P. 1



# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 21)11-1-1 3 Docket Number: 

# A-90-37

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

*t~ 

## Jpfif ^ NORTHEAS T STATES FO RCOORDINATED AI

RUSE MANAGE.ME : 

# -«P

- (NESCAUM ) ^^3*7 9jr- T- '3

MEMBERS : CONNECTICU TAI R COMPLIANC E UNI T MAIN E BUREA U O F AlRCUALfT YCONTRO L MASSACHUSETTS DIVISIO N O FAI R OUAirTYCONTRO L NEWHAMPSHIR E AI R RESOURCE S GIVSIC N NEWJERSEYBUREA U C FAI R POLLUTIO N CONTRO L NEWYOR KDIVISIO N O FA S RESOURCE S RHOD E ISLAN O DIVISIO N O FAI R RESOURCE S VERMON TAI R FOLLUTTC N CONTRO L PROGRA M HESCADMBAC T GUIDELINE Octobe r 198 8

I . INTRODUCTIO

N Th e Northeas t State s fo r Coordinate d Ai r Us e Maha'ge'od'nT^fESeftBM- ) - i s a n interstat e associatio n o f the ai r qualit ydivision s i n the Northeas t states : Connecticut , Maine , Massachusetts , Ne wHampshire , Ne w Jersey , Ne wYork , an d Rhod e Island . NESCAUM' s purpos e i s t o pronot e cooperatio n an

d coordinatio n o f technica l an d polic yissue s among it s membe r states . T o accomplis hthis , NESCAOMsponsor s frequen t ai r qualit ytraining programs , participate s i n nationa l debates , an d promote s a variet yo f researc hinitiatives . Currentl yNESCAU Mi s involve d i n th e following areas : Ai r Toxic s RegulatoryOption s Wast e Incineratio n Aci d Rai n Researc han d Contro l Option s Ambien t Monitorin g Dispersio n Modelin g Ozon e Attainmen t Strategie s Enforcemen t an

d Complianc e Activitie s Mobil e Sourc e Contro l Preventio n o f Accidenta l Release s Ai r Toxi c Standard s Developmen t Training an

d Educationa l Activitie s Eac ho f the NESCAU

Mstate s administer s program s fo r th e preconstructio n review'o f ne wsource s an d modification s o f existing sources . Some state s administe r a delegate d versio n o f the Federa l Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n (PSD ) regulation s whil e other s hav e develope d thei r ow n regulation s which , upo n approva l b ythe U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA) , provid e th e stat e the authorit y t o issu e federall yenforceabl e permits . Th e minimu msiz e o f source s subjec t t o revie wvarie s fro mstat e t o state , bu t al l state s requir e tha t source s revie wavailabl e contro l technologie s an d tha t the sourc e selec t the Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology(BACT) . Fo r ne wmajo r source s o r majo r modification s i n nonattainmen t areas , th e contro l technolog

yrequire d i s Lowes t Achievabl e Emissio n Rat e (LAER) .

MiCHA£'

_j .FIAC-E^ . EXECUTIV E D'~ E 3 5 VERHIMA C S : _QS" N V*SSAC-_S-~~ S :?"• » T =' - i6i^3S "P. 3

'<* '
Thi s polic ywa s adopte d b ythe NESCAU

MBoar d o f Director s a t thei r meetin g o n Octobe r 11 , 1988 . The polic ydoe s no t chang e regulation s i n anystat e o r an

yexisting PS D requiremen t fo r a top-dow n BAC T analysis . Rather , i t i s intende d t o promot e consistenc ybetwee n membe r state s i n method s o f determining 3AC T an d t o provid e prospectiv e applicant s wit h guidanc e o n the leve l o f analysi s appropriat e t o suppor t a propose d contro l technology . Thi 3 policydefine s a top-down analysi s a a identifyin g the aoa t stringen t contro l availabl e fo r a simila r o r identica l sourc e o r sourc e category . Working fromtha t "top " case , the applican t begin s the BAC T analysis .
II . BACKGROUND I n the 197 7 Amendment s t o 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 m wa s designe d t o preven t ai r qualit yfromdeterioratin g i n area s wher e i t wa s alread

ybette r than the nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandards . Thi s objectiv e wa s approache d i n two ways . First , th e progra m establishe d increment s t o limi t the amoun t o f additiona l sulfu r dioxid e and 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 o f existin g ai r quality , ne wemissio n source s subjec t t o PS D woul d b e controlle d t o a leve l tha t represent s BACT . Thi s requiremen t no t onl y preclude s potentia l applicant s fro mshopping fo r area s wit hles s stringen t emissio n limitations , bu t als o promote s th e researc han d developmen t o f mor e efficien t an d mor e economi c alternativ e technologies . EP Aadopte d regulation s t o implemen t th e requirement s o f the 197 7 Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendments . Thes e regulation s wer e challenge d b ybot h industryan

d environmenta l organizations . I n Decembe r 1979 , i n the cas e o f Alabama Powe r e t al. , vs . Costl e (1 3 ERG1225) , th e Washington , D.C . Circui t Cour t uphel d some provision s whil e overturnin g others . Subsequently , EPApromulgate d change s t o the regulator yrequirement s fo r ne wsourc e revie wi n amendment s t o Titl e 4. 0 o f th e Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s o n Augus t 7 , 1980 . Thes e provision s constitut e the regulator yrequirement s fo r the revie wo f ne wsource s an d majo r modification s o f existing source s tha t al l program s mus t meet .
III . PURPOS E Th e purpos e o f thi s documen t i s t o promot e consisten t analysi s o f propose d contro l technologie s an d consisten t procedure s fo r reviewin g BAC T determination s fromstat e t o state . Establishin g a uniformse t o f requirement s wil l no t onl yensur e equitabl e treatmen t fo r prospectiv e applicants , bu t wil l als o reduc e pressur e o n reviewin g agencie s resultin g fromthe argumen t tha t a simila r sourc e locate d elsewher e woul d no t b e subjecte d t o the sam e requirements . I t i s als o intende d t o provid e prospectiv e applicant s wit hguidanc e o n the 3AC T analysi s process .P. 4 

## r 1

Th e U.S . EPArequire s top-dow n BAC T analysis . Thi s guidelin e state s tha t the NESCAUMstate s wil l us e a top-dow n BAC T analysis . Thi s approac hi s base d o n identifying the bes t technologysolution , allowing fo r environmental , energy , an d economi c considerations . Thi s guidelin e focuse s o n th e typ e o f dat a require d i n a preconstructio n permittin g applicatio n an d ho wth e dat a shoul d be used i n orde r t o determin e 3ACT . Th e guidelin e addresse s ho wth e emissio n contro l systempropose d i n the permitting applicatio n i s determine d t o b e BAC T o r wh

ya mor e stringen t leve l o f emissio n contro l migh t be appropriate , considering availabl e technolog yand economic , energy , an d environmenta l factors . Th e Clea n Ai r Ac t place s the responsibilit yfo r proposing BAC T wit hth e applican t an d th e responsibilit yo f determinin g BAC T wit hthe permitting agency . Th e top-dow n approac hplace s th e additiona l responsibilit yo n the sourc e t o presen t an d defend it s proposal . Th e leve l o f analysi s (o r documentation ) t o suppor t a BAC T determinatio n shoul d b e consisten t fro mare a t o area . Sinc e 3AC T i s a case-by-cas e process , consistenc ydoe s no t necessaril ymean tha t a ne w facilit yi n on e are a wil l have a n emissio n limi t identica l t o tha t o f th e sam e typ e o f facilit yi n anothe r area . Usin g a consisten t approac h t o determin e BAC T shoul d ensur e tha t the impact s o f alternativ e emissio n contro l system s ar e measure d b ythe same se t o f parameters .
IV . APPLICABILITY Th e applicabilit ycriteri a fo r impositio n o f th e BAC T requiremen t var yfromstat e t o state
- I n general , BAC T i s require d o f thos e ne w source s an

d modification s t o existing source s whic hexcee d some specifie d trigge r level . The trigge r i s base d o n emissio n rates . State s wil l hav e differin g guideline s o n calculating emissions . Therefore , the appropriat e stat e permitting official s (se e Appendi xI ) mus t be consulte d a t thi s stag e i n the process . !_ ' DEFINITION S Thi s guidelin e use s "permit " t o refe r t o wha t differen t state s cal l permits , licenses , approvals , an d plan t approvals . Th e specifi c definition s o f term s mayvaryfromstat e t o state . Th e applican t mus t wor k wit heac hstates ' definitions . Therefore , th e stat e permitting official s liste d i n Appendi xI shoul d b e consulted . VI . IDENTIFICATIO

NO F CONTRO L ALTERNATIVE S I n carrying ou t a top-dow n BAC T analysis , th e applican t mus t firs t identif ythe mos t stringen t contro l possibl e (usuall yreferre d t o a s Lowes t Achievabl e Emissio n Rate , o r LAER ) an d the n quantif yemissions . Sinc e othe r alternative s wil l be compare d agains t thi s top case , applicant s shoul d concu r wit hthe appropriat e stat e contact s o n wha tP. 5

represent s the mos t stringen t contro l case . A t thi s step o f the BAC T revie wprocess , n o technicall yfeasibl e alternativ e shoul d be rule d ou t a s a possibl e BAC T candidate . Identifying contro l alternative s shoul d no t b e limite d t o simpl yreviewing existing control s fo r the sourc e categor yi n question . Th e reviewmus t be broad enought o take int o accoun t control s applie d t o simila r sourc e categorie s an d innovativ e contro l technologies . Finally , the alternative s identifie d shoul d includ e the contro l alternative s representativ e o f LAE R fo r the sourc e o r categoryo f source . Th e starting assumptio n fo r the top-dow n approac hi s tha t the mos t stringen t contro l possibl e i 3 BACT . Th e burde n o f proo f fo r applying a les s stringen t contro l rest s i n the applicant' s cas e specifi c evaluatio n o f th e contro l alternatives . I f the mos t stringen t contro l fo r a specifi c pollutan t i s selected , the 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 mayb e required . Failing t o addres s the top cas e i n an attemp t t o avoi d stringen t control s wil l resul t i n the proces s being delaye d whil e the applican t i s require d t o reasses s alternative s agains t the contro l optio n th e permittin g authorit ydetermine s t o b e the top case . Whe n searching the record t o identif yth e to p case , the applican t mus t see k informatio n o n contro l technologie s use d throughou t th e Unite d States , a s wel l a s applicabl e foreign contro l technologies . Fo r example , Scandinavia n pulping facilit ycontrols , Germa n boile r and incinerato r technologyan d operatio n controls , and Japanes e control s fo r flu e ga s desulfurizatio u have traditionall yme t ver ystringen t emissio n contro l limits . Also , emissio n tasting informatio n o n thes e technologie s mayb e availabl e t o hel p establis hth e leve l o f performanc e achievabl e wit hthe specifi c technology . A . Type s o f Control s Whe n identifyin g the top cas e an d alternativ e contro l technologies , the following type s o f control s shoul d b e considered . 1 . Existing Contro l Technology : a contro l technologywhic hha s bee n prove n i n practic e fo r the sourc e category . Thi s shoul d includ e bot h emissio n limitation s impose d b yothe r jurisdiction s and tes t result s whic hreflec t wha t wa s actuall yachieve d i n performance . 2 . Technicall yFeasibl e Alternatives : a contro l technologywhic hha s bee n demonstrate d i n practic e o n othe r sourc e categorie s bu t ha s no t bee n demonstrate d i n practic e o n the clas s o r categoryo f sourc e unde r review . Applyin g a contro l technolog yt o a sourc e categoryi n whic hi t ha 3 no t bee n demonstrate d i s calle d contro l technologytransfer . 3 . Innovativ e Contro l Technology : a contro l technologytha t ha s neve r bee n applie d t o an ysourc e o n a ful l scale , continuousl yoperating basis . Thi s technologyma yb e chose n o n the basi s o f pilo t 3cal e o r short-termtesting . I n selecting a n innovativ e contro l technology ,P. 6

ther e mus t be 3ome reasonabl e leve l o f expectatio n tha t the innovative option s wil l out-performthe demonstrate d control . L. Using ; Productio n Processes , Fuels , an d Coating s Tha t Ar e Inherentl y Lowe r Polluting : Thes e option s ma yb e evaluate d alon e o r i n combinatio n wit hadd-o n pollutio n contro l devices . Example s includ e adjusting raw materia l fee d t o reduc e emissions , using methano l fo r lowNO x applications , an

d usin g powde r coating s instead o f solven t born e coating s wher e technicall yfeasible . I n considerin g thes e options , i t i s especiall yimportan t t o wor k closel ywit hth e appropriat e stat e permittin g official s sinc e muc ho f the require d informatio n mayb e confidentia l o r proprietary . $ . Specifi c Desig n o r Operationa l Parameters : ..Thes e option s may includ e suc hfactor s a s combustio n zon e temperature , combu>_io n zon e residenc e time , automati c combustio n controls , pressur e dro p acros s contro l equipment , etc . Bot hthe sourc e applican t an d the reviewing agenc yshoul d conside r th e us e o f clea n processes , fuels , an d solvent s tha t ar e inherentl y lowe r polluting tha n wha t ha s bee n historicall yemploye d b ya particula r industry . Th e analyse s fo r thes e alternative s shoul d b e conducte d i n th e sam e manne r a s th e analyse s fo r mor e conventiona l BAC T alternative s (describe d i n late r sections) . Areviewing agenc yshoul d seriousl y conside r requirin g the us e o f suchalternative s i f th e 3AC T analysi s justifie s thei r us e base d o n environmental , economic , an d energy factors . Example s includ e the us e o f a dryproces s cemen t plan t vs . a we t design ; powde r 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 be d coa l combustio n vs . conventiona l firing , lo wsulfur residua l oil , etc . B . Source s o f Informatio n on Contro l Alternative s Ther e ar e numerou s source s o f informatio n o n contro l alternative s fo r variou s sourc e categori-s. . Th e following source s o f informatio n wil l b e checke d bythe permitting authority . Henc e theymus t be considere d b

yth e applican t preparing a 3AC T analysis . •\_. mBACT/LAE R Clearinghous e Al l applicant s shoul d chec k the BACT/LAE R Clearinghous e prio r t o submitting a n application . Th e informatio n containe d i n the Clearinghous e shoul d b e summarize d i n the application . Reviewin g agencie s shoul d verif ytha t thisinformatio n i s correc t an d up-to-date . 2± EPA/State/Loca l Ai r Qualit yPermits. . Applicant s shoul d b e awar e o f permit s issue d fo r thei r industry . An effor t mus t b e mad e to.obtai n curren t informatio n o n BAC T fo r thes e sources . Permittin g agencie s shoul d maintai n documentatio n o f recen t BAC T determinations . 3 . Federal/State/Loca l Permitting Engineer s Permittin g engineer s an d engineering manager s can provid e informatio n o n project s unde r revie wfo r whic hBAC T informatio n aa ybeP. 7

available . BAC T analyse s unde r consideratio n wil l b e availabl e from thes e individual s befor e i t appear s i n the Clearinghous e manual . 4 . Contro l Equipmen t Vendor s Vendor s hav e informatio n o n the mos t recen t contro l technology , cos t information , emissio n guarantees , an d tes t results . 5 . Trad e Association s Association s serving one secto r ofte n maintai n permittin g and emissio n tes t reports . Example s includ e the Nationa l Counci l fo r Ai r and StreamImprovemen t (NCASI ) fo r pul p an d pape r industry , Electri c Powe r Researc hInstitut e (EPRI ) fo r electri c generator s an d America n Ga s Cleanin g Institut e (AGCI ) fo r informatio n c „ ai r pollutio n contro l equipment . 6 . Agencie s o r Companie s Outsid e the Unite d State s Thes e group s shoul d be consulte d fo r informatio n o n the mos t recen t advance s i n contro l technologies , contro l costs , tes t results , 7 . Inspection/Performanc e Tes t Report s Recen t tes t dat a ma ybe usefu l i n establishin g emissio n limitation s fo r sources . Inspectio n an d performanc e tes t dat a ma yals o revea l potentia l problem s wit ha contro l technologyo r specifi c equipment . 8 . Technica l Paper s an d Journal s

VII . EFFECTIVENES S RANKIN GO F CONTRO L ALTERNATIVE S Onc e the applican t ha s identifie d the appropriat e contro l alternatives , th e applican t shoul d rank themi n orde r o f contro l effectiveness , wit hthe mos t effectiv e contro l alternativ e a t th e top . Thi s lis t shoul d presen t a n arra yo f contro l alternatives , showin g contro l efficiencies , expecte d emissions , economi c costs , environmenta l benefits , energycosts , an d othe r cost3 . Th e applican t shoul d prepar e a char t fo r eac hpollutan t an d fo r eac hemission s unit , o r smal l grou p o f unit s i n the 3AC T analysis . Thes e chart s shoul d b e use d t o compar e the contro l alternative s an d t o focu s th e selectio n o f a contro l optio n a s 3ACT .
VIII . EVALUATIONO F CONTRO L ALTERNATIVE S Thre e criteri a ar e t o be use d i f the applican t propose s using a contro l technologyles s effective tha n the top case . Thes e thre e criteri a are : 1 . energ

yimpact s 2 . environmenta l impacts , an d 3 . economi c impacts . Sinc e the permitting agencywil l us e thes e criteri a i n it s decisio n making process , i t i s importan t tha t applicant s provid e full yP. 8

documente d estimate s o f the emission s using alternativ e contro l a s wel l a s quantitativ e and qualitativ e environmental , energy , an d economi c impact s a s describe d i n Sectio n II . Th e evaluatio n proces s shoul d b e conducte d i n a n incrementa l manner , fro mthe top-down . Th e firs t step i n thi 3 approac hi 3 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 can be show n tha t thi 3 leve l o f contro l i s technicall yo r economicall yinappropriat e fo r th e sourc e i n question , the n the applican t shoul d determin e the nex t mos t stringen t leve l o f contro l an

d evaluat e i t similarly . Thi s proces s continue s unti l the BAC T leve l unde r consideratio n canno t b e eliminate d b yan ysubstantia l o r uniqu e technical , environmental , o r economi c objections . Thus , the top-down approac hshift s the burde n o f proo f t o th e applican t wh o mus t justif ywh

yth e propose d sourc e i s unabl e t o appl yth e bes t technolog y available . I t als o differ s fro mothe r processe s i n tha t i t require s the applican t t o analyz e a contro l technolog yonl yi f th e applican t oppose s tha t leve l o f control ; othe r processe s requir e a ful l analysi s o f al l possibl e type s and level s o f contro l above the baselin e case .
II . IMPAC T ANALYSI S O F CONTRO L ALTERNATIVE S Ther e ar e thre e nai n impact s t o b e examine d i n a BAC T analysis . Thes e are : a . environmenta l impact s b . energyimpact s c . economi c impact s Althoughthe impac t analyse s ar e the importan t par t o f the selectio n process , th e effectivenes s o f the contro l alternative s wil l be the decisiv e facto r affecting BAC T selection . A . Environmenta l Impact s The firs t analysi s i s fo r environmenta l impacts . Th e applican t shoul d estimat e the ne t environmenta l impac t associate d wit heac h contro l alternative . Bot hbeneficia l impact s an d advers e impact s shoul d b e discusse d an

d quantified , wher e possible . Th e analyse s shoul d be presente d i n th e for mo f the incrementa l impac t o f eac hcontro l alternativ e relativ e t o the mos t stringen t systemidentifie d a s a contro l alternative . Th e BAC T determination , however , i s totall yindependen t o f the amoun t o r incremen t o n ai r qualit yresource s available . Insignifican t ai r qualit yimpac t canno t provid e a basi s fo r acceptin g a les s stringen t contro l technology . Th e onl ycas e wher e -th e modele d impac t o f the propose d emission s shoul d influenc e the emissio n limitatio n i s whe n tha t modelin g show s exceedance s o f the ai r qualit ystandard s o r increments . I n thi s case , th e applican t mus t choos e betwee n usin g a contro l mor e stringen t tha n BAC T o r changing the sit e location . Whe n weighin g environmenta l impacts , the applican t shoul d conside r al l ai r pollutant s an d th e impac t o f othe r environmenta l area s affecte d b ythe contro l alternative . Thi s include s ai r pollutant s whic har e no t currentl yregulate d unde r the Clea n Ai r Ac t bu t whic hma yhav e a significan t environmenta l impact . O n Jun e 3 » 1986 , th e Administrato r o fP. 9

th e EPAremande d a PS D permitting t o Regio n 9 , instructing th e Regio n t o conside r the effect s o f unregulate d ai r pollutant s whe n making a BAC T determinatio n fo r regulate d pollutants . Th e analysi s o f unregulate d ai r pollutant s shoul d b e directe d a t developing a n inventoryo f potentia l pollutant s fro

ma propose d sourc e an d evaluating th e impac t o n thos e pollutant s o f eac hcontro l alternativ e being considere d fo r BACT . Th e followin g i s a brie f outlin e o f some , bu t byn o mean s all , o f th e environmenta l categorie s tha t shoul d b e considere d during a n analysi s o f environmenta l impacts . 1 . Impact s o n ai r qualit y visibl e emission s odo r visibilit yimpairmen t toxi c ai r pollutant s noncriteri a ai r pollutant s dioxin/furan s heav ymetal s aci d gase s non-photochemicall yreactiv e o r toxi c solvent s etc . 2 . Impact s o n wate r qualit y 3 . Soli d wast e disposa l impact s ; 4. . Othe r environmenta l Impact s

. : 5 » Nois e 6 . Stea

mplume s fromcooling tower s 7 . Potentia l fo r accidenta l release s 8 . Reliabilit y(o r the potentia l fo r malfunctio n an d downtime ) 3 . EnergyImpact s Th e secon

d analysi s i s fo r energyimpacts . I n analyzin g energ y impacts , the applican t shoul d estimat e th e direc t energyimpact s o f the contro l alternative s i n unit s o f energyconsumptio n (Btus , kWh , barrel s o f oil , ton s o f coal , etc.) . Th e energyrequirement s o f the contro l option s shoul d b e show n i n term s o f tota l an d incrementa l (unit s o f energype r to n o f reduction ) energycosts . Th e analysi s o f energ yimpact s shoul d als o identif ythe typ e an d amoun t o f scarc e fuels-i n the regio n tha t woul d b e required . Th e analysi s shoul d als o recogniz e the peril s o f relyin g o n inherentl ylow pollutin g fuel s i n lie u o f control s sinc e suc hdecision s coul d resul t in greate r emission s i n th e futur e du e t o unforesee n nationa l energy policie s o r availability . C . Economi c Impact s I n evaluating the economic s o f variou s 3AC T contro l options , primar yconsideratio n shoul d be give n t o the cos t effectivenes s o f an optio n an

d no t t o the economi c situatio n o f th e sourc e applicant . Fo r contro l technologie s tha t have bee n prove n fo r th e sourc e categoryunde : review , th e economi c impac t o f requirin g thi s technologyo n a sourc e unde r revie wi s lea s importan t tha n the contro l effectivenes s (i n dollar s pe r to n o f pollutan t removed) .P.1 0

I n the analysi s o f economi c impacts , th e applican t shoul d estimat e th e approximat e cost s o f th e differen t emissio n contro l alternatives . Th e analysi s shoul d includ e a complet e explanatio n o f procedure s use d fo r assessing th e economi c impacts , an ysupporting data , an d a n itemizatio n and explanatio n o f al l costs . Credi t fo r taxincentive s shoul d b e included , along wit hcredit s fo r produc t recoverycost s an d by-produc t sale s generate d fromth e us e o f th e contro l system . I n evaluating the relativ e cos t effectivenes s o f alternatives , calculation s shoul d b e base d o n allowabl e emission s a t maximu mdesign capacit yfo r 8,76 0 hour s pe r year . I f permi t condition(s ) limi t operatio n t o les s than 8,76 0 hour s pe r year , th e analysi s mayals o includ e dat a base d o n the allowe d operation . Annua l cost s shoul d includ e the operatio n and maintenanc e cos t plu s the 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 usefu l lif e o f equipmen t presente d i n Tabl e 1 unles s the applican t ca n substantiat e anothe r value .
TABL E 1 Equipmen t Lif e (i n years ) Electrostati c Precipitator s Ventur i Scrubber s Fabri c Filter s Therma l Incinerator s Catalyti c Incinerator s Adsorber s Absorber s Refrigeratio n Flare s 

### Lo w 

### 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Averag e



### 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 5 H i

4 0 2 0 

### -> 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 Source : Capita l an d Operating Cost s of

- Selecte d Ai r Pollutio n Contro l System s (EP

A450/5-80-002 , Decembe r 1978) . Applicant s ar e responsibl e fo r full ydocumentin g al l relevan t cos t information . Vendo r quotation s o r othe r reliabl e mean s shoul d b e the primarybasi 3 fo r estimates . Cos t estimate s shoul d b e derive d usin g the mos t recen t method s include d i n Capita l an d Operatin g Cost s o f Selecte d Ai r Pollutio n Contro l System s (EP A450/5-80-002 , Decembe r 1978) , EA B Cos t Contro l Manual . Third Editio n (Novembe r 1976) , an d an ysubsequen t revision s t o thes e manuals . Wheneve r the cos t estimate s ar e outsid e the rang e containe d i n thes e documents , th e applican t i s responsibl e fo r substantiating the estimates . Th e applican t mus t not e the yea r use d i n cos t estimate s an

d adjus t al l calculation s t o reflec t cost s fo r tha t year . Th e applican t shoul d als o conduc t an-analysi s o f the cos t o f contro l option s o n the basi s o f dollar s pe r to n o f pollutan t controlle d fo r eachpollutan t subjec t t o BACT . Acompariso n shoul d b e mad e t o th e cost s o f control s fo r othe r sourc e categorie s and othe r industries . AP.1 1

complet e economi c analysi s shoul d compar e cost s o f control s bot hwithi n th e specifi c sourc e categoryunde r revie wand , a s a compariso n o f costs , fo r othe r industries , o n the basi s o f dollar s pe r to n o f pollutan t removed . Th e analysi s shoul d als o represen t 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 the contro l co3 t a s a percen t o f the tota l projec t cost . I f permi t conditions ) limi t operatio n t o les s tha n 8,76 0 hour s pe r year , th e analysi s mayals o includ e dat a base d o n th e allowe d operation . Th e analysi s mus t b e sourc e specific , bu t shoul d als o b e genera l enought o conside r norma l cost s fo r doing busines s i n a give n field . A demonstratio n b

ya n applican t tha t i t canno t affor d t o construc t a facilit yusing th e mos t stringen t technologydoe s no t allo wth e mor e stringen t technolog yt o be rejecte d a s BACT . Rathe r i t i s a statemen t o f whethe r the applican t i s financiall ycapabl e o f conducting busines s i n tha t field . 1 ^ ENFORCEABILITY Th e 3AC T determinatio n fo r eac hpollutan t mus t resul t i n a federall yenforceabl e permit . BAC T mus t be specifie d no t onl yi n term s o f a contro l technology , bu t als o i n 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 , flo wrates , pH control , etc. ) tha t ar e federall y enforceable . Th e BAC T limit s mus t b e poin t specifi c and mus t includ e appropriat e averagin g times , referenc e tes t methods , and a metho d fo r ensuring continuou s compliance .

Thi s guidelin e wa s adopte d b ythe NESCAU

MBoard o f Director s o n Octobe r 11 , 1988 .



### 1 0P.1 2

APPEHDI T I STAT E BAC T CONTACT S CONNECTICUT M . Hultman , D . Nas h203 / 566-323 0 Connecticu t Departmen t o f Environmenta l Protectio n Ai r Complianc e Uni t 16 5 Capito l .Vvenu

e Hartford , C T 0611 5 .MAIN E R . Ballsv , B . Sprou l 207 / 289-243 7 Main e Departmen t o f Environmenta l Protectio n Stat e 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 o f Environmenta l Qualit yEngineerin g Divisio n o f Ai r Qualit yContro l On e Winte r Street , 3t hFloo r 3oston , M

A0210 8 NE WHAMPSHIR E D . Davis , A . Bodnari k 603 / 271-137 0 Ne wHampshir e Departmen t o f Environmenta l Service s Ai r Resource s Divisio n 6 4 Nort hMai n Street , Calle r Bo x203 3 Concord , N

H 03302-203 3 NE WJERSE Y Mino r Sourc e Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Permit s Chief , Burea u o f Ne wSourc e Revie w Ne wJerse yDepartmen t o f Environmenta l Protectio n Divisio n o f Environmenta l Qualit y CN02 7 40 1 Eas t Stat e Stree t Trenton , N

J 0862 5 Majo r Sourc e Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Permit s Chief , Burea u o f Engineering an d RegulatoryDevelopmen t Ne wJerse yDepartmen t o f Environmenta l Protectio n Divisio n o f Environmenta l Qualit y CN02 7 40 1 Eas t Stat e Stree t Trenton , N

J 0862 5

1 1P.1 3

NE WYORK J . Davis , J . Harringto n 513 / 457-561 3 Ne wYor k Departmen t o f Environmenta l Conservatio n Divisio n o f Ai r 5 0 Wol f Roa d Albany , N I 1223 3 RHOD E ISLAN

D D . McVay401 / 277-280 8 Rhod e Island Departmen t o f Environmenta l Managemen t Divisio n o f Ai r an d Hazardou s Material s 29 1 Promenad e Stree t Providence , R I 0290 8 VERMONT L . Mille r 802 / 24-4-873 1 Vermon t Departmen t o f Environmenta l Conservatio n Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Progra m Buildin g 3 Sout h 10 3 Sout hMai n Stree t Waterbury , VT 0567 6

OTHE R CONTACT S NESCAUM M . Bradley , N . Seidma n 617 / 367-854 0 8 5 Merrima c Stree t Boston , M

A02114 . EPARegio n I J . Courcier " 617 / 565-326 0 L . Hamjia n 617 / 565-324 6 JF K Federa l Building , Room231 1 Boston , M

A0220 3 SPARegio n I I W . Baker , _, . Mangel s 212 / 264-251 7 2 6 Federa l Plaz a Ne wYork , NY1027 8

BAC T gdln2;10/19/3 8



### 1 2