 1 Eas t State Street , C

N 02 7 Trenton , N J 0862 5

DRAF T 1 0 4/1/9 1P.1 2

NE W YOR K J . Davis , R . Parke r

518/457-204 4 Ne w Yor k Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Conservation Divisio n o f Ai r 5 0 Wolf Roa d Albany , N Y 1223 3 RHODE ISLAN

D D.McVa y 401/277-280 8 Rhode Islan d Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Managemen

t Divisio n o f Ai r and Hazardou s Material s 29 1 Promenade Street Providence , R I 0290 8 VERMON T D . Elliott , B . Fitzgerald , J . Perreaul t 802 / 244-873 1 Vermon t Departmen

t o f Environmenta

l Conservation Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Divisio n Buildin g 3 Sout

h 10 3 Sout h Mai n Street Waterbury , V

T 0567 6 OTHE RCONTACTS NESCAU M M . Bradley , N . Seidma

n 617 / 367-854 0 8 5 Merrima

c Street Boston , M A 0211 4 EP A Region I J . Courcier

617/565-326 0 L.Hamjian 617/565-325 0 JF K Federa l Building , Roo m231 1 Boston , M A 0220 3 EP A Region n W . Baker , K . Mangel s 212/264-251 7 2 6 Federa l Plaz a Ne w York , N

Y 1027 8

BAC T gdln-rev 3/91;3/22/9 1

DRAF T 1 1 4/1/9 1