P. 1



# OAR Box 1787

Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 25 ) ll-B-1 0

Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200810:22:19AM Sheet 25of 147p ?

- » 

# fl. 

# - 7 0 

# ~ 3 7 

# TI-6-/0

* A - o UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y ^S_fc ^ 5 Offic e o f Ai rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s :-4w^ / Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1



# 2 5 ' ;LL ; 3 f • 

### MEMORANDUM '**«"

_ - _ '.

. I f > " 

### SUBJECT : Huntsvill e Incinerato r - Determinin g Bes t Availabl e Contro l

Technolog y

(BACT )

FROM : Gar y

McCutchen , Chie f / / ^/i/I^Z^/w^ New Sourc e Revie w

Section , CPD D (MD-15 ) /C^w* 1 ^ <zzx TO : Bruc e P . Miller , Chie f

Ai r Program s Branch , Regio nI V Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r Marc h30 , 1987 , memorandu m regardin g th e BAC T determinatio nmad e b y th e Alabam a Departmen t o f Environmenta l Managemen t (ADEM ) fo r th e propose dHuntsvill e incinerato r facility . It i s difficul t t o provid e a detaile drespons e t o th e significant.an d comple xquestion s andissue s yo uhav e raise dwithi nth e relativel y shor t turn-aroun dtim e tha t yo uhav e specified . However , ou r initia l revie w o f th e informatio nsubmitte dindicate s tha t th e Region's ^ positio n(i.e. , th e us e o f aci dga s scrubbin g a s BAC T fo r municipa l ; 

### wast e incinerators ) i s consisten t wit hemergin g nationa l polic y an dcurren t BAC T analysi s fo r simila r facilities . W e hav e reviewe dth e argument s presente db y th e applican t an

d ADEM . Althoug hcertai no f th e criteri a use di n th e BAC T decisio nar e acceptable , many

o f th e reason s give nfo r no t requirin g aci dga s control s ar e unacceptable—eve nwithi nth e contex t o f a case-by-cas e analysis . Specifically : 1 ) Th e fac t tha t th e ne w sourc e performanc e standar d(NSPS ) fo r thi s sourc e categor y

(4 0 CF R60 , Subpar t Db , Jun e 19 , 1986 ) doe s no t requir e sulfu r dioxid e (SO2 ) scrubbin g shoul dno t influenc e th e BAC T analysis . I na BAC T analysis ! a n NSP S simpl y define s a minima l leve l o f control . Th e fac t tha t a technolog y

wa s no t selecte dfo r .th e NSP S (or tha t a pollutan t i s no t regulate db

y th e NSPS ) i s i n no wa y indicativ e o f th e qualification s o f a technolog y

a s a BAC T candidate . Th e onl y reaso nfo r comparin g contro l option s t o a

n NSPS-i s t o determin e whethe r th e contro l optio n woul dresul t i n an emission s leve l les s stringen t tha nth e NSPS . I f so , tha t optio ni s unacceptable .P. 3

*

-

2 ) I t i s no t correc t t o facto r int o th e BAC T analysi s th e contentio n tha t th e propose dfacilit y woul db e les s pollutin g tha nan y coal-fire d boile r Redston e Arsena l woul dcontemplat e buildin g i f stea m wer e no t availabl e from

th e propose dfacility . Any emittin g facilit y

constructe d b y Redston e Ars£na l woul db e a separat e sourc e an dwoul db e require dt o compl y wit hal l applicabl e environmenta l regulations . I f th e Redston e Arsena l wer e t o constuc t a coal-fire dfacilit y o r it s ow

nincinerator , i t woul dals o hav e t o appl y BACT . I

nfact , BAC T fo r a coal-fire d boile r migh t resul t i nlowe r emission s tha nwoul da steam-producin g incinerator .

3 ) Inregar dt o ADEM' s argumen t tha t th e Huntsvill e plan t woul d produc e stea m

whic hi s a les s valuabl e commodit y tha nth e electricit y produce da t othe r simila r plants , i t i s difficul t t o determin e th e validit y o f th e argumen t withou t a detaile d economi c assessment . Eve nthoug h electricit y

ma y b e a mor e valuabl e produc t tha nstea m (fo r som e municipa l wast e incinerators) , stea m i s cheape r t o produc e bot hfrom th e poin t o f capita l an dannualize dcosts . Dependin g o nth e purchas e pric e o f th e steam , i t ma y

eve nb e a mor e profitabl e alternativ e fo r thos e facilitie s wher e a buye r fo r th e stea m i s onhand . Th e ADE M

ha s indicate dtha t sinc e th e stea m purchas e agreement s ar e alread y signe di t i s no t possibl e fo r th e applican t t o conside r raisin g th e purchas e pric e o t th e steam t o defra y

th e increase dtippin g cos t tha t th e applican t contend s woul dresul t fro m th e cos t o f SO 2 controls . In mos t cases , thi s typ e o f argumen t shoul db e ignored . A reviewin g agenc y is'n o mor e boun db

y anapplicant' s unfounde dassumptio nregardin g wha t leve l o f contro l wil l constitut e BAC T tha na ban k i s boun db y anassumptio n o f a certai ninteres t rat e onth e applicant' s loa no r a supplie r b y an assumptio no nth e applicant' s par t regardin g th e cost s o f material s o r equipment . Thi s i s on e cas e wher e i t i t acceptabl e to r a BAC T determinatio n t o mak e i t uneconomica l fo r a sourc e t o construct . Th e EP A ha s n o choic e othe r tha n-t o ignor e suc harguments . I f financia l agreement s lik e thi s wer e take nint o account , applicant s coul d simpl y sig ncontract s base donmeetin g th e NSP S o r eve nusin g n o contro l whatsoever , the nus e thos e contract s t o justif y th e leve l o f contro l tha t the y

preselected .

Infurthe r respons e t o th e specifi c question s raise di nyou r memo :

1 ) Th e documen t title d"Guideline s fo r Determinin g Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y

(BACT), " date dDecembe r 1978 , wa s issue dfo r th e purpos e o f providin g th e framewor k fo r a consisten t approac hi ndeterminin g BACT . Th e document , however , i s genera l i nit s attemp t a t definin g th e BAC T process , anda t bes t focuse s o nspecifyin g th e parameter s whic h shoul db e considere di nth e BAC T analysis .

InOctobe r 1980 , EP A publishe dth e "Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio nWorksho pManual. " Thi s document , i nth e hope s o f bringin g greate r consistenc y t o th e BAC T revie w process , presente da nanalytica l forma t fo r th e BAC T analysis . Althoug hth e documen t recognize s th e nee dP. 4

fo r evaluatin g BAC T o na case-by-cas e basis , i t doe s provid e mor e specifi c guidanc e tha nth e 197 8 documen t indefinin g ho w economic , energy , and environmenta l factor s ar e t o b e evaluated . I f applie dcorrectly , th e methodolog y

describe di nth e workboo k shoul dresul t i na BAC T determinatio n consisten t wit hth e definitio no f BAC T andacceptabl e t o EPA . Probabl y th e bes t metho do f determinin g BACT , a napproac htha t assesse s BAC T startin g from th e mos t effectiv e contro l optio navailable , i s bein g successfull y implemente db

y some Stat e an

dloca l agencies . Thi s approach , i nconjunctio nwit hth e PS D worksho pmanual , ca nb e use dt o evaluat e th e State' s propose dBAC T decision . Fo r furthe r informatio non th e implementatio no f thi s approach , contac t Wayn e A . Blackard , Chief , New Sourc e Section , EPA Regio nIX(FT S 454-8249) . 2 ) A s yo uhav e pointe dout , State s ar e t o decid e how thei r environmenta l resource s (suc ha s increments ) ar e used . A Stat e may , fo r example , decid e tha t a propose dsourc e woul dconsum e to o muc hincremen t an dtherefor e preven t tha t sourc e fro m bein g buil t o r allo w i t t o b e buil t onl y

i f incremen t consumptio ni s furthe r reduced . Th e BAC T determination , however , i s mad e totall y independen t ot th e amoun t o f incremen t o r ai r resource s available . Th e environmenta l impac t aspec t o f BAC T i s designe dt o ensur e tha t a mor e costl y contro l syste m will ; resul t i na decrease denvironmenta l impac t (e.g. , fewe r emissions , smalle r impac t area , lowe r maximu m groun dleve l concentration , etc.) . Thi s environmenta l assessmen t shoul dno t b e confuse dwit hth e concep t o f usin g u pth e incremen t b

y "relaxing " BACT , a concep t tha t EPA doe s no t • accept . Onc e determined , BAC T ca nonl y be mad e mor e stringen t (no t less ) b y environmenta l considerations . Example s includ e case s wher e BAC T i s no t stringen t enoug ht o preven t exceedance s o f a nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standar d(o r a

nincrement ) o r wher e th e Stat e wil l no t accep t th e leve l o f contro l selecte da s BAC T an ddemand s mor e stringen t control s t o preserv e increment . Inbot hcases , th e sourc e ha s a choic e o f locatin g elsewher e o r reducin g eithe r it s emission s o r it s impact . Effort s t o reduc e emission s brin g abou t th e "technology-forcing " aspec t o f BAC T an dlowes t achievabl e emissio nrat e tha t Congres s envisione da s par t o f a syste m designe dt o hol dne w emission s t o a

nabsolut e minimum . I f i t works , th e "forced " technolog y

wil l likel y

becom e th e new.BAC T leve l o f control . Possibl e ground s fo r overturnin g a BAC T decisio ninclud e an inappropriat e revie w

(e.g. , BAC T procedure s no t correctl y followed , BAC T decisio nno t correctl y justified) , a

nincomplet e review , a revie w base d o nfals e o r misleadin g information , o r a permi t whic hi s no t enforceabl e a s a practica l matter . Thi s i s no t a complet e list ; thes e ar e jus t som e o f th e mos t commo nproblems . 3 ) Th e PS D Worksho pManua l als o addresse s tm s poin t b y recognizin g tha t "additiona l financin g require dfo r a nalternativ e contro l strateg y ma y jeopardiz e th e financin g o f th e entir e project. " However , th e worksho pmanua l als o point s ou t tha t "informatio ni s availabl e o nth eP. 5 ! J

valu e o f variou s emission s reduction s tha t EP A an daffecte dindustrie s generall y

agre e ar e reasonable. " Sinc e anapplican t canbia s th e economic s o f a propose dprojec t toward s a les s stringen t contro l option , i t i s bes t i nnearl y

al l case s t o evaluat e th e cost s o f control s agains t establishe d norms . Man

y Stat e an

dloca l agencie s currentl y evaluat e BAC T proposal s agains t dollars^pe r to ncriteri a o r agains t acceptabl e contro l cost s fo r th e categor y

o f sourc e i nquestion . Thi s help s t o ensur e tha t th e applican t doe s no t bia s th e economic s o f th e projec t agains t a notherwis e acceptabl e contro l option . Thes e type s o f approache s hel pt o brin g nationwid e consistenc y

t o th e BAC T determination s while.stil l allowin g fo r a case-by-cas e determination . Th e burde no f proo f alway s rest s o nth e applican t t o demonstrat e why a generall y

accepte dandestablishe dcontro l optio ni s unacceptabl e fo r th e propose dproject . Th e demonstratio ndeserve s specia l scrutiny whe n th e applican t claim s tha t a nestablishe dcontro l optio nwoul dpreven t th e sourc e fro

m bein g constructed . I t shoul db e note dtha t th e reaso nfo r applyin g economic s t o th e sourc e categor y overal l an

dthe nrequirin g extensiv e justificatio nfo r les s stringen t contro l fo r a nindividua l facilit y i s tha t EP A

canno t b e place dinth e positio no f allowin g les s stringen t (o r no ) control s simpl y becaus e a

napplican t canno t affor dwha t simila r source s ar e require dt o use . Economi c consideration s wil l vary from projec t t o project , bu t withi nth e sam e genera l sourc e category , constructio nandoperatio ncost s shoul dno t vary

t o th e exten t .tha t th e requiremen t t o appl y a nestablishe d contro l optio nca nsto pa project . Thi s typ e o f argumen t generall y i s no t acceptable . Inmos t cases , a sourc e simpl y shoul dno t b e grante da permi t i f financin g i s inadequat e fo r prope r controls . Th e cavea t i nexistin g BAC T guidanc e abou t stoppin g a projec t i s intende dt o preven t BAC T determination s b y a reviewin g agenc y

tha t ar e s o muc hmor e expensiv e tha nth e nor m tha t a typica l sourc e coul dno t reasonabl y b e built . Example s migh t includ e requirement s fo r a serie s o f tw o o r mor e baghouse s o r a contro l system whos e cos t greatl y

exceed s tha t o f th e bas e facility . 4 ) Th e Region' s nonacceptanc e o f th e "alternativ e buil dscenario " appear s appropriat e i nthi s case . I f yo uhav e an

y question s regardin g thi s matter , pleas e fee l fre e t o contac t m e a t FT S 629-5592 , o r hav e you r staf f contac t Davi dSolomo na t FT S 629-5375 .

cc : NS Rcontact s