P.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

21)11-1-13 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:19 AM Sheet 21 of 142 
P.2 

*t~ 

Jpfif ^ NORTHEAST STATES FOR COORDINATED AIR USE MANAGE.ME: 

-«P - (NESCAUM) ^^3*7 

9 jr- T- '3 

MEMBERS: 

CONNECTICUT AIR COMPLIANCE UNIT 

MAINE BUREAU OF AlRCUALfTY CONTROL 

MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF AIR OUAirTY CONTROL 

NEW HAMPSHIRE AIR RESOURCES GIVSICN 

NEW JERSEY BUREAU CF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 

NEW YORK DIVISION OF AS RESOURCES 

RHODE ISLANO DIVISION OF AIR RESOURCES 

VERMONT AIR FOLLUTTCN CONTROL PROGRAM 

HESCADM BACT GUIDELINE 

October 1988 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Maha'ge'od'nT^fESeftBM-) -

is an interstate association of the air quality divisions in the 

Northeast states: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. NESCAUM's purpose is to pronote 

cooperation and coordination of technical and policy issues among its 

member states. To accomplish this, NESCAOM sponsors frequent air 

quality training programs, participates in national debates, and 

promotes a variety of research initiatives. Currently NESCAUM is 

involved in the following areas: 

Air Toxics Regulatory Options 

Waste Incineration 

Acid Rain Research and Control Options 

Ambient Monitoring 

Dispersion Modeling 

Ozone Attainment Strategies 

Enforcement and Compliance Activities 

Mobile Source Control 

Prevention of Accidental Releases 

Air Toxic Standards Development 

Training and Educational Activities 

Each of the NESCAUM states administers programs for the 

preconstruction review'of new sources and modifications of existing 

sources. Some states administer a delegated version of the Federal 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations while others 

have developed their own regulations which, upon approval by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), provide the state the authority 

to issue federally enforceable permits. The minimum size of sources 

subject to review varies from state to state, but all states require 

that sources review available control technologies and that the source 

select the Best Available Control Technology (BACT). For new major 

sources or major modifications in nonattainment areas, the control 

technology required is Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER). 

MiCHA£'_ j .FIAC-E^. EXECUTIVE D'~E 

35 VERHIMAC S: 

_QS" N V*SSAC-_S-~~ S :?"•»

 T='- i6i^3S " 
P.3 

'<* ' 

This policy was adopted by the NESCAUM Board of Directors at their 

meeting on October 11, 1988. The policy does not change regulations in 

any state or any existing PSD requirement for a top-down BACT analysis. 

Rather, it is intended to promote consistency between member states in 

methods of determining 3ACT and to provide prospective applicants with 

guidance on the level of analysis appropriate to support a proposed 

control technology. Thi3 policy defines a top-down analysis aa 

identifying the aoat stringent control available for a similar or 

identical source or source category. Working from that "top" case, the 

applicant begins the BACT analysis. 

II. BACKGROUND 

In the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress adopted the 

Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program. The program 

was designed to prevent air quality from deteriorating in areas where it 

was already better than the national ambient air quality standards. 

This objective was approached in two ways. First, the program 

established increments to limit the amount of additional sulfur dioxide 

and particulate matter allowed to be emitted above the baseline (which 

is existing air quality). Second, the program required that, regardless 

of existing air quality, new emission sources subject to PSD would be 

controlled to a level that represents BACT. This requirement not only 

precludes potential applicants from shopping for areas with less 

stringent emission limitations, but also promotes the research and 

development of more efficient and more economic alternative 

technologies. 

EPA adopted regulations to implement the requirements of the 1977 

Clean Air Act Amendments. These regulations were challenged by both 

industry and environmental organizations. In December 1979, in the case 

of Alabama Power et al., vs. Costle (13 ERG 1225), the Washington, D.C. 

Circuit Court upheld some provisions while overturning others. 

Subsequently, EPA promulgated changes to the regulatory requirements for 

new source review in amendments to Title 4.0 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations on August 7, 1980. These provisions constitute the 

regulatory requirements for the review of new sources and major 

modifications of existing sources that all programs must meet. 

III. PURPOSE 

The purpose of this document is to promote consistent analysis of 

proposed control technologies and consistent procedures for reviewing 

BACT determinations from state to state. Establishing a uniform set of 

requirements will not only ensure equitable treatment for prospective 

applicants, but will also reduce pressure on reviewing agencies 

resulting from the argument that a similar source located elsewhere 

would not be subjected to the same requirements. It is also intended to 

provide prospective applicants with guidance on the 3ACT analysis 

process. 
P.4 

r

1 

The U.S. EPA requires top-down BACT analysis. This guideline 

states that the NESCAUM states will use a top-down BACT analysis. This 

approach is based on identifying the best technology solution, allowing 

for environmental, energy, and economic considerations. 

This guideline focuses on the type of data required in a 

preconstruction permitting application and how the data should be used 

in order to determine 3ACT. The guideline addresses how the emission 

control system proposed in the permitting application is determined to 

be BACT or why a more stringent level of emission control might be 

appropriate, considering available technology and economic, energy, and 

environmental factors. 

The Clean Air Act places the responsibility for proposing BACT 

with the applicant and the responsibility of determining BACT with the 

permitting agency. The top-down approach places the additional 

responsibility on the source to present and defend its proposal. 

The level of analysis (or documentation) to support a BACT 

determination should be consistent from area to area. Since 3ACT is a 

case-by-case process, consistency does not necessarily mean that a new 

facility in one area will have an emission limit identical to that of 

the same type of facility in another area. Using a consistent approach 

to determine BACT should ensure that the impacts of alternative emission 

control systems are measured by the same set of parameters. 

IV. APPLICABILITY 

The applicability criteria for imposition of the BACT requirement 

vary from state to state- In general, BACT is required of those new 

sources and modifications to existing sources which exceed some 

specified trigger level. The trigger is based on emission rates. 

States will have differing guidelines on calculating emissions. 

Therefore, the appropriate state permitting officials (see Appendix I) 

must be consulted at this stage in the process. 

!_' DEFINITIONS 

This guideline uses "permit" to refer to what different states 

call permits, licenses, approvals, and plant approvals. The specific 

definitions of terms may vary from state to state. The applicant must 

work with each states' definitions. Therefore, the state permitting 

officials listed in Appendix I should be consulted. 

VI. IDENTIFICATION OF CONTROL ALTERNATIVES 

In carrying out a top-down BACT analysis, the applicant must first 

identify the most stringent control possible (usually referred to as 

Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, or LAER) and then quantify emissions. 

Since other alternatives will be compared against this top case, 

applicants should concur with the appropriate state contacts on what 
P.5 

represents the most stringent control case. At this step of the BACT 

review process, no technically feasible alternative should be ruled out 

as a possible BACT candidate. Identifying control alternatives should 

not be limited to simply reviewing existing controls for the source 

category in question. The review must be broad enough to take into 

account controls applied to similar source categories and innovative 

control technologies. Finally, the alternatives identified should 

include the control alternatives representative of LAER for the source 

or category of source. 

The starting assumption for the top-down approach is that the most 

stringent control possible i3 BACT. The burden of proof for applying a 

less stringent control rests in the applicant's case specific evaluation 

of the control alternatives. If the most stringent control for a 

specific pollutant is selected, the BACT evaluation for that pollutant 

is stopped. However, further evaluation of that control option's 

effectiveness on other pollutants may be required. 

Failing to address the top case in an attempt to avoid stringent 

controls will result in the process being delayed while the applicant is 

required to reassess alternatives against the control option the 

permitting authority determines to be the top case. 

When searching the record to identify the top case, the applicant 

must seek information on control technologies used throughout the United 

States, as well as applicable foreign control technologies. For 

example, Scandinavian pulping facility controls, German boiler and 

incinerator technology and operation controls, and Japanese controls for 

flue gas desulfurizatiou have traditionally met very stringent emission 

control limits. Also, emission tasting information on these 

technologies may be available to help establish the level of performance 

achievable with the specific technology. 

A. Types of Controls 

When identifying the top case and alternative control 

technologies, the following types of controls should be considered. 

1. Existing Control Technology: a control technology which has been 

proven in practice for the source category. This should include both 

emission limitations imposed by other jurisdictions and test results 

which reflect what was actually achieved in performance. 

2. Technically Feasible Alternatives: a control technology which has 

been demonstrated in practice on other source categories but has not 

been demonstrated in practice on the class or category of source under 

review. Applying a control technology to a source category in which it 

ha3 not been demonstrated is called control technology transfer. 

3. Innovative Control Technology: a control technology that has never 

been applied to any source on a full scale, continuously operating 

basis. This technology may be chosen on the basis of pilot 3cale or 

short-term testing. In selecting an innovative control technology, 
P.6 

there must be 3ome reasonable level of expectation that the innovative 

options will out-perform the demonstrated control. 

L. Using; Production Processes, Fuels, and Coatings That Are Inherently 

Lower Polluting: These options may be evaluated alone or in combination 

with add-on pollution control devices. Examples include adjusting raw 

material feed to reduce emissions, using methanol for low NOx 

applications, and using powder coatings instead of solvent borne 

coatings where technically feasible. In considering these options, it 

is especially important to work closely with the appropriate state 

permitting officials since much of the required information may be 

confidential or proprietary. 

$. Specific Design or Operational Parameters: ..These options may 

include such factors as combustion zone temperature, combu>_ion zone 

residence time, automatic combustion controls, pressure drop across 

control equipment, etc. 

Both the source applicant and the reviewing agency should consider 

the use of clean processes, fuels, and solvents that are inherently 

lower polluting than what has been historically employed by a particular 

industry. The analyses for these alternatives should be conducted in 

the same manner as the analyses for more conventional BACT alternatives 

(described in later sections). A reviewing agency should seriously 

consider requiring the use of such alternatives if the 3ACT analysis 

justifies their use based on environmental, economic, and energy 

factors. Examples include the use of a dry process cement plant vs. a 

wet design; powder coatings vs. solvent-borne coatings; gas vs. fuel 

oil; electric boost or all-electric glass furnaces vs. fossil fuel 

fired; fluidized bed coal combustion vs. conventional firing, low sulfur 

residual oil, etc. 

B. Sources of Information on Control Alternatives 

There are numerous sources of information on control alternatives 

for various source categori-s.. The following sources of information 

will be checked by the permitting authority. Hence they must be 

considered by the applicant preparing a 3ACT analysis. 

•\_.m BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

All applicants should check the BACT/LAER Clearinghouse prior to 

submitting an application. The information contained in the 

Clearinghouse should be summarized in the application. Reviewing 

agencies should verify that this information is correct and up-to-date. 

2± EPA/State/Local Air Quality Permits.. 

Applicants should be aware of permits issued for their industry. 

An effort must be made to.obtain current information on BACT for these 

sources. Permitting agencies should maintain documentation of recent 

BACT determinations. 

3. Federal/State/Local Permitting Engineers 

Permitting engineers and engineering managers can provide 

information on projects under review for which BACT information aay be 
P.7 

available. BACT analyses under consideration will be available from 

these individuals before it appears in the Clearinghouse manual. 

4. Control Equipment Vendors 

Vendors have information on the most recent control technology, 

cost information, emission guarantees, and test results. 

5. Trade Associations 

Associations serving one sector often maintain permitting and 

emission test reports. Examples include the National Council for Air 

and Stream Improvement (NCASI) for pulp and paper industry, Electric 

Power Research Institute (EPRI) for electric generators and American Gas 

Cleaning Institute (AGCI) for information c„ air pollution control 

equipment. 

6. Agencies or Companies Outside the United States 

These groups should be consulted for information on the most 

recent advances in control technologies, control costs, test results, 

7. Inspection/Performance Test Reports 

Recent test data may be useful in establishing emission 

limitations for sources. Inspection and performance test data may also 

reveal potential problems with a control technology or specific 

equipment. 

8. Technical Papers and Journals 

VII. EFFECTIVENESS RANKING OF CONTROL ALTERNATIVES 

Once the applicant has identified the appropriate control 

alternatives, the applicant should rank them in order of control 

effectiveness, with the most effective control alternative at the top. 

This list should present an array of control alternatives, showing 

control efficiencies, expected emissions, economic costs, environmental 

benefits, energy costs, and other cost3. The applicant should prepare a 

chart for each pollutant and for each emissions unit, or small group of 

units in the 3ACT analysis. These charts should be used to compare the 

control alternatives and to focus the selection of a control option as 

3ACT. 

VIII. EVALUATION OF CONTROL ALTERNATIVES 

Three criteria are to be used if the applicant proposes using a 

control technology less effective than the top case. These three 

criteria are: 

1. energy impacts 

2. environmental impacts, and 

3. economic impacts. 

Since the permitting agency will use these criteria in its 

decision making process, it is important that applicants provide fully 
P.8 

documented estimates of the emissions using alternative control as well 

as quantitative and qualitative environmental, energy, and economic 

impacts as described in Section II. The evaluation process should be 

conducted in an incremental manner, from the top-down. The first step 

in thi3 approach i3 to determine, for the emission source in question, 

the most stringent control available for a similar or identical source 

or source category. If it can be shown that thi3 level of control is 

technically or economically inappropriate for the source in question, 

then the applicant should determine the next most stringent level of 

control and evaluate it similarly. This process continues until the 

BACT level under consideration cannot be eliminated by any substantial 

or unique technical, environmental, or economic objections. Thus, the 

top-down approach shifts the burden of proof to the applicant who must 

justify why the proposed source is unable to apply the best technology 

available. It also differs from other processes in that it requires the 

applicant to analyze a control technology only if the applicant opposes 

that level of control; other processes require a full analysis of all 

possible types and levels of control above the baseline case. 

II. IMPACT ANALYSIS OF CONTROL ALTERNATIVES 

There are three nain impacts to be examined in a BACT analysis. 

These are: 

a. environmental impacts 

b. energy impacts 

c. economic impacts 

Although the impact analyses are the important part of the selection 

process, the effectiveness of the control alternatives will be the 

decisive factor affecting BACT selection. 

A. Environmental Impacts 

The first analysis is for environmental impacts. The applicant 

should estimate the net environmental impact associated with each 

control alternative. Both beneficial impacts and adverse impacts should 

be discussed and quantified, where possible. The analyses should be 

presented in the form of the incremental impact of each control 

alternative relative to the most stringent system identified as a 

control alternative. 

The BACT determination, however, is totally independent of the 

amount or increment on air quality resources available. Insignificant 

air quality impact cannot provide a basis for accepting a less stringent 

control technology. The only case where -the modeled impact of the 

proposed emissions should influence the emission limitation is when that 

modeling shows exceedances of the air quality standards or increments. 

In this case, the applicant must choose between using a control more 

stringent than BACT or changing the site location. 

When weighing environmental impacts, the applicant should consider 

all air pollutants and the impact of other environmental areas affected 

by the control alternative. This includes air pollutants which are not 

currently regulated under the Clean Air Act but which may have a 

significant environmental impact. On June 3» 1986, the Administrator of 
P.9 

the EPA remanded a PSD permitting to Region 9, instructing the Region to 

consider the effects of unregulated air pollutants when making a BACT 

determination for regulated pollutants. The analysis of unregulated air 

pollutants should be directed at developing an inventory of potential 

pollutants from a proposed source and evaluating the impact on those 

pollutants of each control alternative being considered for BACT. 

The following is a brief outline of some, but by no means all, of 

the environmental categories that should be considered during an 

analysis of environmental impacts. 

1. Impacts on air quality 

visible emissions 

odor 

visibility impairment 

toxic air pollutants 

noncriteria air pollutants 

dioxin/furans 

heavy metals 

acid gases 

non-photochemically reactive or toxic solvents 

etc. 

2. Impacts on water quality 

3. Solid waste disposal impacts 

; 4.. Other environmental Impacts 

.: 5» Noise 

6. Steam plumes from cooling towers 

7. Potential for accidental releases 

8. Reliability (or the potential for malfunction and downtime) 

3. Energy Impacts 

The second analysis is for energy impacts. In analyzing energy 

impacts, the applicant should estimate the direct energy impacts of the 

control alternatives in units of energy consumption (Btus, kWh, barrels 

of oil, tons of coal, etc.). The energy requirements of the control 

options should be shown in terms of total and incremental (units of 

energy per ton of reduction) energy costs. 

The analysis of energy impacts should also identify the type and 

amount of scarce fuels-in the region that would be required. The 

analysis should also recognize the perils of relying on inherently low 

polluting fuels in lieu of controls since such decisions could result in 

greater emissions in the future due to unforeseen national energy 

policies or availability. 

C. Economic Impacts 

In evaluating the economics of various 3ACT control options, 

primary consideration should be given to the cost effectiveness of an 

option and not to the economic situation of the source applicant. For 

control technologies that have been proven for the source category unde: 

review, the economic impact of requiring this technology on a source 

under review is leas important than the control effectiveness (in 

dollars per ton of pollutant removed). 
P.10 

In the analysis of economic impacts, the applicant should estimate 

the approximate costs of the different emission control alternatives. 

The analysis should include a complete explanation of procedures used 

for assessing the economic impacts, any supporting data, and an 

itemization and explanation of all costs. Credit for tax incentives 

should be included, along with credits for product recovery costs and 

by-product sales generated from the use of the control system. 

In evaluating the relative cost effectiveness of alternatives, 

calculations should be based on allowable emissions at maximum design 

capacity for 8,760 hours per year. If permit condition(s) limit 

operation to less than 8,760 hours per year, the analysis may also 

include data based on the allowed operation. 

Annual costs should include the operation and maintenance cost 

plus the annualized cost for capitol and design engineering. The 

capitalization should be based on the average useful life of equipment 

presented in Table 1 unless the applicant can substantiate another 

value. 

TABLE 1 

Equipment Life (in years) 

Electrostatic Precipitators 

Venturi Scrubbers 

Fabric Filters 

Thermal Incinerators 

Catalytic Incinerators 

Adsorbers 

Absorbers 

Refrigeration 

Flares 

Low 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

Average 

20 

10 

20 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

15 

Hi 

40 

20 

->0 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

Source: Capital and Operating Costs of- Selected Air Pollution Control 

Systems (EPA 450/5-80-002, December 1978). 

Applicants are responsible for fully documenting all relevant cost 

information. Vendor quotations or other reliable means should be the 

primary basi3 for estimates. Cost estimates should be derived using the 

most recent methods included in Capital and Operating Costs of Selected 

Air Pollution Control Systems (EPA 450/5-80-002, December 1978), EAB 

Cost Control Manual. Third Edition (November 1976), and any subsequent 

revisions to these manuals. Whenever the cost estimates are outside the 

range contained in these documents, the applicant is responsible for 

substantiating the estimates. The applicant must note the year used in 

cost estimates and adjust all calculations to reflect costs for that 

year. 

The applicant should also conduct an-analysis of the cost of 

control options on the basis of dollars per ton of pollutant controlled 

for each pollutant subject to BACT. A comparison should be made to the 

costs of controls for other source categories and other industries. A 
P.11 

complete economic analysis should compare costs of controls both within 

the specific source category under review and, as a comparison of costs, 

for other industries, on the basis of dollars per ton of pollutant 

removed. The analysis should also represent the control option costs in 

terms of cost per unit of production at full capacity (8,760 hours per 

year) and the control co3t as a percent of the total project cost. If 

permit conditions) limit operation to less than 8,760 hours per year, 

the analysis may also include data based on the allowed operation. 

The analysis must be source specific, but should also be general 

enough to consider normal costs for doing business in a given field. A 

demonstration by an applicant that it cannot afford to construct a 

facility using the most stringent technology does not allow the more 

stringent technology to be rejected as BACT. Rather it is a statement 

of whether the applicant is financially capable of conducting business 

in that field. 

1^ ENFORCEABILITY 

The 3ACT determination for each pollutant must result in a 

federally enforceable permit. BACT must be specified not only in terms 

of a control technology, but also in terms of emission limits and/or 

design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards (temperature, 

pressure drop, flow rates, pH control, etc.) that are federally 

enforceable. The BACT limits must be point specific and must include 

appropriate averaging times, reference test methods, and a method for 

ensuring continuous compliance. 

This guideline was adopted by the NESCAUM Board of Directors on 

October 11, 1988. 

10 
P.12 

APPEHDIT I 

STATE BACT CONTACTS 

CONNECTICUT 

M. Hultman, D. Nash 203/ 566-3230 

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 

Air Compliance Unit 

165 Capitol .Vvenue 

Hartford, CT 06115 

.MAINE 

R. Ballsv, B. Sproul 207/ 289-2437 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

State House Station 17 

Augusta, ME 04330 

MASSACHUSETTS 

J. Belsky, D. Howland, D. Squires, V. Steeves 617/ 292-5630 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering 

Division of Air Quality Control 

One Winter Street, 3th Floor 

3oston, MA 02108 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

D. Davis, A. Bodnarik 603/ 271-1370 

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services 

Air Resources Division 

64 North Main Street, Caller Box 2033 

Concord, NH 03302-2033 

NEW JERSEY 

Minor Source Air Pollution Control Permits 

Chief, Bureau of New Source Review 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Division of Environmental Quality 

CN 027 

401 East State Street 

Trenton, NJ 08625 

Major Source Air Pollution Control Permits 

Chief, Bureau of Engineering and Regulatory Development 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Division of Environmental Quality 

CN 027 

401 East State Street 

Trenton, NJ 08625 

11 
P.13 

NEW YORK 

J. Davis, J. Harrington 513/ 457-5613 

New York Department of Environmental Conservation 

Division of Air 

50 Wolf Road 

Albany, NI 12233 

RHODE ISLAND 

D. McVay 401/ 277-2808 

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management 

Division of Air and Hazardous Materials 

291 Promenade Street 

Providence, RI 02908 

VERMONT 

L. Miller 802/ 24-4-8731 

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation 

Air Pollution Control Program 

Building 3 South 

103 South Main Street 

Waterbury, VT 05676 

OTHER CONTACTS 

NESCAUM 

M. Bradley, N. Seidman 617/ 367-8540 

85 Merrimac Street 

Boston, MA 02114. 

EPA Region I 

J. Courcier" 617/ 565-3260 

L. Hamjian 617/ 565-3246 

JFK Federal Building, Room 2311 

Boston, MA 02203 

SPA Region II 

W. Baker, _,. Mangels 212/ 264-2517 

26 Federal Plaza 

New York, NY 10278 

BACT gdln2;10/19/38 

12