Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Applicability
| Date | Title | EPA Office | Author | Issues Addressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/30/1978 | BACT Applicability for Coke Oven Batteries (pdf) | SSCD | Reich, Edward | Concerns the applicability of PSD and BACT to a replacement coke oven battery that is serviced by an existing by-product’s plant whose SO2 emissions do not increase as a result of the replacement coke oven battery. |
| 06/16/2004 | Brooklyn Navy Yard Clean Unit Determination (pdf) | Region 2 |
Riva, Steven |
Whether existing combustion turbines at the Brooklyn Navy Yard are eligible for a Clean Unit exemption under NSR. |
| 06/01/1978 | Interpretation of PSD Regulations as they Apply to CIBRO, Albany, New York (pdf) | SSCD | Reich, Edward | Addresses a number of questions regarding an ongoing construction project, including: When a new source incorporates one or more existing facilities, should the emissions from those facilities be considered when calculating potential new emissions for PSD purposes; What would be the result if such existing facilities had been moved to a different location within the same airshed; Could facilities be exempt from BACT requirements simply because they are “pre-existing” sources? |
| 12/11/1978 | PSD Applicability - Temporary Emissions (pdf) | SSCD | Reich, Edward | Whether construction-related emissions should be considered in determining whether a source is subject to PSD review or in determining whether a source is required to undergo second-tier review, and whether BACT should be applied to the emissions associated with the construction. |
| 09/29/1978 | BACT Exemptions in PSD Review (pdf) | SSCD | Reich, Edward | Responds to request for clarification of BACT exemption in 52.21(j)(4) of the PSD regulations for a new or reconstructed source, and whether PSD applies to temporary asphalt batch processing plants. |
| 06/15/1993 | BACT Applicability (pdf) | Region 4 | Speaks to which emission units are required to undergo a BACT review and resolves an apparent contradiction between EPA guidance and the PSD regulations as it concerns BACT applicability. | |
| 06/08/2004 | Clarification That BACT Analysis Under PSD is Applicable for A Proposed Modification to the Rotary Kiln (pdf) | Region 6 | Neleigh, David | Addresses a proposed modification to the rotary kiln located at the Holcim US, Inc., Ada Portland Cement Plant. The project includes replacing a “direct” firing system with an “indirect” firing system and replacing the existing burner within the kiln. Clarifies whether a burner of the indirect firing system is part of the changed emissions unit (the kiln) and thus subject to BACT. |
| 12/24/1997 | BACT Analysis for Westvaco Corporation Paper Mill in Luke, Maryland (pdf) | Region 3 | Katz, Judith and Smolksi, Robert | Pertains to BACT applicability for a modification involving replacement of digesters at a Kraft paper mill and whether to treat power boilers as part of the digester emissions unit for purposes of BACT. |
| 11/30/2000 | PSD Questions Associated with Proposed Modification at E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company's Spruance Plant (pdf) | Region 3 | Katz, Judith | Pertains to a proposed project at DuPont’s synthetic fiber manufacturing facility and discusses how “emissions unit” is defined under the NSR program and how an NSPS can be helpful in defining the scope of the emissions unit for purposes of applying BACT. |
| 02/08/2000 | Applicability of PSD to Debottlenecked Sources (pdf) | Region 5 | Miller, Robert | Relates to the applicability of BACT for emission units that are unchanged and debottlenecked as a result of a physical change or change in the method of operation. |
| 12/13/2000 | Southern LNG, Inc., Elba Island Terminal, Savannah Georgia Draft Air Quality Permit and PSD Preliminary Determination (pdf) | Region 4 | Neeley, R. Douglas | Pertains to a draft PSD permit for reactivation of a liquified natural gas (LNG) terminal that involves replacing 5 LNG vaporizers with 5 larger capacity LNG vaporizers. Addresses how to treat emissions units for PSD applicability purposes under EPA’s Reactivation Policy and provides comments on several portions of the draft permit, including the vaporizer BACT, the air quality impact assessment, emission inventories used in the NAAQS and PSD compliance monitoring, and ozone ambient conditions. |
Related Topics: Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Procedure | Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Cost Considerations
Return to Policy & Guidance Document Index
The “Relevant Guidance” index includes a collection of documents issued by EPA organized by topic area. These documents include memoranda, letters, orders, and other types of EPA actions that may provide guidance in one or more forms, such as an adjudication, statement of policy, interpretation of statutes or regulations, or technical information. Each collection is intended to be representative of EPA statements on the topic, but it may not be a complete listing of such statements. The collection does not reflect topic-specific statements that have been expressed by EPA though published rule preambles and Title V petition orders, nor does it include EAB decisions. Each document in the collection speaks for itself, and the inclusion or exclusion of a document in the collection is not intended by EPA to communicate anything more than what is expressed within each document. EPA makes no independent representations on this website as to the extent to which any document in the collection reflects EPA’s current views on the topic, is a final action by EPA, or has any legal effect or precedential weight. Readers are advised to review the documents in the collection and conduct their own assessment of such considerations based on the content of each document and other documents in the collection. Some of the information or views included in the documents may be affected by subsequent changes to the referenced statutory or regulatory language or by court decisions. In addition, many of the statements in these documents are based upon the federal regulations which may differ from rules that govern federally-approved programs. Permitting authorities are advised to consult with their EPA Regional Offices if there is a question as to the relevance of a particular statement to their NSR program.