THE BACT ANALYSIS GUIDE

Often the most cumbersome portion of a Best Available Control Technology Analysis (BACT Analysis) is the BACT Cost Analysis. The BACT Cost Analysis (economic impact study, cost effectiveness determination, etc.) must consider ALL of the costs associated with each technically feasible control scenario selected during the initial stages of the BACT Analysis.

In general, the BACT Cost Analysis for each control device must include:

• Total Capital Investment (TCI)
• Indirect Annual Cost
• Direct Annual Cost

The Total Annualized Cost (in current dollars) is divided by the amount of pollutant removed (in tons/year). This value is known as the “Cost Effectiveness” value and for the purposes of a BACT Analysis; it is used to determine whether a control scenario is economically feasible or infeasible. For economic reasons, it is important that your BACT Cost Analysis takes into account ALL of the costs associated with the installation and use of the control scenarios in question. There are a few resources available for estimating these costs (EPA software, vendor quotes, etc.). However, none of these resources should be considered completely accurate.

For common control devices, the EPA’s Air Compliance Advisor (ACA) software can be used to estimate these costs. However, the equations that are used to generate these estimates are valid only for certain operational ranges, do not consider site specific aspects for installing and operating the control technologies, and may provide unacceptably low cost effectiveness values. For some BACT Analysis projects, relying on the ACA software may mean that a BACT is selected that is not, in fact, the best available control technology (taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts). This could potentially cost the facility hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in unwarranted control device requirements.

In order to accurately estimate the cost of each control device to be considered in your BACT Cost Analysis, it is important to understand each line item:

• TCI = Indirect Capital Costs + Direct Capital Costs + Contingency Costs + Inventory Capital
  • Indirect Capital Costs (installation and erection)
    • General Facilities Costs
    • Engineering and Office Costs
    • Process Contingency Costs
  • Direct Capital Costs
    • Cost of purchased equipment
• Indirect Annual Costs
  • Capital Recovery Costs
  • Property Taxes
  • Insurance
  • Administrative Charges
  • Overhead
• Direct Annual Costs
  • Fuel
  • Reagent (as required)
  • Electricity
  • Water
  • Maintenance
  • Labor
  • Parts Replacement (e.g., catalyst replacement)

Understanding the equations and parameters used to perform the BACT Cost Analysis is very important, especially if you are relying on the EPA’s ACA software. Here are some examples of how minor changes to the equations and parameters used in the BACT Cost Analysis can affect the result of your Economic Impact Study:

Example 1
A BACT Cost Analysis found the Cost Effectiveness value for a SCR used to control NOx emissions from a wood-fired boiler to be $14,175/ton NOx removed. However, this value was calculated assuming an interest rate of 7%, when a more realistic interest rate may have been 10%, bringing the Cost Effectiveness value to $16,871/ton NOx removed.

Example 2
Within certain operational ranges, a high-temperature catalyst (catalytic oxidation) can be used to control CO emissions from a fuel burning source, which has a purchase price of approximately $300,000 (actual vendor quote form BACT Analysis project). Upon further investigation, it is determined that the exhaust temperature is lower than required for the efficient destruction of CO in a high-temperature catalyst. As such, a catalyst containing precious metals must be used to allow reactions at lower temperatures. This low-temperature catalyst costs $600,000, bringing the Cost Effectiveness value from $12,497/ton CO removed to $13,426/ton CO removed.

Things to remember:

• Many control device cost estimation resources provide cost values in historical dollars. These values need to be updated, using an inflation factor, to reflect current dollar amounts.
• Vendors are a good source for direct capital costs (i.e., equipment costs). However, vendors know what a BACT Analysis is and may attempt to give you a “conservative” (low) estimate in hopes that their product is chosen as BACT. Furthermore, unless they have performed a site inspection, they can’t account for site specific factors, which may alter the cost provided in their quote. Finally, if you do use a vendor as a source for your cost estimate, be prepared to wait weeks (or sometimes even months) for them to get back to you with a quote.
• Each regulatory agency has a different opinion about the maximum economically feasible cost effectiveness value, and many (e.g., CTDEP) will not tell you what that value is. Just because you or your client believe that the control device is economically burdensome does not mean that the permit reviewer will agree. As such, it is always safer to make sure that your BACT Cost Analysis is as accurate, and site specific, as possible.

If you have any questions concerning, or would like assistance completing, a BACT Cost Analysis or any other portion of your project, feel free to contact me at any time.

bmogan BACT Analysis

On September 30, 2009 the EPA announced a proposed rule that sets permitting and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements for large facilities that emit over 25,000-tons of greenhouse gases (GHG) per year.  The proposed rule has been titled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule” and focuses on emissions of the following group of GHG:

• Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
• Methane (CH4)
• Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC)
• Perfluorocarbons (PFC)
• Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)

The EPA is proposing that the GHG emissions from facilities be estimated using carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which is the international standard. This metric uses the global warming potential of gases other than CO2 to translate them into CO2e.

Under the Title V program (40 CFR part 70), facilities would be considered a major source if they emit greater than 25,000-tons/year of CO2e and would be required to obtain a Title V operating permit. Under the New Source Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, a new source, or major modification at an existing source, would be considered major if it emits greater than 25,000-tons/year of CO2e and would be required to obtain a PSD permit. Modifications at existing major sources resulting in CO2e emissions increases of 10,000-tons/year to 25,000-tons/year (the exact number has not yet been decided) would be required to obtain a PSD permit.

The facilities with GHG emissions that trigger the PSD permitting requirements would be required to perform a BACT Analysis and incorporate BACT to control GHG emissions from their facility. Facilities that may be subject to this proposed rule include: power plants, refineries, and municipal solid waste landfills. Small facilities such as farms and restaurants will not be subject to the proposed rule.

The BACT for Carbon Monoxide (CO) from many of these large facilities is an oxidizer (or incinerator). These devices control CO emissions by converting them into CO2. Under this new rule, a facility could be required to obtain a Title V or PSD permit due to the secondary emissions from their CO control device (i.e., without the control device they would not have to be permitted for their CO2e emissions). Furthermore, the same facility may be required to install BACT for GHG emissions. This could pose a great financial burden on facilities subject to this rule. One possible solution to this issue is that the EPA could allow that only primary CO2 emissions (not those generated during CO control) be included when comparing CO2e emissions with the GHG permitting threshold.

bmogan BACT Regulations BACT Analysis, Best Available Control Technology Analysis, CO2 BACT, GHG BACT, Greenhouse Gas BACT, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule

A Best Available Control Technology Analysis (BACT Analysis) for this 385-MW coal fired power plant revealed that the BACT for SOx emissions was a scrubber and the BACT for NOx emissions was a selective catalytic reduction system (SCR). This video summarizes the project, located at Basin Electric Power Cooperative’s Dry Fork Station (currently under construction), and describes the technology behind the state-of-the-art reflux circulating fluid bed dry scrubber.

bmogan BACT Analysis BACT, BACT Analysis, BACT for Coal Fired Power Plant, Best Available Control Technology Analysis

For common applications, such as boilers and turbines, a Best Available Control Technology Analysis (BACT Analysis)typically must consider a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system as a potentially applicable technology for control of NOx. With the relatively recent (October 2004) industrial application of Babcock Power’s Regenerative Selective Catalytic Reduction (RSCR) system, a BACT Analysis that must consider SCR may likely require consideration of RSCR as well, especially for biomass fuel burning equipment.

SCR systems require a minimum temperature of approximately 575°F for the destruction of NOx. For applications where the process or equipment burns biomass fuels, a particulate control device is usually needed upstream of the SCR for it to function properly. However, by the time the flue gases pass through the particulate control device their temperature range is much less than required (between 57 and 61 percent) for the SCR to operate effectively. The traditional solution would be to install a natural-gas or oil fired burner between the SCR and particulate control device to re-heat the air to the appropriate temperatures. The economic burden of the capital costs associated with this control scenario, as well as the cost of the fuel required to operate the burners, is not cost effective given the amount of NOx removed.

As a solution, Babcock Power teamed with Pro-Environmental, Inc. (PEI) to combine Babcock’s SCR expertise with PEI’s Regenerative Thermal Oxidation (RTO) technology, capable of achieving heat recovery efficiencies of greater than 95 percent, to produce the RSCR technology. In 2005, a RSCR system installed at a 50MW power plant fired by wood and construction/demolition waste achieved a NOx emission rate of 0.07-lb/mmBTU. This emission rate equates to an 86% reduction in NOx emissions from wood waste combustion (AP-42 Chapter 1.6, Table 1.6-2 “Dry wood-fired boilers”).

If you would like more information on RSCR techology, visit Babcock Power’s website.

If you would like help completing your BACT Analysis, or any portion thereof, feel free to contact me.

bmogan BACT Analysis BACT, BACT Analysis, Best Available Control Technology Analysis, Biomass Boiler NOx BACT, NOx BACT, RSCR BACT, SCR BACT

After identifying all of the control technologies with the practical potential for application to the emission unit, the BACT Analysis proceeds with eliminating technically infeasible control scenarios. For the purposes of a BACT Analysis, a technically feasible control scenario is one that has been used in the “real world”. By this I mean that just because a professor at some university has developed an experimental device for controlling NOx from a biomass boiler doesn’t mean you have to consider it as a technically feasible control device in your BACT Analysis. However, if a control device is commercially available and has the practical potential to control emissions from your source, then you must consider it to be technically feasible and include it in your BACT Analysis.

According to the 1990 EPA NSR Workshop Manual, in order to show that a control scenario is technically infeasible you must “clearly document and show, based on chemical, physical, and engineering principles, that technical difficulties would preclude the successful use of the control option on the emission unit under review”.

Here is an example:

Our client wanted to install a 6-MW Biomass Boiler to supply process heat for the greenhouses at their facility. Because of the potential emissions from the proposed emission unit, our client was required to perform a BACT Analysis for PM, PM10, NOx, and CO.

One of the control devices identified for the control of particulate matter (PM and PM10) from the boiler was a fabric filter, also known as a baghouse. Although baghouses are used to control particulate emissions from biomass boilers, they are typically installed on larger units at facilities which have full-time boiler staff (1). If left unmonitored, burning cinders, temperature excursions, and/or operating upsets could result in a fire (2). Our client did not have a full-time boiler staff and therefore using a baghouse to control particulates from the proposed boiler was deemed technically infeasible.

If you have questions regarding the technical feasibility of the control technologies that you have identified, feel free to contact Brandon Mogan at 800-850-2348 ext. 6115, or click here for more information.

(1) Resource Systems Group, Inc.
(2) Hog Fuel Boiler RACT Determination. Washington State Department of Ecology. Doc. No. 03-02-009

bmogan BACT Analysis BACT, BACT Analysis, BACT EPA, Best Available Control Technology, Boiler BACT, technical feasibility, technically infeasible

• Control Devices
• Alternative source operating scenarios
• Alternative fuel combustion techniques
• Control technologies that have been applied to similar emission units

The list of potentially applicable control technologies should be comprehensive. It should include every control scenario from that which provides the most pollutant control (typically LAER) to that which provides the least pollutant control. When generating this list, one must consider all sources of information, including but not limited to:

• EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
• EPA/State air quality permits
• Federal/State air emission inventories
• Control equipment vendors
• Manufacturer’s and trade associations
• International and foreign environmental agencies
• Inspection/Performance test reports
• Technical papers and journals
• Pollution prevention resources

The process of identifying applicable control technologies is a tedious and in-depth process. There are, however, some on-line resources available that offer a good starting point for this purpose. The following is a review of some more commonly referenced sources for identifying control technologies.

EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC) is a database of best available control technologies that have been applied to reduce emissions of air pollutants. As seen below, it is set up in a very user friendly fasion:

RBLC Database Search

This image is of a “find lowest emission rate” search for carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from a commercial size wood-fired boiler. This search results in the following results:

RBLC Database Search

From this search we have identified two different facilities which have applied best available control technologies for carbon monoxide emissions from their wood-fired boilers. To get more information about the type of control technology, the user must simply click on the “create report” button.

From project experience, I have found that the RBLC is very incomplete and limiting your search to control technologies found in the RBLC is not acceptable to most regulators.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) of southern California posts their BACT decisions online and is a good resource to use to identify control technologies applicable to the emission unit, or similar emission units. Simply follow the above link to their website and search through the BACT decisions.

SCAQMD BACT Database Search Result

In this example, the emission unit (or process) is a system for manufacturing fiber-impregnated material. The control technology that was considered BACT in this case was a baghouse for the control of particulate emissions from the process coupled with the use of zero-VOC materials.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)

BAAQMD BACT Workbook Search Result

The identification of applicable control technologies is often a difficult and time consuming task. The reason for this is that, in many cases, the expectations of the regulator go beyond simple online database and resource searches. If you are required to perform a BACT Analysis, I suggest you discuss available resources with your permitting engineer because in most cases they will be the one accepting or denying your analysis.

If you would like assistance with completing your BACT Analysis, I have the project experience and proprietary tools that make the process as quick and seamless as possible. Please feel free to contact me at any time for a FREE BACT Analysis Consultation.

bmogan BACT Process BACT, BACT Analysis, Best Available Control Technology, Boiler BACT, EPA BACT

The BACT Analysis requirement is common for the utility industry (e.g., a turbine at an electrical generating facility). Here are a few more uncommon cases where a BACT Analysis was required:

Tub-Grinder with 325-HP Diesel Engine

This Tub-Grinder, used to grind municipal waste at a landfill,
was subject to a BACT Analysis because of its potential 
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx).

Fuel Cell Test Stand

 Fuel cell test stands requiring a BACT Analysis for their potential
hydrogen emissions.
www.eutech-scientific.de

 It is important to consider all applicable regulations when determining whether or not you must perform a BACT Analysis. Again, the requirement is not dependant upon the process or equipment, but the type and amount of pollutant being emitted from the process or equipment. If you require assistance determining whether or not your project is subject to a BACT Analysis, or you need help with the BACT Analysis process, click here.

bmogan BACT Projects, General BACT, BACT Analysis, BACT Analysis Projects, BACT Landfill, Best Available Control Technology Analysis, Test Stands

Why might a Best Available Control Technology Analysis (BACT Analysis) apply to my project? The requirement to perform a BACT Analysis applies to significant emissions of New Source Review (NSR) Pollutants from new sources and from modifications of existing sources. The applicable federal regulations are found at 40 CFR 52.21(j). The BACT Analysis requirement is also covered by regulations for State Implementation Plan (SIP) approval of a state Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program at 40 CFR 51.166(j).

Natural Gas Fired Boiler

The BACT Requirement applies to new sources, or modifications of existing sources, which emit the following NSR pollutants:

• Pollutants with a National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), also known as criteria pollutants, which include:
  • Ozone
  • Carbon Monoxide
  • Particulate Matter
  • Sulfur Dioxide
  • Lead
  • Nitrogen Oxide
• Other pollutants including sulfuric acid mist, hydrogen sulfide, etc.
• Note that some states, such as Connecticut require BACT for ANY pollutant

The federal regulations require that “Major Sources” and “Major Modifications to existing sources” perform a BACT Analysis. However, some states have more stringent requirements. The following are a few examples:

• Connecticut
  • Potential emissions greater than the threshold for major sources and major modifications
  • Potential emissions greater than 15-tons per year from ANY new emission unit or modification to existing emission units (not just major sources)
• South Carolina
  • Any new construction when the net VOC emissions increase is greater than 100-tons per year

For your state’s specific BACT requirements, you should check with your local regulator (City, County, State).

bmogan BACT Regulations, General BACT, BACT Analysis, BACT Applicability, BACT Regulations, Best Available Control Technology Analysis, Connecticut BACT, South Carolina BACT

Technorati Profile

bmogan Uncategorized

 In the world of air pollution control engineering, the requirement to perform a Best Available Control Technology Analysis (BACT Analysis) is nearly unavoidable. Regulatory requirements associated with the BACT analysis process vary from state to state but the following generally applies:

• Identify all available control systems that have the PRACTICAL POTENTIAL for application to the unit
• Eliminate TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE systems
• Consider Energy, Economic, and Environmental Impacts
• Reject systems based on the above considerations

Those systems which are considered technically feasible are ranked from those providing the most control to those providing the least control. The emission rate utilizing the most efficient control system is considered the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER). For example, for the control of nitrogen oxides from a boiler a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system may provide the highest control efficiency while a Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) system may provide the least. In this case, the SCR would be ranked first and the emission rate associated with the use of the SCR would be the LAER.

In some cases, the control device providing LAER isn’t a feasible solution for pollution reduction from the emission unit. In general, energy, economic, and environmental impacts must be considered when determining a systems feasibility. Control scenarios are eliminated based on these impacts and the most efficient remaining system is the Best Available Control Technology or BACT.

bmogan General BACT, Best Available Control Technology, LAER, Lowest Achievable Emission Rate