UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

NOV 19 1987

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Request for Determination on Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT) Issues -- Ogden Martin Tulsa Municipal Waste Incinerator Facility 

FROM: Gary McCutchen, Chief, 

New Source Review Section, SIB, CPDD (MD-15) 

Michael Trutna, Chief,

Air Toxics Program Section, SIB, CPDD (MD-15)

TO: J. David Sullivan, Chief, 

ALO Enforcement Section, Region VI (6T-EA) 

This is in response to your October 20, 1987, memorandum requesting assistance in 

clarifying BACT issues for a modification to the existing prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) permit for the Ogden Martin Tulsa municipal waste incineration facility. 

As you are aware, no final Agency policy exists as yet on the more general issue of PSD 

permit modifications regardless of the status of the source (operating, under construction, etc.) or 

of the type or magnitude of the change requested. However, we currently plan to have a permit 

modifications package available by the end of this fiscal year. It will more comprehensively 

address the issue of permit modifications, including the group of issues dealing with BACT. In the 

interim, this memorandum addresses only BACT changes for this source and operating sources in 

similar situations. 

First and most important, the source and permitting agency must understand that the 

source is obligated to meet all applicable permit conditions. Conditions in the existing permit 

remain in effect and enforceable until such time as relief may be granted (as in the case of a 

revised permit being issued). Accordingly, it is important to recognize that enforcement actions 

have and will serve as the primary mechanism in ensuring compliance. The BACT guidance 

described in this memorandum is applicable only if EPA finds that the BACT determination in the 

original permit is inappropriate. Any questions on what constitutes appropriate grounds for 

enforcement actions should be referred to Rich Biondi, Stationary Source Compliance Division. 
2 

The information that you have submitted indicates that on December 23, 1982, a PSD 

permit was issued for the construction and operation of three municipal waste incinerator/boiler 

units, each rated at 230 tons per day of municipal waste. Prior to construction, in February 1984 

and again in May 1984, permit modifications were issued to the source resulting in a final permit 

for the construction of two 375 tons per day incinerator units. The units were constructed in 

conformity with the modified permit and subjected to compliance testing in 1986. Measured 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4) and mercury emissions exceed the permit limit 

by a "significant" amount as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i). The source has requested that the 

permit be revised to reflect the actual measured emissions of these pollutants. 

You have requested a determination on whether the exceedance of permitted emissions by 

"significant" amounts, or the determination of a new "significant" pollutant by performance testing 

triggers the reopening of the BACT review process for the Ogden Martin facility. If BACT review 

is reopened, which pollutant(s) would be subject, to what degree should the 

limitations and economics of the existing facility come into play, and would the June 25, 1987, 

"Operational Guidance on Control Technology for New and Modified Waste Combustors" apply 

to this facility? 

Based on the information presented, this response assumes that errors, faulty data, or 

incorrect assumptions contained in the original or modified permit applications have resulted in 

what may be inappropriate BACT emission levels and unpermitted significant emissions, and there 

is no indication that the applicant intentionally acted to misrepresent or conceal data in theirE

original and modified permit applications and BACT analysis. This guidance does not apply to any 

other type of noncompliance scenario. Any time a permit limit founded in BACT is being 

considered for revision, a corresponding reevaluation (or reopening) of the original BACT 

determination is necessary. This is necessary even if the permit limit is exceeded by less than a 

"significant" amount. The significance levels in the PSD regulations define applicability cutoffs 

and are not to be used when evaluating source compliance with PSD permit limits. 

As discussed above, and prior to any attempt to revise or readjust an existing BACT limit, 

the source has an initial obligation to comply with the permit. At a minimum the source should be 

required to investigate and report to the permitting agency all available options to reduce 

emissions to a lower (if not the permitted) level. If compliance with the permit can be reasonably 

achieved, the source should be required to take steps to reduce emissions. If sufficient emission 

reductions down to the permitted level cannot be reasonably achieved, then a reevaluation of the 

permit may be warranted. In the process of reevaluating BACT, current BACT technology 

and requirements must be considered. For municipal waste combustors, the June 26, 1987, 

"Operational Guidance on Control Technology for New or Modified Municipal Waste 

Combustors" would apply; however, in this case, where the source is already operating, certain 

retrofit costs and other costs associated with an already existing facility may be considered. 
3 

For H2SO4, if potential emissions cannot be reduced below the significance level, a PSD 

review is required and the results must be incorporated in the source's PSD permit. As with NOx 

and mercury emissions, the BACT analysis considers current technology and requirements while 

weighing the additional retrofit costs and other costs associated with an already existing 

facility. 

If a revision to the permit is determined to be appropriate, the revision must also address 

all other PSD requirements which may be affected by an allowable increase in permitted or newly 

regulated emissions (eg., protection of the standards and increments, additional impacts, 

monitoring) The control of emissions of toxic air pollutants is an important aspect of PSD review. 

This memorandum does not address potential air toxics issues. Questions on those matters may be 

addressed to Mike Trutna at FTS 629-5345 or Kirt Cox at FTS 629-5399, of the Air Toxics 

Programs Section. 

The revised permit, just like the initial permit, must also go through a public review period 

before it may be issued. 

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please have your staff contact David 

Solomon of the New Source Review Section at 629-5375. 

cc: Richard Biondi 

Judith Katz 

Greg Foote 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION VI 

ALLIED BANK TOWER AT FOUNTAIN PLACE

1445 ROSS AVENUE

DALLAS, TEXAS 75202

REPLY TO:6T-EA 

MEMORANDUM: 

DATE: October 20, 1987 

SUBJECT: Request for Determination on BACT Issues - Ogden Martin Tulsa 

Municipal Waste Incineration Facility 

FROM: J. David Sullivan, Chief 

ALO Enforcement Section (6T-EA) 

TO: Gary McCutchen, Chief 

Control Programs Development Division 

New Source Review Section (MD-15) 

Michael Trutna, Chief

Control Programs Development Division

Air Toxics Program Section (MD-15)

I request your assistance in clarifying BACT issues associated with the application for a 

modification to the existing PSD permit for the Ogden Martin Tulsa Municipal Waste Incineration 

Facility. Performance tests conducted in 1986 indicated that actual emissions of nitrogen oxides, 

mercury, and sulfuric acid mist exceeded PSD permit limits, and the facility has requested permit 

modifications to increase allowable emissions to those measured. I am attaching relevant 

correspondence and portions of Ogden Martin's application to modify its PSD permit. 

The measured NOx, H2SO4 and mercury emissions exceeded the permitted limit by a 

"significant" amount as defined by 40 CFR Section 52.21(b)(23)(i). H2SO4 emissions were 

previously permitted at 5.5 tons per year, which is below the significance level of 7 tons per year. 

The emission rate for H2SO4 determined by performance tests was 42.5 tons per year. Thus, the 

facility had not previously been reviewed for BACT for H2SO4. NOx and mercury emissions had 

previously undergone BACT review for the permitted levels. HCl emissions were determined by 

performance tests to be 504 tons per year. 

We request a determination on whether the exceedance of permitted emissions by 

"significant" amounts, or the determination of a new "significant" pollutant by performance testing 

triggers the re-opening of the BACT review for Ogden Martin. If BACT review is reopened, 

which pollutant(s) would be subject, to what degree should the limitations and **/ 

**/ [The remainder of this memo is missing.]