best available control technology (bact) requirements roland c. hea, p.e. colorado air pollution...
TRANSCRIPT
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT) REQUIREMENTS
Roland C. Hea, P.E.
Colorado Air Pollution Control Division
2
Main PSD Program Requirements
2
1. Install Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
2. Perform air quality analysis to assess impacts on air quality (NAAQS and PSD increments)
3. Perform Class I Area analysis to assess impacts on national parks and wilderness areas or other Class I Areas
4. Perform additional impacts analysis5. Provide opportunities for public
involvement
3
BACT – Major Topics3
When does BACT apply Steps in the “Top Down” BACT analysis What does a BACT determination and
limit look like Greenhouse gas (GHG) BACT issues State (Colorado) perspectives
4
Best Achievable Control Technology (BACT) Overview
4
Pollutant specific emissions limit, case-by-case Takes into account energy, environmental, or economic
impacts
Limit must be at least as stringent as applicable New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) and/or National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP)
Selected by “Top Down” BACT analysis1. Identify all available control technologies
2. Eliminate technically infeasible control options
3. Rank remaining control technologies by its effectiveness (considering economic, energy and environmental impacts)
4. Evaluate most effective controls and document results
5. Select BACT
5
5
BACT Applicability
Identify emissions units that are subject to BACT
Applies to each individual new or modified affected emissions unit or activity at which a net emissions increase would occur
Perform BACT analysis at each of the applicable emissions units for each regulated pollutant subject to PSD review
6
BACT Analysis Step 16
Identify all available air pollution control technologies, regardless of cost
Information sources Review RACT/BACT/LAER Clearing House
http://cfpub1.epa.gov/RBLC/ Look at BACT and LAER Control technology vendors Federal/state/local NSR permits Environmental consultants Technical journals (e.g., Journal of Air and Waste
Management Association) and air pollution conferences
EPA’s Draft October 1990 NSR Workshop Manual
7
BACT Analysis Step 1 (cont.)
7
Include technologies used outside the U.S. Include controls applied to similar
categories and gas streams Review applicable NSPS and NESHAP
(including MACT), which define minimal “floor” for BACT
Consider Inherently lower-emitting processes/practices Add-on controls (e.g., scrubbers, fabric filters) Combination of inherently lower-emitting
processes/practices and add-on controls
8
BACT Analysis Step 1 (cont.)
8
EPA has not considered BACT requirement as a means to redefine design of a source when considering available control technology For example, EPA does not require
coal-fired electric generators to consider gas-fired electric turbines
Colorado takes the same position on this issue
9
BACT Analysis Step 29
Eliminate technically infeasible control options
Source must demonstrate technical infeasibility, based on physical, chemical, and engineering principles
If someone has issued a permit requiring a certain technology or emission limit, assumption is that the technology or limit is technically feasible (Colorado uses its permitting discretion to assess this aspect)
10
BACT Analysis Step 2 (cont.)
10
Where control technology has not been installed and operated successfully on the type of source under review, feasibility is determined based on Availability (i.e., product has reached licensing
and commercial sales stage of development) Applicability
Control alternative has or will be deployed on same or similar source type, or
Could be used on source based on physical and chemical characteristics of pollutant-bearing gas stream
11
BACT Analysis Step 2 (cont.)
11
Applicant may show technical infeasibility through an unresolvable technical difficulty with applying the control (e.g., size of unit, location of proposed site, operating problems related to specific circumstances of source)
Applicant may not use cost to demonstrate infeasibility, but may be considered in economic impacts portion of BACT analysis
13
BACT Analysis Step 313
Rank remaining control technologies according to control effectiveness. For each pollutant, list includes – Control efficiency (percent of pollutant
removed)– Expected emissions reduction
(tons/year)– Economic Impacts– Environmental Impacts (e.g., significant
impact on surface water)– Energy Impacts
14
BACT Analysis Step 3 -Control Efficiency
14
Two key questions How to compare apples to apples
(deciding common unit for comparing the emissions of each option)
How to analyze control techniques that can operate over a wide range of emission performance levels
Tips: what to watch for Observations: major issues in this area
15
BACT Analysis Step 3 - Expected Emissions Reductions (tons/year)
15
Calculate annual emission projections for each option using standard PTE approach
Options ranked with top spot going to control technology option that achieves lowest emissions level, in descending order of emissions control effectiveness
16
BACT Analysis Step 3 – Economic and Other Impacts
16
Applicant prepares list to display top-down ranking, and for each alternative includes data on Economic impacts Environmental impacts (i.e., non-air quality impacts)
Energy impacts
17
BACT Analysis Step 3 – Economic Impacts
17
Economic impacts include Average cost effectiveness (dollars per ton of
emissions reduced) based on data from similar sources
Incremental cost effectiveness Affordability to source is not as relevant as
average and incremental cost-effectiveness Where control technology has been successful
for similar sources, applicant need to document significant cost differences for its source to eliminate control alternative
18
BACT Analysis Step 3 – Economic Impacts (cont.)
18
Key issues for cost effectiveness Ensure that design parameters used in
cost estimates are consistent with emissions estimates used in other portions of PSD application (e.g., dispersion modeling inputs and permit emission limits)
Ask for more detailed cost data if cost projections appear excessive in light of recent cost data
19
BACT Analysis Step 3 – Economic Impacts (cont.)
19
Average cost effectiveness Total annualized costs of control, divided
by Annual emission reductions (the difference
between the baseline emission rate and the controlled emission rate)
Major issues Underestimation of PTE Overestimation of annualized costs Inclusion of indirect costs that should not
be considered in a BACT analysis (see EPA control cost manual)
20
BACT Analysis Step 3 – Economic Impacts (cont.)
20
Incremental cost effectiveness compares costs and emissions performance level of a control option to the next most stringent option
Calculation Total annualized cost of option 1 minus
total annualized cost of option 2 (less stringent option), divided by
Option 2 emission rate minus option 1 emission rate
21
BACT Analysis Step 3 – Environmental Impacts
21
Environmental impacts should include any significant or unusual other media impacts (e.g., water or
solid waste) Usually limited to discharges with potential for causing
adverse environmental effects Quantify mass and composition of discharges and
consequences of release Impacts on ground water and local surface water; whether
applicable water quality standards will be met; availability/effectiveness of mitigation techniques
Quality and quantity of solid waste to be stored, disposed of or recycled (including permeability, water retention, leachability, hazardous characteristics, etc.)
Irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources (e.g., scarce water resources)
Significant differences in noise levels, radiant heat, dissipated static electrical energy and greenhouse gas emissions
22
BACT Analysis Step 3 – Environmental Impacts (cont.)
22
Environmental impacts should include the relative ability of each control alternative to control emission of HAPs and visibility impacts
Examples where environmental factors have made a difference in a BACT analysis Aqueous versus anhydrous ammonia Dry vs. wet scrubbing for a coal-fired power plant Local water table low, thus dry cooling better option
Environmental concerns become important when site-specific receptors exist Application to tribal issues – discuss with class
23
BACT Analysis Step 3 – Energy Impacts23
Generally consider only direct energy consumption of alternative control technologies
Quantify any benefits or penalties Typically can monetize these impacts
and factor them into the economic impacts analysis
24
BACT Analysis Step 424
Evaluate most effective controls based on all the factors in Step 3
Document results
25
Sample Top-Down BACT Determination25
Small group exercise: Each group makes a recommendation on BACT
Discuss results
26
BACT Analysis Step 526
Ultimate BACT decision is made by permitting agency after public review
BACT is based on most effective control option for which adequate justification for rejection not provided
Public gets at least 30 days to review draft permit Practical advice for reviewers
Public comment hearing provisions Permitting agency will consider any new
information revealed during comment period, including recent permit decisions
27
Implementing BACT27
BACT is an emission limit that Is needed for each emission unit at a source,
subject to PSD for each pollutant subject to review that is emitted by source
Must be met continually at all levels of operation Alternate BACT limits may be needed for other
operational scenarios (e.g., startup/shutdown) Must protect short-term ambient standards
(limits and averaging times) Specifies a control technology or practice,
numerical limit and averaging time
28
Implementing BACT (cont.)28
Incentive to operate efficiently BACT can be made more stringent if initial
BACT emission levels would result in a NAAQS or a PSD increment to be exceeded
Proposed source or modification still has to demonstrate compliance with other standards included in the PSD analysis
Must be enforceable as a practical matter Monitoring considerations for demonstrating
on-going compliance
29
Greenhouse Gas Considerations
29 Relatively new, agencies have less
experience implementing Energy efficiency Setting numerical limits and averaging
times Carbon capture and sequestration See
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgpermitting.html
30
Summary30
Major stationary sources and major modifications that are subject to PSD must conduct a BACT analysis
Each BACT analysis is case-by-case and is based on evaluation of all available control technologies
Alternatives are ranked in descending order of control effectiveness
The most stringent or top alternative is BACT unless the applicant demonstrates that technical considerations or energy, environmental or economic impacts justify the elimination of the control option