p. 1 

# OAR Box 1781 Prepped byOllie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 20)11-1-1 2 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/200810:46:19AM Sheet 20of 142

## Agend a#3 8



# Sout hCoas t AI RQUALIT Y MANAGEMEN

TDISTRIC T4~&'

s 

# ? 915 0 FLAI R DRIVE 9V737U - (8.18) 72-620 0 jf~^ " ^ ~ . E LMONTE , C

A917.30-= (8,18)J57

2 

### ctobe r 27 , 198 7
Sout hCoas t Ai r Qual i Managemen t Distric t

Repor t o n th e Amendmen t o f th e District' s Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog yfBACT ) Guideline s Du e t o th e sever e ai r pollutio n problem s i n th e Sout hCoas t Ai r Basin , th e Distric t periodicall yupdate s it s policie s t o ensur e tha t th e mos t stringen t requirement s ar e implemented . Th e implementatio n o f Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology (BACT ) i s on e o f th e area s wher e change s ar e neede d t o reflec t th e mor e stringen t stat e law s an d District' s rules . Th e Ne wSourc e Revie wregulation , Regulatio n XIII , specifie s tha t an yconstructio n o f a ne wfacilit yo r modificatio n o f an existing facilit ywhic hresult s i n increase d emission s •O . int o th e atmospher e mus t b e constructe d usin g BACT . Unde r

Rul e 1 3 02 , BAC T i s define d a s th e mos t stringen t emissio n limi t o r emissio n contro l technolog ywhic heithe r ha s been : 1 . Achieve d i n practic e fo r suc hpermi t uni t categoryo r clas s o f source , o r 2 . Containe d i n an ystat e implementatio n plan , o r 3 . Foun

d t o b e technologicall yfeasibl e an d cost effective . Fo r larg e businesses , i f th e bes t contro l technologymeet s eithe r o f th e firs t tw o criteri a abov e fo r th e specifi c clas s o f source , i t i s require d regardles s o f cost . A candidat e contro l technolog yno t meeting th e firs t tw o criteri a i s stil l require d i f foun d t o b e technologicall y feasibl e an

d cos t effective . I n th e cas e o f application s fro msmal l businesses , Rul e 1 3 0 3 require s tha t economi c impac t b e considere d i n al l BAC T determinations . Regulatio n XII I als o require s th e Distric t t o periodicall y publis ha guidelin e o f BAC T fo r commonl yprocesse d permi t 

# n uni t categorie s o r clas s o f sources . Th e Distric t initiall y / publishe d th e BAC T guideline s i n May , 1983 . Thos eP. 3



### Sout hCoas t Ai r Qualit y-2
- Octobe r 27 , 198 7 ' ' 4f c Managemen t Distric t Boar d t
guideline s include d tw o economi c screenin g criteri a whic h ar e capita l cos t an d th e cos t effectivenes s o f th e contro l technology . Capita l cos t criterio n ensure d tha t contro l cost s wer e no t excessiv e whe n compare d t o th e basi c equipment . Th e cos t effectivenes s criterio n ensure d tha t th e contro l cos t pe r to n o f ai r pollutant s reduce d di d no t excee d th e maximu

m contro l cost s o f th e short-rang e strategie s identifie d i n th e 198 2 Ai r Qualit yManagemen t Pla n (AQMP) . Th e economi c screenin g proces s allowe d th e Distric t t o mak e a case-by-cas e revie wan d tailo r th e contro l requirement s t o th e specifi c permi t uni t an d contaminant . T o b e consisten t wit hth e rule s a s passe d b yth e Board , staf f ha s no wsuspende d th e us e o f th e economi c screenin g proces s fo r al l equipmen t wit hth e exceptio n o f equipmen t owne d b ysmal l businesse s a s specifie d i n Rule s 130 3 an d 1302(aa ) o r fo r ne wcontro l technologie s tha t w e ar e requirin g pursuan t t o Rul e 1302(e)(3) . Th e capita l cos t criterio n i s n o longe r considere d i n th e economi c screening proces s fo r ne wcontro l technologie s require d pursuan t t o Rul e 1302(e)(3) . Th e cos t effectivenes s criterion , expresse d i n dollar s pe r to n o f ai r pollutant s controlled , no wonl yapplie s t o smal l businesse s an d ne wcontro l technologie s no t meetin g th e firs t tw o BAC T definitions . Th e maximu

mcos t pe r to n o f ai r pollutant s controlle d ha s bee n revise d t o reflec t th e mos t expensiv e contro l strategie s adopte d b yth e Board . Th e maximu mcos t pe r to n previousl yuse d i n th e May198 3 BAC T guideline s represente d th e short-rang e strategie s o f th e 198 2 AQMP . Th e revise d maximu mcos t pe r to n wil l appl yt o al l permi t application s submitte d t o th e Distric t afte r Decembe r 1 , 1987 . Th e tabl e belo wshow s th e maximu mvalue s t o b e use d i n determinin g th e cos t effectivenes s o f th e propose d contro l technique . Thes e value s ar e t o b e compare d t o th e actua l contro l cos t whic hi s determine d b ydividin g th e su

mo f annualize d capita l an d operating cost s o f th e contro l equipmen t b

yth e ton s o f pollutant s reduce d pe r year . Thus: . a candidat e contro l devic e wil l b e require d whe n th e thir d BAC T definitio n i s applicabl e o r whe n a smal l busines s i s th e applican t i f th e actua l contro l cos t doe s no t excee d thes e maximu

mvalues . 

# nP. 4 

# r^- Sout hCoas t Ai r Qualit y

Managemen t Distric t Board 

## -3
- Octobe r 27 , 198 7

CONTAMINAN

T Organic s NO X TS P SOX MAXIMU M SOURC E 198 2 AQM P Tacti c D 3 198 2 AQM P Tacti c E l 198 2 AQM P Tacti c D 7 198 2 AQM P Tacti c A l COST *

(5/TON, ) 17,50 0 24,50 0 5,30 0 18,30 0 PREVIOU S

SOURC E 198 2 AQM P Tacti c D 5 198 2 AQM P Tacti c A 8 198 2 AQM P Tacti c D 7 198 2 AQM P Tacti c A1 3 COST* *

(S/TON ) 5,00 0 9,70 0 5,70 0 3,90 0



# r * Adjuste d t o August , 1987 , usin g CPI , Al l Urba n Consumers ,

Unite d State s * * Adjuste d t o December , 1986 , using CPI , Al l Urba n Consumers , Unite d State s Staf f feel s tha t th e mor e stringen t BAC T guideline s ar e essentia l t o ou r effor t t o increas e th e effectivenes s o f th e ne wsourc e revie wprogra man d i n attaining th e ambien t ai r qualit ystandards . Additionally , th e Distric t ha s contracte d wit hJacob s Engineering Group , Inc . to'stud yth e effectivenes s o f th e BAC T program . Staf f i s currentl yreviewing th e preliminary result s o f thi s study . Upo n th e completio n o f th e revie w process , staf f wil l repor t th e result s o f th e stud yt o th e Board . A t tha t time , staf f maymak e additiona l change s t o th e BAC T progra

mbase d o n th e informatio n presente d i n th e study . THEREFORE , I T I S RECOMMENDE D THAT YOU R BOARD

- - Receiv e an

d fil e thi s report .

Respectfully ,

\r. Lents , Ph. C 'Execu t ? v BIJO I

### f

i <SM 

### r EC:WJD:CM:ca zP. 5



### ASTUD YT O EVALUAT E TH E EFFECTIVENES S O F TH E SCAQMD' S BES

TAVAILABL E CONTRO L TECHNOLOG Y(BACT ) PROGRA M



### Prepared for : Sout h Coas tAirQualit

y Managemen

tDistric t EngineeringDivisio n 915 0 Flai rDrive Q Monte , C

A 9173 1
by 

### Jacob s EngineeringGrou p Inc . HT M Divisio n 

### 25 1 S . Lak

eAvenue Pasadena , C

A 9110 1
Jacob s Projec tNo . 27-A281-0 0 November198

7

Majo rContributors Scot t Hedges , Projec t

Manager Michae l Callahan , Chemica l Engineer Davi dButler , Economis t Thu y Le , Chemica l Enginee r Pierr e Sycip , Compute r Specialis tP. 6
A STUD YT O EVALUAT E TH E EFFECTIVENES S O F TH E SCAQMD' S BESTAVAILABL E CONTRO L TECHNOLOG Y (BACT ) PROGRA M TABL E O F CONTENT S Sectio n EXECUTIV E SUMMAR Y1 1. 0 INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE S 9 2. 0 ASSESSMEN TO F SCAQMD' S CURREN TBAC TECONOMI C SCREENIN G CRITERI A (TAS K1 ) 1 0 2. 1 DAT ABAS E DEVELOPMEN T1 1 2. 2 CRITIQU E O F CURREN TBAC TPROGRA M BASE D O N REVIE WO F TH E SCAQM D PERMI TAPPLICATIO N FILE S 5 1 2. 3 DEVELOPMEN TO F CONTRO LCOS TVERSU S EMISSIO N REDUCTIO N CURVE S FO R VARIOU S LEVEL S O F CONTRO L66 2. 4 DEVELOPMEN TO F NE WBAC TECONOMI C SCREENIN G CRITERI A8 6
: 2. 5 RECOMMENDATION S AN D CONCLUSION S 10 8 2. 6 REFERENCE S 11 0 3. 0 SPECIFYIN G BASI C EQUIPMEN TA S BAC T11 4 3. 1 NATURA LGA S AN D DIESE LFIRE D INTERNA L COMBUSTIO N ENGINE S 11 7 3. 2 ELECTRI C HEATER S AN D MOTOR S 12 6 3. 3 BOILER S 13 1 3. 4 PAINT S AN D COATING S 13 6 3. 5 OI LAN D GA S PROCESSIN G 13 9 3. 6 REFINER YOPERATION S 14 0 3. 7 FUGITIV E EMISSION S 14 4 3. 8 MATERIA LHANDLIN G 14 9 APPENDICE S A- DP. 7 EXECUTIV E SUMM.AR Y I n Februar y1987 , th e Sout h Coas t Ai rQualit yManagemen t Distric t (SCAQMD ) Boar d awarde d a Busines s Consultin g Agreemen t t o Jacob s Engineerin g Grou p Inc . (Jacobs ) t o prepar e a stud yevaluatin g th e effectivenes s o fth e curren t SCAQM D (Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology ) BAC Tprogram . Thre e task s wer e assigne d t o mee t projec t objectives : (Tas k 1 ) asses s th e District' s economi ccriteri a fo rBACT ; (Tas k 2 ) identif yne wcontro l technologie s t o b e propose d a s BACT , alon g wit h cos t dat a an d emissio n reduction s tha t coul d b e realized ; an d (Tas k 3 ) evaluat e th e feasibilit yo fspecifyin g certai n basi cequipmen t as BAC Ti n term s o femission s an d economi cimpact . Task s 1 an d 3 ar e outline d i n thi s report . Tas k 2 wil l b e supplie d a t a late rdat e a s a n addendu m t o thi s report . BAC TECONOMI C CRITERI AASSESSMEN T(TAS K1 ) Recommendation s A s a resul t o fth e BAC Teconomi ccriteri a assessmen t phas e o fth e study , th e followin g recommendation s ar e provide d fo rth e ne wBAC Teconomi cscreenin g program : 1 ) Eliminat e th e contro l cos t versu s th e basi cequipmen t cos t portio n o fth e curren t BAC Teconomi cscreenin g criterio n (Criterio n 3b)
. Thi s i s suggeste d sinc e thi s criterio n represent s th e primar yreaso n fo reconomi c criterio n failur e fo rmos t contro l measures . I t i s als o suggeste d i n orde rt o eliminat e th e discrepanc yo fpurchasin g use d o rlo wcos t basi cequipmen t an d subsequentl yreducin g th e maximu m allowabl e contro l cost . 2 ) Ne wcost-effectivenes s criteri a ar e recommende d t o b e se t a t o rabov e $6,000/to n fo rNO x , $50,000/to n fo rROG , $5,000/to n fo rparticulat e an d $20,000/to n fo rCO
. Thes e criteri a ar e recommende d t o b e consisten t wit h Distric t attainmen t goals . B yincorporatin g thes e ne weconomi ccriteria , th e majorit yo fth e contro l measure s assesse d i n th e repor t wil l pas s th e economi ctes t o fBACT
.P. 8



# 1 I 

# l 3 ) Develo p a standardize d procedur e fo rth e determinatio n o femissio n reduction s

an d associate d installatio n an d operatin g contro l costs . Thi s procedur e woul d b e followe d durin g th e BAC Tevaluatio n phas e o fpermi t applicatio n processing . B y s o doing , dat a inconsistencie s wil l b e minimize d an d th e overal l efficienc yo fth e permi t evaluatio n proces s wil l b e improved . 4 ) Adop t th e pos t ta xcos t annualizatio n mode l o fJacobs . Thi s cos t mode l account s fo rta xsaving s t o firm s a s a resul t o fcontro l equipmen t depreciation . Thi s mode l wil l effectivel ylowe rth e overal l cos t pe rto n value s calculate d fo ra contro l system . 5 ) Adop t a BAC Tretrofi t program . Th e BAC Teconomi canalysi s indicate s tha t RO G an d NO xattainmen t goal s coul d potentiall yb e me t throug h th e implementatio n o fthi s typ e o fprogram . Thi s statemen t i s vali d provide d tha t i t i s technicall yfeasibl e t o emplo yth e vas t majorit yo fth e potentia l BAC Tcontro l measures . Eve n i fth e BAC Tretrofi t progra m fall s shor t o fth e attainmen t goa l o fth e District , ver ysignifican t additiona l emissio n reduction s woul d stil l result . 6 ) Utiliz e th e computerize d dat a base an d economi c analysi s spreadsheet s develope d byJacob s Engineerin g a s a workin g too l fo rfutur e plannin g an d permittin g endeavor s o fth e SCAQMD . Thes e computerize d dat a ma yb e expande d t o incorporat e additiona l contro l measure s an d equipmen t categorie s an d ma yb e a valuabl e resourc e fo rfutur e ai rqualit yan d emissio n reductio n program s an d strategies . Economi cAssessmen t Methodolog y T o conduc t th e Tas k 1 portio n o fth e study , Jacob s develope d a n emissio n reductio n an d contro l cos t dat a bas e (Appendice s Aan d B ) fro m th e District' s permi t applicatio n file s an d contro l measure s specifie d b yth e Distric t and/o rliste d i n th e SCAQMD' s BAC THandboo k

date d Ma y198 3 an d analyze d th e contro l cost s an d emissio n reduction s fro m th e dat a bas e t o develo p ne weconomi cscreenin g criteri a an d t o projec t emissio n reduction s fro m implementatio n o fne wcriteria . Th e dat a bas e wa s develope d fro m a rando m samplin g o fove r90 0 application s grante d permit s t o construc t sinc e Jul y198 3 fo rtwelv e basi cequipmen t categories . Fro m thi s representativ e sampl e dat a base , emissio n reduction s an d associate d emissio n contro lP. 9



### cost s wer e determine dfor th e currentl y require dcontro l measure s andsubsequentl y standardize dfo r

potentia l level s o

f control s reflecte dinth e SCAQM D BAC T Handbook . Th e potentia l or

hypothetica l contro l cost s wer e annualize daccordin g t o apos t ta x cos t annualizatio n(economic ) model , similar t o wha t th e SCAQM

D use s no

w withth e additio no

f ta x saving s t o afir

mdue t o contro l equipmen t depreciation . Separat e annualize dcontro l cost s andcost-effectivenes s ratio s wer e develope dfor ne w equipmen t

an dexistin g equipmen t

wher e appreciabl e cos t

difference s existed . Th e resultan t

cost-effectivenes s value s wer e assigne dt o every applicabl e dat abas e entr y (individual applications) . Appendi x B (th e hypothetica l leve l o f contro l dat a base ) provide s acomplet e listin g o f thes e cos t

effectivenes s value s andassociate d installatio nandoperatin g contro l cost s applie dt o bothnew andexistin g (potentia l retrofit ) equipment . Th e relationship s betwee nthes e contro l cost s pe r to nandassociate demissio n reduction s wer e graphicall y presente d(Appendi x C ) andfurthe r evaluate dt o determin e potentia l ne w cost-effectivenes s criteri afor anew or

revise dBAC

T economi c screenin g program . To assis t inthi s determination , Jacob s reviewe dth e representativ e sampl e o f permi t application s t o determin e what type s o f contro l measure s faile dcurren t

economi c screenin g criteri aandwh y th e measure s failed . Onc e th e contro l cos t

andcost-effectivenes s dat abas e wer e finalized , acomputerize d BACTeconomi c analysi s wa s performe dwithresult s provide di nAppendix D . The primar y focu s o

f th e BAC

Teconomi c analysi s wa s t o projec t basinwid e emissio n reduction s tha t

ma y b e achieve dfor

every potentia l cost-effectivenes s criterio n applie dt o newly permitte dequipmen t andt o th e potentia l retrofi t population . Basinwide emissio nreduction s using th e presen t BAC Tcriteri aandothe r

applicabl e rule s andregulation s wer e als o estimate dfor th e ne w equipmen t

populatio nandth e retrofi t population . Resultaan

d Conclusions Th e followin g results/conclusion s wer e draw na s aresul t o f th e Tas k 1 BAC Teconomi c analysis :

# I P.1 0 

# 1 ] 

# I 

# 1 1 1 i I
1

! 

# 1 J I 1 I 1 ) Th e curren t BAC TEconomi cScreenin g Criterio n 3 b whic h provide d fo ra

maximu m allowabl e contro l equipmen t cos t a s a functio n o fth e basi cequipmen t cos t (Screenin g Criterio n 3b ) constitute d th e primar yreaso n tha t potentia l BAC T contro l measure s faile d curren t economi cscreenin g criteria . A s a result , thi s criterio n allow s permi t applicant s t o minimiz e thei rrequire d leve l o fcontro l by purchasin g use d o rlo wcos t basi cequipment . 2 ) Th e permi t applicatio n file s provide d detaile d contro l cos t dat a an d cost effectivenes s analyse s onl yfo rselec t isolate d cases . Typically , onl ya qualitativ e BAC Tcomplianc e statemen t wa s provided . I n addition , i t wa s difficul t t o determin e wha t specifi cequipmen t component s wer e include d i n th e provide d contro l cos t data . 3 ) Th e pre-ta xcos t annuaiizatio n (economic ) mode l use d b yth e Distric t t o calculat e th e cost-effectivenes s o fpotentia l BAC Tcontro l measure s doe s no t includ e th e ta xdeductibilit yo foperatin g cos t an d capita l depreciation . Thi s ta x deductibilit ywa s incorporate d int o th e Jacob s pos t ta xcos t annuaiizatio n model . 4 ) Th e NO xan d RO G attainmen t goal s o fth e Distric t (a s specifie d i n th e 198 2 Ai r

_Qualit yManagemen t Pla n an d recen t Reasonabl e Furthe rProgres s Reports ) 1 coul d potentiall yb e me t throug h th e implementatio n o fa BAC Tretrofi t

program . Thi s assume s tha t i t wil l b e technicall yfeasibl e t o instal l mos t o fth e j BAC Tcontro l measure s analyze d i n thi s stud yo n th e projecte d retrofi t

population' . 5 ) Incorporatin g cost-effectiv e value s o f$6,000/to n fo rNO x , $50,000/to n fo rROG , $20,000/to n fo rCO , an d $5,000/to n fo rparticulat e int o th e District' s BAC T progra m woul d economicall yallo wth e implementatio n o fth e vas t majorit yo f th e BAC Tcontro l measure s liste d i n th e SCAQM D BAC THandboo k (date d Ma y 1983 ) fo rth e twelv e equipmen t categorie s studied . 6 ) Approximatel y31,00 0 an d 1,50 0 additiona l ton s pe ryea ro fNO xan d RO G emissio n reduction s ar e projecte d t o resul t ove rth e nex t fiv e year s (198 8 throug h 1992 ) fro m th e applicatio n o fthes e ne wBAC Tcost-effectivenes s criteri a t o th e projecte d ne wequipmen t population .P.1 1

7 ) Approximatel y190,00 0 an d 106,00 0 ton s pe ryea ro fNO xan d RO G emissio n reduction s ar e projecte d t o resul t fro m th e applicatio n o fthes e ne wBAC Tcost effectivenes s criteri a t o th e projecte d potentia l retrofi t population . I n addition , approximatel y136,00 0 an d 103,00 0 ton s pe ryea ro fNO xan d RO G reduction s ar e projecte d t o resul t fro m th e applicatio n o fth e presen t BAC Tcriteri a an d othe r applicabl e rule s an d regulation s t o th e projecte d potentia l retrofi t population . Thes e emissio n reduction s predicte d fo rth e potentia l retrofi t populatio n woul d mee t th e ai rqualit yattainmen t goal s o fth e Distric t provide d mos t o fth e evaluate d contro l measure s pas s th e technica l applicabilit ytes t o fBACT
. Lastly , i t i s importan t t o not e tha t th e suggeste d cost-effectivenes s criteri a ma y b e altere d as a resul t o fth e incorporatio n o fadditiona l contro l measure s int o th e analysis . Th e primar yobjectiv e o fth e BAC Teconomi canalysi s wa s t o provid e appropriat e cost-effectivenes s relationship s fo rth e overal l emissio n reductio n objective s o fth e SCAQMD
. SPECIFYIN G BASI C EQUIPMEN TA S BAC T(TAS K3 ) Th e primar yobjectiv e o fTas k 3 wa s t o investigat e th e feasibilit yo fspecifyin g a selec t se t o fequipmen t and/o rcontro l measure s as basi cequipment . Th e SCAQM D ha s recentl ytake n thi s approac h wit h regard s t o SC R o n boiler s large rtha n 5 0 MMBtu/hr
. Instea d o fth e criteri a normall yuse d (technica l feasibility , cos t effectiveness , an d basi cequipmen t cost) , onl ytechnica l feasibilit yan d ccs t effectivenes s ar e employed . T o accomplis h th e objectiv e o fthi s task , Jacob s evaluate d th e technica l feasibility , emissio n reductions , an d economi cimpact s (cos t effectiveness ) o feac h basi cequipmen t ite m show n i n Tabl e ES-1
. A s show n i n Tabl e ES-1 , 5 0 percen t o fth e measure s investigate d ca n b e calle d BACT
. A"yes " answe rindicate s tha t th e measur e i s technicall yfeasibl e an d tha t th e estimate d o rexpecte d cos t effectivenes s valu e i s withi n rang e o fth e District' s curren t screenin g level . Fo rsituation s wher e onl ya fe wapplication s passe d o rwer e expecte d t o pas s th e District' s screenin g criteria , a "yes " answe rwa s stil l applied . Passag e o f BAC Tonl ymean s tha t th e measur e shoul d b e place d o n th e District' s lis t o fapprove d contro l measure s an d a screenin g evaluatio n b e performe d o n a case-by-cas e basis . A "no " answe rindicate s tha t th e measur e wa s foun d t o b e technicall yinfeasible , limite d t o a n extremel ynarro wrang e o fapplication , o rexceede d cos t effectivenes s criteri a b ysevera l order s o fmagnitude .! : P.1 2 .



# 1 1

\ 

# I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fo rthos e measure s liste d unde rBAC Tas "no" , i t follow s tha t the ycanno t b e specifie d

as basi cequipment . Fo rthos e item s liste d as "yes" , i t the n become s a questio n o f rang e o fapplicatio n an d cos t effectiveness . A"yes " answe runde rbasi cequipmen t indicate s tha t th e rang e o fapplicabilit yi s s o larg e an d tha t th e cos t effectivenes s valu e i s so lo wtha t ver yfe wapplication s ar e expecte d t o foil . Thi s mean s tha t a measur e liste d as basi cequipmen t ca n b e require d withou t th e nee d o fperformin g a case-by-cas e screening . Th e us e o fth e ter m "limited " mean s tha t th e measure s ca n b e calle d basi cequipmen t bu t onl yfo ra limite d rang e o fapplication .TADL E ES- 1 SPECIFYIN G BASI C EQUIPMEN TA S BAC T Meuaur e Ketrofi t o fa rich-bur n ga s engin e t o Prestratlfie d charg e Ketrofi t o fa rich-bur n go s engin e l o Stratifie d churg e Two-stag e lea n bur n •Us e o fga s turbine a i n plac e o fga s engine s Us e o felectri coven s Us e o felectri coven s Us e o felectri cheater s

Us e u l electri cmotor s
Us e u l electri cmotor s
Retrofi t o fa gas-fire d boile rwit h FGti Uu u o fwutc rtuli u veruu u fir e tub e gus-fire d boiler s Rang e Pollutan t Reductio n Cot t Effectivenes s 30 0 t o 100 0 H P 50 0 t o 100 0 H P

100 0 t o 300 0 H P

29 3 K W N O , N O , N O
. N O , smalle rtha n 7 0 K WNO
. N O , 1 5 t o 2 5 M M Btu/h rNO, , larg e diese l engine s NO, ,

2 5 t o 40 0 M M Dtu/h rNO „ 90 % 00 %

100 % 100 % 100 %

100 %
smul l cliesu l engine s NO x100 %
40 % 1 0 l o 5 0 M M lim/h r

NO xincreua e $11 2 t o $5 5 $450t o $1 2

90 % $1,49 3 t o $1,15 9

$201,40 0

$7,00 0

N o UACjJ-° ) Basi cEgfo ) Comment !

Ye s Limite d Limite d t o four-strok e engines . Ye s Ye s Als o applie s t o ne winstallations . N o Ye s
N o N o N o

$5,75 0 l o $71 0 Ye s N o N o

Limite d
N o N o N o

Ye s Limite d
Ye s Limite d

Ye s N o No t availabl e i n th e Sout h Coast
.

Fo rinstallation s large rtha n 80 0 HP . Additiona l reduction s ca n b e achieve d b yus e o fwate r injection . Smal l electri coven s ar e commonl yuse d bu t the y d o no l satisf ycos t effectivenes s criteria . Dase d o n NO x . Electri cheater s ar e commonl yuse d o n offshor e pla t form s locate d clos e t o shore . A s wit h electri covens , th e co u effectivenes s value s ar e expecte d t o b e prohibitive . Electricificulio n o foffshor e facilitie s ma yno t b e practical . Effectivenes s depend s o n avail abilit yo futilities . Base d o n NO x . Analysi s wu s fo ru smal l crun e locute d o n a n offshor e platfor m wit h cogeneratio n turbines . Als o applie s t o ne winstallation s un d oil-fire d boilers . Fir e tub e gus-fire d desig n emit s 10 % les s NO x , cost s less , an d i s slightl ymor e efficient .

T JTADL E ES- 1 SPECIFYIN G BASI C EQUIPMEN TA S BAC T(continued ) •: .

Measur e Us e o fnulural-gas-fire d versu s diosel-fire d boiler s Us e o fhigh-soli d coming s Us e o fchemica l emulsio n breaker s i n plac e o fwas h (Rin k healer s Us e o fFH O befor e FC C uni t
Us e o fUC Tbefor e FC C uni t Us e o fsealles s pump s Us e o fbellow-seale d gat e vulve a Us e u l welde d pip e Us e o l pneumati c system s Rang e Al l Al l

50,00 0 BP D 50,00 0 BP D Pollutan t Reductio n Cos t Effectivenes s BACT^ B ^ Pasi c Egfo ) N O x2 0 t o 60 % Positiv e retur n Ye s Ye s Comment s

Al l VO C

SO x SO * Heav yt o ligh t liquid s VO C Ligh t liquid s t o ga s VO C VO C Purl . 67 %

Unknow n 70 %
70 % $ 5

$12,10 0 $1,22 0 Ye s

N o N o N o Limite d

N o
N o
N o 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % $ll,050t o $2,02 0

$0,570t o $3,46 0

—

_. Ye s

Ye s N o N o Limite d

Limite d N o N o Reductio n depend s o n styl e o funit . Positiv e

retur n du e t o lowe rfue l cost . Us e o fthi s contro l woul d depen d o n marke t deman d o rapplicabilit yo fhigh-soli d coalings . N o technica l informatio n uvuilabl e t o suppor t thi s option . Commonl yuse d du e t o it s flexibilit yan d effec t o n produc t quality . Prove n proces s use d t u mee t curren t SCAQM D emissio n limits . Proces s no t proven , restrictiv e operatin g conditions . Us e ma yincreas e NO xemissions . Limite d l o pump s handlin g ligh t liquids . Limite d t o gat e valve s handlin g gases . Facilit ycoul d incu rver yhig h maintenanc e costs . Capita l cost s ar e lowe rtha n conventiona l systems , energ yrequirement s or e greater . (a ) A "yes " indicate s tha t th e metho d i s technicall yfeusible , applicable , an d satisfie s th e District' s curren t screenin g criteri a fo rsom e applications . Al l application s mus t b e unulyze d o n a cas e b ycas e baais . (b ) A "yes " indicute a Ihu t BAC Tcriteri a i a oxpoctu d t o b e sulislie d fo rmos t applicolion s s o tha t cas e b ycas e screenin g i s no l warrunted . "Limited " indicute s thu l al l BAC T crilurl u wil l b u uutisfii:t l bu t onl yfo rn limilu d rung u o fuppllcu t ion . Additiona l stud yi s requiru d t o determin e th e exten t o ftha t range .