p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1787 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 9 ) ll-A- 9 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200810:22:18AM

Sheet 9of 147P. 2 

# 22-/4- 9 5. 9 

# L S 

# DRAF

T 

# B. A 

# C. est vailable ontrol echnology Guidanc e Documen t 

# EP ARegio n 9P. 3

l 7-

GUIDELINE S FORDETERMINING

BES T AVAILABL E CONTRO L TECHNOLOGY(BACT )

EPAREGION9 Ne wSourc e Sectio n April , 198 7P. 4

1

•*. x ' r

Prefac e

Thi s guidelin e documen t wa s prepare d byth e staf f o f EPA Regio n 9 usin g thei r collectiv e experienc e i n implementin g th e Ne wSourc e Revie wand Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n requirement s o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f 1977 . Th e documen t i s intende d t o b e use d a s a guid e fo r determinin g emissio n contro l technologyfo r ne wo r modifie d source s subjec t to-th e PS D regulations . Th e determinatio n o f BAC T involve s th e entir e communit y affecte d byai r pollutio n and it s control , and i t i s thi s communit ytha t mus t tak e responsibilit yfo r it s correc t implementation . I amgratefu l t o m ystaf f fo r preparin g thi s document ; t o th e stat e and loca l ai r pollutio n contro l agencie s i n Regio n 9 fo r thei r support ; and t o industryfo r thei r cooperatio n i n meetin g thes e requirements . Wayn e A . Blackard , Chie f Ne wSourc e Sectio n

Th e EPARegio n 9 staf f responsibl e fo r preparin g thi s repor t ar e member s o f th e Ne wSourc e Sectio n and al l ar e Environmenta l Engineers .

AUTHOR S

Mat t Habe r Rober t Bake r Jame s Hanso nP. 5

TABL E O F CONTENT S I . INTRODUCTION II . PURPOS E III . DEFINITION S IV . APPLICABILIT Y V . IDENTIFICATIONO F CONTRO L ALTERNATIVE S

- Categorie s o f Contro l Alternative s

- Source s o f Informatio n o n Contro l Alternative s

- Requirin g th e Us e o f Clea n Processes , Fuel s and Solvent s tha t ar e Inherentl yLowe r Pollutin g VI . EFFECTIVENES S RANKINGO F CONTRO L ALTERNATIVE S VII . IMPAC T ANALYSI S O F CONTRO L ALTERNATIVE S VIII . COMPARISONWIT H OTHE RPERMITTE D FACILITIE S APPLYINGA

MOR E STRINGENT BAC T IX . SELECTIONAN

D JUSTIFICATIO NO F ACONTRO L ALTERNATIV E A S BES T AVAILABL E CONTRO L TECHNOLOGY X . AGENC YREVIE WO F TH E NOMINATE D CONTRO L ALTERNATIVE S XI . CONSTRUCTIONPERMI T REQUIREMENT S

- Permit s Mus t b e Enforceabl e a s a Practica l Matte r

- Permi t Condition s Mus t b e Federall yEnforceabl e

- Publi c Participatio n

- Phased/Delaye d Constructio n XII . BAC T FLOWSHEE T XIII . CONCLUSIONAN D SUMMARY XIV . APPENDI X

APPENDI XA- BAC T Flowshee t APPENDI XB - BAC T Analysi s APPENDI XC - Remand o f Appea l No.85- 2 APPENDI XD - Orde r Denyin g Revie wo f Appea l No . 85- 2 APPENDI XE - Permi t Requirement sP. 6

GUIDELINE S FORDETERMININGBES T AVAILABL E

CONTRO L TECHNOLOG Y(BACT ) INTRODUCTION Congress , i n passin g th e Clea n Ai r Ac t amendment s o f 1977 , establishe d th e Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n (PSD ) programpartl yt o preven t th e fligh t o f industr yfrom the severel ypollute d area s o f th e count ywher e contro l technologyrequirement s ar e verystringen t t o clea n area s withou t contro l technologyrequirements . Unde r th e PS D program , Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y(BACT ) i s required , an d i s determine d o n a case-by-cas e basi s rathe r tha n auto maticall yapplyin g a n applicabl e Ne wSourc e Performanc e Standar d (NSPS) . II . PURPOS E

Th e purpos e o f thi s documen t i s t o provid e technica l assistanc e and guidanc e t o thos e wh o mus t determin e BAC T fo r th e propose d constructio n o r modificatio n o f ne wsource s an d facilities . Th e guideline s ar e directe d solel yt o th e analysi s o f alternativ e technologie s fo r BAC T and assume s tha t al l othe r revie wrequirement s ar e accomplished . Th e emphasi s o f thi s guidelin e i s o n th e type s o f dat a whic hshoul d b e require d i n a preconstructio n permi t appli

catio n and ho wth e dat a shoul d b e use d i n orde r t o determin e BACT . Th e guidelin e addresses s th e questio n o f whethe r th e emissio n contro l syste mpropose d i n th e permi t applicatio n represent s BAC T o r whethe r a mor e stringen t leve l o f emissio n contro l i s appropriat e considerin g availabl e technologyand economic , energy , and environmenta l factors . Th e Ac t place s th e responsibilit yo f proposin g BAC T wit h th e applican t and th e responsibilit yo f determinin g BAC T wit h th e permittin g agency . Thi s approac hplace s o n th e sourc e the additiona l responsibilit yfo r presentin g and defendin g it s proposal . BAC T determination s shoul d b e consisten t fromare a t o area . I n th e contex t o f a case-by-cas e BACT , consistenc y doe s no t necessaril ymea n tha t a ne wfacilit yi n on e are a wil l hav e a n identica l emissio n limi t a s th e sam e typ e o f facilit yi n anothe r area . Consistenc ymean s tha t a consis

ten t approac hi s use d i n determinin g BAC T and tha t th e impact s o f alternativ e emissio n contro l system s ar e measure d byth e sam e se t o f parameters .P. 7

III . DEFINITION S

I n a n attemp t t o provid e some clarit yt o th e preparer s and reviewer s o f PSD*permi t application s Regio n 9 ha s utilize d the followin g definition s an d genera l policie s i n ou r BAC T determinations . Detaile d informatio n ca n b e obtaine d fromthe Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n Worksho p Manual , Octobe r 1980 . °Lowes t Achievabl e Emissio n Rat e (LAER ) LAE Rdetermination s ar e require d fo r al l nonattainmen t NS Rpermit s and represen t th e mor e stringen t o f any emissio n limi t eithe r -require d i n a SI P o r -achieve d i n practic e fo r anyclas s o r categor yo f source . Not e that , i n Ca liforni a man

yai r pollutio n contro l agencie s requir e BAC T i n nonattainmen t areas ? however , thos e agencys ' BAC T definition s ar e essentiall ythe sam e a s EPA' s LAER . I n Regio n 9 , BAC T fo r PS D frequentl yequate s t o thi s leve l o f control . "Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y(BACT ) Th e Clea n Ai r Ac t define s BAC T a s "...a n emissio n limitatio n base d o n th e maximumdegre e o f reductio n o f eac hpollutan t subjec t t o regulatio n unde r thi s Ac t emitte d fro

m o r whic hresult s fro manymajo r emittin g facility , whic hth e permittin g authority , o n a case by-cas e basis , takin g int o accoun t energy , environmental , and economi c impact s and othe r costs , determine s i s ' achievabl e fo r suc hfacilit ythroughapplicatio n o f prod

uctio n processe s and availabl e methods , systems , and tech

niques , includin g fue l cleanin g o r treatmen t o r innovativ e fue l combustio n technique s fo r contro l o f eac hsuc hpollu

tant" . No BAC T determinatio n mayb e les s stringen t tha n the applicabl e NSPS , NESHAPS , o r SI P limits . "NewSourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS ) Th e limit s dervive d unde r NSP S ar e emission s limitations , o r percentag e reduction s "achievabl e throug happlicatio n o f th e bes t technologica l syste mo f continuou s emission s reductio n whic h(taking int o consideratio n costs , health , environmenta l and energyimpacts ) ha s bee n adequatel ydemonstrate d for...stationar ysources... "

- 2

-P. 8

"Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n (PSD ) Th e PS D permi t programaddresse s th e permittin g o f industria l source s i n attainmen t areas . Th e primar y purpose s o f the programare : (1 ) t o protec t th e publi c healt hand welfar e fromanyadvers e effec t whic hmigh t occu r eve n a t ai r pollutio n level s lowe r tha n th e NAAQS ; (2 ) t o preserve , protec t and enhanc e th e ai r qualit y i n area s o f specia l recreational , scenic , o r historica l value ; (3 ) t o ensur e tha t economi c growt hwil l occu r i n harmonywit hth e preservatio n o f existin g clea n ai r resource s t o preven t the developmen t o f any ne wnonattainmen t problems ; and (4 ) t o ensur e tha t th e bes t control s ar e installe d o n al l large , ne wo r modi

fie d sources . "Non-Attainmen t Are a Ne wSourc e Revie w(NAA ) Th e NA Apermi t programaddresse s th e permittin g o f industria l source s in nonattainmen t areas . Th e primar y purpose s o f thi s programar e t o insur e that : (1 ) emission s o f a propose d sourc e ar e eithe r offse t sufficientl y suc htha t reasonabl e furthe r progres s towar d attainmen t i s achieve d or , tha t emission s hav e bee n accomodate d i n a federally-approve d growt hallowance ; (2 ) th e sourc e mee t th e lowes t achievabl e emissio n rate ; and (3 ) th e owne r o r operato r o f th e propose d sourc e ha s demonstrate d tha t al l majo r stationar ysource s owne d o r operate d by suc hperso n in suc hStat e ar e i n complianc e wit hth e Act . "NewSourc e Revie w(NSR ) Ne wSourc e revie wi s th e combine d permi t programfo r the revie wo f source s locatin g i n attainmen t o r non attainmen t areas . Becaus e attainmen t designatio n ar e mad e o n a pollutant-specifi c basis , a n individua l sourc e undergoin g ne wsourc e revie wmayb e subjec t t o bot hattainmen t (PSD ) and nonattainmen t (NAA ) permi t requirements . "Majo r Stationar ySourc e Amajo r stationar ysourc e unde r PS D i s define d a s any o f 2 8 stationar ysourc e categorie s whic hemits , o r ha s th e potentia l t o emit , 10 0 ton s pe r yea r o r mor e o f anypollutan t regulate d unde r th e Ac t or , notwithstandin g the stationar ysourc e category , an ystationar ysourc e whic hemits , o r ha s th e potentia l t o emit , 25 0 ton s pe r yea r o r mor e o f anypollutan t regulate d unde r th e Act .

-3

-^ 9 _

"Mino r Sourc e Amino r sourc e a t th e time o f applicatio n i s no t subjec t t o PSD . Amodificatio n a t a n existin g mino r sourc e maytrigge r a PS D revie wo f th e source . (Se e Sectio n IV , Applicability) . Mino r sourc e growt hi n a n attainmen t are a mus t b e accounte d fo r durin g th e revie wo f majo r sources . 'Majo r Modificatio n Amajo r modificatio n mean s an yphysica l chang e i n o r chang e i n the metho d o f operatio n o f a majo r stationar y sourc e tha t woul d resul t i n a significan t ne t emission s increas e o f an

ypollutan t subjec t t o regulatio n unde r the Act . "Significanc e Leve l Significanc e level s ar e define d in referenc e t o a ne t emission s increas e a t a majo r stationar ysourc e fo r purpose s o f determinin g whethe r a n increas e i n emission s constitute s a majo r modification . Significanc e level s ar e specifie d fo r 1 5 pollutant s regulate d unde r th e Act . Fo r othe r pollutant s regulate d unde r the Act , any increas e i n emission s o f th e regulate d pollutan t i s considere d significant .

-4

-P.1 0

IV . APPLICABILIT Y

Applicabilt yo f th e BAC T requirement , lik e al l othe r aspect s o f a PS D review , i s o n a pollutan t specifi c basis . Onc e a pollutan t ha s becom e subjec t t o PS D review , th e BAC T requiremen t wil l apply . Whil e ther e ar e certai n exemption s containe d withi n th e PS D regulation s fo r othe r part s o f the revie w(fo r example , temporar ysource s ar e afforde d exemption s frommonitorin g and othe r requirements) , ther e ar e n o exemption s fro mth e BAC T requirement . Th e BAC T requiremen t coul d thu s b e viewe d a s the cornerston e o f th e PS D program . I n brief1 , sourc e applicabilit yfo r BAC T (an d PS D review ) i s a s follows : "Fo r a ne wmajo r sourc e o r a n existin g mino r source :

- Whe n potentia l emission s ar e a t leas t 10 0 tons/y r fo r th e 2 8 liste d sourc e categorie s (se e 4 0 CF R52.2 1 (b)(l)(i)(a ) fo r a listin g o f the 2 8 sourc e categories ) o r 25 0 tons/y r fo r al l othe r sourc e categories , th e sourc e i s the n subjec t t o PS D review . BAC T the n applie s t o anyuni t tha t emit s an yamoun t o f th e subjec t pollutant . "Fo r existin g majo r sources , applicabilit yoccur s i n on e o f thre e ways :

- Whe n contemporaneous ^ emission s increase s excee d th e promulgate d significanc e level s (thes e value s ar e found a t 4 0 CF R52.2 1 (b)(23)(i)) , BAC T the n applie s t o any

_ uni t tha t show s anyincreas e i n emission s o f th e subjec t pollutant .

- Whe n anyemission s increas e o f a regulate d pollutan t fo r whic ha significanc e leve l ha s no t bee n promulgate d occur s a t a n existin g majo r source . Currently , benzene , arsenic , and radionuclide s fal l int o thi s category .

- Whe n emission s froma sourc e locate d withi n 1 0 k mo f a Clas s I are a woul d caus e a n ai r qualit yimpac t greate r tha n 1 ug/m 3 o n tha t Clas s I area .

* Athoroug hdiscussio n o f th e applicabilit yrequirement s ma y b e foun

d i n th e 198 0 PS D Worksho p Manual . ^Contemporaneou s emission s ar e al l creditabl e increase s and decrease s occurrin g fromfiv e year s prio r t o th e commencemen t o f construction , u p t o th e star t o f operation .

-5

-P.1 1 1

Onc e a sourc e ha s bee n determine d t o b e a majo r sourc e o n th e basi s o f on e pollutan t exceedin g th e 10 0 o r 25 0 TP Ythresh

old , al l othe r pollutant s ar e reviewe d agains t th e significan t emissio n rate s i n orde r t o determin e revie wapplicability . Fo r ne wmajo r sources , eac hemissio n poin t wit han yemissio n rat e o f the applicabl e pollutan t i s subjec t t o the BAC T requirement . Fo r majo r modifications , eac hemissio n poin t a t whic ha n increas e in the applicabl e pollutan t occur s i s subjec t t o BACT . BAC T mus t b e applie d t o al l processe s and operation s whic h coul d emi t th e PS D regulate d pollutant . Thes e includ e stac k emissions , fugitiv e emission s and emission s fromequipmen t whic hmayno t b e operatin g continuously . Th e manne r i n whic hthe emission s limit s and control s shoul d b e determine d wil l b e discusse d i n detai l later . How ever , i t mayb e note d her e tha t th e typ e o f us e t o whic hequip

men t wil l b e pu t mayultimatel yinfluenc e the BAC T determination . Fo r example , fo r equipmen t tha t i s use d infrequently , control s tha t hav e highoperatin g cos t bu t lowe r capita l cos t mayb e mor e appropriate .

-6

-P.1 2

V . IDENTIFICATIONO F CONTRO L ALTERNATIVE S

O f primar yimportanc e i n makin g a BAC T determinatio n i s th e identificatio n o f contro l alternative s fo r th e sourc e subjec t t o BACT . A t thi s ste p o f th e BAC T revie w process , n o technicall yfeasibl e alternativ e shoul d b e rule d ou t a s a possibl e BAC T candidate . Th e identificatio n o f contro l alternative s shoul d no t b e limite d t o a revie w o f existin g control s fo r th e sourc e categor yi n question . Th e revie wmus t b e broa d enoug ht o tak e int o accoun t control s applie d t o simila r sourc e categorie s and eve n t o conside r innovativ e contro l technologywher e energy , environmental , o r economi c impact s s o warrant . Finally , th e identificatio n o f alternative s shoul d includ e th e contro l alternative s representativ e o f LAE Rfo r th e sourc e o r categor yo f source . Whil e BAC T and LAE Rdiffe r considerabl yi n thei r definitions , i n practic e the yar e ofte n th e same . A s wil l b e discusse d i n a late r section , th e selectio n and justificatio n o f a contro l alternativ e a s BAC T shoul d begi n wit hth e mos t stringen t contro l alternative , generall yrepresente d b yLAER . Th e followin g i s a brie f outlin e o f categorie s o f contro l alternative s t o conside r and source s fo r identifyin g possibl e contro l alternatives . "Categorie s o f Contro l Alternative s -Existin g Contro l Technolog y- Contro l technologywhic hha s bee n prove n i n practic e fo r th e categor yo f source . -Technicall yFeasibl e Alternative s - 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 th e clas s o r categor yo f sourc e unde r review . Thi s i s calle d contro l technologytransfer . -Innovativ e Contro l Technology- Contro l technologytha t ha s neve r bee n applie d t o an ysourc e o n a ful l scale , continuousl y operatin g basis . Thi s technologymayb e chose n o n th e basi s o f pilo t scal e o r shor t termtesting . -Productio n Processes , Fuel s and Coating s tha t ar e Inherentl yLowe r Pollutin g - 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 adjustin g rawmateria l fee d t o -7

-P.1 3

reduc e emissions , methano l fo r lowN0 Xappli

cations , and th e us e o f powde r coating s wher e technicall yfeasible . -Specifi c Desig n o r Operationa l Parameter s Mayinclud e suc hfactor s a s combustio n zon e temperature , combustio n zon e residenc e time , automati c combustio n contro l systems , pressur e dro p acros s contro l equipment , etc . "Source s o f Informatio n o n 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 categories . Th e followin g categorie s shoul d al l b e considere d whe n preparin g a BAC T analysis . -BACT/LAE RClearinghous e Al l applicant s shoul d b e require d t o chec k th e BACT/LAE RClearinghous e prio r t o submittin g a n application . Th e informatio n containe d i n th e Clearinghous e shoul d b e summarize d i n th e application . Reviewin g agencie s shoul d verif y tha t thi s informatio n i s correc t and u p t o date . Th e BACT/LAE RClearinghous e wil l b e undergoin g extensiv e revision s i n forma t and accessibilit y i n th e nea r future . -EPA/State/Loca l Ai r Qualit yPermit s Applicant s mayb e awar e o f permittin g and sitin g activitie s i n thei r industry . A n effor t shoul d b e mad e t o 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 . -Federal/State/Loca l Permi t Engineer s Permi t engineer s and engineerin g manager s ca n provid e informatio n o n project s unde r revie wfo r whic hBAC T informatio n mayb e available . BAC T determination s unde r consideratio n wil l b e availabl e fromthes e source s befor e i t appear s i n th e Clearinghous e manual .

-8

-P.1 4

-Contro l TechnologyVendor s Vendor s hav e informatio n o n th e lates t contro l technology , cos t information , and emissio n guarantees . -Consultant s Th e us e o f consultant s mayb e appropriat e i n th e preparatio n o f BAC T option s and t o assis t reviewin g agencie s tha t lac k experienc e wit h certai n industries . -Inspection/Performanc e Tes t Report s Recen t tes t dat a mayb e usefu l i n establishin g emissio n limitation s fo r sources . Inspectio n and performanc e tes t dat a mayals o revea l potentia l problem s wit hcontro l technology . 'Requiring th e Us e o f Clea n Processes , Fuel s and Coating s tha t ar e Inherentl yLowe r Polluting . Bot hth e sourc e applican t and th e reviewin g agenc y shoul d conside r th e us e o f clea n processes , fuels , and solvent s tha t ar e inherentl ylowe r pollutin g tha n wha t ha s bee n historicall yemploye d bya 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 describe d i n late r section s fo r th e mor e conventiona l BAC T alternatives . Areviewin g agenc y shoul d seriousl yconside r requirin g th e us e o f suc halter

native s shoul d th e BAC T analysi s justif ythei r us e base d o n environmental , economic , an d energyfactors . Ex ample s includ e th e us e o f a dr yproces s cemen t plan t vs . a we t design ; powde r coating s vs . solvent-born e coat ings ; 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 ; etc .



### -9

-P.1 5

VI . EFFECTIVENES S RANKINGO F CONTRO L ALTERNATIVE S

Onc e the appropriat e contro l alternative s hav e bee n identified , theyshoul d b e ranke d i n orde r o f contro l effectiveness , wit hthe mos t effectiv e contro l alternativ e a t the top . Thi s lis t shoul d presen t a n arra yo f contro l alternatives , showin g contro l efficiencies , economi c costs , environmenta l costs , energycosts , and othe r costs . Achar t shoul d b e prepare d fo r eac hpollutan t and fo r eac hemission s unit , o r smal l group o f unit s i n the BAC T analysis . Thes e chart s shoul d b e use d fo r compariso n o f th e contro l alter

native s an

d shoul d use d t o focu s th e selectio n o f a contro l optio n a s BACT . A n exampl e o f a char t prepare d fo r a municipa l wast e fire d boile r ha s bee n include d a s Appendi xB . Th e char t rank s th e contro l alternative s fo r stac k SO 2 emission s fro m th e facility . Not e th e sectio n o f the char t reserve d fo r impact s o f th e contro l alternative s o n unregulate d and othe r pollutants .

-10

-P.1 6

VII . IMPAC T ANALYSI S O F CONTRO L ALTERNATIVE S

Ther e ar e thre e mai n impac t analyse s withi n th e BAC T analysi s ° Environmenta l Impact s " EnergyImpact s " Economi c Impact s Thes e impact s ar e use d b yth e applican t durin g th e selectio n an d justificatio n o f a contro l alternativ e a s BACT . Althoug h th e impac t analyse s ar e an importan t par t o f th e selectio n process , th e applican t shoul d conside r th e contro l effectivenes s o f th e alternative s t o b e th e decisiv e facto r affectin g BAC T selection . "Environmenta l Impact s Th e firs t impac t analysi s i s fo r environmenta l impact . Th e applican t shoul d estimat e th e ne t environmenta l impac t associate d wit heac hcontro l alternative . Bot hbeneficia l impact s an

d advers e impact s shoul d b e discusse d and , wher e possible , quantified . Th e analyse s should.b e presente d i n the for mo f the incrementa l impac t o f eac hcontro l alternativ e relativ e t o th e mos t stringen t systemidentifie d a s a contro l alternative . Whe n weighin g environmenta l impacts , th e analysi s shoul d conside r al l pollutant s affecte d b yth e contro l alternative . Thi s include s pollutant s whic har e no t currentl yregulate d unde r th e Clea n Ai r Ac t bu t whic hmay hav e a significan t environmenta l impact . O n Jun e 3 , 1986 , th e Administato r o f th e EPAremande d a PS D permi t t o Regio n 9 wit hinstruction s t o th e Regio n t o conside r th e effect s o f unregulate d pollutant s whe n makin g a BAC T determination . Th e analysi s o f unregulate d pollutant s shoul d b e directe d a t developin g an inventor yo f potentia l pollutant s froma propose d sourc e and evaluatin g th e impac t o f eac hcontro l alternativ e o n thos e pollutant s bein g consi

dere d fo r BAC T (se e Appendice s C and D) .

-11

-P.1 7

The.followin g i s a brie f outlin e o f some , bu t b yn o mean s all , o f the environmenta l categorie s tha t shoul d b e considere d durin g an analysi s o f environmenta l impacts . -Impact s o f Unregulate d Pollutant s Dioxin/Furan s Heav ymetal s Aci d gase s PM 1 0 Non-photochemicall yreactiv e o r toxi c solvent s et c -Impact s o n Ai r Qualit y

" Ambien t concentration s fo r increment s and NAAQ S ° Visibl e emission s -Impact s o n Wate r Qualit y -Soli d Wast e Disposa l Impact s -Othe r Environmenta l Impact s "EnergyImpact s Th e second impac t analysi s i s fo r energyimpacts . I n conductin g a n energyimpac t analysis , the applican t shoul d estimat e th e direc t energyimpact s o f th e contro l alternative s i n unit s o f energyconsumptio n (BTU's , 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 shown i n term s o f tota l an d incrementa l (unit s o f energype r ton o f reduction ) energycosts . "Economi c Impact s I n evaluatin g the economic s o f variou s BAC T contro l options , primar yconsideratio n shoul d b e give n t o th e cos t effectivenes s o f a n optio n and no t th e economi c situatio n o f the sourc e applicant . Fo r contro l technologie s tha t hav e bee n prove n fo r th e sourc e categor yunde r review , th e economi c impac t o f requirin g thi s technologyo n a sourc e unde r revie wi s les s importan t tha n th e contro l effective

nes s (i n dollar s pe r ton o f pollutan t removed ) o f th e option . Therefore , a n applicant' s abilit yt o affor d a contro l optio n shoul d no t greatl yinfluenc e the choic e o f a contro l optio n a s BACT , especiall ywher e thes e contro l option s hav e bee n applie d t o tha t sourc e category .

-12

-P.1 8

I n th e economi c impact s analysi s 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 assessin g the economi c impacts , an

ysupportin g data , and a n itemizatio n and explanatio n o f al l costs . Credi t fo r ta xincentive s shoul d b e include d alon g wit hcredit s fo r produc t recover ycost s and by-produc t sale s generate d fromth e us e o f th e contro l system . A n analysi s o f th e cos t o f contro l option s o n th e basi s o f dollar s pe r ton o f pollutan t controlle d shoul d als o b e conducte d fo r eac hpollutan 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 an

d othe r industries . Acomplet e economi c analy

si s shoul d compar e cost s o f control s bot hwithi n th e specifi c sourc e categor yunde r revie wand a s a compariso n o f costs , o n the basi s o f dollar s pe r to n o f pollutan t removed , fo r othe r industries .

-13

-P.1 9

VIII . COMPARISONWIT H OTHE RFACILITIE S APPLYINGAMOR E STRINGENT BAC T

A n agenc yimplementin g th e PS D programand wishin g to ; impos e a stringen t BAC T requiremen t mayplac e th e geographi c are a ove r whic hi t ha s authorit ya t a economi c disadvantage ; wit hrespec t t o othe r geographi c localitie s i f th e ai r pollu

tio n agencie s i n thos e othe r localitie s ar e willin g t o impos e BAC T requirement s les s stringen t tha n thos e impose d elsewhere . I n orde r t o avoi d thi s problem , and achiev e nationa l consistency , eac hBAC T proposa l les s stringen t tha n th e mos t effectiv e contro l fo r tha t sourc e categor ymus t mak e two showing s i n orde r fo r th e proposa l t o receiv e consideration . Th e projec t proponen t mus t sho wtha t ther e ar e factors ^ uniqu e t o th e projec t tha t differentiat e thi s projec t from• othe r project s i n the sourc e categor ypermitte d wit hmor e stringen t limits . Thi s showin g o f uniquenes s shoul d focu s o n thos e criteri a tha t facto r int o th e BAC T analysis , i.e . energy , environmental , an d othe r economi c costs . Fo r example , ga s turbine s hav e demonstrate d N0 Xemission s o f les s tha n 1 0 pp mthroughth e us e o f a combinatio n o f wate r injectio n and Selectiv e Catalyti c Reduction . Thi s leve l i s the n the baselin e agains t whic han ypropose d leve l o f emissio n reductio n mus t b e compared . Asourc e proposin g t o locat e in Alask a maywis ht o avoi d usin g wate r injection , o n the basi s tha t wate r injectio n woul d creat e ic e fog , whic hwoul d b e a ! safet yhazar d an

d a negativ e environmenta l effect . Th e review

in g agenc ymigh t agre e tha t ic e fo g i s a negativ e environmenta l effect , but , becaus e o f th e lowcapita l cos t o f wate r injectio n technology , requir e tha t wate r injectio n technologyb e installe d an d use d durin g thos e time period s whe n ic e fog woul d no t b e a hazard . Th e applican t shoul d als o mak e a showin g tha t grantin g th e reques t fo r a les s stringen t limi t wil l no t gran t an undu e , competitiv e advantag e t o othe r industrie s tha t ar e o f th e sam e sourc e category , and woul d b e constructin g a simila r ne wfaci

lit ya t th e sam e time . Th e rigo r o f the analysi s mayrang e from certificatio n b

yth e applican t tha t th e projec t woul d no t caus e a competitiv e advantag e i f permitte d wit hles s stringen t controls , t o a n in-dept hanalysi s comparin g simila r facilitie s nationwide . Th e degre e o f rigo r shoul d b e determine d o n a case-by-cas e basi s b yth e reviewin g agency .

-14

-P.2 0

Th e proces s o f showin g "no competitiv e advantage " serve s a s a cros s chec k o n th e proces s o f determinin g thos e factor s uniqu e t o th e source , and emphasize s th e philosophytha t th e federa l PS D programi s no t t o b e use d a s a n economi c forc e i n determinin g nationa l plan t sitin g decisions . Stat e and loca l land us e plannin g agencie s and governin g bodie s shoul d mak e thos e decision s regardin g economi c and othe r favorabl e o r negativ e sitin g incentive s a s the yse e fit . IX . SELECTIONAND JUSTIFICATIO NO F ACONTRO L ALTERNATIV E A S BES T AVAILABL E CONTRO L TECHNOLOGY . I f a n applican t select s th e mos t stringen t contro l alternativ e availabl e (LAER) , the n n o furthe r analysi s i s necessar yfo r th e regulate d pollutant . A n analysi s fo r th e impac t o n unregulate d pollutant s mus t stil l b e conducted . I f LAE Ri s no t proposed , the n th e applican t mus t identif yal l o f th e contro l alternative s fo r eac h subjec t pollutan t and rank b ycontro l effectiveness . Onc e th e economic , energy , and environmenta l impact s analyse s hav e bee n complete d fo r eac ho f th e contro l alternatives , th e applican t no wha s al l o f th e informatio n necessar yfo r th e selectio n o f a contro l alternativ e a s BACT . LAE Rwil l b e th e startin g poin t i n anyBAC T analysis , and BAC T wil l b e presume d t o b e equa l t o LAE Runles s adequat e justificatio n showin g circumstance s uniqu e t o th e propose d projec t ar e provide d and justified . I f th e mos t stringen t contro l alternativ e i s rejecte d fo r a les s stringen t one , the n th e applican t mus t justif y th e selectio n bydemonstratin g tha t eac hrejecte d contro l alternativ e (representin g a mor e stringen t leve l o f contro l fo r tha t pollutant ) woul d resul t i n unreasonabl e energy , environmental , o r economi c impact s o n th e propose d project . Thi s procedur e mus t b e conducte d fo r eac h pollutant , unti l th e applican t arrive s a t a se t o f control s fo r th e entir e sourc e o r modificatio n subjec t t o BACT . Th e applican t shoul d b e awar e tha t anyeconomi c o r energydemonstratio n wil l b e closel yreviewe d b yth e permittin g agenc yand tha t onl ysignifican t economi c o r energyimpact s woul d b e considere d adequat e justificatio n fo r selectio n o f a les s stringen t contro l alternative .

-15

-P.2 1

AGENC YREVIE WO F NOMINATE D CONTRO L ALTERNATIVE S I n conductin g a Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology review , th e reviewin g agenc ymus t kee p i n mind tha t the applican t i s proposin g a se t o f emissio n limitation s and contro l technologya s BACT . Th e reviewin g agenc ymay believ e tha t mor e stringen t control s ca n b e achieve d withi n th e define d BAC T criteria . Suc hdecisions , however , shoul d b e base d o n soli d technica l informatio n obtaine d from

th e source s liste d abov e unde r Sectio n V and the judgemen t o f th e reviewin g engineer . I n general , th e recommende d approac hfo r determinin g BAC T i s t o begi n wit hthe mos t stringen t leve l o f contro l achievabl e fo r th e propose d emission s uni t and justify , o n th e basi s o f th e BAC T criteri a (energy , economic , and environmenta l considerations) , whytha t leve l o f contro l shoul d o r shoul d no t represen t BACT , Thi s approach , a s oppose d t o beginnin g a t a les s stringen t leve l o f contro l an d evaluatin g increasingl ymor e stringen t level s o f contro l o r choosin g a n averag e leve l o f contro l fo r simila r emission s units , offer s th e bes t opportunit yo f arrivin g a t a BAC T whic hwil l i n fac t b e th e bes t availabl e fo r thi s source . ABAC T analysi s conducte d i n thi s manne r als o ha s th e greates t opportunit yt o b e technology forcing . Suc ha n analysi s wil l hav e evaluate d and rejecte d thos e level s o f contro l whic hhav e bee n found inappropriat e fo r the sourc e unde r review . Disagreemen t o n the specifi c continuou s emission s reductio n o r contro l technologyrepresentin g BAC T may lead t o request s fo r additiona l information , informa l meetings , and negotiations . Revie wagencie s shoul d b e extremel ycautiou s i n engagin g i n a "negotiate d BACT " wit ha n applicant . Negotiation s tha t ar e no t ope n t o al l member s o f the publi c afte r th e clos e o f the publi c commen t perio d mayb e classe d a s e_ xpart e communications , and may lead t o charge s o f unethica l conduc t (suc hcommuni

cation s fo r EPAemployee s ar e governe d b yth e Agenc y ethic s guidelines) . Reviewin g th e BAC T analysi s submitte d bya n applican t require s engineerin g knowledge , experienc e an d judgement . Fou r question s tha t shoul d guid e th e reviewin g agenc yar e discusse d below .

-16

-P.2 2

1 . I s th e analysi s complete ? Th e analysi s shoul d addres s al l pollutant s subjec t t o BAC T and al l emission s unit s tha t ar e par t o f th e propose d sourc e o r modification . 2 . I s th e analysi s thorough ? I f an applican t propose s LAE Ra s th e contro l alter

native , n o furthe r analysi s i s require d othe r tha n a n evaluatio n o f the contro l o f unregulate d pollu

tants . I f LAE Ri s no t chosen , th e applican t shoul d identif yand provid e detaile d informatio n o n al l possibl e BAC T contro l alternatives , fromLAE Rdown t o th e contro l alternativ e proposed . Th e reviewin g agenc ymust , independently , attemp t t o identif y contro l alternative s no t evaluate d b yth e applicant . Th e applican t shoul d b e require d t o evaluat e any contro l alternative s identifie d byth e agency . 3 . Ar e th e cos t estimate s use d reasonable ? Th e reviewin g agenc ymus t b e veryrigorou s i n evaluatin g th e cos t dat a submitte d b yth e applicant . Cos t dat a fo r simila r project s mayvar ysignificantl ydependin g o n th e assumption s use d b yth e applicant . Th e reviewin g agenc y mus t independentl yconfirmth e cos t dat a use d byth e appli

cant . 4 . Ha s th e applican t propose d the appropriat e BAC T fo r th e source ? Utilizin g th e technica l resource s availabl e and th e bes t engineerin g judgemen t o f th e reviewin g engineer , th e agenc yshoul d mak e it s ow n BAC T determinatio n fo r th e propose d source . Wher e th e applican t and th e reviewin g agenc ydisagree , th e applican t shoul d b e afforde d th e opportunit yt o provid e additiona l informatio n t o justif yth e BAC T proposal . Wher e a disagreemen t continues , th e reviewin g agenc yshoul d propos e fo r publi c commen t th e agency' s determinatio n o f BACT . Finally , i t mus t b e note d tha t th e BAC T analysi s i s a separat e analysi s fromth e ai r qualit yanalysis . A stringen t BAC T wil l no t b e dismisse d becaus e o f a low impac t o n ambien t ai r quality . However , a PS D permi t may no t b e issue d i f a Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandar d o r PS D incremen t woul d b e violate d du e t o th e adde d

-17

-P.2 3



### e m ission s from

th e sourc e a t th e permitte d emission s level . I f suc hviolation s ar e predicted , th e sourc e mus t propos e t o the permittin g agenc ya metho d o f reducin g emission s s o tha t ther e wil l b e n o violations . Thi s proposa l mayinvolv e additiona l control s a t th e source , creditabl e emission s reduction s fro mothe r sources , a downsize d facilit yo r a combinatio n o f th e above .

-18

-P.2 4

XI . CONSTRUCTIO NPERMI T REQUIREMENT S

Agoo d BAC T determinatio n i s o f littl e valu e i f th e implementatio n o f th e BAC T control s and emissio n limit s canno t b e enforce d b yth e issuing agenc yand b yEPA . Fo r thi s reason , th e constructio n permi t issue d (an d a n operatin g permit , fo r thos e agencie s usin g a tw o tiere d permi t system ) followin g a PS D revie wmus t hav e enforceabl e limit s and prescrib e method s o f determinin g complianc e wit hthos e limits . Appendi xE t o thi s repor t summarize s th e type s o f condi

tion s necessar yfo r a properl ywritte n permit . However , the ke ypoin t tha t shoul d b e stresse d whe n formulatin g a permi t i s tha t federall yenforceabl e emission s limitation s represen tativ e o f BAC T mus t b e include d i n th e permi t (Th e PS D regula

tion s do , however , provid e fo r th e impositio n o f a n equipmen t o r wor k practic e standar d wher e an emissio n limitatio n i s no t possible , suc ha s wit hfugitiv e emissio n sources) . Th e emission s limit s mus t als o enabl e th e permittin g agenc yt o enforc e th e requiremen t tha t BAC T i s a continuou s syste mo f emission s reduction , requirin g equivalen t level s o f contro l a t al l level s o f production . I n orde r fo r a n emissio n limi t t o b e federall yenforceable , i t mus t mee t th e test s o f bein g enforceabl e a s a practica l matter , an

d mus t als o b e specificall yenforceabl e byEPAunde r §11 3 o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . "Permit s mus t b e Enforceabl e a s a Practica l Matte r A n enforceabl e limi t i s on e tha t allow s th e Agenc yt o determin e complianc e a t anytime . Suc ha limi t mus t mee t tw o tests . First , th e limi t mus t b e compatibl e wit hestablishe d method s o f determinin g compliance . Emissio n limit s i n term s o f ppm , grains/dsc f (a t a specifie d percen t O 2 o r CO2) , pounds / millio n BTU , pound s pe r hour , and gram s pe r lite r generall ymee t thi s test . Emission s limit s writte n a s pound s pe r da yo r ton s pe r yea r d o no t mee t thi s test . Averagin g time s mus t b e als o speci

fied and mus t b e compatibl e wit haccepte d way s o f determinin g compliance . Permi t condition s usin g an emissio n limi t i n term s o f hea t inpu t o r fue l use , suc ha s pound s pe r millio n BTUo r pound s pe r ton o f materia l processed , o r emissio n limit s wit h long averagin g times , suc ha s pound s pe r dayo r ton s pe r year , mus t b e couple d wit hemissio n limit s suc ha s th e following . A n emissio n limi t expresse d i n ppmcorrecte d t o 12 % C02 » thre e hou r average , usin g a n approve d tes t metho d i s the recommende d approach .

-19

-P.2 5

Second , i t mus t als o b e supporte d b ycomplianc e moni

toring requirement s tha t enabl e th e sourc e t o sho wcontinuin g an d continuou s compliance . I n th e past , EP Aha s place d grea t emphasi s o n on e time o r annua l testing , usin g continuou s monitor s an

d surrogate s (suc ha s mas s o f wate r injecte d int o a ga s turbine ) onl ya s indication s o f a complianc e problem . However , th e technologica l advancemen t o f continuou s emission s monitor s (CEMs ) and th e realizatio n o f th e nee d fo r enforceabl e mechanism s othe r tha n annua l sourc e test s ha s led EPAt o writ e permit s whic hcontai n requirement s fo r continuou s complianc e wit hemissio n limitations . EPAissue d permit s generall y'. requir e CEM s wher e thei r us e i s technicall ypossible . "Permi t Condition s Mus t b e Federall yEnforceabl e Eve n whe n a n EPAregiona l offic e i s no t th e permittin g agency , EP Amus t b e specificall yabl e t o enforc e al l permi t condition s relatin g t o BAC T determinations . Certai n type s o f condition s mayb e enforceabl e b ya stat e o r loca l agency , bu t ar e no t necessaril yfederall yenforceable . Th e definitio n found a t 4 0 CFR52.21(b)(17 ) spell s ou t thos e documents , includin g PS D permits , whic hmaycontai n federall yenforceabl e restrictions , Thus , an outsid e document , suc ha s a contrac t betwee n two permit

tees , i s no t federall yenforceabl e unles s i t i s specificall y incorporate d i n th e PS D permi t and i s enforceabl e agains t th e permittee . An

yconditio n i n th e PS D permi t mus t als o mee t th e requirement s o f Sectio n 11 3 o f th e Clea n Ai r Act , whic hspell s ou t EPA' s enforcemen t powe r an d obligations . Keypoint s t o kee p in mind ar e (1 ) th e nee d t o us e thos e tes t method s found i n 4 0 CF RPart s 6 0 and 61 , unles s a n equivalen t metho d i s specificall yapprove d bythe Administrator , an d (2 ) the hee d t o b e abl e t o demonstrat e a violatio n continuin g fo r thirt yday s fo r an ypermi t condition . "Publi c Participatio n Eac hPS D permi t i s require d t o g o throug ha proces s o f publi c revie wand comment , usuall ya minumu mo f 3 0 days.

- Pub

li c notic e and commen t i s als o importan t t o th e BAC T process , i n tha t informatio n receive d fromth e publi c (includin g industry , publi c agencies , publi c interes t group s and individua l citizens ) regardin g th e propose d BAC T determinatio n mus t b e take n int o accoun t i n the fina l BAC T determination . "Phase d and Delaye d Constructio n Th e PS D regulation s requir e tha t a re-assessmen t o f BAC T b e mad e fo r eac hindependen t phas e o f a multi-phas e project . Thi s re-assesmen t shoul d occu r withi n eightee n month s o f th e -20

-P.2 6

star t o f constructio n o f tha t phase . EPAi s currentl y developin g polic yregardin g th e manne r i n whic hBAC T wil l b e determine d fo r project s proponent s requestin g extension s o f the constructio n schedul e and fo r thos e requestin g change s i n th e PS D permits . XII . BAC T FLOWSHEE T

Attache d a s Appendi xAi s a simplifie d flowshee t outlinin g th e processe s describe d i n thi s guideline . I t mayb e use d a s a readyreference ; however , th e use r shoul d refe r t o th e detaile d guidelin e t o understand al l detail s o f th e outline . XIII . CONCLUSIONAN D SUMMARY Th e proces s outline d her e fo r determinin g BAC T will , i f use d conscientiously , ensur e tha t permi t applicant s ca n us e a consisten t approac hi n submittin g BAC T proposal s t o permittin g agencies . Fewe r instance s o f ne windustria l source s bein g discourage d becaus e o f uncertaint ya t th e permittin g stag e ar e likel yt o occur . Permittin g agencie s wil l kno wtha t permi t shoppin g shoul d b e les s likel yt o occur . Moreover , th e PS D provision s o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t wil l b e properl y carrie d out .

-21

-APPENDI XA BAC T FLOWSHEE T (T o b e Use d byApplican t i n Proposin g BACT )

STE P 1 Determin e th e mos t stringen t emissio n limi t require d o r achieve d i n practic e (o r Lowes t Achievabl e Emissio n Rate , LAER ) fo r eac h pollutan t fo r whic hBAC T i s required . Als o examin e emergin g technologie s and technology transfer . I f LAE Ri s selected , and thi s technology represent s th e greates t degre e o f contro l fo r th e unregulate d pollutants , ski p step s 2 through7 . Otherwise , g o t o ste p 2 .

STE P 2 Lis t al l availabl e contro l alternative s othe r tha n LAE Rfo r eac hpollutan t subjec t t o BACT . Surve yBACT/LAE RClearinghous e and contro l agenc ydat a t o ensur e possibl e control s ar e no t bypassed .

STE P 3 Prioritiz e contro l alternative s identifie d in Ste p 2 base d o n energy , economi c an d othe r environmenta l costs , includin g unregulate d pollutant s a s pe r Appendi xC an d D and wit h respec t t o contro l effectiveness .

STE P 4 Analyz e th e contro l leve l identifie d i n Ste p 1 and al l alternative s i n Ste p 2 fo r practica l applicatio n a s a BAC T proposal .

STE P 5 I f LAE Ri s no t selecte d a s th e BAC T proposal , provid e adequat e justification .

STE P 6 I f th e nex t mos t effectiv e contro l alternativ e i s no t selecte d a s the BAC T proposal , provid e adequat e justification .P.2 8

STE P 7

STE P 8

STE P 9

STE P 1 0

STE P 1 1

STE P 1 2

STE P 1 3 G o t o Ste p 6 , unti l a BAC T proposa l i s reached . The n g o t o Ste p 8 .

I s th e contro l alternativ e (a ) appropriat e fo r th e BAC T proposal , (b ) mor e stringen t tha n the NSP S level , an

d (c ) protectiv e o f th e NAAQ S and | th e PS D increments ? Expres s BAC T determinatio n a s a n enforceabl e numerica l limitatio n fo r eac hpermi t unit / pollutan t (normall yexpresse d s o tha t emissio n follo wproductio n rate ; pound pe r hou r limit s ar e necessar yt o protec t ai r quality , and may , i n som e cases , b e BAC T limits) . Publi c notic e specificall yidentifyin g propos e BACT .

Respon d t o publi c commen t o n BAC T and modif y BAC T determinatio n base d o n publi c commen t i f appropriate .

Issu e constructio n permit ; ente r determinatio n i n clearinghouse .

Wher e applicable , afte r constructio n i s completed , issu e operatin g permi t incorporatin g th e BAC T technology , enforcea

bl e BAC T emissio n limit , CE Mrequirements , etc . -2

-APPENDI XB EPA Regio n9 - Ne

w Sourc e Sectio n BAC T ANALYSI S (Rankedi nDecreasin gOrde r o f Contro l Effectiveness ) Project : Projec t Category : Resourc e Recovery Projec t Type : 111 3 IPP , RDF , 3 6 M W Pollutant : SO ? Date : Projec t Engineer :

Contro lOption s Spra yDryer , Alkalin e Slurry , Baghous e Spra yDryer , LimeSlurr y Baghous e DryInjection , Sodiu m Sorbent , Baghous e Spra yDryer , Alkalin e Slurry , ES

P Spra yDryer , LimeSlurr y ES P Dr yInjection , Lime , Baghous e DryInjection , Sodiu m Sorbent , ES

P We tScriJabing , Alkalin e DryInjection , Lime , ES P % Contro l

80-9 5 75-9 0 70-8 5 75-9 0 65-8 5 65-8 0 50-7 5 50-90 + 40-7 0 Buissio n

Rate s lbs/to n (ppm) < * 0.26-1.0 4 (9-35 ) 0.52-1.3 0 (18-44 ) 0.78-1.5 6 (26-53 ) 0.52-1.3 0 (18-44 ) 0.78-1.8 2 (26-62 ) 1.04-1.8 2 (35-62 ) 1.30-2.6 1 (44-88 ) 0.52-2.6 1 (18-88 ) 1.56-3.1 3 (53-106 ) Emission s

(tons/yr ) 53-21 2 106-26 5 159-31 8 106-26 5 159-37 1 212-37 1 265-53 0 106-53 0 318-63 6 Annualize d

Oos t< 2 ($1,000 )

- Cos t

Effectivenes s ($/Ibn ) Oontro lEffectivenes s o n Othe rPollutant s Heavy Metal s Exc Ex c Exc Good Good Good fiair Poo r feii r Dioxi n Furan s Exc Exc Poo r Good Good Poo r Poo r Poo r Poo r 

### H a Ex c Exc Ex c Exc Exc Ex c Exc Ex c Good H

g Good Good Poo r Fai r Paic Poo r Poo r feii r Poo r Lea d Exc Exc Good Good Good Goo d Feii r Feii r Fait: ( 1 Oorrecte dt o 12

% 00 2 ( 2Assume s % interes t amortize dove r

3 0year s + operatin g costs .APPENDI XB EP A Regio n9 - Ne

w Source Sectio

n BACT ANALYSI S (Ranke di nDecreasin

gOrder o f Oontro l Effectiveness ) Pag e 2 Project : Projec t Category : Resourc e Recover y Projec t Type : 111 3 IPP , RDF , 3 6 M W Pollutant : S0 ? Date : Projec t Engineer :

Oontro l Options % Cbntro l Qnissio n Rate s lbs/to n (ppm ) d Omissions

(tons/yr ) Annualize

d Cos t < 2 ($1,000 ) Oos t

Effectivenes s ($/Ibn ) Oontro l Effectivenes s o n Other Pollutant s Heav y Metal s Dioxi n

furans HC

1 H g Lea d DryInjection , Limeston e ES P We tScrubbing , Wate r Sourc eSeparatio n 25-4 0 20-3 0 5-1 0 3.13-3.9 1

(106-132 ) 3.65-4.1 7 (124-141 ) 4.69-4.9 5 (159-168 ) 636-79 5

742-84 8 954-100 7 Fai r Poo r Poo r Poo r Poo r Ffci r Good Bai r Eeti r Poo r Poo r Poo r Fai r

Fai r Poo r

( 1 Correcte dt o12

% 00 2 9 ^ inojME t :iz | iv e yee in e sts j C OP.3 1

« < > APPENDI XC BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATO R U.S . ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO NAGENCY

WASHINGTON , D.C . 

### I nth eMatte r

of : Nort hCount yResourc e Recover yAssociate s Applican t PS D Appea l No . 85- 2

REMAND I n petition s file d pursuan t t o 4 0 CFR§124.1 9 (1985) , Donal d J . Wakefiel d an d John R . Leac hJr. , jointly , an d Stephe n Isaa c an

d Richar d D . Sauerheber , individually , requeste d revie w o f a Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n (PSD ) permi t determinatio n tha t wil l authoriz e Nort hCount yResourc e Recover y Associate s (NCRR ) t o construc t a 3 3 megawatt , 100 0 ton pe r day resourc e recoveryfacilit yin Sa n Marcos , California . Th e determinatio n t o issu e the permi t wa s mad e o n Marc h22 , 1985 , b yth e Director , Ai r Managemen t Division , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Regio n IX , Sa n Francisco , California . Petition s fo r revie wo f PS D permit s ar e no t usuall ygrante d unles s th e permi t determinatio n i s clearl yerroneou s o r involve s a n exercis e o f discretio n o r polic ytha t i s importan t an d there

for e shoul d be reviewe d a s a discretionar ymatter , 4 0 CF R §124.19(a)(1 ) an

d (2) . Th e preambl e t o th e regulation s containin a thi s standar d state s tha t "thi s powe r o f revie wshoul d b e onl y sparingl yexercise d [and ] . . . mos t permi t condition s shoul d b e finall ydetermine d a t the Regiona l level . ... " 4 5 Fed . Reg . 3341 2 (Ma

y19 , 1980) . Th e burde n o f demonstratin g tha tP.3 2

< ' * -2

- th e permi t condition s shoul d b e reviewe d i s therefor e o n th e petitioners . Amon g th e reason s th e petitioner s presen t fo r arantin qre vie wi s Regio n IX' s alleqe d failur e t o establis hemissio n limi

tation s fo r al l pollutants , includin qhazardou s pollutants , tha t wil l o r coul d possibl yb e emitte d fro mth e facility ; th e allege d inadeciuac

yo f Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technoloq y(BACT ) determinations ; th e allege d us e o f unrepresentativ e meteorolo

aica l data ; th e contentio n tha t th e Comple xI ai r dispersio n mode l fo r predictin g pollutio n level s i s inappropriate ; an d miscellaneou s matter s suc ha s the contentio n tha t th e impac t o f emission s o n vegetatio n wa s no t properl yevaluated . Wit hon e exception , Regio n I Xha s addresse d eac ho f petitioners ' alleqa

tion s and ha s provide d rationa l explanation s fo r no t makin g an y alteration s in it s permi t determination . Th e exceptio n concern s Regio n IX' s assertio n tha t EP Alack s th e authorit yt o "consider " pollutant s no t regulate d b yth e Clea n Ai r Ac t whe n makin g a PS D determination . Thi s assertio n i s correc t onl yi f i t i s read narrowl yt o mea n EPAlack s th e authorit yt o impos e limitation s o r othe r restriction s directl yon th e emissio n o f unregulate d pollutants . EPAclearl yha s n o suc hauthorit vove r emission s o f unregulate d pollutants . Recio n IX' s assertio n i s overl ybroad , however , i f i t i s me.an t a s a limitatio n on EPA' s authorit yt o evaluate , fo r example , th e environmenta l impac t o f unregulate d pollutant s in th e cours e o f makin g a BAC T determinatio n fo r th e regulate d pollutants . EPA' s authorit yin tha t respec t i s clear .P.3 3

• t -3

-

Unde r §165(a)(4 ) o f the Clea n Ai r Ac t an d th e relevan t regulation s a propose d facilit yi s subjec t t o th e "bes t avail

abl e contro l technology " (BACT ) fo r eac hpollutan t tha t i s regulate d b

yth e Ac t tha t i s emitte d from , o r whic hresult s from , suc hfacilit yin significan t amounts , 4 2 US C §7475(a)(4) ; 4 0 CFR§52.21(i)(1985) . A s define d in §169(3 ) th e termBAC T refer s t o a n "emissio n limitation " tha t i s se t o n a case-by-cas e basi s fo r regulate d pollutants , "taking int o accoun t energy , environmental , an

d economi c impact s an d othe r costs " associate d wit hth e particula r emissio n contro l syste mtha t i s selecte d tp achiev e the BAC T emissio n limitation . 4 2 US C §7479(3 ) (emphasi s added) ; 4 0 CFR§52.21(b)(12) . Hence , i f applicatio n o f a contro l syste mresult s directl yin th e releas e (o r removal ) o f pollutant s tha t ar e no t currentl yregulate d unde r th e Act , th e ne t environmenta l impac t o f suc hemission s i s eligibl e fo r consideratio n in makinc i the BAC T determination . Th e analysi s maytak e the form

o f comparin qth e incrementa l environmenta l impac t o f alternativ e emissio n contro l system s wit hth e contro l syste mpropose d a s BACT ; however , a s i n an yBAC T determination , th e exac t for

mo f the analysi s an d th e leve l o f detai l require d wil l depend upo n the fact s o f the individua l case . Dependin g '.•po n wha t weigh t i s assigne d t o th e environmenta l impac t o f a particula r contro l system, ' th e contro l systempropose d a s BAC T mayhav e t o b e modifie d o r be reiecte d in favo r o f anothe r sys tem . I n othe r words , EPAmayultimatel ychoos e mor e stringen t emissio n limitation s fo r a regulate d pollutan t than i t woul dP.3 4

-4

- otherwis e hav e chose n i f settin qsuc hlimitation s woul d hav e th e incidenta l benefi t o f restrictin g a hazardou s but , a s yet , 1/ unregulate d pollutant . Afte r reviewin g Regio n IX' s response s t o petitioners ' comment s an

d t o thei r petition s fo r review , i t i s unclea r t o m e whethe r Regio n I Xha s give n appropriat e consideratio n t o th e matter s ius t described . Petitioner s hav e expresse d under

standabl e frustratio n a t bein g told , withou t more , tha t "EPA doe s no t hav e th e authorit yt o conside r dioxi n o r mos t othe r toxi c ai r contaminant s fo r th e purpos e o f issuin g a PS D permit. " Accordingly , I a

m remandin g th e permi t determinatio n t o Regio n I Xfo r reconsideratio n an d fo r actio n consisten t wit hth e fore — qoin o interpretatio n o f EPA' s authorit yt o conside r uTtregulated pollutant s whe n makin qPS D determinations . I n th e meantim e a rulin qo n th e Dendin qpetition s fo r revie wwil l b e hel d i n abeyance . S o ordered .



# • V



# ^v^ — Le e M . Thoma s Administrato r Dated : 

# 3

# )UL JL/ Industr yengineer s woul d remai n free , o f course , t o exercis e thei r own independen t iudgmen t in devisin qway s t o mee t an y suc hmor e strinoen t emissio n limitations , provide d th e enerqy , environmenta l an

d economi c impact s associate d wit hth e chose n contro l syste mar e no t inconsisten t wit hth e correspondin g im

pact s associate d wit hthe mor e strinqen t emissio n limitations . Se e I n the Matte r o f CertainTee d Corporatio n a t 5-8 , PS D Appea l No . 81- 2 (Decisio n o f the Administrator , Decembe r 21 , 1982) .V« APPENDI XD BEFOR E TH E ADMINISTRATOR U.S . ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO

NAGENC

Y WASHINGTON, D.C .

I nth eM

att erof : Nort hCount yResourc e Recover yAssociate s App lican t PSD Appea lNo . 85- 2

ORDE RDENYIN

GREVIE

W

I npetition s file dpursuan tt o4 0CF R$124.1 9 (1985) , Donal dJ . Wakefiel dan dJoh nR . Leach , Jr. , Jointly , an d Stephe nIsaa can dRichar dD . Sauerbeber , individually , requeste drevie wo f aPreventio no f Significan tDeterioratio n (PSD ) permi tdeterminatio ntha twil lauthoriz eNort hCount y Resourc eRecover yAssociate s (NCRR) t oconstruc ta3 3 megawatt , 100 0to npe rda yresourc erecover yfacilit yi nSa nMarcos , California . Th epermi tdeterminatio nwa s mad eb yth eU.S . Environmenta lProtectio nAgency , Regio nIX , Sa nFrancisco , California . O nJun e3 , 1986 , l nrespons et oth epetitions , I Issue da norde rremandin gth epermi tt oRegio nI Xfo r reconsideratio no f th ebasi s o nwhic hl tha dmad eit s Bes t Availabl eContro lTechnolog y(BACT ) determination s fo rth e permit . Specifically , Regio nI Xwa s t otak eint oaccoun t th eenvironmenta leffects , i f any , o f

pollutant s tha tar e. *

-2 -

no t currentl y

regulate dunde r th e Act , i f suc hpollutant s ar e release d(o r removed ) throug happlicatio no f th e contro l syste m designate da s BACT . O nAugus t 15 , 1986 , Regio nI Xwrot e a respons e t o th e reman dorde r tha t reaffirme dth e prio r BAC T determinations . Regio nI Xfoun dtha t th e emissio ncontrol s reflecte dI nit s origina l BAC T determination s wer e suc htha t n o othe r control s o nregulate dpollutant s woul dbe mor e effectiv e l nreducin g emission s o f unregulate dpollutants . I nothe r words , alternativ e control s fo r th e regulate dpollutant s woul dno t offe r an y

bette r contro l fo r unregulate dpollutant s tha nth e control s propose db y NCRR . Accordingly , pursuan t t o th e term s o f th e reman dorder , thi s matte r i s no w rip e fo r a decisio no nwhethe r NCRR' s permi t shoul dbe reviewe do n appea l o r whethe r Regio nIX' s decisio nt o issu e th e permi t shoul dbe allowe dt o becom e final . Petition s fo r revie w o f RCR A

permit s ar e no t grante d unles s th e permi t determinatio ni s clearl y erroneou s o r Involve s a nexercis e o t discretio no r polic y tha t I s importan t an dtherefor e shoul dbe reviewe da s a discretionar y natter , 4 0 CF R§124.1 9 (a)(1 ) an d(2 ) (1985) . Th e preambl e t o th e regulation s containin gthi s standar do f revie w state s tha t "thi s powe r o f revie w shoul db e onl y sparingl y

exercise d(and )

. . . mos t permi t condition s shoul db e finall y determine da t th e Regiona l leve l . . . . " 4 5 Fed . Reg . 3341 2 (Ma y 19 , 1980) .t. 1 »

- 3 -

Th eburde no f

demonstratin gtha tth epermi tcondition s shoul d b ereviewe di s therefor eo nth eperso nrequestin greview . I n thi s case , th epartie s requestin grevie whav enot , i nm y opinion , raise dan ymatter s tha twarran trevie wunde rth e applicabl estandar do f review . A nexaminatio no f th erecor d o nrevie wdisclose s tha tth eRegiona lAdministrato rha s give n thoroug han dcarefu lconsideratio nt oal lo f th eissue s raise d b yth eperson s requestin grevie wan dth epermi tdeterminatio n i s neithe rclearl yerroneou s no rinvolve s a nexercis eo f discretio no rpolic ywhic hwarrant s discretionar yreview . Accordingly , th epetition s fo rrevie war edenied . I naccordanc ewit h4 0CF R§ 12 4.1 9 ( f ) ( 1 ) an d(2) , Regio nIX shal lissu eafina lpermi tdecisio nconsisten twit hthi s orde r an dpublis hnotic eo f tha tdecisio nI nth eFedera lRegister . Th edecisio nshal lb econsidere dfina lAgenc yactio nfo r purpose s o f

judicia lreview . S oord ere d. 

# /P'T

R 6/ 2 -J 4m++- U>«c ~ <\*«JL > frCTinC IaaMi—

T horea 6, Admin is trat or

DATED : $E P 4 198 6P.3 8

APPENDI XE PERMI T REQUIREMENT S Eac hpermi t shoul d contain : 1 Identificatio n o f al l point s o f emissio n (bot hstac k and fugitive) . 2 . Inclusio n o f a numerica l emissio n limitatio n fo r eac h poin t o f emissio n i n term s o f mas s rat e o r concentratio n limitations . I f emissio n testing base d o n a numerica l emissio n limitatio n i s infeasible , the permi t mayinstea d prescrib e a design , operational , o r eguipmen t standard . An ypermit s issue d withou t numerica l emissio n limitation s mus t contai n condition s whic hassur e tha t the desig n characteristic s o r equipmen t wil l b e properl yperforme d s o a s t o continuousl yachiev e th e assume d degre e o f control . 3 . Limitation s o r factor s whic hwer e the basi s fo r ai r qualit y impac t analysi s mus t b e specifie d (e.g. , hour s o f operation , stac k height , material s processe d whic haffec t emissions) . 4 . Method s and frequenc yo f determinin g continue d complianc e fo r eac hemission s poin t shoul d b e state d i n the permi t an d shoul d referenc e the appropriat e sectio n o f the NSPS , NESHAP S o r SI P approve d tes t procedures . 5 . Recordkeepin g requirement s whic henabl e the agenc yt o ascertai n continue d complianc e especiall ywher e factor s suc h a s hour s o f operation , throughpu t o t materials , sulfu r con ten t o f fuels , fue l usage , o r typ e o r quantit yo f material s processe d ar e condition s o f th e permit . 6 . Astatemen t tha t the permi t wil l expir e i f constructio n ha s no t commence d b

ya specifie d date , i s discontinue d mor e than 1 8 months , o r i s no t complete d i n a reasonabl e time . 7 . Astatemen t tha t the sourc e i s responsibl e fo r providin g samplin g and testin g facilitie s a t it s own expense . 3 . Reportin g requirement s whic henabl e the agenc yt o monito r th e progres s o f sourc e constructio n and compliance , includin g the dat e b

ywhic hconstructio n i s completed , and , i f differen t fromth e completio n o f constructio n date , th e dat e b ywhic h fina l complianc e i s t o b e achieved .P.3 9

4 k ' - •I « * t

9 Identificatio n o f al l offsets , wit hcondition s requirin g

implementatio n o f offset s b ya dat e specified , identificatio n o f al l banke d emission s offset s whic har e t o b e applied ; identificatio n o f al l emissio n credit s allocate d t o the sourc e fro

m the growt hallowance . 1 0 A s a courtes yt o source s exempte d fro mPSD/NS Rrevie w du e t o federall yenforceabl e operationa l o r proces s restrictions , o r th e us e o f control s mor e stringen t than require d b

yapplicabl e SI P limits , the sourc e shoul d b e advise d tha t an

yrelaxatio n o f thos e limit s maysubjec t the entir e sourc e t o ful l PSD/NS Rrevie wa s i f constructio n ha d no t ye t begun . Suggeste d languag e i s a follows : "Thi s sourc e i s exemp t fro mPSD/NS Rrevie wbecaus e o f (e.g. , " a requiremen t tha t operatio n i s limite d t o eigh t hour s pe r day") . An yrelaxatio n i n thi s limi t tha t increase s you r potentia l t o emi t abov e the applicabl e PSD/NS Rthreshol d wil l requir e a ful l PSD/NS Rrevie wo f the sourc e a s though constructio n had no t ye t commence d o n th e source. "