P.1 

OAR Box 1790 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

246) ll-F-36 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:17 PM Sheet 246 of 250 
P.2 

A-90-37 

this gets to 

the right 

OFFICE OP MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

DATEl _ SENDERS A'FTM** 

TO: ^TXUOIJ £rufto ^ -

AGENCYt 

PROM: 

RECIPIENT •fi PAX NO.! _ 

RECIPIENT TELEPHONE MO.I 

TOTAL NUMBER OP PAGES. ZMCLDDZNG COVER SHEET: 

COMMENTSt r 

MOTE: IP YOU DO MOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, TLEASE CALL AS SOON 

AS POSSIBLE. 

VERIFICATION MO.I _02-395-73«0 

OIRA PAX MO. I _Q2-J*5-*«S 
P.3 

103 

proposing changes to existing regulations that govern how to 

• determine LAER. . 

The CAAAC s. discussions focused primarily on BACT.'. However, 

'the recommendations and resultant improvements to EPA's control 

technology information systems, the proposed regulatory language 

pertaining to the universe of technology candidates, and 

limitations on the consideration of new technologies would also 

. extend to LAER. The EPA is proposing to create a new paragraph 

for "Control technology review" in the regulations governing 

• development of implementation plans at 40 CFR 51.165(a) (2) to1 

accommodate the new. provisions that, are in common with those 

proposed for BACT at 40 CFR 51.166(j)(5). The CAAAC made no 

specific recommendations • on. the methodology for determining tAER. 

Therefore, the EPA is not proposing changes to existing 

regulations which govern how to determine LAER.34 

B. Proposed Revisions to the Methodology for Determining 

BACT 

. 1 . General description of the BACT determination process 

: Typically, the. proposed major source permit applicant 

conducts a BACT analysis to be submitted with the permit 

application to the permitting authority. The analysis includes 

11 A subsequent proposed rulemaking,' for implementing changea to•• the NSR 

regulations pursuant to provisions in parts C and D of the Clean Air Act as•( 

amended in 1990, will further update the control technology requirements at 40 

CFR 51.155(a)(2)•to reflect statutory requirements. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND . 

BUDGET. REVIEW *' DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

•'. *** July 5,. 1995 -p- [file name: Master6.29] ***. 
P.4 

. 104 . 

an evaluation bf the technical'feasibility and the energy, 

environmental, economic impacts, and other costs associated with 

various alternative control options. The applicant includes in 

its'application the'BACT analysis and what it considers to be the 

best control technology or system of controlling emissions-for 

the particular source or project. The permitting, authority 

reviews the -applicant's analysis and, after considering the 

associated impacts, other case-specific factors and the- public's 

views,' specifies an. emissions limitation for the, source' that, in 

• i • • * ' • ' • . • - • . its reasoned judgement reflects the maximum degree of • reduction % 

-b^-xx ii^> Qxo>v*Mir e-M^n, -4 , {l^- -tU'pA CUVU^LMH Cs a*JU_«*daU/ 

in ill ipuwTiT \t ' ii' i BACT. ' • -^ 

• j.2. ,. The Core Criteria 

i . • • ; ' 

' **»"'<- -.-.ra-i l.aKI a r,r-tr,4- v^ l I I 1 n 1 j j -r>qn-ivr,n J-fr p 3 ^n|nh- i . » ^ 

^a uluiu.imi llllUldLiuu LMUCOJ. 011 tlie •"luaAJmmu dogfloa &£ 

** The Act s_sss confers discretio n on the permittin g 

\ 

j

 3S Best, available control technology is defined in section 

169(3) of -the Act as: 

. j "[A]n emission limitation based oh the maximum degree of

 ! 

. | reduction.. ...which the permitting authority, on a ease-by-- . 

;-case basiB, taking into account energy, environmental, and 

| economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable' 

• : for-such facility through application of production 

[processes and available methods, systems, and techniques, 

[including fuel cleaning, clean fuels,.-or treatment or 

! innovative fuel-combustion techniques for control of each 

| such pollutant." 

Section 16'? (3) also'provides that in no event may BACT result in 

emissions that exceed those allowed by any applicable standard' 

established under sections ill or 112 of the Act. In addition, 

if the reviewing .-authority determines that there is no • 

economically reasonable or technologically feasible way to 

measure the .emissions, and hence to impose an-enforceable.-

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

. j BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY. 

! *** July 5, .1995 [file name: Master6.29] **'* 
P.5 

105 

authority in-establishing BACT. The "permitting authority" , is to 

determine the "maximunrdegree of-reduction" on a "case-by-case 

frJt_^^Wafs*'«r 

basis",*Hjii_fdurin is". ^unufdaringg "energy,, environmental and economic impacts 

'and other costs."See section 169(3) of the Act. 

• Further, in adopting the PSD program, Congress emphasized -

i • . ' •• 

i • • .. . 

the importance of thorough and public analyses in PSD decisionmaking. One of the enumerated purposes of PSD is to assure that 

any jiecision to permit increased air pollution in any area to' 

i -% ,*'.•.... " 

whici PSD applies is made only after careful evaluation of all 

the consequencesNof such a decision and after adequate procedural' 

opportunities for informed public participation in the decisionnaki ig process . See 

•.atutory emphasis 

and brocedural rigor is accompanied, by a recognition that BACT is not k preordained level of reduction but one that must be 

established in light of the circumstances presented eemoriHrtting' 

CjTUl. 

t-ui" *_ * Consequently, the EPA believes a 

BACT determination should, at a minimum, meet two core 

i . ' . • 

requji-rements: (1) all'of the available control systems for the 

source, including the.most stringent, must be considered in the 

equipment 

emis 

equ 

the 

ex 

51 

reo 

extent 

sions standard,' it may require the source to use a design, 

, work practice or operational standard or combination 

f, to reduce emissions of the pollutant to the maximum 

practicable. See also existing sections -52.21(b) (12) aind 

16 6(b)(12). 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

1 BUDGET.REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

| *** July 5, 1995 * [file name.: Masters. 29] . ** + 
P.6 

106 

determination36 and (2) the selection of a particular control • 

system as BACT must be justified in .terms of the statutory 

criteria and supported by the record, and must explain the basis 

for the rejection "Of •«_e, other more stringent candidate control.\, 

^SV"*SVAAA-6*CT ty&JiJiiaZXj 

systems. However, an applicant proposing the ia_^,corrtrol 

alternative need not provide cost, and other detailed information 

.in regard to other control options.37 

'•I Today, the EPA is proposing to make the core criteria 

described herein the minimum requirements for determining BACT. 

The EPA. is proposing to codify in the. Federal PSD regulations at 

i • • '• ' 

40 C^R 52.21 (j) C5). and 52.21 (n)-(2),(iii) , a. specific methodology 

for determining BACT that it believes &_grcomplies with' the. . 

statutory requirements and the core criteria. However, to allow 

States more flexibility under their own rules for making eaae-

• specific BACT determinations, EPA is proposing to insert the core 

criteria into.the regulatory provisions for BACT determinations' 

.in S^p_ at 40 CFR 51.l66(j)(5) and 51.166 (n) (2) (iii) .' Thus,- so 

long| as the core criteria are met, these proposed revisions allow 

j

36 An applicant could limit .its-proposed, list of technology 

alternatives'to the most effective control technologies.' 

.Consideration of. technologies that are outdated or are clearly 

inferior to those in the applicants proposed list would not be 

' necessary.- The EPA is also proposing in this notice, limits on' 

the applicant's responsibility to consider new control 

technologies that are identified after a permit application is 

•determined to be' complete. . See section IV. D. of this notice. 

37 The applicant may need to consider collateral emission 

increases of hazardous air'pollutants under other State programs. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT. AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

****• July 5, i995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.7 

107 ' 

for other methodologies that provide equivalent results with less . 

time and effort. EP A /UAU**k C*%£+£ e^Usa^o*cka*< A OV-llu. 

The EPA requests public comments on alternative methods for 

determining BACT. Commenters should explain or illustrate howsuch alternative method will satisfy the following core criteria 

proposed.in this notice.: (1) all available control systems for 

the -source must be considered in the determination, including, 

thoss .that provide the maximum degree of emissions reduction', and 

(2), selection of a particular control system as BACT,, and the 

basi3 for the rejection of the other more effective emissions 

control systems, must be justified in terms of the statutory 

criteria and supported by the record. Specifically, the comments 

should address how the alternative methodology would provide for 

consideration of energy, environmental, and economic impacts- and 

other, costs. The comments should also include examples that • 

illustrate how the resultant level of control would compare with' 

that achieved, through EPA's recommended method. .See CAA § 

169(b). , 

3. Description of•the Federal Methodology for'Determining 

BACT . 

Since late 1987 EPA has recommended a specific process for 

determining BACT. . The recommendation evolved from a 1986. 

national program audit that identified BACT determinations as a 

defi cient aspect of the PSD permitting process, and a 1987 EPA 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** July -5, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 

*? 
P.8 

108 

permit appeal decision.38 The EPA'B recommended methodology for 

•determining &ACT is .described in detail in the 1990 Draft NSR 

Workshop Manual39 and is summarized below. 

The first.step is to identify, .for the emissions unit in 

question, all "available" control options.40 See propo'sed 

section 52.2i(j)(5). Available control options are those air-

< f . ' 

pollution control technologies or techniques with a practical 

potential for application to the emissions unit and the regulated 

pollutant under evaluation, and which have been "demonstrated in 

practice."' See proposed sections 52.21(b) (42) and (j) (5) (i) :• 

Air pollution control technologies and techniques include the 

application of production processes and available methods, 

systems, and techniques, including fuel cleaning, clean fuels .or 

treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of 

the affected pollutant. See Section 169(3) of the Act. In some . 

j

 38 See "New Source Review Task Force Report," Final Draft, 

Dec; 1986. Honolulu Resource Recovery Facility. PSD Appeal No. 

86-0 (Remand Order, June 22, 1987). "Operational Guidance on 

Control Technology for New and Modified-Municipal Waste 

.Combustors," June 26, 1987. "Improving New Source Review," 

Memorandum from Craig. Potter, Assistant Administrator for.Air and 

Radiation to EPA. Regional Administrators, Regions I-X, December 

1, 1987. 

. ' ! 39 See Chapter B of EPA's 1990 Draft NSR Workshop Manual for 

a mqre detailed, description of EPA's BACT determination polieies, 

including guidance addressing the consideration of energy, 

environmental., and economic impacts. 

' • i • • ••'''. ' 

• ' ! *° The term "emissions unit" may also represent a process or 

a system that might collect emissions from several discrete 

pieces of equipment. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

' BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

;!' *•** July 5, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 

i - '' ' • ' - -

I •' • . . • 

• • I ' • ' • •-.•'• , 

i • • 

• • I - • - - • 

ix- - . ' • ' - - • ' ' • 
P.9 

• 109 ,'•",.-. 

circumstances, inherently lower-polluting processes are 

apprppriate for consideration as available control alternatives. 

By proposing that for consideration in permit'applications, • 

technologies should be "demonstrated in practice,"- EPA intends to 

require consideration of technologies in EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER 

iClearinghouse (See Section IV.C), technologies identified or 

required.'in a regulatory context and technologies meeting, minimum 

operating performance requirements. The EPA proposes to* 

''•-- . 

authorize limiting consideration of emerging technologies that • 

are identified after an application is complete. This ie 

.!".*' . • • . • • 

discussed in more detail in Sections IV.D.l. and IV.D.2. of this 

notice. 

... . 

j In' the second step,' the technical feasibility of each 

conttol option that was identified in step one is evaluated with 

respeot to the source-specific (pr emissions unitTSpecific) 

factors. • See proposed section 52.21(j) (5) (i) . One or more of 

.'!•- . ' ' . ' ' " 

the options may be eliminated from consideration where they are. 

- • 1 • ' . ' . - » • ' • 

demonstrated to be technically infeasible. A demonstration of- •• 

technical infeasibility should be clearly documented and should 

... I • ..-', • 

show^ based on physical, chemical, and engineering principles,' 

that; technical difficulties would preclude the successful use of 

! ' ' 

the tontrol-option on the emissions, unit under review. 

• • ! • • • ' 

! The control technology options identified-as available and 

technically feasible are then ranked by overall control 

j . . ' • ' • 

i 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

- ! BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

j *** July 5, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.10 

• ' n o 

effectiveness for the pollutant under review, with the most 

.effective control alternative at the top. At this point in the 

analysis, it is initially assumed that the most stringent'' 

alternative,represents BACT. pending the consideration of the 

•.source-specific energy, environmental: and economic impacts, and 

.other costs associated with each control option., See proposed 

section 52 .21 (j) (5). (i) . Both beneficial and adverse impacts 

should be discussed and, where possible, quantified. In general, 

'.the BACT analysis should focus on the direct impact' of the 

' control alternative. 

Co/st, \re often a major concern- of the owner or operator of 

.the proposed source and should be included-in the analysis. Both 

average cost effectiveness and marginal (incremental) cost. .'. 

,.effedtiveness should be derived for the control = alternatives and 

considered in the. final decision.41 

if the applicant is disposed.toward selecting the top 

alternative in the listing- as BACT, irrespective of cost, then 

•the analysis need-only address generation•of other air 

41 Cost effectiveness is • the cost of control divided by -the 

mass of emissions (usually in tons) reduced by that control. 

Average cost effectiveness is the cost per ton that would be ' ' 

incurred compared with baseline.controls, (i.e., either 

uncontrolled or the control level that would be required in''the 

absence of the major source requirements for which the source' 1? 

makirig-application) . Marginal or incremental- cost is the 

difference in cost per ton of emissions reduced.at the next most 

stringent level of control, when comparing two dominant control . 

optidinB. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR.OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY . 

*** July 5, 1995 [file name: Master6.29] *** 
P.11 

111 

pollutants, e.g., toxic pollutants. See proposed section . 

52.21 (j) (5) (i) . ' If there are no outstanding issues that would 

justify selection of an alternative control option, the analysis 

ends and the results are proposed as.BACT. 

In the event that the top candidate is shown to be 

inappropriate, due to energy, environmental or economic impacts 

and other costs, rhe rationale for this finding is documented if or 

the public, record.- See proposed section 52.21 (j) (5) (i). Then 

the. next most stringent alternative i,n the listing becomes the 

new control candidate and is similarly evaluated. This process 

continues until the technology under consideration cannot be 

eliminated by any source-specific environmental, energy or' 

-! . . 

economic impacts which demonstrate that alternative to be 

i 

inappropriate as BACT. 

|In summary, under the methodology just described, the mosteffective control option not eliminated based on relevant 

statutory factors is proposed as BACT .for the pollutant and 

- - I • • . .. 

emission unit under 'review. The EPA believes the proposed BACT 

i ' ' ' 

determination, methodology is the most rigorous and reliable way 

of determining a level of control that conforms with the 

• ,- i • ' • • . •' • 

statutory definition of BACT and the core criteria. For this 

i • . • . . • . . . , 

reason the EPA is proposing to codify this methodology in the 

!•'''•• ' Ctm 

Federal NSR regulations. The proposed Federal regulations ^5uld 

alspj serve as a template for those States that choose to 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

i BUDGET REVIEW* DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

i ' *** July 5, 1995 [file name: Mast«r6.29] *** 
P.12 

112 

incorporate this method into their ^t?" Ji T" pV~T~*-*>—~gi nf'-irnTj--,, 

• aad .QftiLuiuLy In LllU ^i_m_fcftiii_ jprocogQi—EPA enamuragoo beth1 

app,IH riantc and' gavicwing agonaics tm vst. this appi«ea.eh» 

4.. Additional Guidance for BACT Determinations 

jThe Federal analytical methodology outlined above-1 provides. 

for reasoned BACT determinations, but it does not dictate a' 

particular result. Although the progression of the analysis is 

logical, the CAAAC suggested that more detailed guidance 

addressing how the method works in real-life applications would .. 

i • . • 

be.helpful. : The CAAAC recommended that the EPA provide guidance 

in tike form of specific examples illustrating (1) how the 

cons:.deration of energy, environmental or economic .factors 

justified -establishing a less .stringent control technology as 

BACTl and (2) how the BACT process may properly result in a BACT 

determination more stringent than initially proposed by the 

source. • X ' 

i The EPA agrees that the issuance of guidance in the form of 

i ' 

illustrative examples would improve understanding of EPA's BACT 

i '. . . • • 

determination'process. Therefore, the EPA is preparing a.case 

study,report, containing examples of BACT determinations properly 

employing the EPA methodology. The ^PA's guidance will examine 

several instances in which less than the most stringent'. 

tfechiologiesiwere determined to represent BACT, and others where 

i - - - ' -

the permitting authority imposed more stringent requirements than 

j ' • ' ' 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

T BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

! *** July 5, 1995 -•-- [file name: Master6.29] ***