P. 1



# OAR Box 1787 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 30 ) ll-B-1 5 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/2008 10:22:19 AM

Sheet 30 of 147P. 2

* / £%\

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y I t^W ? 3 Offic e o f Ai rQualityPlannin g an d Standard s \^y|£r /

Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1

* •,o - 

# pISJLO ^ rt

# AP R 05198 8

i ,
\

. - •

•

• • • •

. ; MEMORANDU

M - '• • — • SUBJECT : Not e t o Ne w Sourc e Revie w

(NSR ) Tas kForc e Member s FROM : Gar y

McCutchen , ChairmanJ^fr / TO : Se e Below
A s yo uar e aware , w e ar e currentl y workin g o

ndevelopin g guidanc e materia l onth e implementatio no f "top-down " bes t availabl e contro l technolog y

(BACT) . Buildin g onou r discussion s a t th e las t Tas kForc e meetin g i nDenver , w e hav e prepare da brie f draf t outlin e o f th e "top down " process . Th e outlin e contain s th e majo r element s an d concept s behin da "top-down " BAC T determinatio nan d i s attache dfo r you r review an dapproval . Th e fina l outlin e wil l serv e a s th e basi s o f a pendin g contrac t effor t t o develo pmor e detaile dguidanc e o nth e subject . Unti l th e fina l guidanc e i s issued , th e outlin e may als o b e usefu l t o th e Region s an d Stat e an

dloca l agencie s a s a guid e throug hth e "top-down " process . Pleas e submi t you r comment s b y Apri l 1 5 t o Davi dSolomo no f th e Ne w Sourc e Revie w

Sectio na t FT S 629-537 5 (USEPA , Mai l Dro p15 , Researc h Triangl e Park , N

C 27711) . Attachmen t Addresees : New Sourc e Revie w

Tas kForc e E dLi 1 1 i s JohnCalcagn i
cc : Chief , Ai r Branch , Region s I- XP. 3


## :w 

## .* •
Determinin g Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y (BACT) : Th e "Top-down " Approac h
Wha t i s a BAC T Determinatio n? Th e BAC T determination , o na case-by-cas e basis , tak'n g int o accoun t energy , environmenta l an deconomi c impact s result s -i nth e maximu

m degre e o f reductio nachievabl e b y th e sourc e fo r eac hpollutan t subjec t t o a BAC T analysis . Wha t Pollutant s ar e Subjec t t o BAC T Analysi s ? Pollutant s regulate dunde r th e Clea nAi r Ac t ar e subjec t t o a BAC T analysi s i f the y ar e emitte dinsignifican t quantitie s b y a majo r ne

w sourc e o r i f thei r emission s ar e significantl y increase da s a resul t o f a majo r modification . Thi s include s bot hcriteri a pollutant s (fo r whic hth e are a inwhic hth e sourc e plan s t o locat e i s designate deithe r attainmen t o r unclassifiable ) an dnoncriteri a pollutants . Wha t i s "Top-down " BAC T ? Th e firs t ste pinthi s approac hi s t o determine , fo r th e emissio nsourc e i nquestion , th e mos t stringen t contro l availabl e fo r a simila r o r identica l sourc e or

sourc e category . I f i t canb e show ntha t thi s leve l o f contro l i s technicall y o r economicall y

infeasibl e fo r th e sourc e i n question , the nth e nex t mos t stringen t leve l o f contro l i s determine dand similarl y

evaluated . Thi s proces s continue s unti l th e BAC T leve l unde r consideratio ncanno t be eliminate db y an y substantia l o r uniqu e technical , environmental , o r economi c objections . How i s BAC T Determine d? O f al l th e Ne w

Sourc e Revie w

processes , BAC T determination s ar e perhap s th e mos t misunderstoo dan dth e leas t correctl y applied . Currently , BAC T alternatives , i f presente db y th e applican t a t all , ar e ofte npoorl y documente do r biase dt o achieve dth e decisio nth e applican t desires . Existin g EP A

guidanc e o

nBAC T require s anevaluatio no f contro l option s fo r th e sourc e compare dagains t a bas e case . Th e bas e cas e reflect s th e leve l o f contro l optio ntha t woul dhav e bee neithe r require do r chose ni n th e absenc e o f BAC T decisionmaking . I npractic e thi s i s eithe r th e Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standar d(NSPS ) o r Stat e Implementatio nPla nlimi t fo r th e source . Th e bas e cas e i s the nreviewe dagains t th e mor e stringen t alternat e contro l option s whic hhav e bee ndemonstrate dt o operat e o n identica l o r simila r sources . Th e contro l optio nwit hth e lowes t cos t pe r to nremova l i s generall y considere dBACT , whic hi nmos t case s i s th e bas e case . Th e structur e o f th e analysi s i s biase dagains t choosin g a mor e stringent , albei t mor e costly , bu t affordabl e contro l alternativ e a s BACT . Consequently , man y BAC T decision s inappropriatel y defaul t t o th e leas t stringen t contro l alternativ e regardles s o f th e rea l viabilit y o f bette r controls . Th e us e o f "top-down " i nth e BAC T determinatio nwoul d resul t i nsignificantl y greate r consistenc y an dmor e appropriat e level s o f contro l i nBAC T determination s nationwide .P. 4



### -2-

A nOutlin e o f th e "Top-down " Proces s I . Identificatio no f th e Mos t Stringen t Technicall y Viabl e Contro l Alternative s A . Categorie s o f Contro l Alternative s

- Existin g Contro l Technolog y - Contro l technolog y

whic hha s bee nprove ni npractic e o r require db

y a permi t fo r th e categor y o f source .

- Technicall y

Feasibl e Alternative s (technology transfer ) - Contro l technolog y

whic hha s bee ndemonstrate di npractic e o n othe r source s categorie s bu t ha s no t bee ndemonstrate di n practic e o

nth e clas s o r categor y o f sourc e unde r review .

- Innovativ e Contro l Technolog y - Contro l technolog y

tha t ha s neve r bee napplie dt o an y sourc e on a ful l scale , continuousl y operatin g basis , bu t nevertheles s coul db e technicall y

applie dt o th e sourc e unde r review . Th e technolog y

ma y b e considere donth e basi s o f pilo t scal e operation s o r shor t term

testing .

- Productio nProcesses , Fuel s an dMaterial s (e.g. , coatings , solvents ) tha t ar e Inherentl y

Les s Pollutin g - Thes e option s ma y

b e evaluate dalon e o r i ncombinatio nwit hothe r contro l option s (e.g. , flu e ga s treatment) . B . Source s o f Informatio no nPotentiall y

Viabl e Contro l Alternative s

- Th e BACT/LAE RClearinghous e

- Th e EPA

Contro l Technolog y

Cente r

- Federal/State/Loca l Agenc y New Sourc e Revie w

Permit s

- Federal/State/Loca l Agenc y Permi t Engineer s

- Contro l Technolog y

Vendor s

- Environmenta l Consultant s

- Inspection/Performanc e Tes t Report s

- Technica l Journal s

- Ai r Pollutio nContro l Seminar sP. 5


### •3 -

II . Choosin g BAC T A . Mos t Stringen t contro l Optio ni s Assume dt o b e BACT , unless :

- Th e applican t demonstrate s vi a a cas e specifi c analysi s th e infeasibiit y

o f th e contro l optio nbase donuniqu e projec t specifi c mitigatin g factor s (se e Sectio nIII) . B . I f Mos t Stringen t Contro l Optio ni s Chose nb y th e Applican t th e BAC T Evaluatio nProces s Stop s excep t fo r anunregulate d(toxi c an dhazardous ) pollutan t evaluation . III . Justifyin g a Les s Stringen t Contro l Optio n A . RankContro l Option s i nTerm s o f Stringentnes s B . Contro l Option s ar e Liste dwit hMos t Stringen t o nTo p

- Al l contro l option s mus t b e a t leas t a s stringen t a s an y applicabl e Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standar d C . Listin g Compare s Variou s Impact s o f Eac hContro l Optio n

- Contro l efficienc y

(bot hcaptur e an

dcollectio nefficiency )

- Economi c

- Environmenta l

- Energ y

- Contro l o f toxic s an dhazardou s pollutant s D . Th e Mos t Stringen t Contro l Alternativ e i s Assumedt o b e BAC T Unles s th e Applican t Ca nDemonstrat e tha t i t i s a nInfeasibl e Contro l Option .

- Whenanacceptabl e demonstratio ni s mad e regardin g th e infeasibilit y o f th e mos t effectiv e contro l option , th e nex t mos t effectiv e optio n i s assume dt c be BACT . Th e proces s continue s unti l a contro l optio nca nno c b e rejecte donth e ground s o f it s infeasibility . IV . Example s o f Uniqu e Factor s Appropriat e fo r Consideratio ni nEvaluatin g th e Infeasibilit y

o f th e Mos t Stringen t Contro l Optio n A . Technica l Infeasibilit y

- Contro l system

canno t be transfere dt o (or use dby ) th e specifi c sourc e (e.g. , transfe r o f a catalys t contro l devic e t o a proces s ga s fro m natura l gas , o r lac ko f wate r fo r a scrubber) . B . Environmenta l Impact s

- Les s effectiv e contro l optio nfo r criteri a pollutan t o f concer n provide s greate r overal l contro l o f th e othe r pollutant s (e.g. , othe r criteri a and/o r toxi c pollutants) .P. 6

. *

- Uniqu e nonai r impact s (e.g. , sludge , wate r quality/availability )

- Unacceptabl e imparmen t o f visibilit y fro m mor e stringen t optio n C . Energ y

- Significan t energy

penaltie s an

dbonuse s fo r variou s contro l option s E . Economi c

- Costs , relativ e (t o othe r sources/areas ) andabsolute , a s compare d t o th e industr y

a s a whole :

- - Uni t produc t pric e cost s (dollar/percen t increas e pe r uni t cost ) o f contro l optio n

— Cos t o f contro l optio na s a percen t o f tota l projec t cost s

- - Cos t i ndollar s pe r to no f pollutan t remove d

- - Actua l rat e o f retur no r investmen t compare dt o typica l rat e fo r industr y

- I f applicable , cos t compariso no f contro l optio nfo r differen t sourc e categor y

versu s thi s sourc e categor y IV . Factor s Whic har e No t Normall y Acceptabl e fo r Consideratio nin Evaluatin g th e Feasibilit y o f th e Mos t Stringen t Contro l Optio n A . Environmental

- A t a les s effectiv e contro l level , neithe r th e th e PS Dincrement s no r Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standard s woul db e violated .

- A les s effectiv e contro l optio nmodel s no significan t impact .

- Th e "alternat e build " scenari o (e.g. , eve na t th e highe r emissio n rate , th e projec t i s les s pollutin g tha nth e powe r plan t capacit y i t woul dreplace) . B . Energ y

- Ther e i s a energy

penalt y

associate dwit hth e mor e effectiv e optio n(unles s a showin g ca nb e mad e tha t i nthi s specifi c cas e i t represent s a "unique " burde nno t commo nt o th e industry) . C . Economi c
* - Artificiall y

lo w allocatio no f fundin g fo r effectiv e pollutio n control .

* Thes e factor s ar e never acceptabl eP. 7

%

- Amoun t sourc e canborrow fo r project .

- Individua l financia l capabilit y o f company

t o fundth e propose dproject .

- Specifi c rat e o f retur ndesire db y th e sourc e (i f no t withi nth e nor

m fo r th e industry) .

- A depresse dloca l economy . V . Th e BAC T Determinatio nMus t b e Enforceabl e A . Fo r eac hsubjec t pollutan t Th e BAC T determinatio nmus t resul t i nanemission s unit/poin t specifi c emission s limitation .

- I f technologica l o r economi c limitation s onth e applicatio no f measuremen t methodolog y t o a particula r emission s uni t whoul d mak e th e impositio no f anemission s standar dinfeasible , a design , equipment , wor kpractice , operationa l standard , o r combinatio nthereof , may b e prescribed .

- Th e BAC T limit s mus t be include di nth e PS Dpermi t

- - Emission s unit/poin t specifi c an denforceabl e