p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1787 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 24 ) ll-B- 9
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

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

Sheet 24 of 147P. 2 ——^—— l )

' ••1
*V>:o IT*,. iJSK ®

' UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y r^ v»a-.a a i_wwt i- i i i— i uniiiwiainuiiin L n\uitL i luiinvatlNV , r3 O
* REGIO N I V f t "" " / " 34 5 COURTLAN D STREE T ATLANTA , GEORGI A 3036 5 MEMORANDU M DATE : Ma«» , 3D , 138 7 SUBJECT : Huntsvill e Incinerato r - Determining BAC T Unde r PS D



# . ch^ f L-J

- K7 7 i7l777' : i * 

### * r , V' r . v i FRCM : Bruc e P . Miller , Chie f Ai r Program s Branc h || r ' "
_ Air , Pesticides , and Toxic s Managemen t Divisio n \\7 'jft W *- 0 TO : GaryMcCutchen , Chie f Ne wSourc e Revie wSectio n Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning Standard s SUMMARY : Th e purpos e o f thi s memorandu mi s t o provid e yo u wit h background informatio n concernin g th e circumstance s surrounding the propose d BAC T fo r th e Huntsvill e incinerato r and solici t Headquarters ' guidanc e and interpretatio n o f th e Decembe r 197 8 "Guideline s fo r Determining Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y (BACT) " a s i t relate s t o th e Huntsvill e Incinerato r facility
. O n Decembe r 31 , 1986 , th e Alabama Departmen t o f Environmenta l Managemen t (ADEM ) submitte d a draf t PS D preliminarydeterminatio n (Attachmen t I ) fo r th e Huntsvill e Municipa l Incinerator
. Th e propose d projec t wil l proces s 69 0 tons/da

yo f municipa l soli d wast e (MSW) . Th e MSW , alon g wit h drie d sewag e sludg e wil l b e processe d i n tw o (2 ) 34 5 tons/dayunit s whic h wil l generat e steam

t o hea t th e Redston e Arsenal
. Th e draf t preliminarydeter

minatio n se t fort h BAC T emissio n limit s fo r the regulate d pollutant s subjec t t o review
. I n particular , th e emissio n limit s se t wer e 0.0 2 gr/dsc f cor recte d t o 12 % 06 2 fo r particulat e matte r an d 0.2 8 Ib/mmBt u fo r sulfu r dioxid e (SO2) . N o emissio n limit s wer e require d fo r th e nonregulate d pollutants
. Aci d ga s control s wer e no t require d t o b e installed
. Th e reason s give n b yth e ADE M fo r no t requiring aci d ga s control s fo r SO 2 an d H2SO 4 emission s a t th e Huntsvill e plan t wer e a s follows :
0 First , th e Huntsvill e plan t woul d produc e stea mwhil e mos t o f the other

plant s produc e electricity , whic h mus t b e purchase d b ythe appropriat e

. utilit ya t th e avoide d cos t t o th e utility
. Second , th e tippin g fee s currentl ycharge d elsewher e ar e generall ysevera l time s the rat e charge d i n Huntsville
. Th e tipping fe e generall yreflect s th e availabilit yo f lan d fo r siting a landfill
. Alo wtipping fe e reflect s th e availabilit yo f lo w cos t land , whil e a hig h fe e reflect s th e opposite
. 0 Secondly , EP Apropose d sulfu r dioxid e (4 0 CF R 60 , Subpar t Db , Jun e 19 , 1986 ) missio n standard s fo r industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s unde r NSPS . A n emissio n limi t wa s no t propose d fo r sulfu r dioxid e o r th e othe r gase s i n questio n fro mthi s typ e o f unit , MSW-fire d boilers , whic h indicate s tha t n o contro l equipmen t wa s con sidere d appropriate
. Sulfu r dioxid e emission s woul d b e lo wdu e t o the • inheren t le wsulfu r conten t o f MSW .P. 3



### -2

-

° Thirdly , ADEM' s BAC T determinatio n include d plan s b yRedston e Arsena l t o buil d a coal-fire d boiler(s ) i f stea mcanno t b e purchase d fro mth e Huntsvill e incinerator
. Installatio n o f a coal-fire d boiler(s ) wit h equivalen t stea

mproductio n b

yRedston e Arsena l woul d resul t i n sulfu r dioxid e emission s 1. 5 t o 3. 0 time s highe r tha n emission s fromth e propose d MSW-fire d and packag e boilers
. Becaus e o f thes e factor s an d th e inheren t lo wsulfu r conten t o f the MS W fuel , a n 0.2 8 Ib/mmBt u SO 2 emissio n limi t wa s determine d t o b e BAC T fo r th e MS W boiler s wit h n o aci d ga s control
. O n Februar y10 , 1987 , EP Ame t wit h representative s fromdi e ADEM , th e Cit y o f Huntsville , and consultant s t o th e Cit yt o discus s anycomment s tha t EP A ha d o n th e draf t preliminarydetermination
. (Attachmen t I I i s a lis t o f th e conment s EP Apresente d t o ADE M and th e othe r parties). Th e discussion s pri

maril yfocuse d o n whethe r th e installatio n o f aci d ga s control s wer e war rante d and shoul d b e required
. ADE M and Cit yofficial s presente d th e agrumen t tha t th e installatio n o f aci d ga s control s i n additio n t o particulat e emissio n control s woul d caus e th e tipping fe e t o g o fro m$4/to n t o $21/to n o f garbag e disposed
. Fo r th e installatio n o f onl yparticulat e emissio n controls , th e tippin g fe e woul d ris e t o $9/to n o f garbag e disposed
. Th e ADE M state d tha t th e impositio n o f the installatio n o f aci d ga s control s woul d kil l th e projec t and requir e th e Cit yt o rever t bac k t o the landfil l fo r disposin g o f it s refuse
. Further

more , ADE M argue d tha t i f th e incinerato r wa s no t buil t and th e steamwa s no t abl e t o b e generated , th e Redston e Arsena l woul d hav e t o rebuil d th e existin g coal-fire d boile r o r replac e i t a s i t i s presentl yi n violatio n o f th e existin g SIP . Operatio n o f th e existin g coal-fire d boile r woul d caus e mor e pollutant s t o b e emitte d t o th e atmospher e tha n fra n th e incinerato r project
. EP Ainforme d ADE M and th e Cit yo f Huntsvill e a t th e meetin g tha t th e PS D regulation s d o no t addres s th e issu e o f whethe r a projec t goe s fort h o r no t bu t onl ytha t th e BAC T i s employe d whil e taking int o accoun t energy , environ

mental , and economi c impact s an d othe r costs . W e d o no t fee l tha t PS D regu lation s allo wth e flexibilit yt o conside r alternativ e buil d scenario s i n determinin g BACT . I n addition , EPAargue d tha t i f yo u conside r the impac t frcmth e Nort h Count yRemand o n thi s projec t regarding th e consideratio n o f hazardou s ye t unregulate d pollutant s lik e dioxins , furans , heav ymetals , and aci d gases , th e installatio n o f aci d ga s contro l i s warranted
. Base d upo n th e incrementa l cos t differentia l to r th e installatio n o f th e aci d ga s con trol s and th e amoun t o f pollutant s removed , th e cos t pe r to n o f pollutant s appear s reasonable
. Fo r a n incrementa l cos t o f $2.4 M (annualize d costs) , 1589 * ton s o f pollutant s (SO2 , HC1 , H2SO4 , and dioxins ) woul d b e removed
. Thi s equate s t o a n incrementa l cos t o f $1510/to n o f additiona l pollutant s removed
.

* 70 % o f 321. 1 TP Y o f S0 2 90 % o f 1502. 3 TP Y o f HC 1 90 % o f 13. 1 TP Y o f H 2 S0 4 90 % o f 6. 4 x 10- 4 T P Y o f dioxi n -158 9 TP YP. 4



### -3

- Subsequen t t o thi s meeting , Mr . Richar d Grusnick , ADEM , wrot e EP Ao n February23 , 1987 , outlining the majo r are a o f disagreemen t betwee n ou r agencie s a s i t relate s t o the factor s allowe d t o b e considere d i n makin g a BAC T determinatio n (Attachmen t Ill-Feb
. letter)
. I n hi s letter , Mr . Grusnic k submitte d a cop yo f EPA' s Decembe r 197 8 polic yentitle d "Guideline s fo r Determining Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology(BACT). " Mr . Grusnick' s opinio n i s tha t thi s polic ysupport s th e factor s considere d i n hi s draf t preliminarydeterminatio n whic h h e feel s provide s a larg e degre e o f latitud e t o State s i n evaluating thes e factors ; specifically : 1 . Indirec t energyimpacts , suc h a s the fac t tha t th e soli d wast e wil l sub

stitut e fo r fossi l fuel s otherwis e burned , ma yb e considered
. 2 . Assessin g th e significanc e o f additiona l control s base d primaril yo n ai r qualit yimpac t i s allowe d unde r th e policy
. 3 . Th e environmenta l consequence s o f th e fac t tha t soli d wast e mus t b e burie d i f th e incinerato r i s no t permitte d i s a relevan t soli d wast e disposa l impact
. 4. ; Th e localize d economi c impact s ar e relevant , suc h a s th e lo wtipping fe e presentl ycharge d b yHuntsvill e whe n compare d t o othe r part s o f th e country . 5 . Th e guidanc e contain s implication s tha t BAC T whic h woul d preclud e th e operatio n o f a uni t woul d no t b e expected
. Finally , Mr . Grusnic k argue s tha t the,197 8 guideline s clearl yenvisions

differen t level s o f contro l a t identica l unit s locate d i n differen t place s base d o n differen t circumstance s and , i n fact , differen t weighing o f relevan t factor s an

d identica l circumstances
. I t i s hi s opinio n fro mreadin g th e guideline s tha t "Stat e judgemen t an d th e federa l emissio n standard s ar e the foundation s fo r th e BAC T determination"
. Th e issue s raise d i n Mr . Grusnick' s February2 3 lette r ar e fundamenta l issue s wit h respec t t o EPA' s rol e t o overse e th e Stat e responsibilit yo f implementing the PS D rule s properly
. Although w e d o no t entirel yagre e wit h Mr. : Grusnick' s arguments , w e fee l i t i s importan t t o rais e thes e issue s wit h you r offic e and ge t Headquarters ' interpretatio n o n thes e issue s an d whethe r th e 197 8 guide- , line s ar e bein g interprete d correctl yb yth e ADEM . Specifically , w e woul d lik e you r offic e t o respon d to.th e following-questions : 1 . Th e guidanc e fo r determining RAC T unde r PS D date d Decembe r 1978 , is-thi s curren t Agenc yguidanc e o r ha s thi s bee n superseded ?P. 5 

### •w--.V' \

-4

-
2 . Concernin g Mr . Grusnick' s poin t tha t th e State' s judgmen t and th e federa l emissio n standard s ar e the foundatio n fo r th e BAC T determination , EPA agree s tha t Stat e judgmen t i s a facto r i n determinin g BACT . However , i t ha s bee n Regio n TV' s opinio n tha t wher e a State' s judgmen t concernin g BAC T emissio n limit s i s inconsisten t wit h th e BAC T analysi s considerin g energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s and othe r cost s tha t i t wa s ou r dut yt o renegotiat e change s i n th e Stat e permi t o r overtur n tha t per mit
. Eve n i f th e Stat e followe d th e correc t procedure s fo r determinin g a BAC T emissio n limitatio n bu t cam e t o a differen t conclusio n tha n w e woul d hav e (i.e. , th e Stat e BAC T emissio n limitation s wer e les s stringen t tha n wha t EP Awoul d hav e proposed) , Regio n I V believe s i t ca n overtur n tha t permit
. D o yo u agre e wit h Regio n IV' s position ? Wha t i s you r positio n o n Mr . Grusnick' s contention ? Finally , o n what , i f any , basi s d o yo u believ e EP Ashoul d overtur n a Stat e PS D permi t (i.e. , no t a dele

gatio n o f th e Federa l PS D program ) pursuan t t o BACT , and wha t d o yo u con side r t o b e ou r burde n o f proof ? 3 . Ho wwoul d yo u interpre t the guidanc e whic h contain s implication s tha t BAC T decision s shoul d no t forc e ne wproject s t o th e brink o f cancellation ? I t i s Regio n TV' s opinio n tha t i f a n appropriat e leve l o f control s represen t BACT , w e woul d no t requir e additiona l ai r pollutio n control s 'jus t fo r th e sak e o f contro l i f i t wasn' t reasonabl e (i.e. , profitabilit y o f th e projec t i s independen t o f th e BAC T analysis)
. W e d o no t believ e tha t w e shoul d allo wlesse r tha n appropriat e leve l o f contro l t o b e installe d eve n i f th e profitabilit yo f th e projec t woul d b e suc h tha t th e projec t i s cancelled
. D o yo u agre e wit h Regio n TV' s opinion ? 4 . Concernin g Mr . Grusnick' s item s 1 , 2 , and 3, d o yo u agre e wit h hi s agru ment s tha t alternativ e buil d scenario s shoul d b e considere d i n determin

ing BAC T a s i t relate s t o energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s and the n cos t considerations ? I t ha s bee n ou r positio n tha t alternativ e buil d scenario s d o no t ente r int o th e BAC T analysis
. D o yo u agre e wit h Regio n IV' s position ? ACTICN : Pleas e revie wth e attache d informatio n and provid e response s t o th e issue s raise d i n thi s memorandum
. W e woul d appreciat e a respons e b yApri l 15 , 1987 , i f a t al l possible
. BACKGROUND : Se e attache d information
. Attachment sP. 6

ATTACHMEN

T I

Leig h Peguei . Directo r 175 1 Federa l Driv e Montgomery . A L 3613 0 205/271-770 0

Fiel d Offices : Unit806 . Buildin g 8 22 5 O x moo rCircl e Birmingham , A

L 3520 9 205/942-616 8

P.O . Bo x95 3 Decatur . A L 3560 2 205/343-171 3 

# E9V I •$.&& & 

### ALABAM A \0'z> 

### DEPARTMEN TO F ENVIRONMENTA L MANAGEMEN T"' : 

### *£&f& .£•'• "
Decembe r 31 , 198 6 Georg e C . Wallac e Governo r

Mr . Bruc e P . Miller , Chie f Ai r Program s Branc h Air , Pesticide s an d Toxic s Managemen t Divisio n U S Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Regio n IV 34 5 Courtlan d Stree t Atlanta , G

A3036 5 Dea r Mr . Q/jki-S' ^ AI RPROGRAM S BRANCH

J 

### JA N 2 198

7

EPA-REGIO N I V ATLANTA , GA .
Enclose d i s a draf t o f ADEM' s preliminar ydeterminatio n o n the Huntsvill e Refus e Fire d Stea mProject
. A s previousl ymentioned , w e wil l b e discussin g thi s projec t i n th e nea r future
.
220 4 Perimete rRoa d Mobile . A L 3661 6 205/479-233 6 

# fffc
Richar d E . Grusnick , Chie f Ai r Divisio n 

### > Sd^

REG/SRR:d

m Enclosur eP. 7

SOLI DWAST E DISPOSA L AUTHORIT Y O F TH E CIT YO F HUNTSVILL E Facilit y No . 709-110 4

INTRODUCTIO N Th e Soli d Waste Disposa l Authorit yo fth e Cit yo fHuntsvill e has submitte d a n applicatio n fo rAi rPermit s t o construc t a facilit ydesigne d to

. produc e stea m b ycombustin g municipa l soli d waste , drie d sewag e sludge , shredde d tires , methane-ric h landfil l gas , natura l gas , an d fue l oil

. Th e stea m woul d be sol d t o a nearb ycustomer

. ADEM-A1 rDivisio n ha s reviewe d thi s applicatio n an d has mad e a preliminar ydeterminatio n tha t ADEM-Ai rDivison' s Rule s an d Regulation s woul d be satisfie d b yth e propose d project

. Th e purpos e o fthi s analysi s i s t o identif yth e basi s fo rthi s preliminar ydetermination

. Als o attache d ar e th e propose d condition s whic h woul d b e mad e a par t o fth e A1 rPermit s t o ensur e tha t th e projec t woul d be constructe d an d operate d i n complianc e wit h ADEM-A1 r Division' s Rule s an d Regulations

. Thi s analysi s deal s onl ywit h thos e issue s relate d t o complianc e wit h ADEM-Ai rDivision' s Regulations

. I . Locatio no f Projec t Th e propose dHuntsvill e Refus e Fire dSteam Projec t wil l b e locate di n Madiso nCount y

o nTrian a Boulevar dimmediatel y adjacen t t o th e Redston e Arsenal . Th e Redston e militar y facilit y

wil l borde r th e sit e o nth e north , wes t an dsout h wit hth e Trian a Boulevar dprovidin g access/egres s t o th e facilit y o nth e east . Th e facilit y

i s approximatel y

4. 0 mile s du e eas t o f th e Redston e Ai r fiel dand approximatel y

2 mile s southwes t o f th e former-Huntsvilie-Madiso nCount y Ai r Port .
II . Scop e o f Projec t Tw o mas s burn , waterwal l furnace/stoke r boiler s an dfou r fossi l fuel-fire d boilers , rate da t 86.0Q 0 and100,00 0 pound s o f steam pe r hour , respectively , woul db e installed . A s state d1nth e "Introduction " section , municipa l soli d wast e (MSW) , drie dsewag e sludge , shredde dtires , methane-ric hlandfil l gas , natura l ga s andfue l oi l woul db e use da s fuels . Drav o Energ y Resources , Inc . woul doperat e th e plan t fo r th e Huntsvill e Soli dWast e Disposa l Authorit y (HSWDA) . Waste s woul db e delivere dt o th e plan t b y HSWDA . Wast e mean s norma l municipa l soli dwaste . Unacceptabl e wast e an dhazardou s waste , suc ha s drumme d liquids , woul dno t b e accepted . Ther e woul dbe n o outsid e storag e o f wastes . Th e wastes , boilers , an dassociate dequipmen t woul db e containe di nanenclose d structur e whic hwoul dbe maintaine dunde r a negativ e pressur e t o preven t odor s fro m escapin g whe na t leas t on e refus e fire dboile r i s operating . Alternat e wast e disposa l plan s hav e bee nformulate di ncas e th e refus e fire dboiler s ar e no t operatin g o r th e wastes ' volume i s greate r tha nth e plan t ca nprocess . Thes e plan s 'nvolv e usin g th e existin g landfill . R8a : 

## - •7

* . , .. . .. . gP. 8

Operatio no f th e refus e fire dboiler s woul dbe continuous , excep t fo r planne dmaintenanc e period s an dequipmen t breakdown . Steam produce db

y thes e boiler s woul dnormall y be sufficien t t o mee t th e customer' s demand . However , i f on e o r bot ho f th e unit s wer e no t operatin g and/o r th e custome r deman dwer e higher , on e o r mor e o f th e fue l oi l o r natura l gas-fire dpackag e boiler s woul d be used . Th e fuel s fo r th e refus e fire dboiler s woul db e MSW , drie dsewag e sludge , shredde dtires , natura l gas , diese l oil , an dlandfil l gas . Fuel s fo r ' th e packag e boiler s woul dbe natura l ga s an ddiese l oil . Two o f th e packag e boiler s woul dals o hav e th e capabilit y o f burnin g landfil l gas , whic hi s essentiall y

equivalen t t o natura l gas . A nelectrostati c precipitato r (ESP ) woul dbe use dt o contro l emission s from eac hrefuse-fire dboiler . Th e ESP s woul dbe inoperatio nwheneve r th e boiler s ar e operating , includin g startu pandshutdown . No ai r pollutio ncontro l equipmen t woul dbe necessar y fo r th e packag e boiler s du e t o th e us e o f fuel s wit ha low

potentia l fo r emissions . Combustio nai r fo r th e refuse-fire dboiler s woul db e draw nfrom th e enclose d tippin g hal l an

drefus e pi t a s wel l a s fro m th e boile r house . Thi s woul dresul t ina negativ e draf t inthes e areas , an dodo r causin g compound s woul db e drawn int o th e furnace s an dincinerated . Operatio no f on e boile r woul db e sufficien t t o maintai nth e negativ e pressure .
III . NSP S Bot hth e refus e fire dboiler s an dth e packag e boiler s wil l b e subjec t t o Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS) . Additionall y th e incinerator s wil l b e subjec t t o Nationa l Emissio nStandard s fo r Hazardou s A1 r Pollutant s (NESHAPS) . NSP S ar e emissio nstandards , notificatio nandtestin g procedures , and monitorin g requirement s establishe db y th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y (EPA ) fo r a numbe r o f individua l industria l o r sourc e categorie s suc ha s Portlan d cemen t plants , stea

m generator s an

dsulfuri c aci dplants . Standard s o f performanc e ar e no t intende dt o achiev e any specifi c ai r qualit y level . Instead , the y

ar e designe dt o reflec t bes t demonstrate dtechnolog y (taking int o accoun t costs ) fo r th e sourc e i nquestion . NSP S apply t onl y

t o stationar y

source s tha t ar e constructed , modifie do r reconstructe dafte r a relevan t standar dha s bee nproposed . NESHAP S ar e emissio nstandards , monitorin g an dtestin g requirement s an d reportin g task s whic hhav e bee nestablishe db y EP A fo r source s o f pollutant s t o whic hn o ambien t standar di s applicabl e an dwhic hi n : th e judgemen t o f th e EP A Administrato r causes , o r contribute s to , ai r pollutio nwhic hma y reasonabl y

b e anticipate dt o resul t i na nincreas e i nmortalit y o r anincreas e i nseriou s irreversible , o r incapacitatin g reversible , illness . Standard s hav e bee n establishe dfo r eigh t (8 ) pollutants . Thes e ar e beryllium , mercury , viny l chloride , benzene , asbestos , Radon-222 , arsenic , an dradionuclid e emissions . NESHAP S applie s t o bot hexistin g andnew sources . Th e NSP S fo r incinerator s (4 0 CFR60 , Subpar t E ) applie s t o al l unit s tha t commenc e constructio no r modificatio nafte r Augus t 17 , 1971. . Th e onl y specifi c emissio nstandar dpromulgate dunde r thi s subpar t i s 0.0 8 gr/dsc f correcte dt o 12 % C0 2 .P. 9 —\

EPA i s require dt o review promulgate dNSP S e^ery fou r year s t o determin e i f change s ar e necessary . The las t review o f Subpar t E occurre di n1979 . N o change s wer e propose da t tha t time . Th e review o f Subpar t E whic hwa s schedule d fo r 198 3 wa s incorporate dint o th e proces s o f developin g standard s fo r boiler s wit ha ratedhea t inpu t betwee n10 0 an d25 0 millio nBt upe r hour . Th e standard s fo r boiler s i nthi s rang e wer e propose donJun e 19 , 1984 , i n th e Federa l Registe r a s Subpar t Dbo f 4 0 CF R60 . Particulat e an dnitroge noxid e emissio nstandard s wer e propose dwit hth e statemen t tha t standard s fo r sulfu r dioxid e woul db e propose dinth e nea r future . Th e sulfu r dioxid e standard s wer e propose do

nJun e 19 , 1986 . ADEM' s determinatio ni s tha t onl y th e particulat e standard s o f Subpar t D b woul dappl y

t o th e MSW-fire dboiler s an dtha t al l thre e standard s woul dappl y t o th e packag e boilers . Th e particulat e standard s ar e 0. 1 lb/M M Bt uo f hea t inpu t an d20 % opacity . Th e sulfu r dioxid e an dnitroge noxide s emissio nstandard s ar e 0. 2 lb/M M Bt uan d0. 1 lb/M

M Btu , respectively . Th e allowabl e particulat e emissio nlimi t fo r th e MSW-fire dboiler s woul db e se t a t 0.0 2 gr/dsc f correcte dt o 12 % CO 2 an d0.04 1 lb/M

M Btu , whic hwoul db e twenty-fiv e percen t (25% ) an dfort y percen t (40% ) o f th e applicabl e Subpar t E an dSubpar t Dbregulations , respectively . Th e allowabl e particulate , sulfu r dioxide , an dnitroge noxide s emissio n limit s fo r th e packag e boiler s woul db e se t a t 0.0 5 lb/M M Btu , 0. 2 lb/M

M Btu , an d0. 1 lb/M

M Btu , respectively , whic hi s 50 % o f th e particulat e standar dand equa l t o th e sulfu r dioxid e an dnitroge noxide s standard s unde r Subpar t Db .
IV . Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio n Th e propose dconstructio ni s als o subjec t t o th e regulation s fo r Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD) . PS Di s a program implemente db

y EP A i n197 4 an dsubsequentl y

modifie db

y Congres s i n197 7 whic hprevent s relativel y clea n ai r area s fro

m deterioratin g beyondcertai nspecifie dIncrement s du e t o industria l growth . ( A summar y

o f th e PS Dprogram

i s attache di nAppendi xA. ) PS Dals o identifie s certai nrequirement s tha t source s mus t satisf y i norde r t o obtai npermissio nt o construc t i nattainmen t area s (clea nareas) . A sourc e tha t i s subjec t t o PSD , mus t satisf y th e followin g requirement s befor e bein g allowe d t o star t construction : (1 ) Appl y

bes t availabl e contro l technolog y (BACT) , whic hi s define di n term s o f contro l technolog y o r a nemissio nlimitatio nbase donth e maximu m degre e o f reductio ndetermine dachievabl e fo r eac hsignifican t pollutan t fo r a particula r source . Factor s considere di na BAC T determinatio ninclud e technica l feasibility , performanc e levels , committe dresources , energ y requirements , economic s andenvironmenta l impacts . Wher e applicable , BAC T wil l equa l o r excee dNe w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS) . (2 ) Analyz e the impairmen t t o visibility , soils , andvegetatio ntha t migh t occu r a s a resul t o f th e operatio no f th e source . (3 ) Demonstrat e tha t th e emission s fro m th e sourc e wil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o a.violatio no f th e PS Dincremen t o r th e Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y

Standard s (NAAQS) . „ _.,,-«,->.-- JP.1 0

(4 ) Analyz e th e ai r qualit y impact s projecte ddu e t o th e growt hassociate d wit hth e facility . (5 ) Conduc t an

y ai r qualit y

monitorin g necessar y t o determin e th e effec t o f th e emission s o

nai r quality . (6 ) Provid e a

nopportunit y

fo r publi c participatio ninth e permittin g proces s relativ e t o th e ai r qualit y impac t th e sourc e wil l hav e i f 1 t i s built . (7 ) Obtai na permi t t o construc t whic hset s fort hrequire dcontro l o r emissio nlimitations , fue l and/o r operatin g restriction s designe dt o ensur e PS Dincrement s an dth e NAAQ S ar e no t violated . Th e expecte demission s o f nin e pollutant s ar e greate r tha nth e d e minimu s (significant ) level s specifie dunde r PS Dan dwil l be subjec t t o th e requirement s o f PSD . Thes e pollutant s (se e Tabl e I ) are :

(1 ) tota l suspende dparticulat e (TSP ) (2 ) sulfu r dioxide s (SOg ) (3 ) nitroge noxide s (N0 X ) (4 ) carbo nmonoxid e (CO ) (5 ) lead(Pb ) (6 ) berylliu m (BE ) (7 ) mercur y

(Hg ) (8 ) fluoride s (F ) (9 ) sulfuri c aci dmis t (H2SO4 )

V. Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology (BACT ) A BAC T determinatio nfo r an y pollutan t 1 s a case-by-cas e (plan t specific ) determinatio no f bes t availabl e contro l technolog y whe nenergy , economi c an d socia l effect s i nth e propose dare a o f th e plan t ar e considered . Thi s mean s tha t BAC T fo r two identica l plant s locate di ndifferent , part s o f th e countr y coul dbe different . Th e emissio nlevel s whic hrepresen t BAC T fo r eac hpollutan t ar e summarize d inTabl e II . Followin g i s a summar y o f th e BAC T determinations : A . MS W Fire dBoiler s (1 ) Particulat e Emission s Th e applican t originall y propose danES P wit ha nemissio nlimi t o f 0.0 4 gr/dsc f correcte dt o 12 % C0 2 (0.08 3 lb : /M M Bt uan d10. 7 lb/hr ) as ^ BAC T fo r particulat e emission s fro m th e MS W

fire dboiler s instea do f th e emissio nlimi t (0.0 8 gr/dscf ) require db y th e New

Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS ) fo r incinerators . EP A propose dparticulat e emissio n limit s fo r industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s unde r NSP S onJun e 19 , 1984 . Thes e unit s Woul db e subjec t t o a particulat e standar do f 0. 1 lb/M M Btu .

I T JP.1 1

TABL E I Expecte dEmission s Summar y
Pollutan t
Particulate s Sulfu rDioxid e Nitroge n Oxide s Carbo n Monoxid e Volatil e Organic s Lea d Berylliu m Mercur y Fluoride s Sulfuri cAci d Mis t Hydroge n Chlorid e D i ox i n s 2-129. 4 M M Btu/h r Boiler s lb/h rtp y MO. 7 46. 9

s 73. 3 321. 1 '81. 9 358. 9 -29. 6 129. 7 6. 0 26. 4 0. 5 2. 2 9.1E-0 5 4.0E-0 4 0.2 4 1. 0 2. 3 10. 1 3. 0 13. 1
343. 0 1502. 3 1.38E-0 4 6.4E-0 4 4-116. 3 Boi l lb/h r 6. 7 93. 0 46. 5 16. 8 2. 6 M M Btu/h r er s tp y 29. 4 407. 5 203. 8 73. 8 11. 4 Tota l Em i

lb/h r 17. 4 166. 3 128. 4 46. 4 8. 6 0. 5 9.1E-0 5 0.2 4 2. 3 3. 0
343. 0 1.38E-0 4 ssion s

tp y 76. 3 728. 6 562. 7 203. 5 37.9 * 2. 2 4.0E-0 4 1. 0 10. 1 13. 1
1502. 3 6.4E-0 4 D

e Minimu s Emission s tp y
>
>
>
>
<
>

a
>
>
> 25

. 40

. 40

. 100

. 40

. 0. 6 4.0E- C 0. 1 3. 0 7. 0 N/ A N/ A •Include s 0.0 9 TP Yfrom diese l storag e tank .

EC7j_P.1 2

Uni t TABL E I I Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog ySummar y Pollutan t & BAC

TEmissio n Limits 1 (1 ) 129. 4 M

M Btu/h rBoile rParticulat e 

### 709-I104-X001 , & 709-1104-X00 2 Lea d Berylliu m 0.0 2 gr/dsc f

correcte d t o 12

% CO g

0.2 5 lb/h r 4. 5 xIO" 5 lb/h r Contro l Method s 

### ES P

Sulfu r Dioxid e - 0.2 8 lb/M M Bt u
Sulfuri c Aci d- 1. 5 lb/h r Mis t low sulfu r conten t o f MS W

Nitroge nOxides - 0.3 2 lb/M M Bt u
Carbo nMonoxide - 0.1 1 lb/M M Bt u grat e an dcom bustio nai r fee ddesign s

Fluoride s Mercur y 1.1 5 lb/h r

0.2 4 lb/h r (tota l fo r2 units ) n o contro l

(2 ) 116. 3 M

M Btu/h rBoile r 

### 709-1104-X003 , 709-1104-X004 , 709-1104-X005 , 709-1104-X00 6 Particulat e - 0.0 5 gr/dsc f 5.8 2 lb/h r Sulfu rDioxid e - 0. 2 lb/M M Bt u

23.2 6 lb/h r Sulfuri cAci d - 0.9 1 lb/h r Mis t lo was h conten t o ffuel s lo wsulfu r conten t o ffuel s

Nitroge n Oxides
- 0. 1 lb/M M Bt u

. Carbo n Monoxide
- 4.2 1 lb/h r ^•Emissio n limit s ar e pe rboile r 

### 6 boile rdesig n & combustio n control s

Ff>P.1 3

Afte ra thoroug h revie wo f th e technica l an d economi caspect s o f th e projec t an d discussion s wit h th e Ai rDivision , th e applican t propose d a revise d BAC To f0.0 2 gr/dsc f (0.04 1 lb/M M Bt u an d 5.3 6 lb/hr ) fo rparticulate

. Thi s propose d emissio n rat e woul d be 25 % o fth e NSP

S emissio n standar d fo rincinerator s an d approximatel y40 % o fth e propose d NSP S emissio n standar d unde rSubpart Db

. I n man ycase s BAC

Thas prove n t o b e th e equivalen t o fth e applicabl e NSP S whe n th e NSP

S had bee n recentl yreviewe d o rpromulgated

. Furthe rreductio n o f th e particulat e emission s t o 0.01 5 gr/dsc f woul d likel yrequir e installatio n o fa bagfilter

. A25 % reductio n fro m 0.0 2 gr/dsc ft o 0.01 5 gr/dsc fwoul d resul t i n a 2. 7 lb/h rdecreas e o f particulat e emission s fro m 10.7 lb/h rt o 8. 0 lb/h rfo rbot h MS Wboilers

. A25 % reductio n i n th e particulat e limi t woul d resul t i n onl ya 0.0 3 ug/n rreductio n i n th e ambien t impac t o fth e MS Wboilers , a

s indicate d b

yTabl e III

. Standar d ambien t monitorin g method s fo r particulate s woul d no t detec t anydifferenc e betwee n th e 0.0 2 an d 0.01 5 gr/dsc femissio n limit

. TABL E II I Emissio n rat e versu s ambien t impac t o fth e MS Wboilers

. Emisssio n Rat e (gr/dscf ) Ambien t Impact (ug/nv* ) Annua l 24-Hou r 0.0 4 0.2 6 2. 8 

### 0.0 2 0.1 3 1. 4 

### 0.01 5 

### 0.1 0 1. 1 ADE M concur s tha t 0.0 2 gr/dsc f correcte dt o 12 % CO 2 i s BAC T fo r particulat e emission s fro

m th e MS W

boilers . (2 ) Sulfu r Dioxide , Fluoride , Hydroge nChloride , Sulfuri c Aci dMis t an d Dioxin s Emission s Th e applican t ha s propose dth e lo w sulfu r conten t o f municipa l fuel s a s BAC T fo r sulfu r dioxid e an dsulfuri c aci dmist . Th e applican t ha s als o propose dno control s a s BAC T fo r fluorides . A scrubbe r usin g a causti c scrubbin g mediu m t o remov e sulfu r dioxide , aci dgase s an ddioxi nwa s als o evaluate db y th e applican t and ADEM . Althoug hhydroge nchlorid e an ddioxi nemission s ar e no t subjec t t o PSD , sinc e PS D applie s onl y t o pollutant s regulate dunde r th e Clea n Ai r Ac t o r pollutant s emitte di namount s greate r tha nd e minimus , i t i s appropriat e t o conside r th e impac t o f an y contro l devic e o nthei r emissions .P.1 4



# i a . Dioxin s On e o fth e product s o fcombustio n fro m th e incineratio n o f municipa l wast e i s dioxins

. Dioxi n i s a generi cnam e fo ral l (total ) polychlorinate d dibenzo-dioxin s (PCDD)

. On e o f it s isomer s i s 2,3,7, 8 tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxin , whic h i s considere d on e o f th e mos t toxi c compounds known

. Th e estimate d emission s o fPCD D an d 2,3,7, 8 TCD

D fro m th e propose d Huntsvill e MS

W(municipa l soli d waste ) fire d boiler s i s 0.00013 8 pound s pe rhour , an d 0.00000 1 pound s pe rhour , respectivel y(se e Appendi xE)

. EP Apublishe d an articl e entitle d "Interi m Evaluatio n o f Healt h Risk s Associate d wit h Emission s o fTetrachloMnate d Dioxin s Fro m Municipa l Waste Resourc e Recover yFacilities " 1 n Novembe r1981

. EP A reviewe d studie s conducte d outsid e o fth e U.S

. an d conducte d test s o n fiv e incinerator s i n thi s country

. Th e rang e o fstac k concentration s o f TCD D (tetrachlorinate d dibenzo-dioxins) , on e o fwhic h i s 2,3,7, 8 TCDD , wa s fro m no t detectabl e t o 8. 5 nanogram s pe rstandar d cubi cmeter

. Th e concentratio n o f2,3,7, 8 TCD D wa s fro m no t detectabl e t o 3. 5 nanogram s pe rcubi cmeter

. EPA' s revie wo f th e foreig n dat a di d no t sugges t th e existenc e o fanyproble m tha t calle d fo ractio n du e t o th e emissio n o f TCDD s associate d wit h th e combustio n o f municipa l wastes

. A n excerp t fro m thi s report : "A n evaluatio n o fth e publi chealt h consideration s relate d t o TCDD s emission s has bee n mad e b yapplyin g th e variou s mathematica l model s t o th e dat a fro m th e fiv e U.S

. site s unde rth e man ycombination s o f assumption s tha t mus t b e mad e i n analyzin g th e data

. Thes e estimate s sugges t tha t th e presen t emission s level s o fTCDD s fro m th e fiv e municipa l wast e combustors describe d i n thi s repor t d o no t presen t a publi chealt h hazar d fo rresident s livin g i n th e immediat e vicinity

. I n addition , th e healt h ris k estimate s presente d i n th e assessmen t indicat e tha t a s lon g a

s emissio n level s o fTCDD s d o no t greatl yexcee d th e emission s measure d a t th e fiv e U.S

. site s evaluate d i n thi s interi m assessment , ther e shoul d be no reaso n fo rconcern . Thi s conclusio n i s vali d fo ral l toxicologica l effect s (includin g reproductiv e an d cancer ) fo rwhic h th e availabl e anima l an d huma n dat a hav e bee n analyzed. " Th e estimate d dioxi n emission s an d resultin g ground-leve l concentration s fro m th e propose d Huntsvill e MS Wboiler s ar e withi n th e rang e o femission s i n th e above-mentione d EP Astudy

. Sinc e th e above reference d repor t wa s issue d i n 1981 , EP Aha s formulate d thre e incinerato rdesig n an d operatin g guideline s fo r minimizin g dioxi n emissions

. Th e firs t guidelin e relate s th e rat e o f hea t generatio n o fth e wast e fue l an d th e theoretica l portio n o f th e combustio n chambe rwhic h is-hotte rtha n specifie d minimu m temperatures , wit h a specifie d minimu m oxyge n concentratio n i n th e exhaus t gases . Thi s guidelin e i s terme d th e Qualifyin g Maximu m Volumetri cHea t Releas e Rat e (QMVHRR) , an d th e recommende d QMVHRR

s ar e 15,00 0 Btu/hr/ft 3 fo rth e zon e hotte rtha n 1500° F an d 25,00 0 Btu/hr/ft 3 fo rth e zon e hotte rtha n



### £P.1 5

1800°F

. Th e recommende d minimu m oxyge n concentratio n i s 3 % fo rth e gase s leavin g th e combustio n zone . Th e secon d guidelin e i s tha t ai rdistributio n be full ycontrollabl e a t eac h locatio n where pressurize d ai ri s introduce d an d tha t th e ai r flo wbe measure d an d monitore d continuously

. Thi s include s provision s t o ad d over-fir e air

. Th e las t guideline , fo rcarbo n monoxid e emissions , i s 10 0 ppm v rollin g averag e durin g a fou r(4 ) da yaveragin g perio d an d a 40 0 ppm v rollin g averag e fo ran 8 hou raveragin g period

. Th e averag e concentration s must b e correcte d t o 7

% oxyge n o n a dr ybasis

. Th e propose d Huntsvill e MS Wfire d boiler s wil l mee t th e above desig n an d operatin g guidelines

. Recen t stac k

test s o n mas

s bur n boilers/incinerator s a t Tulsa , Oklahom a an d similia rincinerator s suppor t th e conclusio n tha t goo d combustio n technique s minimiz e th e formatio n o fdioxin

. Th e Tuls a boiler s ar e controlle d b yESP $ an d emit s PCDD'

s a t a rat e o f18. 9 ng/nm 3 * Tes t result s fro m similia rboilers/incinerator s wit h dr yscrubbers/ba g filter s al l excee d thi s numbe rwit h th e exceptio n o f a recentl ybuil t uni t i n Mario n CountyOrego n whic h emit s PCDD' s a t a rat e o f1.1 3 ng/m 3

. b . Hydroge nChlorid e A causti c scrubbe r woul dremov e u pt o 9 0 + % o f th e hydroge n chlorid e emission s fro m th e MS W

boilers . Sinc e ther e i s n o ambien t standar dfo r HC1 , ADE M compare dit s estimate dambien t impac t agains t 1/42 0 o f th e TLV . Th e TL V i s establishe d b y th e America nConferenc e o f Governmenta l Industria l Hygienist s (ACGIH ) an di s designe dt o protec t worker s inth e workplace . ADE M use d1/42 0 o f th e TLV (annua l averagin g period ) a s a safet y facto r t o accoun t fo r mor e tha na n8 hou r exposur e an dothe r segment s o f th e populatio nsuc ha s ver y youn g o r elderl y

people . Th e TLV fo r HC 1 i s 7,00 0 ug/m 3 . Dividin g 7,00 0 b y 42 0 woul dresul t inanADE M

guidelin e o f 16. 7 ug/m 3 . Dispersio nmodelin g indicate s tha t th e groundleve l concentratio no f HC 1 emission s from th e MS W

boiler s woul db e 6.1 3 ug/m 3 o r 36.7 % o f th e guideline . c . Fluoride s A scrubbe r followe db y a bagfilte r woul dals o remov e greate r tha n90 % o f an y fluorid e emission s present . Sinc e a NAAQ S ha s no t bee nestablishe d fo r fluorides , ADE M

agai ncompare dth e ambien t impac t o f th e incinerato r agains t 1/42 0 o f th e TL V fo r fluorides . Dispersio nmodelin g indicate s tha t th e groun dleve l concentratio no f fluorid e emission s fro m th e MS W

boile r controle db

y anES P woul dbe 0.029 - ug/m 3 compare dt o th e guidelin e o f 6. 0 ug/m 3 o r 1.5 % o f th e ADE M guideline .P.1 6

d

. Sulfu rDioxid e an d Sulfuri cAci d Mis t Adr yscrubbe rfollowe d b ya bagfilte rwoul d remov e 7 0 - 90 % o fth e SO 2 an d H2SO

4 emissions

. Th e ambien t impac t o fsulfu rdioxid e fro m th e MS Wboiler s i s 0.0 4 ug/m 3 o n a 24-hou rbasis

. Thi s i s 0.01 % o f th e 24-hou rNAAQ S o f365 ug/m 3

. Assumin g a

n 80 % reductio n fo rth e dr yscrubber/bagfilter , th e ambien t impact woul d be reduce d t o 0.00 8 ug/m 3

. Th e SO 2 monitorin g equipmen t woul d no t distinguis h betwee n 0.0 4 an d 0.00 8 ug/m 3

. Sit e specifi ceconomi cdat a submitte d b yth e applican t showed tha t th e cos t t o remov

e th e aci d gase s an d dioxin s woul d be approximatel y$1,30 0 pe r to n o fpollutants

. I n orde rt o recou p th e capita l an d operatin g cost s o f ar aci d ga s scrubber , th e tippin g fee , a fe e charge d t o anyon e bringin g wast e fo rdisposal , woul d have t o b e raise d fro m th e projecte d level , $8.8 5 pe r to n o fwaste , t o approximatel y$21.0 0 pe rton

. Thi s woul d be necessary becaus e th e stea m cos t t o th e custome ri s fixe d a t thi s poin t i n time

. Th e hig h tippin g fe e coul d mak e th e projec t infeasibl e an d landfilUn g o fth e municipa l wast e woul d be continued , accordin g t o th e applicant

. Landflllin c woul d engende rothe renvironmenta l risks , Includin g a greate rris k o f groundwate rcontamination

. Scrubber s have bee n require d o n othe rplant s i n ar e tw o majo rdifference s betwee n th e propose d plan t First , th e Huntsvill e plan t woul d produc e stea m whi l plant s produc e electricity , whic h mus t b e purchase d utilit ya t th e avoide d cos t t o th e utility

. Second , currentl ycharge d elsewher e ar e generall ysevera l t i Huntsville

. Th e tippin g fe e generall yreflect s th e sitin g a landfill

. Alo wtippin g fe e reflect s th e a land , whil e a hig h fe e reflect s th e opposite

. th e U.S

. However , ther e an d plant s elsewhere

. e mos t o f th e othe r b yth e appropriat e th e tippin g fee s me s th e rat e charge d i n availabilit yo flan d fo r vailabilit yo flo wcos t
EP Apropose d sulfu rdioxid e (4 0 CF R 60 , Subpart Db, Jun e 19 , 1986 ) emissio n standard s fo rindustrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s unde rNSPS

. A n emissio n limi t wa

s no t propose d fo rsulfu rdioxid e o r th e othe rgase s i n questio n fro m thi s typ e o funit , MSW-f1re d boilers , whict indicate s tha t no contro l equipmen t wa s considere d appropriate

. Sulfu r dioxid e emission s woul d be lo wdue ; t o th e inheren t lo wsulfu rconten t o f MSW

. Anothe rfacto ri n ADEM' s BAC Tdeterminatio n were th e plan s b yRetlston e Arsena l t o buil d a coa l fire d boiler(s ) i f stea m ca n no t b e purchase d fro m th e HSWDA

. Installatio n o fa coal , fire d boiler(s ) wit h equivalen t stea m productio n b

yRedston e Arsena l woul d resul t i n sulfu rdioxid e emission s 1. 5 t o 3. 0 time s highe rtha n emission s fro m th e propose d MSW-fire d an d packag e boilers

. ADE M ha s determine d tha t th e inheren t lo wsulfu rconten t o f th e fuel , an d th e followin g emissio n limit s ar e BAC Tfo rth e SO

2 an d H2SO

4 emission s fro m th e MW

S boilers

. ADE

M ha s als o determine d tha t n o control s an d th e followin g emissio n limi t i s BAC Tfo rfluorides

. 1 0P.1 7



### S0 2 H2S0 4 

### F l 0.2 8 lb/M M 1. 5 lb/h r 1.1 5 lb/h r 

### Bt

u

Additiona l specific s supportin g th e conclusio ntha t BAC T shoul dno t includ e scrubbin g ca nbe foundi nth e application . 3 . Carbo nMonoxid e Emission s Th e applican t propose s t o minimiz e emission s o f carbo nmonoxid e throug h th e prope r desig no f th e combustio ngrat e an do f th e combustio nai r contro l system . EP A state di nth e backgroun dinformatio nfo r th e propose dSubpar t D b regulation s (Jun e 19 , 1984 ) tha t "carbo nmonoxid e an dhydrocarbon s wer e no t selecte dfo r regulatio ndu e t o thei r relativel y lo w emissio nrate s andth e lac ko f an

y contro l technolog y

fo r thes e pollutant s whic hi s reasonabl e i n cost. " ADE M ha s determine dtha t th e us e o f th e boile r desig nan doperatin g technique s propose db y th e applican t an

dcomplianc e wit ha C O emissio nlimi t o f 0.1 1 lb/M

M Bt urepresent s BAC T fo r th e contro l o f C O emission s fro m th e MS W boilers . 4 . Nitroge nOxide s Emission s Th e applican t propose s t o minimiz e emission s o fN0 Xthroug h th e us e o f prope rdesig n o fth e combusto ran d o fth e combustio n contro l system

. EP Apropose d nitroge n oxid e (4 0 CF R 60 , Subpart Db , Jun e 19 , 1984 ) emissio n standard s fo rindustrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s unde rNSPS

. A n exclusio n wa

s provide d fo rthi s typ e o funit , MSW-fire d boilers , indicatin g tha t no contro l equipmen t i s necessary . ADE M ha s determine d tha t th e us e o fth e boile rdesig n an d operatin g technique s propose d b yth e applican t an d complianc e wit h a NO xemissio n limi t o f0.3 2 lb/M M Bt u represent s BAC Tfo rth e contro l o fN0Xemission s fro m th e MS

Wboilers

. 5

. Lead , Beryllium , an d MercuryEmission s Th e applican t ha

s propose d t o contro l lea d an d berylliu m emission s throug h th e us e o fth e ESP

. I t i s expecte d tha t lea d an d berylliu m emission s wil l b e reduce d b y95 % wit h th e ESP

. Mercuryi s typicall yemitte d fro m a municipa l incinerato ri n th e vapo r phase

. Contro l o fmercur ywoul d requir e temperatur e reduction s t o th e 140 -200° C range . Thi s typ e o freductio n coul d b e achieve d wit h a dr y scrubber/bagfilter

. However , recen t stac k tes t dat a indicat e tha t mercur y emission s reduction s fro m dr yscrubber s var yfro m poo rt o excellen t an d mor e researc h i s neede d i n thi s area . EP Aals o state d i n th e backgroun d informatio n fo rSubpar t D b o f 4 0 CF

R Par t 60 (Jun e 1984 ) tha t "trac e metal s hav e no t bee n selecte d fo rregulatio n unde rth e propose d standard s becaus e o fth e lac k o finj^mat ior±

o n th e 

### 1 1P.1 8

performanc e o f alternativ e contro l technologie s t o reduc e thes e emissions . It i s anticipate dtha t th e propose dparticulat e matte r standard " (0. 1 lb/M M Bt ufo r thi s unit) " woul dresul t i nsignifican t reduction s i ntrac e meta l emissions. " Th e propose dallowabl e BAC T particulat e emissio nlimi t i s 0.04 1 lb/M M Btu . ADE M ha s determine dtha t th e us e o f a nES P t o contro l lea dan dberyllium an dno control s fo r mercur y a s propose db

y th e applicant , andcomplianc e wit hth e followin g emissio nlimit s represent s BAC T fo r thes e pollutants . Lea d- 0.2 5 lb/h r Berylliu m - 4. 5 xIO" 5 lb/h r Mercur y - 0.2 4 Ibs/h r (tota l fo r 2 units )

B . Packag e Boiler s (1 ) Particulate , Sulfu r Dioxid e an dSulfuri c Aci dMis t Emission s Th e applican t ha s propose dt o us e fue l wit hlow as han dsulfu r conten t t o minimiz e TS P an

dSO 2 emission s fro

m th e packag e boilers . Th e propose duncontrolle demission s o f thes e pollutant s woul db e les s tha no r equa l t o th e NSP S standard s (4 0 CF RPar t 60 , Subpar t Db ) propose don Jun e 19 , 198 4 andJun e 19 , 1986 . ADE M ha s determine dtha t us e o f low as han dlo w sulfu r fue l propose dby th e applican t andcomplianc e wit hth e followin g emissio nlimit s represent s BAC T fo r th e packag e boilers . Particulat e 0.0 5 gr/dsc f Sulfu r dioxid e 0. 2 lb/M M Bt u Sulfuri c Aci dMis t 0.9 1 lb/h r (2 ) Nitroge nOxide s ari dCarbo nMonoxid e Emission s Th e applican t ha s propose dus e o f boile r desig nandcombustio ncontrol s t o minimiz e nitroge noxide s an dcarbo nmonoxid e emissions . Th e applicant' s proposa l wil l mee t th e propose dnitroge noxide s emissio nlimi t unde r fo r NSP S (4 0 CF RPar t 60 , Subpar t Db) . EP A di dno t propos e t o regulat e carbo n monoxid e emission s "du e t o thei r relativel y lo w emissio nrate s andth e lac k o f any contro l technolog y

fo r thes e pollutant s whic hi s reasonabl e i ncost. " ADE M ha s determine dtha t boile r desig nandcombustio ncontrol s and complianc e wit hth e followin g emissio nlimit s represent s BAC T fo r th e contro l o f carbo nmonoxid e andnitroge noxide s emission s fro m th e packag e boilers . N0 X- 0. 1 lb/M M Bt u CO - 4.2 1 lb/h r

VI . Ai r Qualit y

Impac t PS Drequire s tha t a

nai r qualit y

analysi s b e performe dt o determin e th e impac t onan

y applicabl e increment s andonth e NAAQS .

' 1 2 

### ur? aP.1 9

Th e propose dprojec t wil l be locate di na Clas s I I designate darea . Th e neares t Clas s I designate dare a (th e Sipse y Wildernes s Area ) i s locate d approximatel y

5 0 mile s (8 2 km ) awa y fro m th e propose dprojec t site . Thi s are a wa s examine dfo r potentia l visibilit y impac t cause db

y emission s fro

m th e propose dproject . (Se e Sectio nVII , Additiona l Impac t Analysis) . A . Existin g Ai r Qualit y I norde r t o evaluat e whethe r th e emission s fro m th e propose dHuntsvill e plan t wil l caus e violation s o f th e NAAQS , i t i s necessar y t o hav e availabl e measurement s o f existin g ambien t ai r qualit y level s i nth e vicinit y o f th e site . Th e level s ar e neede dfo r eac hcriteri a pollutan t tha t wil l b e emitte dabov e th e significan t emissio nleve l (i.e. , SO2 , TSP , NO? , C O and Pb) . Th e Huntsvill e Ai r Pollutio nProgram operate s fou r (4 ) TS P samplin g site s withi n4 mile s o f th e site . Thi s dat a i s considere drepresentativ e o f th e sit e fo r particulates . Th e Huntsvill e Ai r Pollutio nProgram operate s a nitroge noxid e an da lea dmonito r approximatel y 2 mile s fro

m th e propose dsite . Thi s dat a i s considere drepresentativ e fo r th e propose dsit e fo r nitroge noxide s an d lead . A nexemptio nfro

m th e monitorin g requiremen t i s provide db y th e PS D regulation s i f th e ne t emission s increas e o f th e pollutan t woul dno t cause ,

. i nan y

area , ai r qualit y

impact s greate r tha ncertai nthreshol d concentration s prescribe db y th e PS D regulations . Huntsvill e ha s demonstrate dtha t th e ambien t impac t o f C O emission s fro m th e propose d sourc e (14 6 ug/m 3 - 8-hou r average ) i s les s tha nth e PS D Threshol dvalu e o f 57 5 ug/m 3 , 8-hou r average , an dpreconstructio nmonitorin g 1 s no t appropriate . Th e SO 2 inventor y

o f th e are a an

dth e subsequen t ambien t monitorin g indicate s tha t th e are a i s generall y fre e fro

m th e impac t o f othe r SO 2 sources . ADEM , therefore , agree dtha t monitore ddat a fro m a "regiona l site " coul db e use da s representativ e data . I t wa s decide dtha t SO 2 dat a from a monito r i nDecatur , Alabama woul db e representativ e sinc e i t wa s i n th e same genera l area . Sinc e th e Decatu r monito r i s impacte db y mor e industria l source s o f SOg , th e us e o f thi s dat a wil l b e conservative . B . Ai r Qualit y

Analysi s Th e ambien t impac t o fth e propose d facilit ywa s evaluate d usin g dispersio n models

. (ADEM revie wo fth e applicant' s submitta l i s includedj n Appendi xC. ) A s incicate d i n Tabl e IV , th e majo rambien t impac t fo rparticulate s an d sulfu rdioxid e emission s wa s cause d byth e packag e boilers

. Thes e concentration s occurre d becaus e o fdownwash (refe rt o Appendi xC) fro m th e relativel yshor t (les s tha n GEP ) packag e boile rstack s an d impact s th e are a immediatel yadjacen t t o th e plant

. Th e submitta l b

yth e applican t an d ADEM's revie windicat e tha t th e propose d projec t woul d violat e no applicabl e NAAQ S o rPS D increment

. 1 3P.2 0 rTm , **T^''y r T' T T "

TABL E I V
Maximu m Ambien t Impac t o f Particulat e an dSulfu r Dioxid e Emission s fro m Propose d Huntsvill e Facility^ )
Pollutan t an

d Averagin g Perio d 

### S0 2



### TS P Annua l 24-Hou r 3-Hou r

Annua l 24-Hou r MS W Boiler s ug/m 3

0.9 1 % 0.04(2 ) 25. 7

0.1 3 1. 4 Packag e Boiler s ug/m 3

18. 5 , % 78.55(2 ) 460. 8

4. 6 34. 6

(l)Excep t wher e noted , value s reflec t wors t cas e downwash . Number s ar e no t necessaril y

additiv e sinc e highes t value s ma y occu r a t differen t locations . 

## (2)va l ue s fro

m refine ddownwas hmodelin g (se e Appendi xC) .
VII . Additiona l Impac t Analysi s I nadditio nt o assessin g th e ambien t ai r qualit y Impac t expecte dfrom a propose dnew

sourc e o r modification , th e PS D regulation s requir e tha t certai n othe r impact s b e considered . Thes e additiona l impact s ar e thos e o nvisibility , soils , an

dvegetation . A . Visibilit y Th e PS D regulation s requir e tha t ananalysi s o f th e potentia l impairmen t t o visibilit y i nClas s I area s b e completed , fo r thi s analysis , procedure s outline di nth e EPA "Workboo kfo r Estimatin g Visibility " wer e applie dt o th e Sipse y Clas s I are a (approximatel y 8 2 k m fro m th e propose d facility) . Inthi s analysi s th e applican t use demissio nrate s o f NO2 , SOg . an dTS P 1 na "Leve l 1 " analysis . Th e Leve l 1 screenin g procedure s ar e base d onth e findin g tha t perceptibl e visibilit y impact s ar e likel y

t o occu r onl y i f th e absolut e valu e o f on e o r mor e o f th e screenin g parameter s C\, C2 , and C 3 exceed s 0.1 . Th e maximum

valu e o f an

y o f th e parameter s calculate dfo r th e Huntsvill e incinerato r wa s 0.0005 . Sinc e th e contras t parameter s wer e significantl y

les s tha n0.1 , i t i s unlikel y tha t th e propose dprojec t woul d adversel y

affec t visibilit y

i nth e Sispe y

Wildernes s Area .



### 1 4P.2 1

B . Soi l an

dVegetatio n. Th e PS Dregulation s requir e a nanalysi s o f th e impac t o f th e emission s fro m a majo r sourc e o

nsoil s an

dvegetatio nhavin g a significan t commercia l o r recreationa l value . Sinc e th e predicate dambien t impacts : o f th e sourc e ar e projecte dt o be i nth e immediat e are a o f th e sourc e andar e relativel y minor , no discernibl e impac t onsoil s o r vegetatio ni s expected .
VI I Conclusion s Base donth e informatio nsupplie db y th e applicant , Th e Soli dWast e Disposa l Authorit y

fo r th e Cit y

o f Huntsville , andth e analysi s performe db y ADEM , i t i s th e preliminar y

determinatio no f ADE M i s tha t th e propose dprojec t wil l emplo y Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology , wil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio no f an y PS Dincremen t o r NAAQ S i nth e are a o f th e propose dfacility , andwil l compl y wit hal l applicabl e ADEM , Ai r Divisio nRule s an dRegulations . Therefore , ADE M propose s t o issu e Ai r Permit s subjec t t o th e condition s 1 nAppendi xB .

Richar dE . Grusnic k

Dat e



### 1 5P.2 2



### APPENDI XB PROPOSE DPERMI T PROVISO S

3 2 ifT aP.2 3

SOLI DWAST E DISPOSAL AUTHORIT Y O F TH E CIT YOF HUNTSVILL E 129. 4 M M Btu/H r Refus e Fire dBoile r 709-1104-X001 , X00 2
1 . Thi s permi t i s issue do nth e basi s o f Rule s an dRegulation s existin g o nth e dat e o f issuance . Inth e even t additiona l Rule s andRegulation s ar e adopted , i t shal l b e th e permi t holder' s responsibilit y t o compl y

wit hsuc h rules . 2 . Thi s permi t i s no t transferable . Upo nsal e o r lega l transfer , th e new owne r o r operato r mus t appl y fo r a permi t withi n3 0 days . 3 . A ne w permi t applicatio nmus t b e mad e fo r new sources , replacements , alteration s o r desig nchange s whic hma y resul t i nth e issuanc e of , o r a n increas e i nth e issuanc e of , ai r contaminants , o r th e us e o f whic hma y eliminat e o r reduc e o r contro l th e issuanc e o f ai r contaminants . 4 . Eac hpoin t o f emissio nwil l b e provide dwit hsamplin g ports , ladders , platforms , an

dothe r safet y

equipmen t t o facilitat e testin g performe di n accordanc e wit hprocedure s establishe db y Par t 6 0 o f Titl e 4 0 o f th e Cod e o f Federa l Regulations , a s th e sam e ma y be amende do r revised . 5 . : I nth e even t ther e i s a breakdow no f equipmen t 1nsuc ha manne r a s t o caus e increase demissio no f ai r contaminant s fo r a perio dgreate r tha n1 hour , th e perso nresponsibl e fo r suc hequipmen t shal l notif y th e Departmen t withi nan additiona l 2 4 hour s andprovid e a statemen t givin g al l pertinen t facts , includin g th e duratio no f th e breakdown . Th e Departmen t shal l b e notifie d whe nth e breakdow

nha s bee ncorrected . 6 . Al l ai r pollutio ncontro l device s an dcaptur e system s fo r whic hthi s permi t i s issue dshal l b e maintaine dandoperate da t al l time s i na manne r s o a s t o minimiz e th e emission s o f ai r contaminants . Procedure s fo r ensurin g tha t th e abov e equipmen t i s properl y operate dandmaintaine ds o a s t o minimiz e th e emissio no f ai r contaminant s shal l be established . 7 . Thi s permi t expire s andth e applicatio ni s cancelle di f constructio nha s no t begunwithi n2 4 month s o f th e dat e o f issuanc e o f th e permit . 8 . Oncompletio no f constructio no f th e devic e fo r whic hthi s permi t i s issued , notificatio no f th e fac t i s t o b e give nt o th e Chie f o f th e Ai r Divisio na t leas t 1 0 day s 1 nadvanc e o f planne doperatio no f th e unit . Authorizatio nt o operat e th e uni t mus t be receive dfro m th e Chie f o f th e Ai r Division . Failur e t o notif y

th e Chie f o f th e Ai r Divisio no f completio no f constructio nand/o r operatio nwithou t authorizatio ncoul dresul t i n revocatio no f thi s permit .P.2 4

9 . Prio r t o a dat e t o be specifie db y th e Chie f o f th e Ai r Divisio ninth e authorizatio nt o operate , emissio ntest s ar e t o b e conducte db y person s familia r wit han

dusin g th e EP A

Samplin g Trai nan

dTes t Procedur e a s describe di nth e Cod e o f Federa l Regulations , Titl e 40 , Part s 6 0 an d6 1 o r a s approve db

y th e Chie f o f th e Ai r Division , fo r th e followin g pollutants . Writte ntest s result s ar e t o b e reporte dt o th e Departmen t withi n1 5 workin g day s o f completio no f testing . Particulate s (X ) Carbo nMonoxid e (X ) Tota l Chloride s (X ) Sulfu r Dioxid e ( ) Nitroge nOxide s ( ) Hydrocarbon s (X ) Mercur y (X ) 10 . Emissio ntest s ar e t o be conducte dfo r th e followin g pollutant s a t interval s no t t o excee don e yea r followin g th e dat e o f initia l complianc e testing . Al l tes t report s mus t be submitte dt o th e Departmen t withi n1 5 day s o f completio no f testing . Particulate s (X ) Carbo nMonoxid e ( ) Sulfu r Dioxid e ( ) Nitroge nOxide s ( ) Hydrocarbon s (X ) Tota l Chloride s (X ) 11 . Submissio no f othe r report s regardin g monitorin g records , fue l analyses , operatin g rates , an

dequipmen t malfunction s ma y b e require da s authorize di n th e Department' s ai r pollutio ncontro l rule s an dregulations . 12 . Addition s an

drevision s t o th e condition s o f thi s Permi t wil l b e made , 1 f necessary , t o ensur e tha t th e Department' s ai r pollutio ncontro l rule s and
; regulation s ar e no t violated . 13 . Nothin g i nthi s permi t o r condition s theret o shal l negat e any authorit y grante dt o th e Departmen t pursuan t t o th e Alabama Environmenta l Managemen t Ac t o r regulation s issue dthereunder . 14 . Thi s permi t i s issue dwit hth e provisio ntha t th e operatio no f thi s facilit y b y th e owne r o r operato r wil l no t resul t i nemission s o f obnoxiou s odors . 15 . Th e Departmen t mus t be notifie di nwritin g a t leas t 1 0 workin g day s in advanc e o f al l emissio ntest s t o b e conducte dan dsubmitte da s proo f o f complianc e wit hth e Department' s ai r pollutio ncontro l rule s an d regulations . T o avoi dproblem s concerning testin g method s andprocedures , th e followin g shal l b e include dwit hth e notificatio nletter : (1 ) Th e dat e th e tes t crew i s expecte dt o arrive , th e dat e an dtim e anticipate do f th e star t o f th e firs t run , ho w many an dwhic h source s ar e t o b e tested , an dth e name s o f th e person s and/o r testin g company

tha t wil l conduc t th e tests . (2 ) A complet e descriptio no f eac hsamplin g trai nt o b e used , includin g typ e o f medi a use di ndeterminin g ga s strea m components , typ e o f prob e lining , typ e o f filte r media , andprob e cleanin g metho dan

dsolven t t o b e use d(i f tes t procedur e require s prob e cleaning) .P.2 5

(3 ) A descriptio no f th e process(es ) t o be tested , includin g th e fee d rate , an y operatin g paramete r use dt o contro l o r influenc e th e operations , an

dth e rate dcapacity . (4 ) A sketc ho r sketche s showin g samplin g poin t location s andthei r relativ e position s t o th e neares t upstream an ddownstrea m

ga s flo w disturbances . A pretes t meetin g ma y be hel da t th e reques t o f th e sourc e owne r o r th e Department . Th e necessit y fo r suc ha meetin g an dth e require dattendee s wil l b e determine do na case-by-cas e basis . Al l tes t report s mus t be submitte dt o th e Departmen t withi n1 5 day s o f th e actua l completio no f th e test , unles s a nextensio no f tim e i s specificall y approve db

y th e Department . 16 . Thi s sourc e i s subjec t t o th e Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s fo r incinerator s a s define di n4 0 CF RPar t 60 , Subpar t E . 17 . Thi s sourc e wil l be subjec t t o th e particulat e emissio nlimi t unde r New Sourc e Performanc e Standard s fo r industria l - commercia l - institutiona l steam generatin g unit s a s define di n4 0 CF RPar t 60 , Subpar t D bwhe n promulgated . 18 . Th e annua l capacit y facto r fo r natura l ga s an dfue l oi l a s define di n4 0 CF R Subpar t D

bpropose dJun e 19 , 1984 , shal l no t excee d5% . 19 ; Thi s sourc e i s subjec t t o th e Nationa l Emissio nStandard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s fo r mercur y a s define di n4 0 CFRPar t 61 , Supar t E . 20 . Onl y non-hazardou s soli dwastes , tires , an dwastewate r treatmen t sludg e shal l b e accepte da t th e sit e withou t prio r approva l o f th e ADE M Director . Onl y representative s approve db y th e Soli dWast e Disposa l Authorit y (Authority ) shal l delive r waste s t o th e plant . Th e Authorit y shal l be responsibl e fo r ensurin g tha t hazardou s waste s ar e no t receive da t th e plan t site . 21 . N o liqui dwaste s shal l b e charge dt o th e incinerato r o r accepte donplan t propert y prio r t o writte napprova l b y th e ADE M

Director . 22 . No waste s shal l b e store doutsid e o f th e building . 23 . Continuou s carbo nmonoxid e an dcombustio nchambe r temperatur e monitor s wit h recorder s shal l be installed , calibrated , maintained , an doperated . Th e monito r location s an dtype s shal l b e approve db y ADE M prio r t o installation . 24 . Durin g startup , fossi l fuel s shal l b e use dt o prehea t th e combustio nchambe r t o a t leas t 1560° F prio r t o feedin g an y soli dwastes . 25 . Durin g shutdown , fossi l fuel s shal l b e use dt o maintai nth e combustio n chambe r temperatur e a t 1560° F o r greate r unti l al l waste s i nth e combustio n chambe r hav e bee nremoved . 26 . Th e combustio nchambe r temperatur e shal l b e maintaine da t 1560° F o r greate r excep t a s allowe ddurin g startu pan dshutdown .P.2 6



### 27 . Th e following allowabl e emissio nlimit s shal l apply : (1 ) Particulat e (2 ) Sulfu r Dioxid e (3 ) Nitroge nOxide s (4 ) CarbonMonoxid e (5 ) Lead (6 ) Berylliu

m (7 ) Mercur y (8 ) Fluoride s (9 ) Sulfuri c Aci dMis t 0.0 2 gr/dsc fcorrecte d t o 12 % CO 2 0.2 8 lb/M M Bt u 0.3 2 lb/M M Bt u 0.1 1 lb/M M Bt u 0.2 5 lb/h r 4. 5 x10- 5 lb / n r 2,612. 7 grams/da y(0.2 4 lb/hr ) (tota l fo r2 MSW-f1re d boilers ) 1.1 5 lb/h r 1. 5 lb/h r


### 28 . A nopacit y

monito r whic hmeet s th e specification s a s define di n4 0 CF RPar t 60 , Appendi xB shal l b e installed , calibrated , maintained , an doperate do n the ES P exhaus t stack .P.2 7



# £iL£f. I f.i£IIi£ l SOLI DWAST E DISPOSA L AUTHORIT Y O F TH E CIT YO F HUNTSVILL E 116. 3 M M Btu/H r Packag e Boile r 709-1104-X003- 6
1 . Thi s permi t i s issue do nth e basi s o f Rule s an dRegulation s existin g o nth e dat e o f issuance . I nth e even t additiona l Rule s andRegulation s ar e adopted, i t shal l b e th e permi t holder' s responsibilit y t o compl y

wit hsuc h rules . 2 . Thi s permi t i s no t transferable . Upo nsal e o r lega l transfer , th e ne w owne r or operato r mus t appl y fo r a permi t withi n3 0 days . 3 . A ne w permi t applicatio nmus t b e mad e fo r ne w sources , replacements , alteration s o r desig nchange s whic hma y resul t i nth e issuanc e of , o r an increas e inth e issuanc e of , ai r contaminants , o r th e us e o f whic hma y eliminat e o r reduc e o r contro l th e issuanc e o f ai r contaminants . 4 . Eac hpoin t o f emissio nwil l b e provide dwit hsamplin g ports , ladders , platforms , an

dothe r safet y

equipmen t t o facilitat e testin g performe di n accordance wit hprocedure s establishe db y Par t 6 0 o f Titl e 4 0 o f th e Cod e o f Federa l Regulations , a s th e same ma y b e amende do r revised . 5 . I nth e even t ther e i s a breakdow no f equipmen t I nsuc ha manne r a s t o caus e increase demissio no f ai r contaminant s fo r a perio dgreate r tha n1 hour , th e perso nresponsibl e fo r suc hequipmen t shal l notif y th e Departmen t withi na n additiona l 2 4 hour s andprovid e a statemen t givin g al l pertinen t facts , includin g th e duratio no f th e breakdown . Th e Departmen t shal l b e notifie d whe nth e breakdow

nha s bee ncorrected . 6 . Thi s permi t expire s an dth e applicatio ni s cancelle di f constructio nha s no t begunwithi n2 4 month s o f th e dat e o f issuanc e o f th e permit . 7 . O ncompletio no f constructio no f th e devic e fo r whic hthi s permi t i s issued , notificatio no f th e fac t i s t o b e give nt o th e Chie f o f th e A1 r Divisio na t leas t 1 0 day s i nadvanc e o f planne doperatio no f th e unit . Authorizatio nt o operat e th e uni t mus t be receive dfro m th e Chie f o f th e Ai r Division . Failur e t o notif y

th e Chie f o f th e Ai r Divisio no f completio no f constructio nand/o r operatio nwithou t authorizatio ncoul dresul t i n revocatio no f thi s permit . 8 . Prio r t o a dat e t o b e specifie db y th e Chie f o f th e Ai r Divisio ni nth e authorizatio nt o operate , emissio ntest s ar e t o b e conducte dby person s familia r wit han

dusin g th e EP A

Samplin g Trai nan

dTes t Procedur e a s describe di nth e Cod e o f Federa l Regulations , Titl e 40 , Par t 60 , fo r th e followin g pollutants . Writte ntest s result s ar e t o b e reporte dt o th e Departmen t withi n1 5 workin g day s o f completio no f testing . Particulate s (X ) Carbo nMonoxid e ( ) Sulfu r Dioxid e ( ) Nitroge nOxide s (X ) Hydiocarbon s ( )P.2 8

9

. Submissio n o fothe rreport s regardin g monitorin g records , fue l analyses , operatin g rates , an d equipmen t malfunction s ma yb e require d a

s authorize d i n th e Department' s ai rpollutio n contro l rule s an d regulations

. 10

. Addition s an d revision s t o th e condition s o fthi s Permi t wil l be made , i f necessary , t o ensur e tha t th e Department' s ai rpollutio n contro l rule s an d regulation s ar e no t violated

. 11

. Nothin g i n thi s permi t o rcondition s theret o shal l negat e an yauthorit y grante d t o th e Departmen t pursuan t t o th e Alabam a Environmenta l Management Act o rregulation s issue d thereunder

. 12

. Thi s permi t i s issue d wit h th e provisio n tha t th e operatio n o fthi s facilit y b yth e owne ro roperato rwil l no t resul t i n emission s o fobnoxiou s odors

. 13

. Th e Departmen t must be notifie d i n writin g a t leas t 1 0 workin g days i n advance o fal l emissio n test s t o be conducte d an d submitte d a s proo fo f complianc e wit h th e Department' s ai rpollutio n contro l rule s an d regulations

. T o avoi d problem s concernin g testin g method s an d procedures , th e followin g shal l b e include d wit h th e notificatio n letter : (1 ) Th e dat e th e tes t cre w1 s expecte d t o arrive , th e dat e an d tim e anticipate d o fth e star t o fth e firs t run , ho wman yan d whic h source s ar e t o be tested , an d th e name s o fth e person s and/o r testin g compan

ytha t wil l conduc t th e tests

. (2 ) Acomplet e descriptio n o feac h samplin g trai n t o b e used , includin g typ e o fmedi a use d i n determinin g gas strea m components , typ e o fprob e lining , typ e o ffilte rmedia , an d prob e cleanin g metho d an d solven t t o be use d (i ftes t procedur e require s prob e cleaning)

. (3 ) Adescriptio n o fth e process(es ) t o b e tested , includin g th e fee d rate , anyoperatin g paramete ruse d t o contro l o rinfluenc e th e operations , an d th e rate d capacity

. (4 ) A.sketc h o rsketche s showin g samplin g poin t location s an d thei r relativ e position s t o th e neares t upstrea m an d downstrea m ga s flo w disturbances

. Apretes t meetin g ma yb e hel d a t th e reques t o f th e sourc e owne ro rth e Department

. Th e necessit yfo rsuc h a meetin g an d th e require d attendee s wil l be determine d o n a case-by-cas e basis

. Al l tes t report s must b e submitte d t o th e Departmen t withi n 1 5 day s o fth e actua l completio n o fth e test , unles s a n extensio n o ftim e i s specificall y approve d b

yth e Department

. 14

. Thi s sourc e wil l b e subjec t t o th e Ne

wSourc e Performanc e Standard s fo r industria l - commercia l - institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s a s define d i n 4 0 CF R Par t 60 , Subpart D b whe n promulgated

. 15

. Onl ydiese l oil , natura l gas , an d landfil l gas ma yb e fire d i n thi s boiler

.P.2 9

16

. Th e followin g allowabl e emissio n limit s shal l apply : (1 ) Particulat e - 0.0 5 lb/M M Bt u no t t o excee d 5.8 2 lb/h r (2 ) Sulfu rDioxid e - 0. 1 lb/M M Bt u no t t o excee d 23.2 6 lb/h r (3 ) Nitroge n Oxide s - 0. 1 lb/M M Bt u (4 ) Carbo n Monoxid e - 4.2 1 lb/h rfrf*-^ (5 ) Sulfuri cAci d Mis t - 0.9 1 lb/h rCrdT^ '



## *&mP.3 0



## • 1JLLL1' £I£I1I£ I SOLI DWAST E DISPOSAL AUTHORIT Y O F TH E CIT YOF HUNTSVILL E 200,00 0 Gallo nDiese l Storag e Tank 709-I104-X00 7
1 . Thi s permi t i s issue do nth e basi s o f Rule s an dRegulation s existin g o nth e dat e o f issuance . I

nth e even t additiona l Rule s an dRegulation s ar e adopted , i t shal l b e th e permi t holder' s responsibilit y t o compl y

wit hsuc h rules . 2 . Thi s permi t i s no t transferable . Uponsal e o r lega l transfer , th e new owne r o r operato r mus t appl y fo r a permi t withi n3 0 days . 3 . A ne w permi t applicatio nmus t b e mad e fo r new sources , replacements , alteration s o r desig nchange s whic hmay resul t 1nth e issuanc e of , o r a n increas e inth e issuanc e of , ai r contaminants , o r th e us e o f whic hma y eliminat e o r reduc e o r contro l th e issuanc e o f ai r contaminants . 4 . Thi s permi t expire s an dth e applicatio ni s cancelle d1 f constructio nha s no t begunwithi n2 4 month s o f th e dat e o f issuanc e o f th e permit . 5 . O ncompletio no f constructio no f th e devic e fo r whic hthi s permi t 1 s Issued , , notificatio no f th e fac t i s t o b e give nt o th e Chie f o f th e A1 r Divisio na t leas t 1 0 day s inadvanc e o f planne doperatio no f th e unit . Authorizatio nt o operat e th e uni t mus t b e receive dfro m th e Chie f o f th e A1 r Division . Failur e t o notif y

th e Chie f o f th e Ai r Divisio no f completio nof . constructio nand/o r operatio nwithou t authorizatio ncoul dresul t 1 n revocatio no f thi s permit . 6 . Submissio no f othe r report s regardin g monitorin g records , fue l analyses , operatin g rates , an

dequipmen t malfunction s ma y b e require da s authorize di n the Department' s ai r pollutio ncontro l rule s an dregulations . 7 . Addition s an

drevision s t o th e condition s o f thi s Permi t wil l b e made , i f necessary , t o ensur e tha t th e Department' s ai r pollutio ncontro l rule s and regulations , ar e no t violated . 8 . Nothin g inthi s permi t o r condition s theret o shal l negat e any authorit y grante dt o th e Departmen t pursuan t t o th e Alabama Environmenta l Managemen t Ac t o r regulation s issue dthereunder . 9 . Thi s tan kwil l be subjec t t o th e propose dNew Sourc e Performanc e Standard s fo r VO L storag e vessel s a s define din4 0 CF RPar t 60 , Subpar t Kbwhe n promulgated .P.3 1



### APPENDI XC DISPERSION

MODELINGANALYSI SP.3 2

Revie w an dAnalysi s o f Ai r Qualit y Modelin g fo r th e Huntsvill e Refus e Fire dSteam Plan t

Introductio n
Th e purpos e o f thi s revie w andanalysi s i s t o provid e a nassessmen t o f th e ai r qualit y

modelin g study

conducte db

y Courtne y

Consultants , Inc . (CCI ) fo r th e propose dHuntsvill e Refus e Fire dSteam (HRFS ) Projec t andt o provid e a summar y o f th e Alabam a Departmen t o f Environmenta l Management' s (ADEM ) modelin g efforts . ADE M ha s reviewe dth e CC I ai r qualit y modelin g study

an dth e propose dfacility' s ai r emission s t o determin e it s complianc e wit happlicabl e PS D requirement s and th e Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standard s (NAAQS) . Modelin g Methodolog y Particula rmodel s whic h addresse d th e ambien t impac t o fsulfu rdioxid e an d particulat e matte rwere th e PTPL U Model , VALLE

YModel , an d th e ISCS TModel

. Th e PTPL U Mode l wa

s th e first-leve l screenin g techniqu e t o provid e conservativ e estimate s o fth e ai rqualit yimpact

. Subsequen t recepto rsite s wer e chose n i n sufficien t detai l t o allo wdeterminatio n o f th e highes t concentrations

. Th e VALLE

YMode l wa

s use d b

yCC I an d ADE

M a s a second-leve l screenin g techniqu e t o determin e concentration s a t comple xterrai n point s foun d i n th e vicinit yo f th e propose d facility

. Fo rdistance s les s tha n 2. 5 km , th e ISCS TMode l wa

s use d b yCC I an d ADEM , sinc e fo rmodelin g purpose s tb e terrai n withi n tha t radia l distanc e ma

yb e considere d essentiall yflat

. Th e ISCS TMode l ma

yb e considere d a third-level , fina l analytica l techniqu e fo rdeterminin g SO 2 an d TSP concentratio n level s where th e terrai n heigh t i s les s tha n stac k height

. Fo rpollutant s othe r tha n SO 2 an d TS

P (N0 X , CO , HC1 , etc.) , ambien t impac t wa s determine d b

y emissio n ratio s (e.g. , allowabl e C O emissio n rat e pe rpackag e boile r0.53 0 gs"V2.93 1 gs _ *

. allowabl e SO 2 emissio n rat e pe rpackag e boiler ) whic h were multiplie d byth e highes t five-yea rSO 2 increment-consumptio n value

. Modelin g wa

s als o performe d t o determin e impact s upo n th e Sipse y Wildernes s Area , a Federal Clas s I wildernes s area . Th e neares t boundary poin t (UT

M coopd+nafe s 465.0 , 3795.62 5 km ) o fthi s wildernes s are a 1 s locate d approximatel/JJl^k m WS Wo fth e HRF

S facility

. Reviewo fth e Ai rQualit yImpact Analysi s Tabl e 2.2- 1 (pag e 9 ) o fCCI' s analysi s i s a detaile d listin g o f worst-cas e emissio n rates

. Revision s t o th e SO 2 AN D TS P emissio n rate s were subsequentl y mad e b yHRFS

. Th e revise d rate s ar e give n belo wi n Tabl e 1

.P.3 3

Tabl e 1

. Emissio n rate s o fth e propose d Huntsvill e facility

. Expecte d Allowabl e Sourc e Pollutan t Emissio n Rat e Emissio n Rat e 1-MS W Boile rS0 2 4.61 8 g/se c4.61 8 g/se c TSP 0.67 5 g/se c0.67 5 g/se c 1-Packag e Boile rS0 2 2.93 1 g/se c2.931*g/se c TS P 0.21 5 g/se c0.73 3 g/se c
•Emissio n rat e modele d wa s 2.9 4 "g/sec , base d upo n ADEM calculatio n o f 09SEP86 , instea d o fupdate d (02DEC86 ) calculatio n o f 2.93 1 g/se cbase d upo n 0. 2 lb/10° " BTU

. Anothe rrevisio n t o th e modelin g wa s increasin g th e heigh t o fth e propose d stack s fo rth e packag e boiler s b y1 0 m , fro m 16.7 7 t o 26.7 7 m . Sinc e thes e unit s have potentiall yth e larges t ai rqualit yimpac t fo rth e Huntsvill e facility , th e additiona l heigh t lessen s th e effect s cause d b ydownwash , which , a s addresse d i n thi s report , refer s t o plum e dispersio n cause d byaerodynami c effect s o fbuildings

. Emissio n parameter s ar e include d 1 n Tabl e 2

.
: I t i s th e opinio n o fADE M tha t CC I correctl yperforme d th e PTPL U an d VALLE

Y modelin g requirements

. Th e revisio n t o th e emissio n rate s an d stac k height , however , require d additiona l modelin g . Th e revise d modelin g wa s performe d b y ADEM

. ADEM's modelin g summarie s ar e give n 1 n th e followin g sectio n o f thi s report , "Ai rQualit yModelin g Results. " Th e nex t sectio n o fth e analysi s o fCC I whic h require d revie wwa s "GE P - Downwas h Discussion " (pp

. 21+)

. T o determin e buildin g dimensions , ADE M followe d th e buildin g downwas h screenin g procedur e a s outline d byEP

A(Addendu m t o th e Regiona l Workshop, " Decembe r13 , 1983 , Appendi xC)

. Th e buildin g downwas h screenin g procedur e wa s required , sinc e th e good engineerin g practic e (GEP ) analysi s indicate d tha t th e propose d stac k height s were les s tha n th e GE P height

. Afte rcavit yeffect s were determine d no t t o impac t ambien t air , wak e effect s were analyze d fo rbot h th e refus e buildin g an d th e ash-dum p building

. CCI' s worst-cas e minimu m projecte d width s were 42.5 5 m an d 21.9 5 m fo rth e refus e an d ash-dum p buildings , respectively

. ADE M recalculate d thes e buildin g dimension s ( w» 1) , base d upo n th e "effectiv e diameter " o rprojecte d width , an d foun d the m t o be 59.2 4 m an d 28.6 3 m fo rth e refus e an d ash-dum p buildings , respectively

. Sinc e th e repor t o fCC I di d no t includ e th e actua l lengt h an d widt h dimension s o fth e ash-dum p build
ing , scal e conversion s o fthes e dimension s were mad e b yADE M fro m th e drawing s provide d b

yCCI

. I t i s note d tha t concentratio n value s obtaine d fro m subsequen t modelin g showed wery littl e differenc e resultin g fro m th e projecte d width s calculate d byADE

M an d CCI

. I t i s importan t t o note , however , tha t th e ISCS T downwas h algorith m wa s involve d i n thi s phas e o fmodeling , sinc e th e propose d stack s o fth e MS

Wan d packag e boile rsource s ar e shorte rtha n th e GE P stac k height

.P.3 4

Tabl e 2

. Emissio n parameter s fo rth e propose d Huntsvill e facility

. 1-MS W Boile r1-Packag e Boiler *

UT M Coordinate s (km

) 535.654,3836.45 1

535.654,3836.45 2 535.664 , 3836.41 5 535.670 , 3836.41 5 535.676 , 3836.41 5 535.682 , 3836.41 5 Base Elevatio n (f t abov e m.s.l. ) Allowabl e Emissio n Rat e (g/s ) S 0 2 TS P N0 X C O Lea d Berylliu m Mercury Fluoride s :• Sulfuri cAci d Mis t Expecte d Emissio n Rat e (g/s ) HC 1 Tota l Dioxin s Actua l Stac k

Heigh t (meters ) GE P Stac k Heigh t (meters ) Stac k Diamete r(meters ) Stac k Ga s Temperatur e (Kelvin ) Stac k Ga s Velocit y(m/s ) 585

^•4.61 8 36.6/^/^ s. 0.67 5 5-.JS-/*./- * H\ 4.89153»'^**^ * \.1.8655''»'.r!/<** N0.0315* ur/ * , A * . r, \.5.7xl0" 6 </.s-i«i* W* < 

### \ o!o i 5 1 «//*«*»/•* ^ 0.14 5 /./a-A./* * ^•0.188 5 /V9/**/"*
- 585

*^ 2.93 1 ,1M1'*«/" * "^0.73 3 s.9t

'*»/*" •

. 3 1.46 5 //.*W , »/* A N 0.53 0 V-A/**

>"* • N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A

/T l 30.882 5 **/«•"»/* * N/ A r1.512x10- 5 /.a***"/*'** • N/ A 60.9 7 26.7 7 85.1 8 85.1 8 1.9 8 0.9 1 47 7 45 0 10. 4 25.3 4 •Subsequen t plant-desig n revisio n (November , 1986 ) call s fHFTrttt+iiji q tw o stacks , instea d o ffour

. Althoug h th e facilit ywa s modele d fo rfou rstack ; impac t woul d no t be expecte d t o excee d thos e concentration s summarize d i n thi s report , sinc e th e sam e desig n condition s wil l b e serve d a

s wit h smalle r.sized , \ individua l stacks

. \P.3 5 "" 1

ADE M examine d th e variou s downwas h region s affecte d b yth e propose d struc tures

. Afte rcarefu l analysis , i t wa s decide d tha t th e CC I repor t doe s no t completel yaddres s al l downwash region s t o th e maximu m exten t possible

. Th e sector s an d affecte d downwash region s determine d b yADE M wer e base d upo n a singl e gri d system , usin g th e MS Wstack s a

s th e centra l poin t o freference

. Th e analysi s o fCC I describe s sector s an d correspondin g degree s i n term s o f gri d system s usin g bot h th e MS Wan d packag e boile rstack-source s a s point s o f reference

. Thi s dual-gri d syste m i s no t satisfactoril yexplained , especiall yi n term s o fsector s 028-09 2 degree s an d 208-27 2 degree s fo rth e packag e boilers / refuse-buildin g recepto rsyste m (CC I Analysis , Augus t 1986 , p . 24)

. Th e detaile d downwas h region s a s prepare d b

yADE M giv e a mor

e definitiv e approac h t o th e effect s o fdownwas h i n th e IS C modeling

. ADE M redefine d th e recepto rnetwor k t o includ e th e are a eas t o fMcDonal d Cree k t o th e plan t boundary , a s wel l a

s th e are a nort h o f th e plan t boundary (3836.52 7 UTM , North ) t o th e Un e a t 3836.64 5 UTM , North , an d extendin g t o McDonal d Creek

. Thes e area s were no t addresse d i n th e CC I analysis

. Finally , a revie wo fth e CC I analysi s 1 n Section s 5 an d 6 wa s made

. Th e repor t state s tha t "th e result s o fth e modelin g ar e compare d [t o Clas s I are a significan t thresholds ] an d foun d t o be wel l belo wth e significan t impac t criteria. " Significan t impac t criteri a o rthreshold s d o no t exis t fo rClas s I areas . Ai rQualit yModelin g Result s CC I an d ADE

M performe d th e firs t leve l screenin g b yusin g th e PTPL

U mode l a

s a prerequisit e fo rth e VALLE YModel

. Th e methodolog yfo rthi s modelin g describe d byCC I i s bot h correc t an d acceptabl e t o ADEM

. CC I cite d VALLE YMode l result s fo rworst-cas e 24-houraveragin g time s fo rSO 2 an d TSP concentration s o f 5 4 ug/m 3 an d 21. 2 ug/m 3 , respectively

. A s indicate d i n th e Ai rQualit yImpac t Analysi s (Augus t 1986) , CC I note d tha t it s value s were presente d i n Ma y1986 t o ADEM , who "concurre d tha t thes e concentration s were sufficientl ylo wsuc h tha t terrai n effect s had bee n sufficientl ytreated. " Subsequen t VALLE Ymodelin g b y ADE M support s thi s conclusion , sinc e simila rvalue s t o thos e o fCC I were obtained

. Analytica l modelin g wit h ISCS Twa s conducte d b

yusin g worst-cas e buildin g downwas h fro m th e refus e buildin g wit h al l facilit ysources . ADE M narrowe d th e recepto rrang e fo rTS P t o 500 m , wit h rin g distance s ever y10 0 m alon g al l 3 6 radials

. Th e highes t second-hig h predicte d 24-hou rtota l valu e increment , fo r incremen t consumptio n includin g nin e additiona l sources , wa s slightl ymor

e tha n 3 5 ug/m 3 fo rbot h CC I an d ADEM

. Sinc e th e incremen t resultin g fro m modelin g b yADE M represente d th e worst cas e concentratio n fro m refuse-buildin g downwas h and.wa s n o highe rtha n tha t reporte d b

yCCI , n o additiona l modelin g wa s require d fo rdeterminin g TS P concentrations

. Result s o fADEM' s TS P modelin g wit h th e five-yea rdat a se t (1970-1974 ) fo rth e 24-hou rperio d ar e provide d i n Tabl e 3

. Figur e 1 show s a n analysi s o fth e projecte d 24-hou rconcentration s fo r1972

. Concentratio n value s lesse n wit h increasin g distanc e fro m th e plant

.P.3 6

Tabl e 3

. 24-hourTS P incremen t consumptio n fro m al l source s (highes t second-high , worst-cas e value s fro m ISCS Tmodelin g b

yADEM)

. Yea r
197 0 197 1 197 2 197 3 197 4 Concentration ^

(ug/m 3 ) 34. 2 33. 8 35. 1 33. 6 31. 3 Recepto r Location

(meters , degrees ) 100 , 280 ° 100 , 300 ° 200 , 130 ° 100 , 290 ° 100 , 290 ° % Clas s I I Incremen t (3 7 ug/m 3 ) 92. 4 91. 4 94. 9 90. 8 84. 6 *Value s als o representativ e o fpropose d facilit yalone

. SO 2 screenin g modelin g wit h ISCS Twa s als o conducte d usin g worst-cas e buildin g downwas h fro m th e refus e buildin g wit h al l propose d stacks

. Again , th e recepto rrang e wa s ever y100 m , extendin g t o 500 m wit h rin g distance s alon g al l 3 6 radials

. Initially , 197 4 dat a were analyzed , sinc e th e CC I analysi s showe

d thi s t o b

e th e yea ro f maximu m concentratio n (71.9 5 ug/m 3 fro m al l sources , includin g si xadditiona l sources)

. Fro m th e 197 4 ISCS T worst-cas e modelin g ru n conducte d byADEM , man ySO 2 concentratio n value s exceede d th e maximu m valu e reporte d b yCCI

. ADE

M therefor e refine d th e modelin g methodolog yt o accoun t fo rappropriat e source-building-recepto rdownwas h regions

. Al l SO

2 concentratio n value s greate rtha n th e CC I valu e o f 71.9 5 ug/m 3 were analyzed

. Value s greate rtha n th e CC I maximu m were suspect , sinc e th e mode l generate d it s result s base d upo n worst-cas e downwash

. Therefore , an y highe rconcentratio n valu e wa s scrutinize d fo rth e appropriat e downwas h region(s ) i n th e wake(s ) o fth e appropriat e building(s)

. Subsequen t refine d modeling^b yADE

M resulte d i n a maximu m secon d highes t 24-hou rconcentratio n valu e o f71. 8 ug/m 3 fo r1974

. Th e recepto rfo rthi s valu e wa s note d i n th e downwas h secto r(30 0 m , 210° ) o fth e refus e buildin g agains t th e packag e boile r stacks , wit h n o downwas h effect s agains t th e MS Wstacks

. Becaus e thi s valu e wa s so clos e t o th e maximu m valu e (71.9 5 ug/m 3 ) reporte d b yCCI , ADE

M continue d th e ISCS Tmodelin g fo rth e remainde ro fth e five-yea r dat a set

. Th e methodolog ywa s th e sam

e fo reac h year : worst-cas e run s were firs t complete d fo rrefuse-buildin g downwas h agains t al l propose d facilit y stacks

. Result s were analyze d fo rvalue s exceedin g thos e o f 1974

. Next , refine d modelin g wa

s complete d t o accoun t fo rappropriat e downwas h regions

. Result s o fADEM'

s SO 2 modelin g wit h th e five-yea rdat a se t (1970-1974 ) fo rth e 24-hou rperio d ar e provide d i n Tabl e 4

.P.3 7



### Fig . 1 . Isopleth s showin g area s o f projecte dmaximu m TS P concentration s (ug/ m ) for'1972 .P.3 8

Tabl e 4

. 24-hou rSO ? incremen t consumptio n (highes t second-hig h value s fro m ISCS Tmodelin g b

yADEM)

. Facilit yOthe rSource s Tota l Recepto r% Clas s I I Yea rConcentratio n Concentratio n Incremen t Locatio n Incremen t

(ug/m 3 ) (ug/m 3 ) (ug/m 3 ) (meters,degrees ) (9 1 ug/m 3 ) 197 0 197 1 197 2 197 3 197 4 18.7 0

17.6 1 22.1 2 78.9 5 71.8 4 0.0 1

0.0 2 0.4 6 0.0 6 0.00 4 18.7 1

17.6 3 22.5 8 79.0 1 71.84 1 100 , 310 °

300 , 300 ° 300 , 130 ° 200 , 250 ° 300 , 210 ° 20. 6

19. 4 24. 8 86. 8 78. 9 Th e highes t second-hig h SO o concentratio n valu e reporte d b yADE M i s therefor e approximatel y7 ug/m 3 highe rtha n tha t o fCCI

. Th e locatio n o f th e recepto rfo rthi s predicte d SO 2 concentratio n valu e i s 200 meter s an d 250 ° fro m north , a

s measure d fro m th e centra l poin t o f referenc e (MS Wstacks) , 1 n th e downwash secto ro fth e refus e building' s influenc e o fal l facilit ystacks

. Modelin g result s sho wimpac t o foutsid e (non-plant ) source s t o be minimal

. Figur e 2 show

s an analysi s o fth e projecte d 24-hourconcentration s fo r1973

. Tabl e 5 i s a summar

yo fth e tota l ai rqualit yassessment , includin g backgroun d ai rquality , complete d b yADEM

. Tabl e 5

. Tota l ai rqualit yassessmen t b yADEM

. Facilit yBackgroun d Tota l NAAQ S Pollutan t Perio d Mode l Concentratio n Concentratio n Concentratio n (ug/m 3 ) (ug/m 3 ) (ug/m 3 ) (ug/m 3 ) 

### TS P TS P TS P S0 2 24-hou

r 24-hou r Annua l 3-hou r 24-hou r 24-hou r Annua l VALLE

Y ISCS T ISCS T ISCS T VALLE Y ISCS T ISCS T 10.3* *

35.1 * 4.6 * 460.8 * 47.5* * 78,9 5 18.5 * 

### 10 0

10 0 4 0 125 4 7 4 7 10 116. 3

135. 1 44. 6 585. 8 94. 5 125.9 5 28. 5 260/15 0

260/15 0 75/6 0 130 0 

### 36 5 36 5 8 0
*Value s fo r worst-cas e downwash , using refus e buildin g fo r al l receptors . ••Value s correcte dfo r emission s an dstac kheigh t change s sinc e origina l CC I results .



# » _& T ~E ~P.3 9

• 1 "• • -" • • . 1

1 ! / * « • ^ / «
' '• '



### Fig . 2 . Isopleth s showing area s o f projecte dmaximu m SO 2 concentration s (ug/m 3 

### ) fo r 1973. .P.4 0

Tabl e 6 i s a summar y o f emissio nratio s an dprojecte dambien t impac t o f al l othe r pollutants , base dupo nth e result s o f modelin g fo r SO 2 an dTSP . Concen tration s fo r thes e pollutant s wer e determine db y ratioin g th e respectiv e emissio n rate s wit hth e maximum SO 2 o r TS P impac t fo r eac hsource , resultin g i na conservativ e estimat e o f th e maximu m combine dimpac t fo r th e othe r pollutants . Finally , impac t upo nth e Sipse y Wildernes s Are a wa s addressed . Tabl e 7 i s a summar y

o f th e allowabl e Clas s I PS D increment s an dconcentration s determine d fro m ADEM' s modeling . Mode l prediction s ar e wel l below Clas s I limits . Tabl e 7 . Federa l Clas s I Sipse y Wildernes s Are a impact .
Pollutan t Perio d Clas s I Limit s (ug/m 3 ) 1970-7 4 Maximum

Concentratio n (ug/m 3 ) * 

### S0 2



### TS P Annua l

24-hou r 3-hou r
Annua l 24-hou r 

### 2

5 2 5
5 1 0 0.0 8

2.0 3 8.1 7
0.0 2 0.4 5
•Concentratio n value s represen t highes t second-hig h ISCS T mode l prediction s fo rth e 24-hou ran d 3-hou rconcentrations

.
Summar y an dConclusion s Th e Alabam a Departmen t o f Environmenta l Managemen t ha s reviewe dth e ai r qualit y impac t repor t fo r th e propose dHuntsvill e Refus e Fire dStea m (HRFS ) Projec t prepare db

y Courtne y

Consultants , Inc . Inaddition , ADE M performe dit s ow nextensiv e analysi s o f thi s propose dproject . Bot hscreenin g technique s and refine dmodelin g methodolog y wer e employe dt o assur e tha t th e propose dai r pollutio nsource s wil l no t violat e nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standard s (NAAQS ) o r preventio no f significan t deterioratio n(PSD ) increments . Th e Departmen t ha s reviewe dth e procedur e o f CC I t o determin e visibilit y impac t upo n th e Federa l Clas s I Sipse y Wildernes s Are a an

dagree s wit hth e result s tha t tri e HRF S facilit y

wil l no t caus e a

nadvers e visibilit y

impact . ADE M

therefor e concur s wit hth e conclusio npresente db y CC I tha t "th e modelin g result s show tha t complianc e fo r th e pollutant s considere di s achievabl e wit hth e curren t plan t desig nan

dcontemplate doperatio no f th e HRFS. "


# JTABL E 6 . Projecte dConcentration s (ug/m 3 ) fo r Othe r Pollutant s

Pollutan t
N0X 

### coM )

Lea d
Berylliu m Mercur y Fluoride s Sulfuri c A d d Mis t Averagin g

Perio d
Annua l 8-Hou r 1-Hou r Quarterl y

Annua l Annua l Annua l Annua l MS W Emissio n Rat (g/sec ) 9.78 4

. 3.73 2 3.73 2 .06 4

11. 4 x10
- .03 0 .2 9 .37 7 Boi l

. e

• 6 er s Packag e Maximu m Impac t Emissio n Rat e (ug/m 3 ) (g/sec ) .969( 2 ) 21. 8 21. 8 .0650 )

11. 3 x10-7(2 ) .003(2 ) .029(2 ) .037(2 ) 5.8 6

2.1 2 2.1 2 N/ A

N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A Boiler s

Maximu m Impac t (ug/m 3 9.219( 3 ) 146. 2 146. 2 N/ A

N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A Tota l

Comb i ne d Impac t (ug/m 3 ) 10.18 8 146. 2 146. 2 .06 5

11. 3 x10~ 7 .00 3 .02 9 .03 7 NAAq s

(ug/m 3 ) 10 0 10.00 0 40,00 0 1. 5 TLV/42 0 4. 8 xIO" 3 .02 4 6. 0 2. 4


### HC 1 Annua l 61.76 5 6.123(2 ) 

### N/ A N/

A 6.12 3 16. 7

(^Take nfro

m th e highes t second-hig h24-hou r SO 2 Impac t du e t o th e MS W boilers . Thi s result s 1 na conservativ e estimat e fo r quarterl y lea dconcentrations . (2|Takenfro

m maximu m annua l SO 2 impac t du e t o MS W boilers . ( 3 )Take nfro

m maximu m annua l SO ? impac t du e t o packag e boilers , , . , J... . (4)l-Hou r an

d8-Hou r C O concentration s ar e take nfro m 1-hour ISCS T result s fo r CO . Th e maximum combine dimpac t i s primaril y

du e t o th e packag e boilers .P.4 2



### APPENDI XD EXAMPL E EMISSIO N

CALCULATION S SUMMAR YOF EMISSION S SUMMAR YOF APPLICABL E REGULATION SP.4 3

Emission s Calculation s (1 ) 2-129. 4 M

M Btu/h rBoiler s : Exampl e Calculations : (E.F. ) xWast

e Feed = Uncontrolle d Emission s (lb/hr ) Uncontrolle d Emission s x(1-Remova l Efficiency ) = Expecte d Emission s Expecte d Emission s x4.3 8 = Expecte d Emission s (tpy ) Fo rParticulate : (69 0 tpd)/(2 4 hr/d ) = 28.7 5 tp h = Waste Fee d 46. 5 lb/ t x28.7 5 tp h » 1,336.8 8 lb/h r (1,336.8 8 lb/hr ) x(1-0.992 ) » 10.7 lb/h r (10. 7 lb/hr ) x(4.3 8 t-hr/lb-y ) * 46. 9 tp y (2 ) 116. 3 M

M Btu/h rBoile r Exampl e Calculations : (a ) firin g natura l gas (116. 3 M M Btu/hr)/(l,03 0 Btu/cf ) » 1.1 3 x10 5 c f/h r 1.1 3 xIO 5 cf/h rxE.F

. lb/M M c f » lb/h r ( lb/hr ) x(4.3 8 t-hr/lb-yr ) tp y (b ) firin g diese l (116. 3 M M Btu/hr)/(19,46 0 Btu/lb ) = 5,976. 3 lb/h r (5,976. 3 lb/hr)/(7. 1 lb/gal ) = 841.7 3 gal/h r (841.7 3 gal/hr ) x(E.F

. lb/10 3 gal ) » lb/h r ( lb/hr ) x(4.3 8 t-hr/lb-yr ) = tp yP.4 4

Expecte d Emission s 200,00 0 Gallo n Diese l Tan k Breathin g losse s fro m a fixe d roo ftan k ca n be estimate d from : L B = 2.2 6 x10- 2 [ M ] x(P/(14.7-P))- 6 8 D 1

- 7 3 H-5 1 dT-5 0 F p K c where L „ = breathin g los s (lb/yr ) M = molecula rweigh t o f vapo r= 13 0 lb/l b mol e P = vapo rpressur e s 0.007 4 psi a @ 60° F D 3 tan k

diamete r= 3

4 f t H = averag e vapo rspace heigh t = 16. 1 f t d T= averag e ambien t diurna l temperatur e chang e a 30° F F p = pain t facto r= 1. 0 (dimensionless ) C = adjustmen t facto r• 1. 0 (dimensionless ) K c= produc t facto r= 1. 0 (dimensionless ) :L B = 169. 4 lb/y r» 0.08 5 tp y
Workin g losse s ar e estimate d as : L W= 2. 4 xIO" 5 M vP V N K n K G where L

y= workin g los s (lb/yr ) Mv= molecula rweigh t o f vapo r» 13 0 lb/l b mol e P = vapo rpressur e 0.007 4 psi a @ 60° F K n = turnove rfacto r» 1. 0 (dimensionless ) 

### V » tank capacit y = 200,000 ga

l K c» produc t facto r* 1. 0 (dimensionless ) N = numbe ro fturnover s pe ryea r= (581,600/200,000 ) (dimensionless ) L w= 13. 4 lb/y r= 0.00 7 tp y 2.90 8

. . TOTA L LOSSE S = 182. 8 lb/y r = 0.0 9 tp y

### APPENDI XD P.4 5



### TABL E I Expecte dEmission s 2-129. 4 M

M Btu/h r Boiler s

\ Pollutan t
Particulate s
Sulfu rDioxid e Nitroge n Oxide s
Carbo n Monoxid e
Volatil e Organic s
Lea d Berylliu m
Mercur y
Fluoride s Sulfuri cAci d Mis t Hydroge n Chlorid e Dioxin s
Th e emission s E.F

.

lb/ t 46. 5 46. 6 2.5 5 2.2 9 2.7 0 2.8 5 0.9 4 1.0 3 0.1 9 0.2 1 0.2 0 0.3 5 2.30E-0 5 6.30E-0 5 3.30E-0 3 8.20E-0 3 8.0E-0 2 1.04E-0 1 9.30E-0 2 11.9 3

represen t Wast e

Fee d tp h 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5 28.7 5

th e tota l Uncontrolle d

Emission s lb/h r 1,336.8 8 1,339.7 5 73.3 1 65.8 4 77.6 3 : 81.9 4 27.0 3 29.6 1 5.4 6 6.0 4 5.7 5 10.0 6 6.61E-0 4 1.81E-0 3 9.49E-0 2 0.2 4 2.3 0 2.9 9 2.6 7 342.9 9
1.38E-0 4
fo rtw o 129. 4 Remova l

Efficienc y % 99. 2 99. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 95. 0 95. 0 95. 0 95. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0

M M Btu/h rboi l Expecte d Emission s lb/h rtp y 10. 7 10. 7 73.3 1 65.8 4 77.6 3 81.9 4 27.0 3 29.6 1 5.4 6 6.0 4 0.2 9 0.5 0 3.31E-0 5 9.06E-0 5 9.49E-0 2 0.2 4 2.3 0 2.9 9 2.6 7 342.9 9 46. 9

46. 9 321.1 : 288.3 } 340

. O C 358.8 8 118.3 7 129.7 C 23.9 3 26.4 4 1.2 6 2.2 0 1.45 E 3.97 E 0.4 2 1.0 3 10.0 7 13.1 0 11.7 1 1,50 2
1.38E-0 4 6.04 E

ers . Th e firs t a n 

### secon drow s fo r eac hpollutan t reflec t emissio nrate s a t 100 % MS W firin g and-10: 1 M S sewag e sludg e firing , respectively , bot ha t 69 0 TP Dchargin g rate .P.4 6

APPENDI X D TABL E I I Expecte d Emission s 116. 3 M M Btu/h rBoile r Pollutan t Particulat e

Sulfu rDioxid e
Nitroge n Oxide s Carbo n Monoxid e

Volatil e Organic s Fue l Usage 1.1 3 xIO 5 cf/h r 841.7 3 gal/h r 1.1 3 xIO 5 cf/h r 116. 3 M M Btu/h r 116. 3 M M Btu/h r 1.1 3 xIO 5 cf/h r 841.7 3 gal/h r 1.1 3 xIO 5 cf/h r 841.7 3 gal/h r Emissio n Facto r
5 lb/M M c f 2 lb/10 3 ga l 0.6 lb/M M c f 0. 2 lb/M M Btu * 0. 1 lb/M M Btu *
3 5 lb/M M c f 5 lb/10 3 ga l 5. 8 lb/M M c f 0.25 2 lb/10 3 ga l Expecte d Emission s lb/h rtp y 0.5 6 1.6 8 0.0 7 23.2 6 11.6 3
3.9 5 4.2 1 0.6 5 0.2 1 2.4 5

7.3 7 0.3 1 101.8 8 50.9 4
17.3 0 18.4 3 2.8 5 0.9 3

NOTE : Th e firs t entr yi s fo rcombustio n emission s utilizin g onl ynatura l gas , Th e secon d entr yi s fo rcombustio n emission s utilizin g onl yfue l oil

. Emission s ar e pe rboiler

. •Equa l t o emissio n limi t propose d unde r4 0 CF R 60 , Subpar t Db

.APPENDI X D TABLE II I Applicabl e Emissio n Limitin g Regulation s Sourc e Regulatio n Pollutan t Emissio n Limi t (1 ) 129. 4 M

M Btu/h rBoile r( 2 each ) 4 0 CF R Par t 60 , Subpar t E Particulate s 0.0 8 gr/dsc f 7-09-1104-X001 , 2 correcte d t o 12 % C0 2

(2 ) 116. 3 M

M Btu/h rBoile r( 4 each ) 7-09-I104-X003- 6 4 0 CF R Par t 60 , Subpar t Db 1 Particulat e
Huntsvill e APC-Par t 6. 3 Particulate s 4 0 CF R Par t 61 , Subpar t E Mercur y Huntsvill e APC-Par t 7. 1 Sulfu r Dioxid e Huntsvill e APC-Par t 6. 3 Particulate s 4 0 CF R Par t 60 , Subpar t D b Particulate s Sulfu r Dioxid e Nitroge n Oxide s Sulfu r Dioxid e Huntsvill e APC-Par t 7. 1 0.1 0 lb/M M Bt u hea t inpu t an d 20 % opacit y 0.1 6 lb/M M Bt u hea t inpu t 320 0 gram s pe rday 2 1. 2 lb/M M Btu hea tinpu t
0.1 7 lb.M M Bt u hea t inpu t 0.1 0 lb/M M Bt u hea t input 3 an d 2 0 % opacit y 0. 2 lb/M M Bt u hea t input 3
0.1 0 lb/M M Bt u hea t input 1
1. 2 lb/M M Bt u hea t Inpu t
Propose d 6/19/8 4 2Tota l allowe d fo rtw o units

. 

### Propose d 6/19/8 6P.4 8



### APPENDI XE DIOXI N EMISSIO N

CALCULATION SP.4 9

Dioxin s Calculation s (1 ) Base d upo n emissio n factor s estimate d b yArthu rD

. Litle , Inc. 1 tota l PCD

D = 4. 8 xIO" 6 lb/ t o fmunicipa l refus e tota l TCD

D = 3. 5 xIO - 7 lb/ t o fmunicipa l refus e 2,3,7, 8 TCD

D = 3. 5 xIO 8 lb/ t o fmunicipa l refus e Estimate d Emissions : (1 ) tota l PCD

D (4. 8 xIO- 6 lb/t ) x(28.7 5 t/hr ) = 1.3 8 xIO" 4 lb/h r (2 ) tota l TCD

D (3. 5 xIO" 7 lb/t ) x(28.7 5 t/hr ) = 1. 0 xIO" 5 lb/h r (3 ) 2,3,7, 8 TCD

D (3. 5 xIO" 8 lb/t ) x(28.7 5 t/hr ) * 1. 0 xIO" 6 lb/h r (2 ) Base dupo nstac ktes t result s o f a simila r plan t i nGerman y (340,00 0 tpy

o f waste ) th e tota l dioxi nan d2,3,7, 8 TCD Demission s wer e 3 1 nanogram s pe r norma l cubi c mete r an dles s tha n0. 1 nanogram s pe r norma l cubi c mete r (1/31 0 PCDD) , respectively . Thi s facilit y ha s a scrubbe r an dES P t o contro l emissions . Recen t stac ktest s result s ondifferen t type s o f dr y scrubber s leadt o inclusiv e result s onth e percen t o f dioxi ntha t i s remove dby a scrubber . Base dondiscussion s wit hEPA , a scrubbe r ca nremov e 5 0 t o 95 % o f th e dioxins . Therefore , t o estimat e th e wors t cas e uncontrolle ddioxi nemission s fo r th e Huntsvill e unit s (252,00 0 tp y o f waste) , i t wil l b e assume dtha t a scrubbe r coul dremov e 95 % o f th e dioxin s becaus e i t give s th e mos t conservativ e estimat e tota l PCDD: ; 

### (3 1 ng/m 3 

### ) x(1/(1-0.95) ) x(1 g/10 9 

### ng ) = 6.2 0 xIO" 7

### g/m 3 Th e maximu m desig n flo wi s 94,72 5 cf m a t 482°F

. 

### (94,72 5 cf

m x((46 0 + 70)°R/(46 0 + 482)°R ) = 53,29 5 scf m (6.2 0 xIO" 7

### g/m 3 

### ) x53,29 5 cfm) x(1 m 3 

### /35.3 2 cfm) x(1 lb/453.6g ) x (6 0 min/hr ) = 1. 2 xIO' 4 lb/h r tota l TCD

D - Dat a no t availabl e fro m tes t report

.P.5 0

2,3,7, 8 TCDD : (6. 2 x10" 7 g PCDD/m 3 ) x(l g TCDD/310 g PCDD ) = 2. 0 x10- 9 g/m 3 (1. 2 xIO" 4 lb/hr ) x(l g TCDD/310 g PCDD ) = 4. 0 x10" 7 lb/h r Proceeding s o f th e ASME/EP A Hazardou s Wast e Incineratio nConference , Williamsburg , VA , Ma y 27-29 , 1981 , p . 90 .

Tota l PCDD Tota l TCD D 2,3,7, 8 TCD D Rang e o f Dioxi nEmission s fro m MS W Boile r 1. 2 xIO* 4 lb/h r 1.3 8 xIO" 4 lb/h r 1. 0 x10- 5 lb/h r 0. 4 xIO" 6 lb/h r 1. 0 xIO" 6 lb/h rP.5 1



### APPENDI XF SUMMAR YOF ABBREVIATION S USE DI N REPOR T



# rP.5 2

ABBREVIATION S

c f - cubi c fee t r f t - fee t M M - millio n
m - mete r Bt u- Britis hTherma l Uni t
n g - nanogra m l b- pound s g - gram s hr - hou r
se c - secon d t - to n d ' - day E.F . - emissio nfacto r tpd- ton s pe r da y tp h- ; ton s pe r hou r tp y - ton s pe r yea r ES P - electrostati c precipitato r MS W - municipa l soli dwast e HSWDA - Huntsvill e Soli dWast e Disposa l Authorit y PS D- Preventio no f Significan t BAC T - bes t availabl e contro l technolog y QMVHR R- Qualifyin g Maximum Volumetri c Hea t Releas e Rat e ppm v - part s pe r millio no na volum e basi s NAAQ S - Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standar d CO 2 - carbo ndioxid eP.5 3

g r- grain s dsc f- dr ystandar d cubi cfee t scf m - standar d cubi cfee t pe rminut e Nm 3- norma l (standard ) cubi cmete r CA A- Clea n Ai rAc t ACGI H - America n Conferenc e o f Governmenta l Industria l Hygienist s PCD D - polychlorinate d dibenzo-dioxin s TCD D - tetrachloro-dibenzo-p-dioxi n

° K- degree s Kelvi n

° F - degree s Fahrenhei t 1.0E-X X - 1. 0 x10" x xP.5 4

ATTACHMEN

T I I
HUNTSVILL E INCINERATO R COMMENT S 1 . Th e proximat e analysi s fo r landfil l ga s ha s no t bee n provided
. Asig

nifican t sulfu r conten t i n thi s ga s i s expecte d an d ma yinfluenc e SO 2 emissio n rate s fo r al l boilers
. 2 . Sulfu r conten t o f sewag e sludg e ha s bee n state d b yapplican t a s zero . AP-4 2 shew s a 1 lb./to n emissio n facto r (dried sludge) , an d a n inciner

ato r projec t i n Californi a state s a 1.2 % w t sulfu r content ; thi s woul d b e 2 4 lbs./to n (assume s 100 % conversio n an d n o retention)
. 3 . N o commen t ha s bee n mad e a s t o th e projecte d throughpu t o f automobil e tire s an

d th e characteristi c emission s expecte d fra n thi s fuel
. 4 . Th e emissio n facto r fo r sulfu r dioxid e emission s frc mMS W wit h a sulfu r conten t o f 0.19 % S b yw t assume s a retentio n i n th e as h o f approxi

matel y75% . Although i t ha s bee n reporte d tha t retentio n o f SO 2 i n MS W as h ma yreac h thi s level , w e fee l a mor e conservativ e estimat e i s 33% . Thi s voul d equat e t o a highe r emissio n rat e o f SO 2 ( 4 lbs./ton ) and i n conjunctio n wit h sewag e sludg e an d landfil l ga s incineratio n ma yresul t i n lowe r aci d ga s an d SO 2 "cos t pe r ton " contro l values
. 5 . Althoug h a n ES P ha s th e comparabl e contro l o f a baghouse , th e baghous e ha s demonstrate d a muc h bette r contro l efficienc yfo r fin e particulat e matter . I n considering th e relativel yhigh concentration s o f furan s ;an d dioxin s o n fin e particulat e matter , baghous e control s appea r t o b e mos t appropriate
. I n additio n t o th e dilutio n o f flyas h particulat e emission s through dryscrubbing fo r reductio n o f aci d gases , th e us e o f dryscrubbing wil l als o reduc e flu e ga s temperature s an d resul t i n increase d remova l o f mercuryan d othe r condensibl e organics
. Ccmbined , th e aci d ga s remova l an d baghous e control s provid e a minimu memissio n rat e fo r pollutant s (dioxins ) whic h hav e n o minimu macceptabl e exposur e limits
. Therefore , du e t o th e preceden t establishe d b yth e Nort h Count y(CA ) remand , i t i s ou r opinio n tha t th e projecte d cos t o f approximatel y $1500/to n o f pollutant s remove d i s a reasonabl e cos t t o incur e fo r th e operatio n o f thi s facility
. I n regar d t o th e increas e i n th e cos t o f th e tipping fe e ($8.8 5 t o $21.0 0 pe r ton) , othe r facilitie s withi n Regio n I V wil l charg e i n exces s o f thi s amoun t t o provid e aci d ga s control , an d th e surrounding communitie s hav e indicate d a willingnes s t o payth e additiona l fee s fo r protectio n o f thei r healt h and wellbeing throug h petition s an

d letter s supporting th e installatio n o f aci d ga s controls
. 6 . Eac h o f thes e boiler s wil l b e subjec t t o NSP S subpar t Db whic h wa s promulgate d o n Novembe r 25 , 1986 . 7 . Wa s UNIMA P 6 use d b yADE M i n modelin g th e impact s o f th e propose d facility ? Whe n wa s ADE M modelin g analysi s performed ? 8 . Continuou s emission s monitor s shoul d b e provide d fo r SO2 , NO2 , and C O t o ensur e continuou s complianc e wit h emission s limits
. 9 . W e fee l tha t BAC T fo r particulat e emission s i s 0.01 5 gr/dsc f correcte d t o 12 % CO 2 instead o f 0.0 2 gr/dsc f correcte d t o 12 % CO 2 a s propose d i n th e draf t preliminarydetermination
.P.5 5
ATTACHMEN

T II I > ^ 

### >M,»/ > r• • 

### ALABAM A DEPARTMEN TO F ENVIRONMENTA L MANAGEMEN T '^LS^ '

Leig h Pegues . Directo r 175 1 Federa l Driv e Montgomery . A L 3613 0 205/271-770 0

Fiel d Office r Uni t 806 . Buildin g 8 22 5 Oxmoo r Circi e Birmingham . A L 3520 9 205/942-616 8

P.O . Bo x95 3 Decatur . A L 3560 2 206/353-171 3

220 4 Perimete rRoa d Mobile . A L 3661 5 205/479-233 6 Februar y 23 , 198 7

A I S ??•

-. i— i r" r . •;' . ~ i > • | x + 'i--.-- Gu vHu m Governo r

'•• S *?ANC H 

## H FE B 

## 2 4 198

7 

# ETSELTDTI J EPA-REGIO NI V ATLANTA , GA
. Mr . Bruc e P . Miller , Chie f Ai r Program s Branc h Air , Pesticides , and Toxic s Managemen t Divisio n U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Regio n IV 34 5 Courtland Stree t Atlanta , G

A3036 5 Dea r Mr . Miller : Thi s i s a followu

p t o ou r recen t meetin g regardin g th e Huntsvill e incinerato r permi t applicatio n pesentl yunde r consideration
. On e majo r are a o f disagreemen t durin g th e meetin g wer e the factor s allowe d t o b e considere d i n makin g a Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology (BACT ) determination
. I hav e enclose d a copyo f th e curren t EPA polic yfo r performin g BAC T assessments . I t i s m yopinio n tha t the EPApolic ysupport s th e factor s considere d i n ou r draf t analysi s and provide s a larg e degre e o f latitud e t o state s i n evaluatin g thes e factors ; specifically : 1 . Indirec t energ yimpacts , suc h a s th e fac t tha t the soli d wast e wil l substitut e fo r fossi l fuel s otherwis e burned , mayb e considere d (se e page s 7 and 9) . 2 . Assessin g th e significanc e o f additiona l control s base d primaril yo n ai r qualit yimpac t i s allowe d unde r th e polic y(se e pag e 11) . 3 . Th e environmenta l consequence s o f th e fac t tha t soli d wast e mus t b e burie d i f the incinerato r i s no t permitte d i s a relevan t soli d wast e disposa l impac t (se e pag e 12) . 4 . Th e localize d economi c impact s ar e relevant , suc h a s th e lo wtipping fe e presentl ycharge d b yHuntsvill e whe n compare d t o othe r part s o f the country(se e pag e 15) . 5 . Th e guidanc e contain s implication s tha t BAC T which.woul d preclud e the operatio n o f a uni t woul d no t b e expecte d (se e pag e 15) . i /P.5 6

Mr . Bruc e P . Miller , Chie f '
- 2 - Februar y23 , 198 7
Finally , th e guideline s clearl yenvisio n differen t level s o f contro l a t identica l unit s locate d i n differen t place s base d o n differen t circumstance s and , i n fact , differen t weightin g o f relevan t factor s an d identica l circumstance s (se e page s 1 an d 4) . Th e high-lighte d portio n o n pag e 4 als o indicate s tha t "stat e judgemen t an d th e federa l emissio n standard s ar e th e foundation s fo r th e BAC T determination"
. I appreciat e you r willingnes s t o discus s thi s issu e an d woul d appreciat e you r thought s o n th e content s o f thi s lette r an d attachment
. Sincerely ,


### Lchar dE
. Grusnick , Chie f Ai r Divisio n REG:u m Enclosur eP.5 7

s 8. 8
CS5A "

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y WASHINGTON . D.C . 2046 0 / 

## JA N 

## 4 197

3 OPTIC S o r

AI R AN O WAST E MANAGEMEN T 

### SUBJECT : Guidanc e fo r Determinin g BAC T Unde r PS D FROM : Davi dG . Hawkins , Assistan t Administrato r fo r Air , Noise , an

dRadiatio n TO : Regiona l Administrators , I- X 

# yy

Th e 197 7 Clea nAi r Ac t amendment s pertainin g t o th e Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD ) requir e tha t the determinatio no f bes t availabl e contro l technology (BACT ) be performe do

na case-by-cas e basi s considerin g energy , environmental , an deconomi c Impact s andothe r costs . Th e enclose ddocumen t provide s guidanc e t o assis t yo ui ndeterminin g BAC T 1 nth e PS Dreview . Thi s documen t ha s bee ncirculate d1ndraf t for m andreviewe db

y you r staff . Th e purpos e o f th e guidelin e 1 s t o provid e th e framewor kfo r a consisten t approac hI ndeterminin g BACT . Th e guidanc e 1 s rathe r general , focusin g o nth e parameter s whic hshoul db e considere d1 nth e analysi s supportin g th e propose dcontro l system . Unfortunately , no specifi c criteri a ca nb e develope da priori , no r ca nquantitativ e factor s relatin g f t o th e weightin g andevaluatio nb f energy , environmental , an deconomi c consideratio nb e prescribed . However , consideratio no f th e same se t o f parameter s shoul dcontribut e t o mor e consisten t decision s amon g th e Regions . I recogniz e tha t th e case-by-cas e BAC T determinatio n1 s a difficul t tas kandon e whic hma y

b e resourc e Intensive . T o minimiz e th e resourc e requirements , th e primar y responslblit y

fo r defendin g th e propose dcon tro l system

mus t b e place donthe source . Th e guideline s sugges t a significan t effor t b

y th e sourc e t o provid e dat a an danalysi s t o suppor t a permi t application . M

y offic e wil l continu e t o provid e assistance fo r the engineerin g aspect s o f contro l technology selectio nthroughoperatio n o f th e OAQP S new

sourc e review

clearinghouse . Enclosur e cc : Assistan t Administrator s and Offic e Director s Director , A1 ran d Hazardou s Material s Division , Region s I - X Director , Facilitie s Technolog yDivision , Regio n I I Director , Enforcemen t Division , Region s I- X

^ ^ QfflC X


## fETSEUT/T b SF'--HSCIO

T 1 7 CFTTz K.-.-.r-: .



# EtsisnT^iid J SS1-BZG108

tr

- kTUtt_,-_.. Trif^_^l*liJi^_:<L-_Zr- .wv.\:--v:..-.*.««u <Offic e o f Air , Noise , an d Radiatio n Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlannin g an d Standard s U . S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 

### 8. 8 P.5 8

GUIDELINE S FO R DETERMININ G BES T AVAILABL E CONTRO L TECHNOLOG Y (BACT )

V**-r»:.? 3

. >. :



# r OECEMBE R197 8



# r

### 8. 8 P.5 9



# I GUIDELINE S FORDETERMININ GBES T AVAILABL E CONTRO L TECHNOLOGY(BACT ) Tec,



# f INTRODUCTION

Th e 197 7 Clea nA1 r Ac t Amendment s establis hmor e restrictiv e condition s fo r th e approva l o f pre-construct1o npermi t application s unde r th e Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD ) program . On e o f th e ne w requirement s 1 s fo r bes t availabl e contro l technology (BACT ) t o b e installe dfo r al l pollutant s regulate dunde r th e Act . Unde r the revise d Act , BAC T 1 s t o b e determine do na case-by-cas e basi s rathe r thanauto maticall y

applyin g a napplicabl e Federa l Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standar d (NSPS) , a s wa s th e cas e unde r th e previou s regulation . Conce m ha s bee n expresse dtha t thes e determination s shoul db e consisten t fro m are a t o area. : Inth e contex t o f case-by-cas e BACT , consistenc y doe s no t ne cessaril y

mea ntha t a ne w

facilit y

1 non e are a wil l hav e a nidentica l emissio nlimi t a s th e same typ e o f facilit y 1 nanothe r area . Consis tenc y mean s tha t a consisten t approac h1 s use dIndeterminin g BAC T and tha t th e Impact s o f alternativ e emissio ncontro l system s ar e measure db y the same se t o f parameters , althoughevaluatio no f specifi c parameter s 1 s don e o na case-by-cas e basis . PURPOS E Thi s guidelin e 1 s Intende dfo r us e b y (1 ) EPA Regiona l Office s in determinin g BAC T durin g th e Interi m perio dbefor e th e State s adop t
•Pollutant s subjec t t o Nationa l Ambien t A1 r Qualit y Standards , Standard s o f Performanc e fo r Ne w Stationar y

Sources , Nationa l Emissio nStandard s fo r Hazardou s A1 r Pollutants , an dEmissio nStandard s fo r Movin g Sources . 

# f

•A. ;..^i^^.f.s'.»V!^rr " r-.-'jr " '^r^yiftr^

### 8. 8 P.6 0



### V

( ar e wel l established . I nshort , th e BAC T analysi s shoul db e hel dt o a minimum wit hth e dept ho f analysi s bein g dependen t onth e difficult y o f th e decision . PHILOSOPH YO F BAC T Th e primar y

purpos e o f BAC T 1 s t o optimiz e consumptiono f PS D ai r qualit y increment s thereby

enlargin g th e potentia l fo r futur e economi c growt hwithou t significantl y degradin g ai r quality . Th e Ac t place s th e responsibilit y

o f determinin g BAC T wit hth * Stat e onc e a PS D SI P revisio n 1 s approved . Th e BAC T decisio n1 s t o tak e Int o accoun t energy , environ mental , an deconomi c Impact s andothe r cost s associate dwit happlicatio n o f alternativ e contro l systems . Thi s case-by-cas e approac hallow s adoptio no f Improvement s 1 nemissio ncontro l technolog y t o become widesprea d
mor e rapidl y

tha nwoul doccu r throug hth e uniform Federa l ne w

sourc e o r hazardou s emissio nstandards . I nsettin g th e NSPS , fo r example , emissio n limit s ar e selecte dwhic hca nreasonabl y b e me t by

al l ne w o r modifie d
source s 1 na nIndustria l category , eve nthoug hsome Individua l source s ar e capabl e o f lowe r emissions . Additionally , becaus e o f resourc e limitation s 1 nEPA , revisio no f ne w sourc e standard s mus t la g somewha t behindth e evolutio no f ne w o r improve dtechnology . Accordingly , new o r modifie dfacilitie s i nsome sourc e categorie s ma y b e capabl e o f achievin g lowe r emissio nlevel s tha t NSP S withou t substantia l economi c impacts . Th e case-by-cas e BAC T approac hprovide s a mechanis m fo r determinin g and applyin g th e bes t technolog y ineac hIndividua l situation . Hence , NSP S
an dNESHAP S ar e Federa l guideline s fo r BAC T determination s andestablis h minimu m acceptabl e contro l requirement s fo r a BAC T determination .

"'"'"" • ..n. *»*n.•—«<•.•• - >.-.-. :

IT. " '

" * * **•.•.•,<• v'*** » "••*•.••« • T'Tl r.^:^^^^iri>>"^^iii;T ^ ••^-•Ty-/vgy->r.^ ^ 

# Lpfi l 

### 8. 8



# r

( penaltie s associate dwit halternativ e contro l option s a s they appl y t o hi s processes . Th e permi t applicatio nshoul dcontai nth e followin g element s relativ e t o BACT : (1 ) Proposa l o f a contro l syste m representin g BACT . BAC T shoul d addres s contro l o f eac hemissio npoin t a t a facility , Includin g fugi tive process , fugitiv e dust , an dstac kemissions . Technology selectio n shoul dconside r applicatio no f flu e ga s treatment , fue l treatment , an d processe s o r technique s whic har e Inherentl y low-polluting . I nn o circumstanc e shoul da system b e propose dfo r any

emissio npoin t unles s 1 t i s a t leas t a s stringen t a s th e applicabl e SI P o r Federa l emissio n requiremen t (whicheve r 1 s mor e stringent) . I ncase s wher e technolog ica l o r economi c limitation s o nth e applicatio no f measuremen t technique s woul dmak e th e Impositio no f a nemissio nstandar dInfeasible , a design , operating , o r equipmen t standar dma y b e established .

. (2 ) Presentatio no f alternativ e system s tha t coul dachiev e a hiqhe r degre e o f emissio ncontrol . Fo r eac hpollutant , th e BAC T permi t applicatio nshoul dpresen t contro l alternative s whic hhav e greate r contro l capabilitie s tha nth e system propose da s BAC T an

dwhic hhave bee nuse do r propose dfo r th e same o r simila r applications . Insom e cases , th e BAC T decisio nma y

requir e a trade-of f o f contro l among pollutants . Tha t is , a technolog y

ma y d o slightl y

wors e i ncontrollin g on e pollutant , bu t do significantl y

bette r i ncontrollin g anothe r air , water , o r soli dwast e residual . Suc halternative s shoul dno t b e exclude dfro m consideration , bu t 1njustifyin g BAC T fo r a give npollutan t onl y thos e alternative s whic hhav e greate r contro l capabilitie s fo r tha t pollutan t nee db e presente di nth e permi t application . f*;

-



# & V

27T-¥r r^^y ^ fc'-'TT. i^y-.-'-. 

# JP.6 2



### t o b e significan t an dwel l quantified . Indirec t energ y impact s includ e such_7mpact s a s energ y

t o produc e ra w

material s fo r constructionjsf L contro l equipment , increase dus e o f foreig noil , o r increase doi l us e i n

•.-/4- * » 

### 8. 8 I'.. 

### specifi c energy , environmental , andeconomi c impact s whic hma y b e addresse d£"•.. .



## . - — . £ v 

## . ^ i nthi s impac t analysj s an dexplain s th e dat a requirement s fo r documentin g [--". .

. • i.
. • , 

### an^advers e impact . Eac ho f th e factor s discusse dbelo w nee dno t b e t . • - addresse di nevery

permi t application . Rathe r thi s guidelin e present s a |
se t o f potentia l impact s an y numbe r o f whic hma y

b e addresse di na £ _-.- 

### permi t applicatio ndependin g o nth e individua l situation . Fo r example , eve nthoug ha contro l syste m ma y produc e soli dwast e by-products , suc h impact s nee dno t b e presente di nth e PS Dpermi t applicatio nunles s th e applican t wishe s t o us e soli dwast e impac t a s a nargumen t agains t selectio n£ o f a particula r contro l alternativ e a s BACT . I ngeneral , th e BAC T analysi s shoul dfocu s o nth e direc t (on-site ) impact s o f alternativ e contro l systems . Indirec t energ y o r environmenta l impact s ar e no t require dbu t ma y b e considere dwher e suc himpact s are_foun d

th e utilit y

grid . Indirec t environmenta l impact s includ e suc hconsider ation s a s pollutio na t a noff-sit e manufacturin g facilit y whic hproduce s material s neede dt o construc t o r operat e a propose dcontro l system . Indirec t impact s wil l generall y no t b e considered , i nth e BAC T review , \

s
• 

### sinc e th e complexit y

o f consumptio npattern s i nth e economy make s thos e t impact s difficul t t o quantify . Fo r example , sinc e manufacturer s purchas e capita l equipmen t an dsupplie s from man y suppliers , wh o intur npurchas e good s fro m

th e othe r suppliers , accurat e tracin g o f indirec t impact s ma y no t 

# r

-

\ "":•'*.'-' • 'i^r'^T^i'r^*-^!*:^^^^^"^ ^

### 8. 8 P.6 3

inal l cases , while , i nothe r instances , factor s whic har e no t include d her e ma y

b e relevan t t o th e BAC T determination . Th e guidelin e doe s no t addres s th e evaluatio no f eac hfacto r no r th e weightin g o f any facto r relativ e t o another . Suc hdetermination s shoul db e mad e o

na case-by cas e basi s b

y th e permittin g authority . Fo r purpose s o f thi s discussion , term s suc ha s "emissio ncontro l system " o r "BAC T system " refe r t o design , equipment , o r operatin g standard s andnon-pollutin g processe s a s wel l a s flu e ga s contro l equipment . I . Energ y

Impac t Energ y impact s shoul daddres s energ y us e associate dwit ha contro l syste m andth e direc t effect s o f suc henerg y us e o nth e facilit y

andth e community . A s note dearlier , indirec t energ y impact s (suc ha s energ y t o produc e ra w

material s fo r constructio no f contro l equipment ) ar e no t require dbu t ma y

be considere di f th e permittin g authorit y determines , base d
o na showin g b

y th e applicant , tha t th e impac t i s significan t and_th_a t th e impac t ca nbe wel l quantified . Som e specifi c consideration s fo r 

# J

energ y impact s ar e presente dbelow . A . Energ y

Consumptio n Th e amount, - typ e (e.g. , electric , coal , natura l gas) , andsourc e
o f energ y

require db

y eac halternativ e emissio ncontro l system shoul d be identifie dandcompare dto the quantitie s an dtype s o f energ y

re quire db

y th e propose dBAC T system . Inanalyzin g fo r energ y consumption , variou s alternative s ca nb e compare di nterm s o f a ) energy consumptio n pe r uni t o f pollutio nremove d(fo r example , Btu/to nhydrocarbo nremoved ) V



# h-

.*.'*&»: . yy:7ii..<;7: ^• :

- : ,.-,. Ti^y':X7i.^iz"T^z : .-Tf'^T f*;us3K*"'->.is v-:-'**Y'P.6 4



### 1 1 8. 8

II . Environmenta l Impac t Th e ne t environmenta l impac t associate dwit heac halternativ e emissio ncontro l system shoul dbe determined . Bot hbeneficia l impact s (e.g. , reduce demission s attribute dt o a contro l system ) andadvers e impact s (e.g. , exacerbatio no f anothe r pollutio nproblem throughus e o f
a contro l system ) shoul db e discusse dan dquantified . A s pointe dou t above , indirec t environmenta l impact s (sucha s pollutio nimpact s a t an off-sit e plan t whic hmanufacturer s chemical s fo r us e i npollutio ncontro l equipment ) normall y

nee dno t b e considered . Th e analysi s shoul db e presente di nth e for

m o f th e incrementa l impac t o f alternativ e contro l system s relativ e t o th e system propose da s BAC T i nth e permi t application . Some specifi c considerations ar e presente dbelow ; A . Ai r Pollutio nImpac t Th e impac t o f ai r pollutant s emitte dfrom , a ga < fugitiv e emissio nsourc e ca nb e asse«» Hterm* nf ja < strea m nrfl_A eithe r quanit v

o f j gmissions , modele deffect s o nai r quality , o r both . I f aipplicatio no f a contro l system

directl y

remove s o r release s othe r ai r pollutant s (o r precursor s t o othe r ai r pollutants) , thenth e pollutant s affecte dan d th e impac t o f thes e emissio nchange s shoul db e identified . Th e analysi s ca nconside r any

pollutan t affectin g loca l ai r qualit y includin g pollutant s whic har e no t currentl y regulate dunde r th e Act , bu t whic hma y be o f specia l concer nlocally . I nth e absenc e o f a mor e systemati c techniqu e (e.g. , market-typ e systems , etc. ) fo r allocatin g PS D increments , BAC T determination s ar e importan t fo r executin g suc hallocations . PS D program s whic hdependonBAC T determination s t o implemen t th e allocatio no f increment s shoul dprojec t r • -

5 ^

f
### Ef -



## :^22T^H^iM^^^^^ *i»-Si^^«S»r«?=3* ^iS5

_

V j - 3. 8 1 3 hazardou s characteristics ) whic h ar e significan t wit h regar d t o potentia l surfac e wate rpollutio n o rtranspor t int o and contaminatio n o fsubsurfac e water s o raquifer s shoul d b e considered . Th

e relativ e effec tiveness , hazar d an d opportunit y fo rsoli d waste managemen t options , such a s sanitar y landfill , incineration , and recycling , shoul d b e identifie d and discussed . D . Irreversibl e o rIrretrievabl e Commitmen t o fResource

s Th e BAC Tdecisio n ma

y conside rth e exten t t o whic h th e alternativ e emissio n contro l system s ma y involv e a trade-of fbetwee n short-ter m environmenta l gain s a t th e expens e o flong-ter m environmenta l losse s : and th e exten t t o whic h th e alternativ e system s ma y resul t 1 n irrever sibl e o rIrretrievabl e commitmen t o fresource s (fo rexample , us e o f scarc e wate rresources) . E . Othe r Environmenta l Impact s Incrementa l difference s Innois e levels , radian t heat , o r dis sipate dstati c electrica l energy shoul db e considere dwher e appropriate . III . Economi c Impac t Thi s analysi s shoul daddres s th e economi c Impact s associate dwit h th e incrementa l cost s o f installin g an doperatin g alternativ e contro l system s abov e th e economi c impac t associate dwith ' th e syste m propose d
a s BACT . Th e revie w

shoul dinclud e a complet e explanatio no f pro cedure s fo r assessin g economi c impact s an dany supportin g data . A s outline dbelow , economi c consideration s ca naddres s direc t economi c impact s onth e fir

m an dImpact s onloca l economi c growth . A . Direc t Economi c Impact s o nth e Plan t Direc t economi c impact s o nth e plan t shoul db e examine dthroug h: . evaluatio no f th e following :

### a. 8 P.6 6

* v t 

### 1 5 2 . Capita l Availabilit y Capita l availabilit y

addresse s the difficult y tha t some source s ma y fac e i nfinancin g alternativ e contro l systems . Proo f o f suc h claim s shoul dbe full y

documented . B . Loca l Economi c Impact s Loca l economi c impact s addres s th e economi c feasibilit y o f al ternat1v e jACT_requirement s an dthe impac t o f the productio ndecision s o f th e fir

m 1nrespons e t o alternativ e level s o f control . Fo r example , a BAC T alternativ e ma y

alte r th e economic s o f a projec t t o th e poin t wher e th e decisio nwoul db e mad e t o cance l th e constructio no r expa n sio no f a facility , t o relocat e a plant , t o reduc e th e scal e o f opera - fe tion , o r t o chang e th e productio nmix . Th e localeconoml c impact s o f ^ \ such^decision s shoul db e assesse d1 nterms o f loca l employmen t effect s / 1ncTuid1ng

_numbe r o f jot?; , dollar s pai din.salaries , andchange s I n/ employe e skiV I level_s_reguired . Th e guidelin e doe s no t Impl y tha t th e 4 BAC T decisio nshoul dforc e ne w project s t o th e brinko f cancellation . \ Th e BAC T decisio nmus t b e base do nsoundjudgment , balancin g environmen t I benefit s wit henergy , economic , an dothe r Impacts . ^^ Loca l economi c impact s als o ca naddres s the effec t o f variou s BAC T alternative s onai r qualit y incremen t consumptio nan dth e subsequen t impac t onfutur e growt hpotentia l 1 nth e surroundin g area . The BAC T decisio nshoul dreflec t polic y decision s t o conserv e the availabl e ai r qualit y incremen t fo r futur e growth . IV . Othe r Cost s Othe r cost s associate dwit halternativ e emissio ncontro l system s ma y b e considere dwher e appropriate . 

# m

Vfr.

>*;£{S£jj ^