[Federal Register: June 15, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 114)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33473-33522]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15jn04-15]
[[Page 33473]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Final Rule
[[Page 33474]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2002-0059; FRL-7630-8]
RIN 2060-AG-63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal
combustion engines (RICE) with a site-rating of more than 500 brake
horsepower (HP). We have identified stationary RICE as major sources of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions such as formaldehyde,
acrolein, methanol, and acetaldehyde. The NESHAP will implement section
112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to
meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of the maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) for RICE. We estimate that 40
percent of stationary RICE will be located at major sources and thus,
subject to the final rule. As a result, the environmental, energy, and
economic impacts presented in this preamble reflect these estimates.
The final rule will protect public health by reducing exposure to air
pollution, by reducing total national HAP emissions by an estimated
5,600 tons per year (tpy) in the 5th year after the rule is
promulgated. The emissions reductions achieved by these standards will
provide protection to the public and achieve a primary goal of the CAA.
DATES: The final rule is effective August 16, 2004. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the final rule are
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 16, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0059 and Docket ID No. A-95-
35 contain supporting information used in developing the standards. The
dockets are located at the U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460 in room B102, and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning
applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or
local agency representative. For information concerning the analyses
performed in developing the NESHAP, contact Mr. Sims Roy, Combustion
Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-C439-01), U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5263;
facsimile number (919) 541-5450; electronic mail address
roy.sims@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIC NAICS Examples of regulated
Category \1\ \2\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industry using a 4911 2211 Electric power
stationary RICE as defined generation,
in the final rule. transmission, or
distribution.
4922 48621 Natural gas
transmission.
1311 211111 Crude petroleum and
natural gas production.
1321 211112 Natural gas liquids
producers.
9711 92811 National security.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\2\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.6585 of the
final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this
action including both Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0059 and Docket ID No. A-
95-35. The official public docket consists of the documents
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received,
and other information related to this action. All items may not be
listed under both docket numbers, so interested parties should inspect
both docket numbers to ensure that they have received all materials
relevant to the final rule. Although a part of the official docket, the
public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The
official public docket is the collection of materials that is available
for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744,
and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-
1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments,
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket facility identified above. Once in
the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket
identification number.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of the final NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by August 16, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only
an objection to a rule or procedure raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial
review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by the final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal
[[Page 33475]]
proceeding brought to enforce these requirements.
Background Information Document. The EPA proposed the NESHAP for
stationary RICE on December 19, 2002 (67 FR 77830), and received 64
comment letters on the proposal. A background information document
(BID) (``National Emission Standards for Stationary Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines, Summary of Public Comments and
Responses,'') containing EPA's responses to each public comment is
available in Docket ID Nos. OAR-2002-0059 and A-95-35.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
C. What Are the Health Effects Associated with HAP from
Stationary RICE?
D. What Is the Regulatory Development Background of the Source
Category?
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What Sources Are Subject to the Final Rule?
B. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by the
Final Rule?
C. What Are the Primary Sources of HAP Emissions and What Are
the Emissions?
D. What Are the Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations?
E. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements?
F. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions?
G. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements?
III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
A. Emission Limitations
B. Operating Limitations
C. Testing and Monitoring
D. Other
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. Applicability
B. Definitions
C. Dates
D. Emission Limitations
E. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
F. Testing
G. Risk-Based Approaches
H. Other
V. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental and Energy
Impacts?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The
stationary RICE source category was listed as a major source category
on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that
have the potential to emit greater than 10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy
of any combination of HAP.
B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing sources in listed source
categories. The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree
of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of
control is commonly referred to as the MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all
regulated sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as
that already achieved by the better controlled and lower emitting
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the
MACT standards cannot be less stringent than the emission control that
is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. The MACT
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best performing
five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30
sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
C. What Are the Health Effects Associated With HAP From Stationary
RICE?
Emission data collected during development of the NESHAP show that
several HAP are emitted from stationary RICE. These HAP emissions are
formed during combustion or result from HAP compounds contained in the
fuel burned.
The HAP which have been measured in emission tests conducted on
natural gas fired and distillate oil fired RICE include: 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane, 1,3-butadiene, 2,2,4-trimethylpentane, acetaldehyde,
acrolein, benzene, chlorobenzene, chloroethane, ethylbenzene,
formaldehyde, methanol, methylene chloride, n-hexane, naphthalene,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polycyclic organic matter, styrene,
tetrachloroethane, toluene, and xylene. Metallic HAP from distillate
oil fired stationary RICE that have been measured are: cadmium,
chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium.
Although numerous HAP may be emitted from RICE, only a few account
for essentially all of the mass of HAP emissions from stationary RICE.
These HAP are: Formaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and acetaldehyde.
The HAP emitted in the largest quantities from stationary RICE is
formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen and can cause
irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract, coughing, dry throat,
tightening of the chest, headache, and heart palpitations. Acute
inhalation has caused bronchitis, pulmonary edema, pneumonitis,
pneumonia, and death due to respiratory failure. Long-term exposure can
cause dermatitis and sensitization of the skin and respiratory tract.
Acrolein is a cytotoxic agent, a powerful lacrimating agent, and a
severe tissue irritant. Acute exposure to acrolein can cause severe
irritation or corrosion of the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, with
tearing, pain in the chest, and delayed-onset pulmonary injury with
depressed pulmonary function. Chronic exposure to acrolein can cause
skin sensitization and contact dermatitis. Acrolein is not considered
carcinogenic to humans.
Humans are very sensitive to the toxic effects of methanol
including formic acidaemia, metabolic acidosis, ocular toxicity,
nervous system depression,
[[Page 33476]]
blindness, coma, and death. A majority of the available information on
methanol toxicity in humans is based on acute rather than long-term
exposure. However, recent animal studies also indicate potential
reproductive and developmental health consequences following chronic
exposure to methanol in both mice and primates. Methanol has not been
classified with respect to carcinogenicity.
The health effects for acetaldehyde are irritation of the eye
mucous membranes, skin, and upper respiratory tract, and a central
nervous system (CNS) depressant in humans. Acute exposure can cause
conjunctivitis, coughing, difficult breathing, and dermatitis. Chronic
exposure may cause heart and kidney damage, embryotoxicity, and
teratogenic effects. Acetaldehyde is a probable carcinogen in humans.
We recently reviewed health effects associated with emissions of
particulates from diesel engines in the context of regulating heavy
duty motor vehicles and engines (66 FR 5001, January 18, 2001). Diesel
particulate matter (PM) is not currently listed as a hazardous air
pollutant for stationary sources under section 112 of the CAA and was
not specifically reviewed under the rule, though constituent parts of
diesel PM are subject to the final rule. We are continuing to review
this issue in the context of regulating stationary RICE.
D. What Is the Regulatory Development Background of the Source
Category?
In September 1996, we chartered the Industrial Combustion
Coordinated Rulemaking (ICCR) advisory committee under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The committee's objective was to develop
recommendations for regulations for several combustion source
categories under sections 112 and 129 of the CAA. The ICCR advisory
committee, also known as the Coordinating Committee, formed Source Work
Groups for the various combustor types covered under the ICCR. One work
group, the RICE Work Group, was formed to research issues related to
stationary RICE. The RICE Work Group submitted recommendations,
information, and data analyses to the Coordinating Committee, which in
turn considered them and submitted recommendations and information to
EPA. The Committee's 2-year charter expired in September 1998. We
considered the Committee's recommendations in developing the final rule
for stationary RICE.
II. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What Sources Are Subject to the Final Rule?
The final rule applies to you if you own or operate stationary RICE
which are located at a major source of HAP emissions, except if your
stationary RICE all have a site-rating of 500 brake HP or less. A major
source of HAP emissions is a plant site that emits or has the potential
to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons (9.07 megagrams) or more
per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons (22.68
megagrams) or more per year.
Section 112(n)(4) of the CAA requires that the aggregation of HAP
for purposes of determining whether an oil and gas production facility
is major or nonmajor be done only with respect to particular sites
within the source and not on a total aggregated site basis. We
referenced the requirements of section 112(n)(4) of the CAA in our
NESHAP for Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities in subpart HH of
40 CFR part 63. As in subpart HH, we plan to aggregate HAP emissions
for the purposes of determining a major HAP source for RICE only with
respect to particular sites within an oil and gas production facility.
The sites are called surface sites and may include a combination of any
of the following equipment: glycol dehydrators, tanks which have
potential for flash emissions, RICE, and combustion turbines.
The EPA acknowledges that the definition of major source in the
final rule may be different from those found in other rules; however,
this does not alter the definition of major source in other rules and,
therefore, does not affect the Oil and Natural Gas Production
Facilities NESHAP (subpart HH of 40 CFR part 63) or any other rule
applicability.
While all stationary RICE with a site-rating of more than 500 brake
HP located at major sources are subject to the final rule, there are
distinct requirements for regulated stationary RICE depending on their
design, use, and fuel. The standards in the final rule have specific
requirements for all new or reconstructed stationary RICE and for
existing spark ignition 4 stroke rich burn (4SRB) stationary RICE
located at a major source of HAP emissions, except that stationary RICE
with a site-rating of 500 brake HP or less are not addressed in the
final rule. New or reconstructed stationary RICE which operate
exclusively as emergency or limited use units are subject only to
initial notification requirements. New or reconstructed stationary RICE
which combust landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or
more of the gross heat input on an annual basis are subject only to
initial notification requirements and to monitoring, recording, and
reporting of fuel usage requirements. With the exception of existing
spark ignition 4SRB stationary RICE, other types of existing stationary
RICE (i.e., spark ignition 2 stroke lean burn (2SLB), spark ignition 4
stroke lean burn (4SLB), compression ignition (CI), stationary RICE
that combust landfill or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more
of the gross heat input on an annual basis, emergency, and limited use
units) located at a major source of HAP emissions are not subject to
any specific requirement under the final rule. You must determine your
source's subcategory to determine which requirements apply to your
source.
The final rule does not apply to stationary RICE located at an area
source of HAP emissions. An area source of HAP emissions is a
contiguous site under common control that is not a major source.
Finally, the final rule does not apply to stationary RICE test
cells/stands since these facilities are covered by another NESHAP,
subpart PPPPP of 40 CFR part 63.
B. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by the Final
Rule?
The final rule covers stationary RICE. A stationary RICE is any
RICE which uses reciprocating motion to convert heat energy into
mechanical work and is not mobile. Stationary RICE differ from mobile
RICE in that a stationary RICE is not a non-road engine as defined at
40 CFR 1068.30, and is not used to propel a motor vehicle or a vehicle
used solely for competition.
We divided the stationary RICE source category into five
subcategories: (1) Stationary RICE with a site-rating of 500 brake HP
or less, (2) emergency stationary RICE, (3) limited use stationary
RICE, (4) stationary RICE that combust landfill gas or digester gas
equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual
basis, and (5) other stationary RICE. We further divided the last
subcategory into four subcategories: (1) 2SLB stationary RICE, (2) 4SLB
stationary RICE, (3) 4SRB stationary RICE, and (4) CI stationary RICE.
The final rule does not apply to stationary RICE test cells/stands
since these facilities are covered by another NESHAP, subpart PPPPP of
40 CFR part 63.
The final rule also does not apply to stationary RICE with a site-
rating of 500
[[Page 33477]]
brake HP or less. In reviewing the population database to identify
stationary RICE with a site-rating of 500 brake HP or less, we found
extremely little information. In discussions with State and local
permitting officials, the manufacturers, and some of the owners and
operators of stationary RICE, we found that such small stationary RICE
have generally not been regarded as significant sources of air
pollutant emissions. As a result, the small stationary RICE have not
been subjected to the same level of scrutiny, examination, or review as
larger stationary RICE. Little information has been gathered or
compiled by anyone for this subcategory of stationary RICE.
Thus, at this point, we know very little about stationary RICE with
a site-rating of 500 brake HP or less. For example, we do not know how
many of the small stationary RICE exist. In addition, we know little
about the operating characteristics and emissions, the current use of,
as well as the applicability of, emission control technologies, the
costs of emission control for the small stationary RICE, or the
economic impacts and benefits associated with regulation. In the
absence of such information, we have concerns with the applicability of
HAP emission control technology to these stationary RICE. As a result,
we feel it is appropriate to defer a decision on regulation of
stationary RICE with a site-rating of 500 brake HP or less until
further information on the engines can be obtained and analyzed.
We feel this subcategory of stationary RICE is likely to be more
similar to stationary RICE located at area sources than to stationary
RICE located at major sources. Thus, we plan to include this
subcategory of stationary RICE in our considerations to develop
regulations for stationary RICE located at area sources.
C. What Are the Primary Sources of HAP Emissions and What Are the
Emissions?
The primary sources of HAP emissions are exhaust gases from
combustion of gaseous fuels and liquid fuels in stationary RICE.
Formaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and acetaldehyde are HAP that are
present in significant quantities from stationary RICE.
D. What Are the Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations?
As the owner or operator of an affected source, you must do one of
the following: (1) Each existing, new, or reconstructed 4SRB stationary
RICE must comply with each emission limitation in Table 1a of subpart
ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63, and each operating limitation in Table 1b of
subpart ZZZZ that apply; or (2) each new or reconstructed 2SLB
stationary RICE, new or reconstructed 4SLB stationary RICE, or new or
reconstructed CI stationary RICE must comply with each emission
limitation in Table 2a of subpart ZZZZ and operating limitation in
Table 2b of subpart ZZZZ that apply. These tables can be found after
the definitions in Sec. 63.6675 of subpart ZZZZ.
Existing 2SLB stationary RICE, existing 4SLB stationary RICE,
existing CI stationary RICE, stationary RICE that operate exclusively
as emergency or limited use units, or stationary RICE that combust
landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the
gross heat input on an annual basis have an emission standard of no
emission reduction, and will not be tested to meet any specific
emission limitation or operating limitation. In addition, any
stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions, any
stationary RICE with a site-rating of 500 brake HP or less, or
stationary RICE that are being tested at stationary RICE test cells/
stands are not addressed in the final rule and, therefore, do not need
to comply with any emission limitation or operating limitation.
E. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements?
If your stationary RICE must meet specific emission limitations and
operating limitations, then you must meet the following initial
compliance requirements. The testing and initial compliance
requirements are different, depending on whether you demonstrate
compliance with the carbon monoxide (CO) emission reduction
requirement, formaldehyde emission reduction requirement, or the
requirement to limit the formaldehyde concentration in the stationary
RICE exhaust.
If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or a CI
stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions,
you must conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate that you
are achieving the required CO percent reduction, corrected to 15
percent oxygen, dry basis. The initial performance test must be
conducted at high load conditions, defined as 100 percent < plus-
minus>10 percent.
If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or a CI
stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions
and you are using an oxidation catalyst, you must also install a
continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to continuously monitor
the catalyst inlet temperature. During the initial performance test,
you must record the initial pressure drop across the catalyst and the
catalyst inlet temperature.
If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or a CI
stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions
and you are not using an oxidation catalyst, you must also petition the
Administrator for approval of operating limitations or approval or no
operating limitations. You must also install a CPMS to continuously
monitor the operating parameters (if any) approved by the
Administrator. During the initial performance test, you must record the
initial values of the approved operating parameters (if any).
As an alternative, you may elect to install a continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) to measure CO and either carbon dioxide or
oxygen simultaneously at the inlet and outlet of the oxidation
catalyst. To demonstrate initial compliance, you must conduct an
initial performance evaluation using Performance Specifications (PS) 3
and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. The initial performance test must
be conducted at high load conditions, defined as 100 percent < plus-
minus>10 percent. You must demonstrate that the reduction of CO
emissions meets the required percent reduction using the first 4-hour
average after a successful performance evaluation. Your measurements at
the inlet and the outlet of the oxidation catalyst must be on a dry
basis and corrected to 15 percent oxygen or equivalent carbon dioxide
content.
If you own or operate 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the
requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions, you must conduct an
initial performance test using Test Method 320 or 323 of 40 CFR part
63, appendix A, or ASTM D6348-03 to demonstrate that you are achieving
the required formaldehyde percent reduction, corrected to 15 percent
oxygen, dry basis. The initial performance test must be conducted at
high load conditions, defined as 100 percent 10 percent.
If you own or operate a 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the
requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions and you are using non-
selective catalytic reduction (NSCR), you must also install a CPMS to
continuously monitor the catalyst inlet temperature. During the initial
performance test, you must record the initial values of the pressure
drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature.
If you own or operate a 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the
requirement to reduce formaldehyde
[[Page 33478]]
emissions and you are not using NSCR, you must also petition the
Administrator for approval of operating limitations or approval or no
operating limitations. You must also install a CPMS to continuously
monitor the operating parameters (if any) approved by the
Administrator. During the initial performance test, you must record the
initial values of the approved operating parameters (if any).
If you are complying with the requirement to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, you must
conduct an initial performance test using Test Method 320 or 323 of 40
CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D6348-03 to demonstrate that the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust is less
than or equal to the emission limit, corrected to 15 percent oxygen,
dry basis, that applies to you. To correct to 15 percent oxygen, dry
basis, you must measure oxygen using Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, and measure moisture using Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A; or Test Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A; or ASTM
D6348-03. The initial performance test must be conducted at high load
conditions, defined as 100 percent 10 percent.
If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or a CI
stationary RICE complying with the emission limitation to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you
are using an oxidation catalyst or if you own or operate a 4SRB
stationary RICE complying with the emission limitation to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you
are using NSCR, you must also install a CPMS to continuously monitor
the catalyst inlet temperature. During the initial performance test,
you must record the initial pressure drop across the catalyst and the
catalyst inlet temperature.
If you choose to comply with the emission limitation to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you
are not an using oxidation catalyst or NSCR, you must also petition the
Administrator for approval of operating limitations or approval of no
operating limitations. If the Administrator approves your petition for
operating limitations, the operating limitations must also be
established during the initial performance test.
If you petition the Administrator for approval of operating
limitations, your petition must include the following: (1)
Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as
operating limitations; (2) a discussion of the relationship between the
parameters and HAP emissions, identifying how HAP emissions change with
changes in the parameters, and how limitations on the parameters will
serve to limit HAP emissions; (3) a discussion of how you will
establish the upper and/or lower values for the parameters which will
establish the limits on the parameters in the operating limitations;
(4) a discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure and
the instruments you will use to monitor the parameters, as well as the
relative accuracy and precision of the methods and instruments; and (5)
a discussion identifying the frequency and methods for recalibrating
the instruments you will use for monitoring the parameters.
If you petition the Administrator for approval of no operating
limitations, your petition must include the following: (1)
Identification of the parameters associated with operation of the
stationary RICE and any emission control device which could change
intentionally (e.g., operator adjustment, automatic controller
adjustment, etc.) or unintentionally (e.g., wear and tear, error, etc.)
on a routine basis or over time; (2) a discussion of the relationship,
if any, between changes in the parameters and changes in HAP emissions;
(3) for those parameters with a relationship to HAP emissions, a
discussion of whether establishing limitations on the parameters would
serve to limit HAP emissions; (4) for those parameters with a
relationship to HAP emissions, a discussion of how you could establish
upper and/or lower values for the parameters which would establish
limits on these parameters in operating limitations; (5) for the
parameters with a relationship to HAP emissions, a discussion
identifying the methods you could use to measure the parameters and the
instruments you could use to monitor them, as well as the relative
accuracy and precision of the methods and instruments; (6) for the
parameters, a discussion identifying the frequency and methods for
recalibrating the instruments you could use to monitor them; and (7) a
discussion of why, from your point of view, it is infeasible or
unreasonable to adopt the parameters as operating limitations.
F. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions?
Several general continuous compliance requirements apply to all
stationary RICE meeting various specified emission and operating
limitations. If your stationary RICE is required to meet specific
emission and operating limitations, then you are required to comply
with the emission and operating limitations at all times, except during
startup, shutdown, and malfunction of your stationary RICE. You must
also operate and maintain your stationary RICE, air pollution control
equipment, and monitoring equipment according to good air pollution
control practices at all times, including startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. You must conduct all monitoring at all times that the
stationary RICE is operating, except during periods of malfunction of
the monitoring equipment or necessary repairs or quality assurance or
control activities, such as calibration checks.
For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE complying
with the requirement to reduce CO emissions, unless you are using a
CEMS, you must conduct semiannual performance tests for CO and oxygen
using a portable CO monitor to demonstrate that the required CO percent
reduction is achieved. The performance tests must be conducted at high
load conditions, defined as 100 percent 10 percent. If you
demonstrate compliance with the percent reduction requirement for two
successive performance tests, you may reduce the frequency of
performance testing to annually. However, if an annual performance test
indicates a deviation from the percent reduction requirement, you must
return to semiannual performance tests.
If you are using an oxidation catalyst, you must continuously
monitor and record the catalyst inlet temperature to demonstrate
continuous compliance with the CO percent reduction requirement. The 4-
hour rolling average of the valid data must be within the operating
limitation. You must also measure the pressure drop across the catalyst
monthly. If you replace your oxidation catalyst, you must measure your
pressure drop and catalyst inlet temperature.
If you are not using an oxidation catalyst, you must continuously
monitor and record the operating parameters (if any) approved by the
Administrator to demonstrate continuous compliance with the CO percent
reduction requirement. The 4-hour rolling average of the valid data
must be within the operating limitation.
If you elect to demonstrate continuous compliance using a CEMS, you
must calibrate and operate your CEMS according to the requirements in
40 CFR 63.8. You must continuously monitor and record the CO
concentration at the inlet and outlet of the oxidation catalyst and
calculate the percent reduction of CO emissions hourly. The reduction
of
[[Page 33479]]
CO must be at least the required percent reduction, based on a rolling
4-hour average, averaged every hour. You must also conduct an annual
relative accuracy test audit (RATA) of your CEMS using PS 3 and 4A of
40 CFR part 60, appendix B, as well as daily and periodic data quality
checks in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, procedure 1.
For existing, new, or reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE complying
with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using NSCR, you
must demonstrate continuous compliance by continuously monitoring the
catalyst inlet temperature. The 4-hour rolling average of the valid
data must be within the operating limitation. You must also measure the
pressure drop across the catalyst monthly. If you replace your NSCR,
you must measure the values of the pressure drop across the catalyst
and measure the catalyst inlet temperature.
For existing, new, or reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE complying
with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions and not using
NSCR, you must continuously monitor and record the operating parameters
(if any) approved by the Administrator. The 4-hour rolling average of
the valid data must be within the operating limitation.
The 4SRB stationary RICE with a site-rating greater than or equal
to 5,000 brake HP must also conduct semiannual performance tests to
demonstrate that the percent reduction for formaldehyde emissions is
achieved. The performance tests must be conducted at high load
conditions, defined as 100 percent 10 percent. If you
demonstrate compliance with the percent reduction requirement for two
successive performance tests, you may reduce the frequency of
performance testing to annually. However, if an annual performance test
indicates a deviation from the percent reduction requirement, you must
return to semiannual performance tests.
If you are complying with the requirement to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, the
following requirements must be met.
Proper maintenance. At all times, the owner or operator shall
maintain the monitoring equipment including, but not limited to,
maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring
equipment.
Continued operation. Except for, as applicable, monitoring
malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or
control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and
required zero and span adjustments), the owner or operator shall
conduct all monitoring in continuous operation at all times that the
unit is operating. Data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, out-of-control periods, and required quality
assurance or control activities shall not be used for purposes of
calculating data averages. The owner or operator shall use all the data
collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. A
monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable failure of the monitoring equipment to provide valid data.
Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or
careless operation are not malfunctions. Any period for which the
monitoring system is out of control and data are not available for
required calculations constitutes a deviation from the monitoring
requirements.
After completion of the initial performance test, you must
demonstrate that formaldehyde emissions remain at or below the
formaldehyde concentration limit by performing semiannual performance
tests. The performance tests must be conducted at high load conditions,
defined as 100 percent 10 percent. If you demonstrate
compliance with the requirement to limit the concentration of
formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust for two successive
performance tests, you may reduce the frequency of performance testing
to annually. However, if an annual performance test indicates a
deviation of formaldehyde emissions from the formaldehyde concentration
limit, you must return to semiannual performance tests.
If you choose to comply with the emission limitation to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you
are using an oxidation catalyst or NSCR, you must demonstrate
continuous compliance by continuously monitoring the catalyst inlet
temperature. The 4-hour rolling average of the valid data must be
within the operating limitation. You must also measure the pressure
drop across the catalyst monthly. If you replace your oxidation
catalyst or NSCR, you must measure the values of the pressure drop
across the catalyst and measure the catalyst inlet temperature.
If you choose to comply with the emission limitation to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you
are not using an oxidation catalyst or NSCR, you must demonstrate
continuous compliance by continuously monitoring and recording the
values of any parameters which have been approved by the Administrator
as operating limitations.
G. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements?
If you own or operate a stationary RICE with a site-rating of more
than 500 brake HP which is located at a major source of HAP emissions,
you must submit all of the applicable notifications as listed in the
NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), including an
initial notification, notification of performance test or evaluation,
and a notification of compliance for each stationary RICE which must
comply with the specified emission and operating limitations. In
addition, you must submit an initial notification for each existing
4SRB stationary RICE and each new stationary RICE which operates
exclusively as an emergency unit, limited use unit, or a stationary
RICE which combusts digester gas or landfill gas equivalent to 10
percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual basis.
You must record all of the data necessary to determine if you are
in compliance with the emission limitations and operating limitations
(if applicable) as required by the final rule. Your records must be in
a form suitable and readily available for review. You must also keep
each record for 5 years following the date of each occurrence,
measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. Records
must remain on-site for at least 2 years and then can be maintained
off-site for the remaining 3 years.
You must submit a compliance report semiannually. This report
should contain information including company name and address, a
statement by a responsible official that the report is accurate, and a
statement of compliance or documentation of any deviation from the
requirements of the final rule during the reporting period.
III. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
Most of the rationale used to develop the proposed rule remains the
same for the final rule. Therefore, the rationale previously provided
in the proposed rule is not repeated in the final rule and the
Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards section of the proposed
rule should be referred to. Changes that have been made to the final
rule are discussed in this section with rationale following in the
Summary of Responses to Major Comments section.
A. Emission Limitations
In the proposed NESHAP, new 2SLB stationary RICE were required to
either reduce CO emissions by 60 percent or
[[Page 33480]]
more, or limit the concentration of formaldehyde to 17 parts per
million by volume dry basis (ppmvd) or less at 15 percent oxygen.
Existing and new 4SRB stationary RICE were required to either reduce
formaldehyde emissions by 75 percent or more, or limit the
concentration of formaldehyde to 350 parts per billion by volume dry
basis (ppbvd) or less at 15 percent oxygen. The final rule requires new
2SLB stationary RICE to either reduce CO emissions by 58 percent or
more, or limit the concentration of formaldehyde to 12 ppmvd or less at
15 percent oxygen. Existing and new 4SRB stationary RICE must either
reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76 percent or more, or limit the
concentration of formaldehyde to 350 ppbvd or less at 15 percent
oxygen.
In the proposed rule, sources were required to meet one of two
emission limitations, depending on the type of control device being
used. In the final rule, we have allowed sources the flexibility to
meet either emission limitation, regardless of the type of emission
control.
B. Operating Limitations
We have made several revisions to the operating limitations that we
proposed. The minimum value for the catalyst inlet temperature for new
2SLB, new 4SLB, and new CI stationary RICE complying with the
requirement to reduce CO emissions and using an oxidation catalyst has
decreased from 500[deg]F to 450[deg]F and the maximum value has
increased from 1250[deg]F to 1350[deg]F. For 4SRB stationary RICE, we
have removed the requirement to maintain the temperature rise across
the catalyst. For stationary RICE complying with the requirement to
limit the concentration of formaldehyde, we have removed the proposed
requirement to maintain either an operating load or fuel flow rate
equal to or greater than 95 percent of the value established during the
initial performance test.
C. Testing and Monitoring
In the final rule, we did not include EPA SW-846 Method 0011 or
California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 430 as appropriate methods
for measuring formaldehyde. We also specified that performance testing
should be conducted at high load, defined as 100 10
percent. In the final rule, we have included ASTM D6348-03 as an
acceptable method for formaldehyde and moisture.
The proposed rule required new 2SLB, new 4SLB, and new CI
stationary RICE with a brake HP greater than or equal to 5,000
complying with the CO emission reduction requirement to install a CEMS
to continuously monitor CO, whereas those with a brake HP less than
5,000 demonstrated compliance with continuous parametric monitoring and
quarterly CO performance testing. The final rule requires that new
2SLB, new 4SLB, and new CI engines use continuous parametric monitoring
and semiannual CO performance testing to demonstrate continuous
compliance. Sources may still elect to use a CO CEMS, but it is not
required.
In the final rule, we specified that the pressure drop across the
catalyst must be measured monthly for sources complying with the
requirement to reduce CO emissions and using an oxidation catalyst and
for sources complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde
emissions and using NSCR, instead of continuously monitored as
specified in the proposed rule.
D. Other
The proposed rule specified that stationary RICE that combust
landfill gas or digester gas as primary fuel did not have to meet the
requirements of the rule, except for initial notification requirements.
In the final rule, we redefined the subcategory as those engines with
annual landfill gas or digester gas consumption of 10 percent or more
of the gross heat input on an annual basis. We have specified that new
and reconstructed stationary RICE with annual landfill gas or digester
gas consumption of 10 percent or more have to submit an initial
notification and must also meet monitoring, recording, and reporting
requirements associated with fuel usage. Existing stationary RICE with
annual landfill gas or digester gas consumption of 10 percent or more
do not have to meet any requirements.
The definition of emergency and limited use stationary RICE has
been separated in the final rule. Limited use stationary RICE means any
stationary RICE that operates less than 100 hours per year.
The definition of emergency stationary RICE was written to indicate
that loss of power that constitutes an emergency can include power
supplied to portions of a facility, and that emergency operation is not
limited to only times when the primary power source has been
interrupted and is not limited to a specific number of hours. Routine
testing and maintenance to ensure operational readiness has been
included in the definition of emergency operation.
We included a provision in the final rule allowing new or rebuilt
engines to operate for up to 200 hours prior to installing the
catalyst; this will not be considered a violation.
In the final rule, we specified that an existing area source that
increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a
major source must be in compliance within 3 years after becoming a
major source. Potential to emit is defined in Sec. 63.6675 of the
final stationary RICE NESHAP. The proposed rule stipulated that an
existing area source that became a major source must be in compliance
immediately after becoming a major source.
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A more detailed summary of comments and our responses can be found
in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses document, which is
available from several sources (see ADDRESSES section).
A. Applicability
Comment: One commenter requested clarification on what is
considered an existing RICE unit for purposes of compliance. According
to the commenter, using a date as a determination whether an engine is
existing is confusing. The commenter stated that an engine takes on its
identity when first assembled into an engine or when modified to be a
different kind of engine, regardless of where that engine is ultimately
installed or whether it is a spare on the shelf awaiting installation.
Another commenter asked that EPA clarify that an existing RICE unit is
any engine that was assembled as a final unit before December 19, 2002,
regardless of whether it was or has been installed in a stationary
location.
One commenter stated that the criteria that makes a RICE unit
affected by the proposed rule does not limit the rule's effects to only
units that operate. The proposed factors that determine applicability
are construction date, site-rating, and specific inherent designs of
units. None of these criteria as applied in the proposal include a
requirement that the engine be operational. It is not uncommon for an
owner or operator to have idle engines. Some may be installed and not
in use. Others may be stored for later use as replacements or spare
engines. Importantly, idle units are distinct from emergency units
because an idle unit is not in any use. The commenter expressed that an
idle RICE unit should have no compliance obligations imposed by the
final RICE rule.
Response: We disagree with the first set of comments and feel that
the date an engine was constructed is the date it
[[Page 33481]]
was installed at the operator site and not when it was assembled as a
final unit at the manufacturer. Thus, any engine constructed (i.e.,
installed at the site of the operator) prior to December 19, 2002, is
an existing engine for purposes of the final rule, while any engine
constructed on or after that date is a new engine. For purposes of the
final rule, the term ``on-site fabrication'' in the definition of
construction in 40 CFR Sec. 63.2 shall refer to the final installation
at the site of the final operator. This definition of construction is
in line with how EPA generally defines construction, i.e., it is
defined by when the unit is installed at the operator's location,
rather than where it is first assembled.
We feel it is appropriate to define ``on-site fabrication'' as the
final site of installation because even after a unit has been
manufactured, several components necessary in order to be able to
operate the unit must be considered and added. The owner or operator
cannot go directly from purchasing the unit from the manufacturer to
operation. The owner or operator must typically have a building to
house the unit in, construct a pad for the unit, run utilities, install
fuel supply tanks or run the natural gas line, have the catalyst vendor
install the pollution control equipment, and finally test the unit on-
site. For larger engines (e.g., 5,000 HP or greater), the installation
process is even more pronounced. For these reasons, we find it
appropriate that the date that final installation of the unit at the
site of operation is commenced should be considered the construction
date.
Engines manufactured prior to December 19, 2002, but where
installation was not commenced until after that date, are considered
new engines and must comply with the requirements for new engines. We
expect that these units will be able to comply with the requirements
especially since the control equipment is typically installed on the
engine at the site of operation and does not come with the engine
purchased from the manufacturer. Finally, no problems are expected to
occur with retrofit controls because the control technology is
relatively easy to retrofit, especially in units that are being
installed initially at a site. If owners or operators anticipate
problems, they can elect to purchase a new engine meeting the
requirements if it is installed after that date.
With regard to the next comment, we disagree with the commenter's
proposition that EPA needs to have a special provision to deal with
engines that are installed but not in use. For new engines covered by
the final rule, which will be the vast majority of the engines, the
final rule does not apply until startup of the engine, which is when
the engine begins operation. Therefore, new engines are not covered
until they are operational, which already accomplishes the goal of the
commenter. For existing engines, we feel that any engine that does not
meet the definition of limited use engine, which includes any engine
that operates less than 100 hours per year, should not be relieved of
compliance obligations. We have written our definitions to distinguish
emergency engines from limited use engines, which should reduce some
confusion. An engine that does not operate at all is clearly a limited
use engine, which by definition includes engines that operate 0 hours
per year.
Comment: Several commenters expressed that EPA should include an
alternative applicability criteria based on 1 tpy actual formaldehyde
emissions.
Response: The basis for this comment is the Oil and Natural Gas
Production and Natural Gas Transmission and Storage NESHAP (promulgated
on June 17, 1999). In that rule, HAP emissions from process vents at
glycol dehydration units that are located at major HAP sources and from
process vents at certain area source glycol dehydration units are
required to be controlled unless the actual flowrate of natural gas in
the unit is less than 85,000 cubic meters per day (3.0 million standard
cubic feet per day), on an annual average basis, or the benzene
emissions from the unit are less than 0.9 megagrams per year (1 tpy).
The 1 tpy emission threshold in the Oil and Natural Gas Production and
Natural Gas Transmission and Storage MACT is equivalent to the smallest
size glycol dehydration unit with control of HAP emissions and is,
therefore, based on equivalence, not risk. The information in the
docket does not support a decision to provide an alternative
applicability cutoff in this case. Our decision to defer regulation of
engines 500 HP or less was based on questions regarding how accurately
the database reflected such engines. There were no such concerns raised
based on whether an engine emitted formaldehyde above 1 tpy.
Comment: Five commenters stated that the applicability limit for
2SLB should be increased to 1100 HP to be consistent with the MACT
floor. One commenter stated that the small engine size cutoff should be
changed from 500 HP to 650 HP. The commenter said that while EPA
appropriately reasoned that small engines should not be subject to the
requirements of the rule, EPA provided no explicit rationale for the
selection of 500 HP as the appropriate small engine size cutoff.
Ranking all engines in EPA's database from smallest to largest, the
first engine size that has controls is 650 HP. Thus, the appropriate
small engine size cutoff supported by the record is less than 650 HP
instead of less than or equal to 500 HP.
Response: First, we need to clarify that engines 500 brake HP or
less have not been exempted from regulation. Because we determined at
the time of proposal that we did not have enough information to go
forward with regulation of those engines at this time, we have deferred
regulatory activity with regard to those engines. Pursuant to a consent
decree signed on May 22, 2003, Sierra Club v. Whitman, Case Number
1:01CV01537 (D.C.D.C.), a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding
regulation of these engines under CAA section 112 is scheduled for
October 31, 2006, with a final rule by December 20, 2007. At this time,
it would be inappropriate to speculate on what level of control would
be promulgated for these engines.
We are aware of stationary engines as small as 650 HP that are
equipped with add-on HAP control devices. We feel our database
represented the population of engines between 500 HP and 1100 HP
reasonably well, so we do not feel it is appropriate to defer
regulation of these engines to a later rule. Therefore, we do not feel
it is appropriate to defer the regulation of engines up to 1100 HP for
2SLB engines, or to include such engines in a separate subcategory.
Although 650 HP is the smallest size unit that is known to have add-on
HAP control, we feel it is appropriate to limit the deferral to engines
500 HP or less because the control technology used for 650 HP units can
be transferred to units at least as small as 500 HP in size. Oxidation
catalyst technology is not limited to engines greater than 650 HP in
size. In fact, information received during the public comment period
supports our conclusion, where several engines rated at 400 HP were
equipped with oxidation catalyst control. Our deferral of engine
regulation was based on the type of engines used below 500 HP and
whether our database was adequate for such engines. We feel our
database for engines above 500 HP was adequate and that, in any case,
the final rule for these engines is adequately justified in the record.
The commenter does not adequately provide particular reasons to justify
placing engines between 500 and 650 HP in a different subcategory from
larger engines, and we
[[Page 33482]]
do not feel such subcategorization has been shown to be appropriate.
Comment: One commenter asserted that the rule should be more
explicit as to whether the 500 HP capacity level for exception from the
rule and 5,000 HP capacity level for enhanced monitoring applies to an
individual engine or applies to the aggregate capacity of a group of
engines.
Response: We intended for the 500 HP capacity level to apply to an
individual engine, not the aggregate capacity of a group of engines.
Similarly, the 5,000 HP capacity level for enhanced monitoring was
intended to apply to an individual engine. However, we have not
included a CO CEMS requirement in the final rule. Sources are free to
use CO CEMS to demonstrate compliance; however, CO CEMS are not
required.
Comment: One commenter contended that the MACT should consider
exempting any RICE using landfill gas. A diesel engine can operate at a
landfill in a dual fuel mode using fuel oil and landfill gas. Tests
have shown that a catalytic converter cannot be used because of
siloxanes in the landfill gas, even if the engine operates with more
than half the energy being supplied by the liquid fuel.
Response: In the proposed rule, we established a subcategory for
landfill or digester gas fired units and defined the subcategory as
those stationary RICE that combust digester gas or landfill gas as the
primary fuel. In the proposed rule, these units did not have to meet
any emission limitation requirements but were subject to the initial
notification requirements. We agree with the commenters supporting the
proposed approach to landfill and digester gas fired engines. We agree
that neither control technology, fuel switching, or other practices
would be an appropriate or workable strategy for reducing HAP from
these engines. We agree with the commenter that problems will occur
when using landfill gas because of siloxanes in the fuel, even if the
engine operates with more than half the energy being supplied by the
liquid fuel. Therefore, we contacted sanitation districts and catalyst
vendors for information. Based on the information obtained, we feel
that firing greater than 10 percent landfill gas or digester gas will
cause fouling of the oxidation catalyst, rendering the control device
inoperable within a short period of time. All the sources we contacted
indicated that there would be problems associated with catalyst
deactivation due to siloxanes present in landfill gas and digester gas.
Information regarding landfill and digester gas is presented in a
memorandum included in the rule docket (Docket ID Nos. OAR-2002-0059
and A-95-35). While most units will operate using landfill or digester
gas consumption above 50 percent of the time, there are times when such
units may need to operate significantly below 50 percent landfill or
digester gas consumption. We feel a cut-off level of 10 percent of
gross heat input is an appropriate level for defining these units,
because operation below that percentage raises significant questions
regarding whether the unit is still appropriately considered to be
operating as a landfill or digester gas burning unit, and would raise
concerns regarding circumvention of the requirements for other new
units. In the final rule, we have redefined the subcategory as those
engines with annual landfill gas or digester gas consumption of 10
percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual basis. New and
reconstructed engines in this subcategory must only comply with limited
requirements of the final rule. Engines with an annual landfill gas or
digester gas consumption of less than 10 percent of the gross heat
input on an annual basis are subject to applicable emission limitations
of the final rule in addition to other requirements.
Comment: Multiple commenters stated that a limited use category
with a capacity utilization of 10 percent or less (876 or fewer hours
of annual operation) should be included. One commenter suggested using
a flat annual threshold level of 1,000 hours per year in lieu of 10
percent usage. Another commenter recommended that the category include
all units, not only peak shaving units. Several commenters argued that
the 50 hours per year may not be sufficient. Some commenters noted that
testing and maintenance should be included and not counted towards the
50 hours per year. Two commenters recommended at least 250 hours per
year. One commenter recommended a 52 hour limit for routine maintenance
and testing, then have no limit for true emergency use. Similarly,
other commenters expressed that since routine or unscheduled
maintenance and testing could require unknown time to complete, there
should be no time limits on the use of emergency stationary RICE.
Several commenters suggested 100 hours per year for emergency
generators. One commenter stated that the subcategory should be
redefined to include RICE that operate less than 500 hours per year.
Two commenters remarked that setting this exemption at 50 hours per
year down from the 100 or 200 hours per year commonly seen in many
State air pollution regulations, could have the net effect of
increasing pollution by not allowing sufficient operating time for the
engine to burn off hard deposits. Several commenters stated that the
limited use definition for RICE should be separated from the emergency
power definition since these are really different applications. Two
commenters stated that the operation of emergency power units should
not be limited to only those times when the primary power source has
been interrupted, but rather not time-restricted at all, providing the
primary design purpose of the unit is to provide emergency backup
services, fire water, etc. One commenter asked that EPA clarify the
definition of emergency/limited use engines as to whether loss power
that constitutes an emergency is limited to power supplied to the
facility as a whole or includes power supplied to portions of the
facility. One commenter suggested that EPA revise the definition of
emergency power RICE to clarify the intent of the rule as the current
definition does not adequately encompass the wide array of emergency
uses of engines. One commenter felt that the description of an
emergency engine is too restrictive. The emergency use description
should describe more power loss emergencies than those affecting an
entire facility at once. The definition should also include uses for
additional emergency types beyond power loss emergencies, e.g., fuel
and raw material curtailments or fuel shortage emergencies applied by
governments, utilities, or other suppliers may require the need to
temporarily operate an engine, or some equipment may be operated to
fight fires (firewater pumps). Neither of these examples represent loss
of power, but are still unplanned events.
One commenter stated that the definition should be clarified, or
extended, to allow for operations in anticipation of an emergency
situation. One commenter remarked that this class of RICE (engines
having a capacity utilization of less than 10 percent) would operate
mostly in the summer months when the public is more likely to be
impacted by the emissions. Acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde all
have documented short-term acute health effects. The EPA has failed to
identify short-term health effects throughout any of the risk analysis
proposals. The commenter asserted that any subcategorization of these
engines without controls is not protective of public health.
One commenter suggested eliminating from the definition the
reference to ``when the primary power source has been rendered
inoperable.'' There are emergency conditions where the
[[Page 33483]]
primary power source is still operable, but the emergency condition
necessitates the startup of engines (e.g., firewater pumps during a
unit fire, instrument air back-up engines). Another option would be to
add the words ``or is insufficient for an emergency situation'' after
the primary power source comment.
Response: The preamble to the proposed rule proposed a subcategory
for limited use stationary RICE and defined them as operating 50 hours
or less per year. Comments received indicated that the proposed 50
hours per year for limited use units was not sufficient and that many
limited use engines would exceed the 50 hours per year just by routine
testing and maintenance of the engine for readiness purposes. For this
reason, we feel that few owners and operators would find this allowance
useful and would not serve a purpose except to cover periods of testing
and maintenance. We have, therefore, found it appropriate to increase
the number of hours for limited use operation. We have specified in the
final rule that limited use stationary RICE are stationary RICE that
operate less than 100 hours per year. For limited use units, operation
during routine testing and maintenance is counted towards the 100 hours
per year.
In the preamble to the proposed rule, we solicited comments on
creating a subcategory of limited use engines with capacity utilization
of 10 percent or less (876 or fewer hours of annual operation). These
units would have included engines used for electric power peak shaving.
As a result of soliciting comments, we received several comments
regarding the possibility of establishing a limited use subcategory
with capacity utilization of 10 percent or less; some for and some
against. We considered all comments received and have decided not to
include a subcategory of limited use stationary RICE with a capacity
utilization of 10 percent or less in the final rule. Limited use units
operating 876 hours per year are similar to other sources equipped with
add-on oxidation catalyst control and their operation only during peak
periods does not preclude them from being equipped with add-on
oxidation catalyst control. Those commenters supporting a longer time
period for the limited use engines did not provide persuasive arguments
for such a subcategory. The commenters have not provided significant
data indicating that engines operating up to 10 percent of the time (or
longer, as some commenters suggested) are unable to take steps similar
to other RICE to reduce HAP. On the contrary, as stated previously,
such engines are similar to other stationary RICE that can be and have
been equipped with add-on oxidation catalyst control, and their
operation only during peak periods does not preclude them from being
equipped with workable add-on control or from using other methods of
emission control to reduce HAP. The 10 percent time limit would allow
over a month of usage per year, which we feel is substantial enough
both to be of concern environmentally and to take advantage of emission
control strategies. Significant operation of these engines is expected
and should be accounted for in the final rule.
By contrast, a limited use exemption covering only 100 hours per
year of use is justified because usage in these cases in clearly
exceptional and these engines would have the technical and usage
concerns similar to emergency engines discussed in the proposed rule.
These engines are categorically different from other engines in that
they are only used in truly exceptional situations. For these reasons,
we have not established a limited use subcategory of units operating
876 hours per year in the final rule, but have included a limited use
subcategory allowing engines to operate up to 100 hours per year.
We agree with the comment that the emergency and limited use
stationary RICE definition should be separated. We have established
separate definitions for emergency stationary RICE and limited use
stationary RICE in the final rule.
In addition, in the final rule, the definition of emergency engine
was written to indicate that loss of power that constitutes an
emergency can include power supplied to portions of a facility. We
intended that the definition of emergency engine include operation
during emergency situations, including times when the primary power
source has been interrupted as well as other situations such as pumping
water in the case of fire or flood, which was given as an example of
emergency operation in the definition in the proposed rule. The
definition has been clarified to clearly indicate that emergency
operation is not limited to only times when the primary power source
has been interrupted. We contacted the commenter for more information
about the types of curtailments with which they were concerned. The
commenter provided only one example, which was shutdown of offshore
wells during a hurricane. We feel that the definition of emergency
stationary combustion engine is sufficient to cover this particular
scenario and it is not necessary to include more examples of emergency
operation. It would be nearly impossible to provide examples of every
potential type of emergency situation. The operation of emergency
engines is not limited to a specific number of hours. Also, routine
testing and maintenance to ensure operational readiness have been
included in the definition of emergency engine. However, the routine
testing and maintenance must be within limits recommended by the engine
manufacturer or other entity such as an insurance company. Emergency
stationary RICE may also operate an additional 50 hours per year in
non-emergency situations. As stated previously, routine testing and
maintenance have been included in the definition of emergency
stationary RICE and, therefore, are not counted towards the 50 hours
per year. We do not agree that operation in anticipation of an
emergency situation should be included in the definition of emergency
engine and have not made this change.
Comment: One commenter requested a subcategory for new and
reconstructed stationary CI RICE located in the State of Alaska that
exempts the engines from the control requirements of this proposed
rule. The commenter stated that EPA has overlooked the fact that low
sulfur fuels (less than 500 ppm (0.05 weight percent)) are necessary
for CO oxidation catalysts to operate properly and that these fuels are
not available in several areas of the United States including the State
of Alaska. Sulfur can quickly degrade oxidation catalyst performance
for controlling CO (or formaldehyde) emissions by poisoning the
precious metal substrate of the catalyst. In one study it was found
that increasing the diesel sulfur content from 3 ppm to 350 ppm by
weight resulted in a three-fold increase in catalyst-out PM emissions.
In the same study, the performance of the diesel oxidation catalyst for
controlling CO emissions from the higher sulfur fuel degraded by an
average of 10 percent after the short-term (250-hour) aging tests. In
Alaska meeting the proposed MACT floor (oxidation catalyst) for new CI
RICE sources will be problematic because of the non-availability of low
sulfur diesel fuels (300 to 500 ppm sulfur content by weight). The
permitted diesel fuel sulfur content, by weight, for most permitted
stationary CI sources is between 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent (1,000 ppm
to 5,000 ppm by weight). The Trans Alaska Pipeline System facilities
operated by the commenter have permitted sulfur fuel content limits
between 0.24 percent to 0.5 percent. The lowest fuel sulfur diesel that
is available in the State of Alaska is an arctic grade fuel that has a
sulfur content of
[[Page 33484]]
approximately 0.1 percent. Petroleum refineries in the State are not
required to produce lower sulfur fuels because Alaska is exempted (see
40 CFR part 69 of 69 FR 34126) from EPA's low sulfur highway diesel
fuel standards.
Response: We feel it is unnecessary to establish a subcategory for
new and reconstructed CI RICE located in the State of Alaska.
Information received from the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) indicated that there is a refinery in Alaska that
can produce low sulfur fuel (300 to 500 ppm sulfur content by weight).
The refinery can make low sulfur diesel that meets arctic pour point
specifications. The information from the Alaska DEC also indicated that
low sulfur fuel is generally available where there are roads in
Anchorage, but not generally available on other parts of the road
system, such as Fairbanks. Some remote villages do have low sulfur
fuel. We expect availability to grow further as EPA's final rule
implementing new sulfur limits for highway fuel, including fuel in
Alaska (68 FR 5002, January 18, 2001), is implemented beginning in
2006. The Alaska DEC said that Alaska has 200 small villages that are
remote, and it may be difficult for these small villages to always have
low sulfur fuel available. These villages tend to employ RICE to
generate electricity and have between two to four stationary RICE in
their power plants. These engines range from 6 to 4000 kilowatt (kW),
with an average of 300 kW. The Alaska DEC said that these engines are
below the threshold for major sources, and that is also confirmed by
HAP emission calculations. Since these villages would not be major HAP
sites they would not be affected by the final rule. The non-
availability of low sulfur fuel at these remote villages would
therefore not be an issue since these villages would not be subject to
the rule since they are located at non-major HAP sites. Finally, we
have received information from catalyst vendors indicating that there
are sulfur tolerant catalysts that have been commercialized and are
suitable for use with fuels having a sulfur content between 3,000 and
5,000 ppm sulfur by weight. Sources that may not be able to obtain low
sulfur fuel could use such catalysts to comply with the requirements of
the final rule. For these reasons, we do not feel it is necessary to
establish a separate subcategory for stationary RICE located in Alaska.
B. Definitions
Comment: Several commenters stated that EPA should revise the
definition of rich burn engine to eliminate engines that have been
converted to operate as lean burn engines and to address older engines
(e.g., horizontal), where there is no recommended air/fuel ratio. One
commenter recommended that EPA adopt the following definition into the
final rule: ``Rich burn engine means four-stroke spark ignited engine
where the manufacturer's recommended air/fuel ratio divided by the
stoichiometric air/fuel ratio at full conditions is < =1.1. Engines
originally manufactured as rich burn engines, but modified prior to
August 16, 2004 with passive emission control technology for nitrogen
oxides (NOX) (such as pre-combustion chambers) shall be
considered lean burn engines. Horizontal engines shall be considered
lean burn engines. Also, older engines where there are no
manufacturer's recommendations regarding air/fuel ratio will be
considered a rich burn engine if the excess oxygen content of the
exhaust at full load conditions is < =2 percent.''
Response: We agree with the commenter that it is necessary to
address engines that have been converted from 4SRB engines to 4SLB
engines and to also address older engines such as horizontal engines.
We have, therefore, adjusted the definition of rich burn engine and
have written the rich burn definition in the final rule as follows:
``Rich burn engine means any four-stroke spark ignited engine where the
manufacturer's recommended operating air/fuel ratio divided by the
stoichiometric air/fuel ratio at full load conditions is less than or
equal to 1.1. Engines originally manufactured as rich burn engines, but
modified prior to December 19, 2002 with passive emission control
technology for NOX (such as pre-combustion chambers) will be
considered lean burn engines. Also, existing engines where there are no
manufacturer's recommendations regarding air/fuel ratio will be
considered a rich burn engine if the excess oxygen content of the
exhaust at full load conditions is less than or equal to 2 percent.''
In addition, to avoid conflict with the definition of lean burn engine,
the lean burn engine definition has also been adjusted and reads as
follows in the final rule: ``Lean burn engine means any two-stroke or
four-stroke spark ignited engine that does not meet the definition of a
rich burn engine.''
Comment: One commenter asserted that the definition of a
reconstructed source should be modified to exclude any cost incurred
with the installation of a control device required by State and local
emission standards. The addition of diesel particulate filters (DPF)
could exceed the reconstruction cost threshold (50 percent of fixed
capital cost to construct a comparable new source).
Response: Based on the information we have available on costs of
DPF systems and costs of engines, we feel that the addition of DPF
would not exceed the reconstruction threshold of 50 percent of the
capital cost of a new engine. Information received from CARB indicates
that the total cost of a DPF including equipment and installation is
around $38/HP. Engine costs estimated by CARB are $93/HP for a new
engine. Comparing the cost of a DPF system to the cost of a new engine
shows that the addition of such a filter system would be less than 50
percent. Engine cost information available to us obtained from other
sources indicate that engine costs are between $150-$270/HP. Using
these engine costs, the addition of a DPF system would be an even lower
percentage of the cost of a new engine. Engine costs are presented in a
memorandum included in the rule docket (Docket ID Nos. OAR-2002-0059
and A-95-35). We have, therefore, concluded that based on both
information received from CARB and information we already have, the
addition of a DPF would be less than 50 percent of the cost of a new
engine.
In any case, our policy regarding the inclusion of air pollution
control equipment in determining reconstruction is that the costs
associated with the purchase and installation of air pollution control
equipment are included in the fixed capital cost to the extent that the
equipment is required as part of the manufacturing or operating
process. Therefore, it is our policy not to include the fixed capital
cost of air pollution control equipment that is not part of the
operating process. Since DPF is not required in order to operate an
engine, the cost for purchase and installation of DPF would not be
included in determining whether a source is reconstructed. The
commenter does not explain why we should deviate from the General
Provisions based on compliance with State or local regulations. A
source that is spending more than 50 percent of the capital cost needed
for a new engine to meet the requirements should be in a position to
make appropriate changes in its source at that time to meet the
standards promulgated today. Moreover, the source may be able to comply
with both requirements at the same time and may be able to meet the
requirements using integrated controls (if not the same controls) that
would be best implemented at the same time.
Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA write the
definitions of affected source, existing stationary
[[Page 33485]]
RICE, new stationary RICE, and reconstructed stationary RICE such that
they represent the ``collection'' of each type of source at a site,
consistent with General Provisions Sec. 63.2.
Response: Although Sec. 63.2 of the General Provisions provides
that we will generally adopt a broad definition of affected source,
which includes all emission units within each subcategory which are
located within the same contiguous area, this section also provides
that we may adopt a narrower definition of affected source in instances
where we determine that the broader definition would ``create
significant administrative, practical, or implementation problems'' and
``the different definition would resolve those problems.'' This is such
an instance. There are several subcategories of stationary RICE, and a
site could have engines from multiple subcategories, each having
different compliance requirements. Use of the broader definition of
affected source specified by the General Provisions would require very
complex aggregate compliance determinations. We feel such complicated
compliance determinations to be impractical, and, therefore, have
decided to adopt a definition which establishes each individual RICE as
the affected source.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the preamble should clarify
that the definition of major source in the RICE MACT does not alter the
definition of a major source in subpart HH of 40 CFR part 63 (Oil and
Natural Gas Production Facilities) and, therefore, does not affect
subpart HH applicability.
Response: We recognize the commenter's concern regarding the
definition of major source in the RICE NESHAP and its difference from
the definition of major source in 40 CFR subpart HH. We have,
therefore, clarified in the preamble to the final rule that the
definition of major source in the RICE NESHAP does not alter the
definition of major source in subpart HH (or any other subpart) and,
therefore, does not affect subpart HH applicability.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the definitions from 40 CFR
subpart HH and 40 CFR subpart HHH for glycol dehydration unit, storage
vessel with the potential for flash emissions, and production well
should be included.
Response: We agree with the commenter that the definitions should
be included in the RICE NESHAP. The definitions from 40 CFR subpart HH
and 40 CFR subpart HHH for glycol dehydration unit, storage vessel with
the potential for flash emissions, and production well have been added
to the final rule.
C. Dates
Comment: A few commenters remarked that EPA should provide 1 year
for initial notification as in the glycol dehydration MACT.
Response: An initial notification is not a time consuming activity,
and we do not feel that 1 year is necessary to submit an initial
notification.
Comment: Multiple commenters expressed the view that immediate
compliance for new and reconstructed engines is unreasonable. The
commenters felt that 1 year compliance time frame is more reasonable.
Response: We feel that immediate compliance is appropriate for new
or reconstructed engines and is consistent with the General Provisions
of part 63. See also CAA section 112(i)(1). The requirements of CAA
section 112 contemplate that sources will be aware of their
requirements at the time of proposal and, excluding requirements that
are made more stringent between proposal and promulgation, new or
reconstructed sources should be prepared to meet such requirements
immediately, at the time of the final rule. Sources are required to
install the proper equipment and meet the applicable emission
limitations on startup; however, we allow sources 180 days to
demonstrate compliance. In addition, because two of our emission
requirements have been made more stringent since proposal, sources
subject to those requirements that commence operation in between
proposal and the final rule may show compliance with the proposed
requirements for the first 3 years of the program.
Comment: Several commenters stated that for area sources becoming
major sources, the requirement to be in compliance at the time of the
switch is unreasonable. Two commenters suggested allowing 1 year for
the unit to come into compliance. One commenter suggested that all area
sources that become major should be allowed 3 years to achieve
compliance or change the definition of a new stationary RICE to ``A
stationary RICE is new if you commenced construction of the stationary
RICE after December 19, 2002, and you meet the applicability criteria
for the subpart at the time you commenced construction.'' Five
commenters suggested 3 years.
Response: We agree with the commenters that it is appropriate to
allow existing area sources that become major sources 3 years to comply
with the final rule. This has been specified in the final rule in Sec.
63.6595(b)(2). However, we do not agree with the commenters that
immediate compliance is unreasonable for new and reconstructed RICE
located at area sources that are constructed or reconstructed at the
same time the area source becomes a major source. These sources are
aware in advance of their change in status from area source to major
source, and therefore, should have sufficient time to plan for
immediate compliance with the final rule. This has been specified in
the final rule in Sec. 63.6595(b)(1). A period of 180 days is allowed
to demonstrate compliance.
Comment: Some commenters requested that EPA provide 1 year to
conduct the initial performance test, rather than 180 days provided by
the General Provisions. One commenter indicated that seasonal
operations, such as storage facilities or compressor stations used in
peak demand only, may not be operational during the 180 days provided
to conduct the performance test. All existing 4SRB engines must conduct
formaldehyde testing as a part of the initial performance test. It may
be difficult to secure appropriate testing firms within the 180 days
provided, especially since many may depend on Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) testing.
Response: We feel the time we have allowed sources to conduct the
initial performance test is appropriate. Existing sources that must
meet the requirements of the final rule have 3 years and 180 days to
conduct the initial performance test and to demonstrate compliance.
Therefore, existing 4SRB engines that must meet the formaldehyde
emission limitations have sufficient of time to secure an appropriate
testing firm. In addition, the final rule does not only specify that
FTIR can be used for formaldehyde testing, but that also Method 323 can
be used. This means it may not be necessary to secure testing firms
specializing in FTIR measurements, and should increase the number of
available testing firms. New sources that must meet the requirements of
the final rule are aware in advance that their source will be covered
by the final rule. We feel that 180 days is sufficient time to secure
appropriate testing firms and to conduct the initial performance test
and feel that 1 year to conduct the initial performance test is not
necessary. Regarding the comment concerning seasonal operations, new
sources do not have to test until the unit is operating, so seasonal
operation should not be a concern for new units. Also, for existing
sources, we feel that seasonal operation should not be a problem since
the unit has 3 years and
[[Page 33486]]
180 days to conduct the initial performance test, and surely the unit
would be operational within that timeframe. Finally, the 180 day time
period for new sources is consistent with the General Provisions of
part 63.
D. Emission Limitations
Comment: One commenter asserted that the emission limitations are
too stringent. The commenter stated that the proposed emission
standards were based on information from only five engines and does not
believe that the proposed percent reductions and emission standards
reflect the actual performance possible from the wide array of engine
designs and sizes in the marketplace. For example, the formaldehyde
reduction standard for rich burn engines in the proposed rule is set at
75 percent. However, the data in the docket show that results from
eight test runs on two rich burn engines varied from 73 to 80 percent.
If the reduction efficiency on two test engines under highly-controlled
conditions can vary by such a significant amount (and to a level that
does not meet the proposed standard), then it is highly likely that
rich burn engines of different size and using different NSCR technology
also would not be able to meet the standard. The EPA must consider the
significant variability in RICE and adjust all final emissions
standards and reduction percentages accordingly. The commenter
recommended that the formaldehyde emission limits be revised upward by
10 percent to allow for variability in the RICE and aftertreatment
system populations.
Three commenters asserted that the MACT floor for existing 4SRB is
not representative of the average emission limit achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources.
One commenter stated that the emission standard for existing 4SRB
engines should be reassessed to be consistent with the requirements of
CAA section 112(d). The commenter remarked that the Agency used the
incorrect approach to set the emission limit for existing 4SRB engines,
which logically should be lower percent removal than for new 4SRB
engines. It was the commenter's opinion that the Agency should revisit
the analysis and establish an emission limit for 4SRB engines more
consistent with the required floor-setting methodology.
Five commenters expressed that the same emission limitation for
existing and new 4SRB is unrealistic. One commenter recommended
considering 10 percent less restrictive emission reduction requirement
for existing units. Another commenter indicated that practically
speaking, retrofitting existing equipment rarely achieves the optimum
design available in new equipment.
One commenter contended that 350 ppbvd is too low. The chosen limit
was achieved by the best performing engine during Colorado State
University (CSU) testing while for other types of engines the highest
emissions from the performance range had been chosen as the emissions
limit.
Response: We disagree with comments that the MACT floor level
proposed for existing 4SRB engines is inconsistent with the statute or
not representative of the average emission level achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources. The commenters do not
dispute the accuracy of the data used or the representativeness of the
engines tested. The commenters instead believe the manner in which we
used the data is not reflective of the average of the best performing
12 percent of existing sources. To clarify our approach in the
proposal, we found the lowest percent reduction value for each of the
two sources tested, which accounts for variability in results for each
source. However, as we found that 27 percent of the engines in the
subcategory use NSCR, we felt that it was appropriate to use only the
higher of the two values to determine the MACT floor for existing
engines. In essence, this treated the top performer as a surrogate for
the top half of the population using NSCR or the top 13.5 percent of
the population. This is more closely analogous to the level of the top
12 percent of sources than is a straight average of the two sources.
However, in reviewing our method in response to these comments, we
feel that it would be more appropriate to include in the analysis the
data from the lower performing of the two engines tested, thus using
more than a single data point in determining the MACT floor for
existing engines. Because the test calculation for the MACT floor for
existing engines is supposed to be based on the average of the top
performing 12 percent of sources, it would be better to rely on a
formula that does not rely solely on the highest performer. Also, it
would not be appropriate to use a straight average between the two
sources, because that would not be a fair approximation of the average
of the top 12 percent of sources. Instead, it would approximate the
average of the best performing 27 percent of sources. Therefore, we
feel a reasonable approach is to discount the lower performing source
by 12/27, thus reducing the influence of that data point by the ratio
of controlled sources (27 percent of the population) compared to the
statutory level (12 percent). This leads to a weighted average where
the data point for the lower performer will be worth 22 percent (50
percent) (12/27) and the level for the higher performer will be worth
78 percent.
To be consistent with the approach followed for other engine types,
i.e., establish emission limitations based on test results conducted at
high loads, we found it appropriate to exclude runs conducted at low
loads in determining the lower and higher performer. This leads to a
final MACT floor of 76 percent control efficiency or 350 ppbvd.\1\
Though the formaldehyde reduction number differs slightly from the
proposed level, it is very close. The proposed level for the
alternative formaldehyde concentration emission limitation remains the
same even after following the revised approach. This should not be
particularly surprising. Though the emission values of the two engines
were not identical, they were very close and the final values for
either engines generally round to the same value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The calculation of percentage reduction is as follows:
(lowest tested percentage reduction of the lower performing engine)
* (.222) + (lowest tested percentage reduction of the higher
performing engine) * (.777) = (75.5) (.222) + (76.2) (.778) = 76.0.
The calculation of parts per billion is as follows: (highest tested
parts per billion of the lower performing engine) * (.222) +
(highest tested parts per billion of the higher performing engine) *
(.778) = (355) (.222) + (348) (.778) = 350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For new 4SRB engines, we proposed a formaldehyde reduction
requirement of 75 percent and an alternative formaldehyde concentration
emission limitation of 350 ppbvd. In reviewing the 4SRB emissions data
we used to set the standard, we observed that the minimum percent
efficiency achieved by the best performing engine was actually 76.2
percent formaldehyde reduction. Therefore, we acknowledge that the
proposed formaldehyde reduction should have been set at 76 percent
reduction for new 4SRB engines and not 75 percent formaldehyde
reduction and have written this in the final rule.
The commenters also seem to argue that the MACT floor levels for
existing engines must be less stringent than those for new engines.
While the criteria for the MACT floor for new engines is in some cases
more stringent than for existing engines, it is not impossible, or even
illogical, for the result to be the same, or at least very close. In
this case, the best performing 12 percent of engines use the same
control technology, and the emission values, as well as the emission
reduction values, appear to be very close for these
[[Page 33487]]
engines. Therefore, it is not surprising that the levels for the MACT
floor for new and existing engines should be close. Moreover, we were
using a very small data set in setting the final emission limits, thus
limiting the variation in the data used. This led to a proposed level
that used the same calculations for determining the MACT floor for both
existing and new engines. We have changed the manner of calculating the
MACT floor for existing engines for the final rule, but the result is
still very close to that for new engines. Again, this is because the
results for both engines were very close.
Regarding the comment referring to the use of the average of the
best five performing sources, this is only permitted when the category
or subcategory has less than 30 sources. This is not the case with this
subcategory. Given that we had usable data from only two sources, it is
not clear that averaging the two sources would be appropriate to meet
that requirement.
Regarding the comment that retrofitting existing equipment rarely
achieved the optimum design available in new equipment, the commenters
provide no data showing that emissions reductions from retrofitting
existing engines would be reduced compared to those from new engines.
Regardless, the MACT floor for new engines is not based on the
optimum possible design for a new engine, but on the best level of
control achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source,
whether retrofitted or not. Similarly, the MACT floor for existing
engines is based on a specific formula. We based the MACT floor for new
engines on the information available to us from existing engines. While
individual existing sources may have some design constraints in
installing the emission control technology, there is no evidence that
the MACT floor is not achievable. The suggestion that is provided, a 10
percent discount for existing units, without a basis in the existing
data, does not appear consistent with the requirements of CAA section
112(d).
Comment: One commenter indicated that there is considerable doubt
about the ability of an oxidation catalyst to reduce the formaldehyde
concentration over long periods of time. A technical paper presented at
the 2002 Gas Machinery Conference found that the catalyst efficiency
for the Waukesha GL engine for formaldehyde reduces from 100 percent to
67 percent in only 150 hours of operation.
Response: We accounted for catalyst aging in setting the standard.
In fact, the oxidation catalysts used during EPA's testing at CSU were
sufficiently aged prior to testing. The 2SLB engine catalyst was aged
for 236 hours, the 4SLB engine catalyst was aged for 140 hours, and the
CI engine catalyst was aged for 100 hours. Industry representatives
were in agreement that the catalysts were adequately aged. The industry
testing we used in setting the standard for 4SRB engines was based on
testing of two 4SRB engines equipped with NSCR. The NSCR catalysts used
were appropriately aged by more than 2 years prior to testing.
Information regarding catalyst aging at CSU is presented in a
memorandum included in the rule docket (OAR-2002-0059 and A-95-35).
Comment: One commenter said that the 14 ppmvd formaldehyde limit
for new 4SLB engines is not achievable and should be increased. The
commenter stated that EPA based its proposed limit on a small number of
tests on a newly rebuilt engine over a test period of 8.8 hours. Only a
single 4SLB was tested, and it may not be representative of engines of
the same type from different manufacturers. The period of catalyst
aging was very short compared to typical catalyst maintenance
intervals, so results may not be representative of catalyst performance
during normal catalyst maintenance intervals; and the tests were
performed within only a single catalyst that may not be representative
of catalysts from different manufacturers. Clearly, all 4SLB stationary
RICE cannot meet the emissions limits set by EPA in the proposed rule,
particularly over normal catalyst life intervals of 2 to 3 years. The
EPA should incorporate other available test data in the final emission
limits for 4SLB engines to accommodate the degradation in catalyst
performance over the useful lifetime of the catalyst.
Response: The MACT floor for new sources cannot be less stringent
that the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best
controlled similar source. The alternative formaldehyde standard for
4SLB engines is based on the minimum level of control achieved by the
best controlled source. This approach takes into account variability of
the best performing engine. Furthermore, EPA and industry
representatives were in agreement that the engines and catalysts tested
at CSU were representative of engine and catalyst operation across the
U.S. We discussed catalyst aging during the EPA testing at CSU in
response to the previous comment. We feel the catalyst was sufficiently
aged prior to testing at CSU. Industry representatives also agreed that
the catalyst was adequately aged. For the reasons provided, we feel
that the 14 ppmvd formaldehyde limit that was proposed for 4SLB is
appropriate and achievable. We recognize that the alternative
formaldehyde emission limitation is based on a limited amount of data.
However, we feel that sources with a well designed oxidation catalyst
that operate the equipment properly will be able to meet the
formaldehyde concentration.
Comment: Several commenters expressed that 93 percent CO reduction
is not achievable. During the public hearing a commenter stated that a
specific CO limit is more reasonable. Two commenters suggested reducing
the limit to require 60 percent CO reduction. One commenter recommended
that the value be set between 70 and 80 percent comparable to 2SLB and
CI engines. Another commenter stated that EPA has not demonstrated that
the catalyst will perform at this level on a continuous basis
considering fuel and lubrication poisoning. Finally, one commenter said
that American Petroleum Institute/Gas Research Institute testing
indicated a 53 to 63 percent performance. The commenter also said that
the percent reduction likely will not be achievable with aged
catalysts.
One commenter had several concerns with establishing the CO
reduction limit based on the testing conducted at CSU. The concerns
stated by the commenter include: Only a single engine for each type was
tested and it may not be representative of engines of the same type
from different manufacturers; the variables consisted only of
parameters affecting HAP formation in the engine and not necessarily
those affecting CO reduction across the catalyst; the engines were
rebuilt prior to testing to represent new engines and may not represent
engine condition between routine maintenance intervals; the period of
catalyst aging was very short compared to typical catalyst maintenance
intervals, hence results may not be representative of catalyst
performance during normal catalyst maintenance intervals; and the tests
were performed with only a single catalyst that may not be
representative of catalysts from different manufacturers.
One commenter stated catalyst performance degrades over time due to
gas species and concentrations, thermal cycling, chemical poisoning
and/or physical blocking caused by sulfur, lubricants, silica, etc.
that enter the exhaust from the fuel, crankcase and/or combustion air.
Catalyst life is the dominant factor in the cost of the
[[Page 33488]]
control technology, since the cost of replacement catalyst modules is
large relative to other operating and maintenance costs. Typically,
oxidation catalysts undergo two stages of deactivation: A period of
rapid deactivation as the catalyst adjusts to the thermal and gas
conditions, typically over a period on the order of 100 hours; followed
by a period of slow deactivation that occurs over thousands or tens of
thousands of hours. The duration of the CSU tests was clearly
insufficient to address long-term catalyst deactivation, and perhaps
not even fully accounting for initial deactivation. For example, CO
reduction efficiency during the 140 hours of catalyst aging during the
4SLB engine test at CSU was still declining at the end of that period,
suggesting that further deactivation would likely occur over time.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that 93 percent reduction
for CO is not achievable for 4SLB engines. The 93 percent CO reduction
emission limitation is based on the minimum level of control achieved
by the 4SLB engine tested at CSU. We chose the minimum efficiency
achieved as this value takes into account variability in performance of
the engine and engines operating across the U.S., therefore, we feel we
have appropriately set the emission limitation for 4SLB engines.
As rationale for setting the limit at 60 percent, the commenter
cited a recent field test of a 4SLB engine where the measured CO
reduction efficiency was 53 to 60 percent. However, the commenter did
not provide any indication of what reduction efficiency the catalyst
was designed for, or whether the catalyst had been properly maintained
and cleaned. The commenter also did not identify the operating
conditions under which the test was conducted, for example if the test
was conducted during high load operation. Moreover, given the results
of the CSU testing, and the standard-setting requirements for new
engines under CAA section 112(d), it is not clear that the results in
that test would be relevant for standard-setting for new engines.
Regarding the concerns expressed by one commenter, EPA and industry
representatives were in agreement that the engines and catalysts tested
at CSU were representative of engine and catalyst operation across the
U.S. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the testing
conducted at CSU to obtain HAP and CO emissions data was a joint EPA-
industry effort. Prior to testing, EPA and industry developed a list of
engine operating parameters that were known to vary throughout the U.S.
for each type of engine. The engines and control devices were tested at
typical engine conditions in which these operating parameters were
varied. The variations in the emission reduction results for each
engine type are due to the variability of the engine and control system
and include a representation of the performance of the best controlled
source for new engines. Equipment manufacturers, catalyst vendors,
owners and operators, and EPA agreed that the tests conducted at CSU
were representative of typical engine operating conditions in the field
for varied engine and catalyst manufacturers. It is believed that the
variations in the operating parameters affect both HAP formation and CO
reduction across the catalyst. For additional information regarding the
CSU testing, please refer to the rule docket (Docket ID Nos. OAR-2002-
0059 and A-95-35).
We disagree that the catalyst will not perform at this level on a
continuous basis or when it is aged. The CSU testing was funded by
several different agencies, and several stakeholders participated in
the planning, preparation and execution of the tests. All stakeholders
agreed that the catalyst was properly aged before testing was initiated
on each engine. We discussed catalyst aging during the testing at CSU
in response to a previous comment. We feel the catalyst was
sufficiently aged prior to testing at CSU. It should be noted, as
discussed below, that sources may meet the formaldehyde concentration
standard to meet the requirements as well as the 93 percent CO
reduction requirement.
In response to the comment regarding long-term catalyst
deactivation, we reemphasize that industry representatives that were
involved in the testing at CSU agreed that the testing would be
representative for catalyst performance, both short-term and long-term.
We agree with the commenter that there may be two stages of
deactivation. The first stage of deactivation may occur during the
first 100 hours, or might occur as early as after 20 hours of
operation. A second stage of deactivation may occur over a period of
more than a 1,000 hours of operation. However, information received
from catalyst vendors indicate that they are able to design the
catalyst to achieve the guaranteed percent reduction at the end of the
catalyst life (warranty period). The percent reduction may decline
slightly in the beginning but the catalyst can be designed to stabilize
at the desired percent reduction. Catalysts that can achieve emissions
reductions of 93 percent or more for the life of the catalyst are
within the technological limits of this technology. For these reasons,
we feel the CO percent reduction requirement of the final rule is
appropriate and justified.
Comment: Multiple commenters asked that EPA allow sources to choose
either percent reduction or final concentration to comply with
irrespective of the control technique employed.
Response: We agree with the commenters, and we feel it is
appropriate to allow sources to choose either the percent reduction or
formaldehyde concentration outlet limit to demonstrate compliance
irrespective of the control technique employed. We have specified this
flexibility in the final rule.
Comment: Two commenters argued that the proposed rule does not
recognize DPF as a significantly more effective control device for
reducing diesel exhaust emissions compared to diesel oxidation
catalysts. One commenter asked that the final rule require the use of
particulate traps on diesel engines. Another commenter expressed
concern with the interaction of control equipment with diesel
particulate traps. One commenter indicated that DPF can reduce diesel
PM by at least 80 percent. According to the commenter, these traps can
reduce CO by at least 90 percent.
Response: The commenters indicate that DPF are effective at
reducing diesel exhaust emissions or diesel particulates. These are not
HAP listed pursuant to section 112(b) of the CAA and, therefore, are
not the pollutants that the final rule is targeting specifically. The
EPA has recently received a request to list diesel exhaust pursuant to
section 112(b) of the CAA and is currently reviewing that request. At
the time of proposal, we investigated DPF. However, at the time of this
investigation, the effectiveness of DPF on listed HAP emissions from
stationary sources had not been demonstrated, and the technology had
only been applied to a handful of stationary RICE. They, therefore,
were not appropriate as a MACT floor technology. We examined DPF for
their ability to reduce listed HAP and their cost effectiveness. We
concluded that there were no data to show that this technology would be
more effective at reducing listed HAP than oxidation catalysts. We also
noted that this technology was more expensive than oxidation catalysts,
so we did not use this technology as a basis for the proposed MACT
levels. However, the proposal did allow the use of
[[Page 33489]]
technologies other than oxidation catalysts, including DPF, to meet the
MACT requirements, which are generally numerical, though there were
certain compliance options that differed depending on the emission
control used on the engine. Since proposal, we have received new
information regarding DPF resulting in reevaluating the feasibility of
applying DPF to stationary RICE. (See Docket ID Nos. OAR-2002-0059 and
A-95-35.) In addition, the final rule eliminates all provisions linking
the standard to any particular control technology. Sources are free to
choose any compliance option irrespective of the control technique
applied. We have no reason to believe that DPF are incompatible with
oxidation catalysts or that they cannot be used instead of oxidation
catalysts. In the context of its mobile source regulations, we have
found that DPF can be incorporated with other emission control devices
without compatibility problems. We agree with the commenter that DPF
may be able to reduce PM by at least 80 percent and they might be able
to also reduce CO by at least 90 percent, at least in certain
instances, though EPA has determined that these reductions can only be
reliably achieved using ultra low sulfur fuel (15 ppm sulfur content by
weight). However, we do not have any actual test data showing that DPF
can reliably reduce HAP emissions from stationary CI engines at a level
beyond that already required by the final rule. In particular, we do
not have data regarding actual use of these devices on stationary RICE,
or under the range of operating parameters reasonably expected for such
engines. Also, the ultra low sulfur fuel (15 ppm sulfur content by
weight) needed for this technology is not yet available in sufficient
quantities in the U.S. We, therefore, have determined that there is
currently not enough information regarding DPF as applied to HAP
emissions from stationary CI engines on which to base the standard for
the final rule.
Comment: One commenter urged EPA to rationalize its policy and
address the serious public health impacts associated with diesel-
powered RICE by establishing rigorous PM and clean fuel requirements in
the final rule.
Response: We appreciate the comments regarding pollution from
diesel-powered stationary RICE. While we agree that diesel engines emit
pollutants of concern beyond those covered in the final rule, we do not
feel it would be appropriate to establish diesel PM or clean fuel
requirements in the rule. The final rule is a relatively narrow rule,
regulating only listed HAP from stationary RICE. Diesel PM is not
currently listed as a HAP under section 112 of the CAA. While
regulation of diesel PM may be appropriate in the long-term, either as
a criteria pollutant or as a listed HAP, we do not feel that the final
rule, which proposed only to regulate HAP already listed under CAA
section 112, is the appropriate place to promulgate final rules
affecting criteria pollutants and precursors (like PM or
NOX). Similarly, the commenter does not provide an
explanation of the need to regulate diesel fuel, except as it affects
PM emissions. Therefore, we are not taking any final action with regard
to these issues in the final rule.
Comment: Several commenters sought adjustment of the MACT emission
limitations to reflect fully the test results that are the basis for
the standard. One commenter indicated that the CO percent reduction
standard for 2SLB engines should be adjusted to 58 percent to reflect
the lowest percent reduction achieved during the EPA-sponsored emission
testing at the CSU Engine Lab, which is the basis for the 2SLB
standards. The formaldehyde percent reduction standard for 4SRB engines
should be adjusted to 73 percent to reflect the lowest percent
reduction achieved during the industry-sponsored testing, which is the
basis for the 4SRB emission standards. Similarly, the formaldehyde
concentration standard for 4SRB engines should be adjusted to 370 ppbvd
at 15 percent oxygen to reflect the highest post-NSCR concentration of
formaldehyde.
Response: We agree with the commenter that the CO percent reduction
standard for 2SLB should be adjusted to 58 percent to fully reflect the
possible variation for the best performing source for these engines. We
have made this adjustment in the final rule to fully reflect the test
results obtained for the 2SLB engine tested at CSU. We proposed an
alternative formaldehyde emission limitation of 17 ppmvd for new 2SLB
engines in the proposal. The concentration for the formaldehyde
emission limitation was based on the minimum level of control achieved
by the best controlled source. This approach takes into account the
variability of the best performing engine. The formaldehyde emissions
at CSU ranged from 7.5 ppmvd to 17 ppmvd. Therefore, we chose 17 ppmvd
at proposal. The 17 ppmvd formaldehyde concentration was based on a run
conducted at low load (69 percent). After reviewing our approach at
proposal, we have found it inconsistent to establish the alternative
formaldehyde emission limitation based on the level achieved during a
low load test. The approach that we have used for other engine types in
establishing the alternative emission limitations was to establish the
limits based on high loads and to require compliance at high loads. The
expected trend is for emissions to generally increase with decreasing
load; however, we do not have sufficient data to take the effect of
load into account in establishing the alternative emission limitations.
Because of this, the emission limitations are based on performance at
high loads. We expect that if the emission limitations are achieved at
high load then the technology will be operating appropriately and will
also operate appropriately at lower loads. To be consistent, we have
established in the final rule an alternative formaldehyde emission
limit for new 2SLB engines of 12 ppmvd. This number is based on the
minimum level of control achieved by the best performing engine at high
load conditions. We have specified in the final rule that performance
tests must be conducted at high load conditions, defined as 100 percent
10 percent. If a source has demonstrated compliance with
the emission limit at high loads it is assumed that the technology is
operating appropriately and will also operate appropriately at lower
loads. Sources are not required to meet the emission limitation at low
load.
As described in the preamble to the proposed rule, we reviewed
emissions data from an industry sponsored formaldehyde emission test
conducted on two 4SRB engines. We selected the best performing engine
based on the highest average formaldehyde percent reduction. The
average reduction was 79 percent for that engine; however, to establish
variability we looked at each of the 12 individual test runs
performance on that engine. The percent reduction varied from 75
percent to 81 percent. At proposal, we selected 75 percent for the MACT
floor. However, since proposal, we have reviewed the method we used to
set the MACT floor for existing 4SRB engines. We feel it would be more
appropriate to include in the analysis the data from the lower
performing engine, thus using more than a single data point in
determining the MACT floor for existing 4SRB engines. The revised
approach was discussed in detail in response to a previous comment. In
that response, we described our revised approach which takes into
account the performance of both engines tested, using a weighted
average where the data point for the lower performer will be worth 22
percent and the level for the higher performer will be worth 78
percent. In
[[Page 33490]]
addition, to be consistent with the approach followed for other engine
types, we have excluded runs conducted at low loads in setting the MACT
floor. As previously indicated elsewhere in this document, since the
MACT floor is based on emissions data from runs at high loads,
performance tests must be conducted at high load conditions, defined as
100 percent load, 10 percent. The commenter stated that the
formaldehyde percent reduction standard for existing 4SRB engines
should be adjusted to 73 percent to reflect the lowest percent
reduction achieved during the industry-sponsored testing. Although the
commenter is correct in stating that 73 percent formaldehyde reduction
was the lowest average reduction, 73 percent reduction was achieved
during a run that was not conducted at high load. For this reason, it
is not appropriate to use the 73 percent formaldehyde reduction in the
MACT floor analysis. Similarly, the run where the formaldehyde
concentration was measured at 370 ppbvd was also not conducted at high
load, and was, therefore, not used in our analysis of the MACT floor
for existing 4SRB engines.
Comment: One commenter requested that the ``burn-in'' period during
commissioning of new or rebuilt engines should be exempted from
emission limits. Catalyst manufacturer warrantees typically require a
``burn-in period'' for new and rebuilt engines prior to placing the
catalyst on stream. This is intended to allow seating of critical
engine components (e.g., piston rings). Catalyst placed on stream
before this burn-in period is subject to physical damage from engine
backfire and poisoning and or fouling from crankcase oil blow-by. The
EPA has acknowledged this need in a prevention of significant
deterioration and title V Permit by including the following language:
``The permittee shall be allowed to operate the replacement/overhauled
engine without the use of the catalytic converter assembly for a period
not to exceed 200 hours from the engine startup, unless a longer time
period has been approved by EPA, in writing.'' The commenter
recommended that deviating from the emissions limits during the burn-in
period or the first 200 hours of operation of a new or rebuilt RICE not
be considered a violation. The commenter recommended that a statement
be added at Sec. 63.6640(d) that deviating from the emissions limits
during the burn-in period or the first 200 hours of operation of a new
or rebuilt RICE is not a violation.
Response: We agree with the commenter that an engine burn-in period
of 200 hours is appropriate prior to installing the catalyst to prevent
damage to the catalyst. We have, therefore, specified that new or
rebuilt engines may operate for up to 200 hours prior to installing the
catalyst in the final rule and that this will not be considered a
violation. However, sources have 180 days after the compliance date
specified for their source to conduct the performance test and initial
compliance demonstration and the 200 hours of burn-in time must be
conducted within these 180 days.
Comment: One commenter did not agree with EPA's determination of
the MACT floor for 4SLB RICE. The database used to determine the MACT
floor is based on pre-1999 information and includes 542 engines from
Wyoming. Since 1999, Wyoming has permitted 2,100 4SLB engines.
Approximately 62 percent of the greater than 500 HP 4SLB permitted
since 1999 have been required to be equipped with oxidation catalyst to
control formaldehyde. The EPA reports the number of existing 4SLB used
in determining the MACT floor at 4,149. Including the 4SLB engines
greater than 500 HP permitted since 1999 in Wyoming, the total is
5,664. Of this total, 935 engines have permit conditions requiring
oxidation catalyst to control formaldehyde, which is 16.5 percent of
the total. Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the emission standard for
existing sources be no less stringent than the emission limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources. The
commenter contended that the database used to determine the MACT floor
is incomplete, and EPA must reevaluate the MACT floor including
permitting actions post 1998.
Response: We contacted the commenter who submitted this comment.
The commenter stated that mostly all of the engines that have been
permitted are minor sources of HAP. Since the 4SLB engines permitted in
Wyoming are nearly all at minor sources of HAP, it is not accurate to
add these sources to the determination of the average of the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources from the source category. The
determination of the average of the best performing 12 percent of
existing sources must be based on the sources regulated. Since the
final rule only covers major sources, it is not appropriate to include
the minor source engines permitted to require oxidation catalyst in
Wyoming. Moreover, the calculation of the MACT floor does not require
that we include reductions that were implemented within 18 months of
the proposal, or 30 months of the final rule. It is not clear how many
of the engines the commenter discusses were equipped with oxidation
catalysts during that period. Therefore, we have not reevaluated the
floor for existing 4SLB engines. The MACT floor of existing 4SLB
engines remains at no emissions reductions.
E. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Comment: Multiple commenters contended that the CO CEMS requirement
for large lean burn engines is unreasonable. The commenters stated that
parameter monitoring and periodic testing should be offered to CO
monitoring on all lean burn engines. One commenter noted that given
that the best available emissions control technology for RICE is a
passive catalyst system and that the operator cannot reduce or improve
HAP removal efficiency, simplified and less costly environmental
monitoring requirements should be adopted.
Response: We now feel that the proposed requirement for 2SLB, 4SLB,
and CI engines 5,000 HP or above complying with the requirement to
reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst to use CO CEMS is
unnecessary and inappropriate. The costs associated with a CO CEMS is
estimated to be over $200,000 in capital costs and nearly $60,000 in
annual costs. We consider these costs to be excessive. For these
reasons, we feel it is not appropriate to include a requirement for
large lean burn and large CI engines to install CO CEMS in the final
rule. We feel that the combination of periodic stack testing and
parameter monitoring is a proper and reasonable alternative for large
engines. The testing of CO will ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the
source is meeting the CO percent reduction requirement. In addition to
stack testing, 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI engines meeting the CO percent
reduction requirement and using an oxidation catalyst must continuously
monitor and maintain the catalyst inlet temperature as well as maintain
and monitor the pressure drop across the catalyst monthly. These
parameters serves as surrogates of the oxidation catalyst performance
and by monitoring and maintaining these parameters, continuous
compliance between stack testing will be ensured. Stationary RICE
meeting the CO percent reduction requirement that are not using an
oxidation catalyst must petition the Administrator for approval of
operating limitations and must continuously monitor and maintain the
operating parameters that are approved (if any).
We are including CO CEMS as an option to periodic stack testing and
parametric monitoring for all lean burn
[[Page 33491]]
and CI engines in the final rule, but it is not required.
Comment: One commenter observed that deficiencies noted in the
proposed rule with regard to the test methods and performance protocols
render CO CEMS infeasible for the RICE MACT. While CO CEMS have been
demonstrated on some facility types, their application to RICE is very
limited. Vendor claims for CO CEMS and CO instrumental analyzers,
unless accompanied by emissions test data obtained under known and
controlled conditions applicable to the subject source type, should not
be considered adequate proof of availability and performance. While it
may be appropriate for EPA to solicit comments on its test methods and
technical monitoring requirements, the commenter found that it is
inappropriate to propose requirements for measurement systems prior to
resolving the current deficiencies with the EPA protocols.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the application of CO
CEMS must be considered infeasible for all RICE unless accompanied by
emission test data obtained under known and controlled conditions
applicable to the subject source category. Since we have previously
established acceptable CEMS performance specifications, we can allow
the RICE source owner and operator the optional use of CO CEMS within
such performance standards as an effective parameter monitor. However,
as discussed above, we do agree that we should not require the
installation of CEMS at all affected facilities.
Comment: Many commenters asserted that the fuel flow and HP limits
should be removed. Five commenters recommended that EPA specify that
the emission standards only apply within a 60 to 100 percent load range
and performance testing should be conducted within that load range. One
commenter suggested revising MACT requirements to have emission limits
and performance testing applicable at higher load conditions instead of
establishing the lowest load to be operated in the future. Another
commenter recommended that the final standards only apply down to the
lowest load for which EPA has data and should specify that the
performance test be conducted in that load range. One commenter stated
that should EPA pursue minimum load testing and compliance in the final
rule, the owner and operators should be allowed to retest the unit at
some time later than the initial performance test to enlarge the
operating range. The lower operating load and fuel range should then be
based on the lowest load that has demonstrated compliance irrespective
of whether the demonstration occurred in the initial or later
performance tests.
One commenter stated that the NESHAP provide two options. One is to
use a catalyst and the other is to limit the formaldehyde. If the
formaldehyde limit is chosen, however, the engine must maintain an
operating load of 95 percent or more of the load established in the
initial testing, which under many circumstances is impractical. For
example, this option cannot be chosen for the commonly used variable-
load application engine. For variable load engines, there is no choice
but to use a catalyst. The commenter believed that this approach limits
the flexibility in controlling these engines.
Response: In the proposed rule, we required sources complying with
the alternative formaldehyde limit to maintain an operating load equal
to or greater than 95 percent of the operating load established during
the initial performance test or maintain a fuel flow rate equal to or
greater than 95 percent of the fuel flow rate established during the
initial performance test. These sources were also required to comply
with any additional operating limitations approved by the
Administrator. Based on information received during the public comment
period, we have reached the conclusion that maintaining the load or
fuel flow rate within 95 percent of that established during the initial
performance test may be impractical for many applications, especially
those in load following applications. Therefore, we have not included
the requirement to maintain load or fuel flow rate in the final rule.
Sources complying with the alternative formaldehyde limit that use an
oxidation catalyst or NSCR must continuously maintain and monitor the
catalyst inlet temperature and measure the pressure drop across the
catalyst monthly. Sources complying with the alternative formaldehyde
limit that do not use an oxidation catalyst or NSCR must petition the
Administrator for operating limitations to be continuously monitored.
In the petition for approval of operating limitations, we recommend
that sources consider establishing load or fuel flow rate as possible
operating parameters to continuously monitor. Finally, we have based
the emission standard on test results from high load tests only.
Typically, as load decreases, the concentration of HAP increases.
Comments received support this trend. Therefore, we have specified in
the final rule that performance tests must be conducted at high load
conditions, defined as 100 percent 10 percent.
Comment: Several commenters contended that the temperature ranges
at the catalyst inlet should be revised. Six commenters supported an
operating range of 450[deg]F to 1350[deg]F for lean burn engines and
the ability to develop customized catalyst inlet temperature ranges
based on specific engine operating parameters. One commenter
recommended using 450[deg]F minimum catalyst inlet temperature for
2SLB. One commenter also said that owners and operators should be
allowed to identify more appropriate temperature ranges based on
performance testing, control device design specifications, manufacturer
recommendations, or other applicable information (such as a performance
test on a similar unit).
Response: We proposed that lean burn and CI engines complying with
the requirement to reduce CO emissions maintain the temperature of the
stationary RICE exhaust so that the catalyst inlet temperature is
greater than or equal to 500[deg]F and less than or equal to
1250[deg]F. We required the catalyst inlet temperature to be maintained
to ensure proper operation of the oxidation catalyst. We stated in the
preamble to the proposed rule that, in general, the oxidation catalyst
performance will decrease as the catalyst inlet temperature decreases.
Also, if the catalyst inlet temperature is too high, oxidation catalyst
performance could be affected. Finally, the oxidation catalyst inlet
temperature cannot be too low, or the reduction of HAP emissions may be
compromised. For these reasons, we proposed that sources complying with
the CO reduction requirement using an oxidation catalyst maintain the
catalyst inlet temperature within 500[deg]F and 1250[deg]F. Several
comments received during the public comment period indicated that the
temperature range we proposed for catalyst inlet temperature should be
expanded. Commenters suggested that the lower end of the temperature
range should start at 450[deg]F. The level of the standard for 2SLB
engines is 58 percent CO reduction. Similar CO reduction was seen at
CSU for 2SLB engines where the exhaust temperature was 450[deg]F. For
this reason, we agree with the commenters that the catalyst inlet lower
temperature should be set at 450[deg]F. Furthermore, we feel that the
oxidation catalyst will perform adequately at a temperature of
1350[deg]F. This was discussed in a memorandum included in the rule
docket (Docket ID Nos. OAR-2002-0059 and A-95-35). Commenters also
stated that Waukesha Pearce Industries, Inc. includes 1350[deg]F in
their limited warranty statements for
[[Page 33492]]
oxidation catalysts. Therefore, we have written the temperature range
requirement for catalyst inlet temperatures to be between 450[deg]F and
1350[deg]F in the final rule. Regarding the comment that owners and
operators should be allowed to identify more appropriate temperature
ranges, we feel that requiring a catalyst inlet temperature range of
450[deg]F to 1350[deg]F is appropriate. Based on information from the
testing at CSU, information from catalyst vendors, and information
provided in comment letters submitted to the docket, we feel we have
adequate information that supports requiring a catalyst inlet
temperature range of 450[deg]F to 1350[deg]F, and we do not feel it is
necessary to allow owners and operators the ability to identify and
define other temperature ranges. Owners and operators have the option
to petition the Administrator for other operating parameters following
the procedures in section 63.8 for alternative monitoring procedures.
Comment: Many commenters stated that the requirement to measure
pressure drop should be removed. One commenter indicated that the
operating limitation not to exceed a pressure change of 2 inches of
water column from the initial performance test has the potential to be
problematic in practice. Another commenter stated that there is no need
for continuous pressure drop measurements on engines running
exclusively on natural gas and at high loads. The commenter has seen
very little problems with catalyst fouling on their lean burn RICE
equipped with oxidation catalysts. The commenter understood that it is
an issue in some installations, but concludes that they would be
applications either running on other fuels or where engines are run at
idle or very low load for long periods of time. One commenter stated
that the proposed requirements to continuously monitor and maintain a
prescribed pressure differential across the catalyst should be removed
from the final rule for the following reasons: (1) Although significant
change in differential pressure across the catalyst may provide an
indication that the catalyst has become fouled, EPA has presented no
evidence to suggest that an increase in 2 inches of water column means
that catalyst performance is impacted; (2) industry data demonstrates
that the pressure drop can increase more than 2 inches of water column
without impacting catalyst performance. Such increases may even occur
because of engine operating conditions. For that reason, EPA's proposed
2 inches of water column condition might forbid engines to operate
within part of their normal operating range; and (3) vendors do not
treat pressure differential as a continuous operating parameter
requirement. Rather it is presented as a maintenance requirement for
catalysts on some engines. The general duty clause of Sec.
63.6(e)(1)(i) is sufficient to address pressure drop issues. Finally,
one commenter stated that the uniqueness of the installation should be
given consideration in whether or not pressure drop is required to be
monitored.
Response: We proposed a requirement for 4SRB engines complying with
the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using NSCR and 2SLB,
4SLB, and CI engines less than 5,000 HP complying with the requirement
to reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst to maintain the
catalyst so that the pressure drop across the catalyst does not change
by more than 2 inches of water from the pressure drop across the
catalyst measured during the initial performance test. Catalyst vendors
have indicated to EPA that the pressure drop across the catalyst may be
a good parameter to indicate catalyst performance and that an increase
in pressure drop is an indication of poor catalyst performance. The
pressure drop across the catalyst can indicate if the catalyst is
damaged or fouled. If the catalyst is damaged or becomes fouled, the
catalyst performance would decrease. For the reasons provided, we feel
it is appropriate to use the pressure drop as it serves as a surrogate
of the catalyst performance.
We determined at proposal that if the pressure drop across the
catalyst deviates by more than 2 inches of water from the pressure drop
across the catalyst measured during the initial performance test, the
catalyst might be damaged or fouled. This was based on information
received from catalyst vendors which indicated that if the pressure
drop changes by more than 2 inches of water column, the catalyst should
be inspected for damage or fouling. For this reason, we feel it was
appropriate to specify that the pressure drop across the catalyst
should not change by more than 2 inches from the pressure drop measured
during the initial performance test. Anything higher than 2 inches
might indicate damage or fouling of the catalyst. We feel it is
appropriate to maintain the pressure drop requirement as proposed.
However, we have reevaluated our position regarding requiring sources
to monitor the pressure drop across the oxidation catalyst on a
continuous basis and are no longer requiring sources to install a CPMS
to monitor this parameter continuously. The pressure drop across the
catalyst is not likely to change within short periods of time, but is a
parameter the owner and operator might see changing over a longer
period of time, not within hours or days. This is consistent with
comments that stated that vendors do not treat pressure differential as
a continuous operating parameter requirement. Rather it is presented as
a maintenance requirement for catalysts on some engines. For this
reason, we feel it is appropriate to require sources that must comply
with the pressure drop requirement to measure this parameter monthly,
as we do not expect the pressure drop across the catalyst to change
significantly more frequently than monthly. Regarding the comment that
the uniqueness of the installation should be given consideration in
whether or not pressure drop is required to be monitored, we feel that
we have gathered sufficient information from catalyst vendors that
supports requiring the pressure drop to be monitored and maintained
monthly. In addition, the commenter did not describe or provide
information regarding how the uniqueness of the installation would
affect whether or not monitoring and maintaining the pressure drop
should be required.
Comment: Many commenters stated that the requirement to measure the
temperature rise for rich burn RICE should be removed. One commenter
had the opinion that 5 percent difference in temperature is not
feasible or workable in practice. While a NSCR catalyst is more likely
to show a positive temperature change across the catalyst, very low, or
even negative, temperature changes are possible while the catalyst is
functioning normally. One commenter did not think it is appropriate to
specify that the temperature rise across a NSCR catalyst has to stay
within 5 percent of the temperature rise (or any other specific value)
measured at the initial source test. The commenter believed that this
seems arbitrary. At one facility, the commenter has seen zero
temperature change across the catalyst. Yet, NOX, CO and
volatile organic compounds (VOC) reductions were all occurring at high
efficiency and in full compliance with requirements. It would be more
appropriate to simply require that NSCR be operated in conjunction with
an air-to-fuel ratio controller and that the catalyst inlet temperature
simply be hot enough to ensure it is working, but not too hot to damage
the catalyst.
One commenter said that Table 1b of the proposed rule stipulates
that 4SRB RICE must ensure that the temperature
[[Page 33493]]
rise across the catalyst is no more than 5 percent different. The
commenter asked what if the temperature is 10 percent different and
would this not represent a higher degree of oxidation. The commenter
questioned why this should not be allowed.
Response: As summarized above, we received several comments
regarding the requirement in the proposed rule that 4SRB engines
monitor and maintain the temperature rise across the NSCR. Based on the
information received, we agree with the commenters that such a
requirement would be inappropriate and most likely would not provide an
accurate representation of how the catalyst is performing. We are
including the requirement to measure the catalyst pressure drop monthly
and to maintain and continuously monitor the catalyst inlet temperature
to ensure that it remains between 750[deg]F and 1250[deg]F. It is our
opinion that monitoring and maintaining these two parameters is
sufficient to ensure proper catalyst operation. Therefore, we have not
included the requirement to maintain the catalyst such that the
temperature rise across the catalyst stays within 5 percent of the
temperature rise measured during the initial performance test in the
final rule.
Comment: One commenter argued that the requirement for an immediate
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) report should indicate that
this is required only when the actions addressing the malfunction were
inconsistent with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction report (SSMP).
Two commenters stated that EPA should eliminate the immediate SSM
report indicated in Table 7, item 2, of the proposed rule. One
commenter further noted that any reporting requirements should be
consistent with the General Provisions and the December 2002 proposal
relating to reporting malfunctions only versus startups and shutdowns.
Two commenters recommended eliminating the requirement for an
immediate SSMP in Table 7 of the proposed rule.
Response: We agree that immediate SSMP reports are unnecessary and
have the potential of becoming a burdensome activity for sources with
frequent startups and shutdowns. We have specified in the final rule
that an immediate SSMP report is only required when actions addressing
the startup, shutdown, or malfunction were inconsistent with the SSMP.
Comment: Two commenters requested annual compliance reports instead
of the requirement of semiannual reporting of compliance reports in
Sec. 63.6650(3). One of the commenters asked that the language in this
paragraph be modified to allow the flexibility for annual compliance
reports in order to make the final rule consistent with other MACT
standards. The commenter noted that they are seeing in the various
State and Federal regulations the requirements for monthly, quarterly,
semiannual, and annual reports, and keeping track of these is becoming
quite difficult. One of the commenters stated that this will create an
unnecessary paperwork burden for both the regulated community as well
as for the regulatory agencies. A more reasonable approach would be to
require an annual compliance report timed concurrently with the state
EPA's typical emissions reporting requirement.
Response: We disagree that semiannual compliance reports are a
burden. We feel that the submittal of semiannual reports will assist in
identifying problem areas within a reasonable period of time. The
requirement for semiannual compliance reporting is not inconsistent
with previous MACT standards. Several MACT standards require compliance
reports to be prepared and submitted semiannually. Enforcing agencies
have been requiring semiannual compliance reports for a long time, and
this has worked well and has helped EPA enforce rules appropriately. We
feel the submittal of semiannual compliance reports is appropriate for
stationary RICE complying with the final rule.
Comment: One commenter stated that readily available electronic
records do not have to be stored on-site. In Sec. 63.6660(c), the
proposed RICE MACT requires that records be kept on-site for the first
2 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report or record. This requirement does
not recognize the trend toward computerization of monitoring records.
Many sites are making an intentional effort to move away from paper
records of air compliance critical data whenever the opportunity
presents itself. These electronic records reside on hardware referred
to as servers. For a variety of reasons, these servers are not always
located at the major source that would be affected by the RICE MACT.
There are cases at companies where the server for an affected source is
not located in the same State as the affected source. The concept of
``readily accessible'' should be more important, relative to current
records, than the need for them to be on-site at the major source. The
commenter urges EPA to recognize the trend to electronic record keeping
by changing Sec. 63.6660(c) to read as follows: ``(c) Each record must
be readily accessible in hard copy or electronic form on-site for at
least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report or record according to Sec.
63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records off-site for the remaining 3
years.''
Response: We agree with the commenter and feel that records that
can be accessed on-site by a computer are valid and should be
considered on-site records. Our understanding of the General Provisions
is that it allows the interpretation that records that can be accessed
on-site are acceptable. In any case, we have written Sec. 63.6660(c)
in the final rule according to the commenter's suggestion.
F. Testing
Comment: Several commenters pointed out that there is a 50 parts
per million (ppm) NOX limit advisory with the use of CARB
Method 430. The commenters asked EPA to follow the direction of the
CARB advisory. One commenter added that due to concerns about matrix
interferences with CARB Method 430, as expressed in an advisory
released by CARB, the commenter believed that it is inappropriate to
include CARB Method 430 as a candidate method until its governing
agency has more thoroughly researched method deficiencies and revised
the method or rescinded the advisory.
Response: We agree that CARB Method 430 use should not be cited in
the final rule. Therefore, we have not included CARB Method 430 as a
test method in the final rule.
Comment: A few commenters recommended that EPA include proposed
Method 323. One commenter felt that it is imperative that multiple test
methods and technological approaches be available for formaldehyde
measurement from engines. The EPA Method 323 addresses this need and
appears to offer a reasonable alternative to FTIR for formaldehyde
testing of engines. The method detection limits are within the range
necessary to demonstrate compliance with a formaldehyde based limit.
This method was investigated and developed by the Gas Technology
Institute (GTI) as a low-cost alternative for engine formaldehyde
measurement and has been validated for application to internal
combustion engines in research conducted by GTI.
One commenter said that this method has the advantage of actually
having been field-validated at the required concentration. Furthermore,
it is simpler and less costly than the other methods. It is the
commenter's
[[Page 33494]]
experience that with a similar chilled-impinger method for VOC (Method
25.3), they found it was critical to maintain near-ice-water
temperatures in order to achieve 100 percent capture. The method might
be modified by adding a final impinger and having that analyzed
separately for breakthrough. Sulfur dioxide is listed as an
interference, possibly because of its ability to bond with aldehydes.
This bond is broken under acidic conditions. If this is found to be a
problem, perhaps the sample can be acidified more to break up any
complexes.
Response: We agree with the commenter and have included Method 323
as an optional method for natural gas-fired units in the final rule. We
plan to develop a FAQ sheet for Method 323. We may include the
commenter's suggestion for analyzing for breakthrough with another
impinger and a caution to check the impinger exhaust temperature when
assessing the data quality.
Comment: One commenter expressed the view that since EPA SW-846
Method 0011 uses a similar analytical approach as CARB Method 430, has
not been validated for application to engines, and has quality
assurance requirements considered less thorough than CARB Method 430,
it should be excluded from the list of acceptable methods.
Response: We agree with the commenter that this method should not
be specified as an acceptable method for this application. This method
has not been included in the final rule.
Comment: A few commenters stated that EPA should allow ASTM Method
D6348 as equivalent to Method 320. One commenter stated that the method
is self-validating and includes clarity that the commenter believed
will provide better consistency and reduce the likelihood of errors as
FTIR becomes more widely implemented by the source test community. The
ASTM method was developed and approved following a refereed process and
considering the input and review of leading experts in the field.
Response: We identified ASTM D6348-03 as a potential national
consensus based method in addition to Method 320 and Method 323. Upon
review, we approved this method as an alternative to Method 320 for
formaldehyde measurement provided in ASTM D6348-03, Annex 5 (Analyte
Spiking Technique), percent R must be greater than or equal to 70 and
less than or equal to 130.
Comment: Some commenters stated that quarterly emission testing
with CO portable units should not be full performance tests. This
provision is burdensome and unnecessary. The final rule should not
require that the quarterly emission tests be full performance tests for
the following reasons: (1) For full performance tests, engines in load-
following applications may need to conduct emissions testing at
multiple operating conditions, in accordance with the General
Provisions' requirement that performance tests be conducted for
representative conditions; (2) facilities with load-following
operations, such as natural gas transmission and storage, may not be
able to operate the engines over the full range of operating conditions
on a quarterly basis; (3) full performance tests impose significant
burden on the owner or operator to develop site-specific test plans,
provide notification to the permitting authority 60 days in advance of
the test, and submit the full results within 60 days of completion of
the testing; and (4) review of other MACT standards indicates that full
performance tests are not required more frequently than annually.
Response: We agree with the commenters that requiring full
performance tests quarterly for sources complying with CO reduction
requirement may impose significant burden on the owner or operator to
develop site-specific test plans, provide notification to the
permitting authority 60 days in advance of the test, and submit the
full results within 60 days of completion of the testing. We now feel
that quarterly testing for CO is unnecessary and inappropriate. In the
final rule, we have specified that new 2SLB, new 4SLB, and new CI
engines complying with requirement to reduce CO emissions must conduct
semiannual performance tests for CO to demonstrate that the required CO
percent reduction is achieved. Semiannual performance testing for CO in
addition to monitoring and maintaining operating parameters will
ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the applicable CO percent reduction
requirement is being met. After demonstrating compliance for two
consecutive tests, the frequency can be reduced to annually. However,
if an annual performance test indicates a deviation of CO emissions
from the CO reduction requirement, you must return to semiannual
performance tests.
Comment: Some commenters contended that additional performance
tests should not be required when NSCR or oxidation catalysts are
replaced with identical units.
Response: We disagree. Additional performance tests are required to
be performed even though an emission control device is replaced with an
identical unit. The performance of identical catalysts can vary
significantly, and it is not guaranteed that the NSCR or oxidation
catalyst will achieve the same performance levels.
Comment: One commenter asked that EPA include similar language as
in the Petroleum Refinery MACT for Catalytic Cracking Units which has
the provision to make adjustments to one of the monitored operating
parameters to acknowledge that it may not be possible to achieve worst-
case operation during the performance test. In this scenario, the
testing of a similar unit should be allowed to serve as the basis for
establishing acceptable inlet temperatures.
One commenter remarked that initial performance tests should only
have to be performed on one engine when an installation is provided
with several identical engines.
Response: We do not agree that it is appropriate to allow a
facility with identical engines to conduct testing on only one of the
units to establish operating parameters. Although the units are
identical, operating parameters, as well as emissions, could vary
significantly from unit to unit. We do not agree that it is appropriate
to allow a facility with identical engines to conduct performance tests
on only one of the units to demonstrate compliance with the emission
limits for all of the identical units. It is our experience that
emissions from identical units can vary significantly.
Comment: One commenter stated that manufacturer's performance data
should be allowable in lieu of an initial performance test.
Response: We are not allowing manufacturer's performance data in
lieu of an initial performance test. Performance data provided by the
manufacturer may not be representative of how the engine will perform
in the field and may overestimate the engine's performance.
Comment: One commenter contended that the stack testing should be
no more frequent than semiannual for CO. The stack testing for
formaldehyde should be no more frequent than annual. The commenter
added that both should also include the ability to go to even less
frequent testing based upon good performance.
Response: We agree with the commenter and feel that it is
appropriate to require semiannual performance tests for CO for sources
meeting the CO percent reduction requirement. This has been specified
in the final rule. The rationale for reducing the CO testing
requirement was previously discussed. For CO stack
[[Page 33495]]
testing, we also agree with the commenter that it is appropriate to
allow sources that demonstrate compliance for two consecutive tests, to
reduce the frequency of subsequent performance tests to annually.
However, if an annual performance test indicates a deviation of CO
emissions from the CO reduction requirement, sources must return to
semiannual performance tests. Regarding formaldehyde testing, we
disagree with the commenter and feel that we have appropriately set the
testing requirements for formaldehyde at semiannual performance tests.
Periodic stack testing for CO and formaldehyde will ensure, on an
ongoing basis, that the source is meeting the emission limitation
requirements. For formaldehyde stack testing, if you have demonstrated
compliance for two consecutive tests, you may reduce the frequency of
subsequent performance tests to annually. However, if the results of
any subsequent annual performance test indicate that the stationary
engine is not in compliance with the formaldehyde emission limitation,
or you deviate from any of your operating limitations, you must resume
semiannual performance tests.
Comment: One commenter was of the opinion that EPA should allow
facilities complying with the formaldehyde emission limitation to use
existing performance test data to demonstrate initial compliance with
the emission limit.
Response: We agree with the commenter that existing performance
test data can be used to demonstrate compliance with the emission
limit. The facility must petition the Administrator for approval, and
demonstrate that the tests were conducted using the same test methods
specified in the subpart, the test method procedures were correctly
followed, no process or equipment changes have been made since the
test, and the data is of good quality and is less than 2 years old.
Existing test data can only be used to demonstrate initial compliance;
after the initial compliance demonstration, facilities must then begin
to follow the semiannual compliance test schedule. This has been
specified in the final rule.
G. Risk-Based Approaches
The preamble to the proposed rule requested comment on whether
there might be further ways to structure the final rule to focus on the
facilities which pose significant risks and avoid the imposition of
high costs on facilities that pose little risk to public health and the
environment. Specifically, we requested comment on the technical and
legal viability of three risk-based approaches: An applicability cutoff
for threshold pollutants under the authority of CAA section 112(d)(4),
subcategorization and delisting under the authority of CAA section
112(c)(1) and (9), and a concentration-based applicability
threshold.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 68 FR 1276 (January 9, 2003) (Plywood and Composite Wood
Products Proposed NESHAP) and Docket ID No. A-98-44 (White Papers
submitted to EPA outlining the risk-based approaches).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We indicated that we would evaluate all comments before determining
whether either approach would be included in the final rule. Numerous
commenters submitted detailed comments on these risk-based approaches.
These comments are summarized in the Response-to-Comments document (see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section).
Based on our consideration of the comments received and other
factors, we have decided not to include the risk-based approaches in
today's final rule. The risk-based approaches described in the proposed
rule and addressed in the comments we received raise a number of
complex issues. In addition, we must issue the final rule expeditiously
because the statutory deadline for promulgation has passed, and we have
agreed to a binding schedule in a consent decree entered in Sierra Club
v. Whitman, Civil Action No. 1:01CV01537 (D.D.C.). Given the range of
issues raised by the risk-based approaches and the need to promulgate a
final rule expeditiously, we feel that it is not appropriate to include
any risk-based approaches in today's final rule.
H. Other
Comment: One commenter stated that NOX increases due to
oxidation catalysts for 2SLB and 4SLB engines should be considered in
evaluating the cost and benefits of the proposed rule. Test results for
2SLB and 4SLB engines (Docket ID Nos. OAR-2002-0059 and A-95-35)
equipped with oxidation catalysts indicate an increase of
NOX emissions up to about 15 percent and 12 percent for 2SLB
and 4SLB engines, respectively. It is not clear that the impacts of
this NOX increase has been addressed with respect to the
ability of sources to comply with State and local NOX limits
or impacts on the environment.
Response: We did consider NOX increases due to oxidation
catalysts for 2SLB and 4SLB engines. However, the NOX
increases resulting from 2SLB and 4SLB installing oxidation catalyst
controls to comply with the final rule are far less than the
NOX decreases resulting from 4SRB engines installing NSCR
controls to comply with the final rule, resulting in a net decrease in
NOX emissions due to the final rule and a benefit to the
environment overall. In addition, oxidation catalysts are not
specifically required by the final rule and as only new 2SLB and new
4SLB engines are affected by the final rule, sources that are concerned
about NOX emissions can use other methods of HAP emission
control that are less problematic from a NOX control
perspective (like in-cylinder controls), or they can use NOX
control to reduce NOX from engines using oxidation
catalysts.
Comment: One commenter contended that data from testing of 2SLB and
4SLB should be disallowed. The commenter provided the following
reasons: (1) The range of engine operating conditions in the testing of
the 2SLB engine and quite probably the 4SLB engine are far leaner than
the leanest engine in the pipeline RICE fleet. This is indicated by the
extremely low NOX emissions. (2) Engines equipped with pre-
combustion chambers operating extremely lean are not typical examples
of the 2SLB and 4SLB fleet. (3) The range of exhaust temperatures, air-
to-fuel ratios, and exhaust oxygen are not typical of 2SLB and 4SLB.
(4) Engines were laboratory research engines. They were not equipped
with turbochargers, but with turbocharger simulators that do not have
the same traits as a turbocharger. (5) Found no information in the
piping diagrams of insulation on the ducting and manifolds leading from
the engine to the catalyst. Certainly all ducting is insulated in
industry. The EPA needs to determine if any insulation was in place.
(6) The following excerpt from page 77840 of the proposed rule is not
true: ``In general, higher exhaust temperatures lead to better catalyst
performance. This difference in temperatures is a function of the
inherent design of these engine types and cannot be controlled by the
operator.'' By controlling the air-to-fuel ratio of the engine, the
exhaust gas temperature, and thus the catalyst inlet temperature, can
be precisely controlled. (7) If HAP data from the 2SLB and 4SLB testing
is allowed to stand, then this testing must become the definitive work
on all pollutants tested as well, including NOX. The
NOX data should be forwarded to the criteria pollutant
group.
One commenter disagreed that the engine at CSU is representative of
2SLB engines in the industry due to low NOX levels, high
levels of oxygen, and low exhaust temperatures. The 2SLB engine was
running considerably leaner than
[[Page 33496]]
similar model engines at similar conditions.
Response: We compared these parameters to other 2SLB and 4SLB
engines for which we have information in the emissions database. The
NOX and oxygen levels and exhaust temperatures for the 2SLB
and 4SLB engines tested at CSU are similar to those observed for other
non-CSU 2SLB and 4SLB engines in the emissions database. This analysis
is presented in a memorandum included in the rule docket (Docket ID
Nos. OAR-2002-0059 and A-95-35). We feel that the 2SLB and 4SLB engines
tested at CSU are representative of 2SLB and 4SLB engines in the
industry. As far as insulation is concerned, the catalyst inlet
temperature recorded should represent catalyst performance at that
temperature regardless of insulation presence or absence. It should be
remembered that the MACT standard for new sources under CAA section
112(d) is based on the level of control of the best controlled similar
source.
Comment: One commenter stated that the testing did not include in
its test protocol dynamic spiking that is required in Method 320 which
leaves some question to the integrity of the sample measured in the
test program.
Response: An alternative quality assurance procedure was proposed
and followed resulting in data of sufficient quality. The entire FTIR
sampling analysis system was validated on a 2SLB engine by a dynamic
spiking of formaldehyde, acrolein, and acetaldehyde. The data were
assessed following Method 301 criteria. Then, on a daily basis, the
analyzer was checked for linearity and alignment, a diagnostic or
transfer standard consisting of the CO was used to confirm accuracy, a
second diagnostic standard consisting of CO2, CO, methane,
and NOX was introduced using the same procedure. Then to
check sampling system integrity, a formaldehyde standard was introduced
directly into the instrument and a reading obtained, then it was
introduced into the sampling system at the sample probe upstream of the
filter and another reading obtained. The sampling system pass/fail
criterion was 100 percent 10 percent of the direct-to-the-
analyzer reading. Finally, the diagnostic and system integrity
procedures were repeated at the end of each day testing. This procedure
resulted in data of sufficient quality.
Comment: One commenter asked that EPA clarify retesting
requirements on new sources. Section 63.6610 of the proposed rule is
ambiguous on the General Provisions requirement for some new sources to
retest 3 years after promulgation in Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix). Table 8,
item 24, or the proposed rule does not clarify the issue.
Response: Section 63.7(a)(2)(ix) of the General Provisions
discusses performance test dates if the promulgated standard is more
stringent than the proposed standard. Sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction between the proposal and promulgation
have the option to demonstrate compliance with either the proposed or
the promulgated standard. If the owner or operator chooses to comply
with the proposed standard initially, the owner or operator must
conduct a second performance test within 3 years to demonstrate
compliance with the promulgated standard. Since the promulgated
standard is in some cases more stringent than the proposed standard, we
have specified in Sec. 63.6610(c) of the final rule that sources that
commenced construction or reconstruction between the proposal and
promulgated have this option.
Comment: A few commenters asserted that the basis for any size
threshold should be expressed in site-rated HP as opposed to
manufacturer's nameplate HP. One commenter gave the following reasons:
(1) The database used by EPA to determine the MACT floor provisions
likely includes the site-rated HP, based on the facility's air permit;
(2) stationary RICE are typically identified by site-rated HP, rather
than manufacturer's nameplate HP in the facility's title V permit and
not all engines have HP on the nameplate; and (3) the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission certified HP for natural gas transmission
facilities are issued based on site-rated HP.
Response: We contacted one of the commenters who submitted this
comment and also an engine manufacturer. Information received from both
sources indicated that there may be differences between site-rated HP
and the manufacturer's nameplate rating. Factors such as altitude,
temperature, fuel, etc. affect what the site-rated HP will be for the
engine at a specific location. Some manufacturers include the specific
site-rating on the nameplate of the engine, which is a HP rating which
has been adjusted to account for the characteristics of the location
the engine is installed at as well as other parameters affecting the
engine rating. For these reasons, we agree with the commenters that it
is appropriate to use the site-rated HP as opposed to the
manufacturer's nameplate rating for the size applicability criteria,
because relying on the manufacturer's nameplate rating may not be
representative of the capability of the engine on-site. This has been
specified in the final rule.
Comment: Some commenters asked that EPA include non-aggregation
provisions for transmission and storage facilities for the Transmission
& Storage (T&S) MACT.
Response: We have incorporated this comment in the final rule. The
non-aggregation provisions for transmission and storage facilities from
the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage MACT (40 CFR part 63, subpart
HHH), which are found in the definition of major source in that
subpart, are as follows: (1) Emissions from any pipeline compressor
station or pump station shall not be aggregated with emissions from
other similar units, whether or not such units are in a contiguous area
or under common control; and (2) emissions from processes, operations,
and equipment that are not part of the same natural gas transmission
and storage facility, as defined in this section, shall not be
aggregated.
The non-aggregation provisions in (1) above were already included
in the proposed definition of major source for the RICE NESHAP and have
been retained in the final rule. The non-aggregation provisions in (2)
above have also been added to the definition of major source for the
RICE NESHAP.
Comment: Some commenters requested that EPA include the provisions
to calculate potential emissions for storage facilities from the T&S
MACT.
Response: We agree with the commenters and have incorporated their
comment in the final rule by modifying the definition of potential to
emit in the final rule to include the following: ``For oil and natural
gas production facilities subject to subpart HH of this part, the
potential to emit provisions in Sec. 63.760(a) may be used. For
natural gas transmission and storage facilities subject to subpart HHH
of this part, the maximum annual facility gas throughput for storage
facilities may be determined according to Sec. 63.1270(a)(1) and the
maximum annual throughput for transmission facilities may be may be
determined according to Sec. 63.1270(a)(2).''
Comment: Two commenters asked that EPA list diesel PM as a HAP. One
of the commenters stated that if EPA fails to act on its own
initiative, the commenter will submit a formal listing petition to EPA.
One commenter recommended including diesel PM in this MACT and
including limits and control measures.
Response: We acknowledge the comments on this issue. However, we
are not prepared at this time to list
[[Page 33497]]
diesel PM as a regulated HAP, at least not in the context of the final
rule. We proposed the rule for the purposes of promulgating regulations
for emissions from stationary RICE that were already listed under
section 112 of the CAA. While we did mention the diesel exhaust issue,
we did not include any detailed discussion on the separate issue of
whether any additional pollutants should be added to the list of
regulated pollutants under CAA section 112. The decision regarding
whether to list diesel PM entails several significant issues that have
not been discussed in the context of the final rule. Therefore, it
would be inappropriate to take final action on this comment in the
context of the final rule.
V. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
The final rule will reduce total HAP emissions from stationary RICE
by an estimated 5,600 tpy in the 5th year after the standards are
implemented. We estimate that approximately 1,800 existing 4SRB
stationary RICE will be affected by the final rule. In addition, we
estimate that approximately 1,600 new 2SLB, 4SLB and 4SRB stationary
RICE, and CI stationary RICE will be affected by the final rule each
year for the next 5 years. At the end of the 5th year, it is estimated
that 8,100 new stationary RICE will be subject to the final rule.
To estimate air impacts, HAP emissions from stationary RICE were
estimated using average emission factors from the emissions database.
It was also assumed that each stationary RICE is operated for 6,500
hours annually. The total national HAP emissions reductions are the sum
of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and methanol emissions
reductions.
In addition to HAP emissions reductions, the final rule will reduce
criteria pollutant emissions including CO, VOC, NOX, and PM.
The application of NSCR controls to 4SRB engines (the technology on
which MACT for 4SRB engines is based) will also reduce NOX
emissions by 90 percent. It is possible that oxidation catalyst
controls could be used to meet the 4SRB emission standards, but it is
expected that the costs of controls will be similar for both systems.
Assuming that 60 percent of the 4SRB (new and existing) engines that
are covered by the emission standards will use NSCR, the emissions
reductions of NOX in the 5th year after promulgation are
calculated to be about 167,900 tpy.
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
A list of 26 model stationary RICE was developed to represent the
range of existing stationary RICE. Information was obtained from
catalyst vendors on equipment costs for oxidation catalyst and NSCR.
This information was then used to estimate the costs of the final rule
for each model stationary RICE following methodologies from the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Control Cost Manual.
These cost estimates for model stationary RICE were extrapolated to the
national population of stationary RICE in the United States, and
national impacts were determined.
The total national capital cost for the final rule for existing
stationary RICE is estimated to be approximately $68 million, with a
total national annual cost of $35 million in the 5th year. The total
national capital cost for the final rule for new stationary RICE by the
5th year is estimated to be approximately $371 million, with a total
national annual cost of $213 million in the 5th year.
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
We prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the primary and
secondary impacts the final rule would have on the producers and
consumers of RICE, and society as a whole. The affected engines operate
in over 30 different manufacturing markets, but a large portion are
located in the oil and gas exploration industry, the oil and gas
pipeline (transmission) industry, the mining and quarrying of non-
metallic minerals industry, the chemicals and allied products industry,
and the electricity and gas services industry. Taken together, these
industries can have an influence on the price and demand for fuels used
in the energy market (i.e., petroleum, natural gas, electricity, and
coal). Therefore, our analysis evaluates the impacts on each of the 30
different manufacturing markets affected by the final rule, as well as
the combined effect on the market for energy. The total annualized
social cost (in 1998 dollars) of the final rule is $248 million but
this cost is spread across all 30 markets and the fuel markets.
Overall, our analysis indicates a minimal change in prices and quantity
produced in most of the fuel markets. The distribution of impacts on
the fuel markets and the specific manufacturing market segments
evaluated are summarized in Table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1.--Economic Impact of Final RICE Rule on Affected Market Sectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in market Total social
Market sector Change in price output cost (millions
(percent) (percent) of 1998$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Markets: \1\
Petroleum.............................................. 0.015 -0.003 -$15.7
Natural Gas............................................ 0.300 -0.040 -102.5
Electricity............................................ 0.040 0.009 26.6
Coal................................................... 0.008 0.008 1.1
-------------------
Subtotal............................................. ................ ................ -90.4
Sectors of Energy Consumption:
Commercial Sector...................................... ................ ................ -161.6
Residential Sector..................................... ................ ................ -98.9
Transportation Sector.................................. ................ ................ -47.0
Mining and Quarrying....................................... 0.050 -0.001 -52.6
Food and Kindred Products.............................. 0.002 -0.002 -16.2
Paper and Allied Products.............................. 0.002 -0.003 -14.5
Chemicals and Allied Products.......................... 0.004 -0.006 -49.8
Primary Metals......................................... 0.004 -0.004 -18.9
Fabricated Metal Products.................................. 0.002 -0.000 5.0
Nonmetallic Mineral Products............................... 0.005 -0.005 -9.9
[[Page 33498]]
Other Manufacturing Markets................................ 0.0-0.001 0.0-0.001 -53.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Only changes in producer surplus (i.e., producer's share of regulatory costs) are reported for the Fuel
Markets which represent the producers of energy. Sectors of energy consumption--commercial, residential, and
transportation--have reported changes in consumer surplus only, and thus do not have reported changes in price
and output. A combination of these costs will represent total social costs for the energy market in the
economy.
Because a significant portion of the engines affected by the final
rule use natural gas as a fuel source, it is not surprising to see the
natural gas fuel market with the largest portion of the social costs.
Although the natural gas market has a greater share of the regulatory
burden, the overall impact on prices and output is about three-tenths
of one percent, which is considered to be a minor economic impact on
this industry. The change in the price of natural gas is not expected
to influence the purchase decisions for new engines. Our analysis
indicates that at most, five fewer engines out of over 20,000 engines
will be purchased as a result of economic impacts associated with the
final rule. The electricity and coal markets may experience a slight
gain in revenues due to some fuel switching from natural gas to coal or
electricity.
The total welfare loss for the manufacturing industries affected by
the final rule is estimated to be approximately $103.0 million for
consumers and $117.7 million for producers in the aggregate. In
comparison to the energy expenditures of these industries (estimated to
be $101.2 billion), the cost of the final rule to producers as a
percentage of their fuel expenditures is 0.12 percent. For consumers,
the total value of shipments for the affected industries is $3.95
trillion in 1998, so the cost to consumers as a percentage of spending
on the outputs from these industries is nearly zero, or 0.003 percent.
The cost to residential consumers at $98.9 million is larger than
for any individual manufacturing market, but less than the total
consumer surplus losses in the manufacturing industries. In comparison,
the social cost burden to residential consumers of fuel is 0.08 percent
of residential energy expenditures ($98.9 million/$131.06 billion). The
commercial sector of energy users also experiences a moderate portion
of total social costs at an estimated $69.3 million. This amount is
also larger than for any individual manufacturing sector, but is an
aggregate across all commercial NAICS codes. As a percentage of fuel
expenditures by this sector of fuel consumers, the regulatory burden is
0.07 percent ($69.3 million/$96.86 billion). The cost to transportation
consumers is estimated to be $47.0 million. This cost represents 0.02
percent ($47.0 million/$188.13 billion) of energy expenditures for the
transportation sector.
Therefore, giving consideration to the minimal changes in prices
and output in nearly all markets, and the fact that the regulatory
costs that are shared by commercial, residential, and transportation
users of fuel energy are a small fraction of typical energy
expenditures in these sectors each year, we conclude that the economic
impacts of the final rule will not be significant to any one sector of
the economy.
The economic analysis described above assumed that all existing
4SRB engines and all new engines were located at major HAP emission
sources and are required to install controls. However, as stated
previously, we anticipate that at least 60 percent of the stationary
RICE will be located at area sources which are not affected by the
final rule. Therefore, the economic impacts described above would be
reduced.
D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental and Energy Impacts?
We do not expect any significant wastewater, solid waste, or energy
impacts resulting from the final rule. Energy impacts associated with
the final rule would be due to additional energy consumption that the
final rule would require by installing and operating control equipment.
The only energy requirement for the operation of the control
technologies is a very small increase in fuel consumption resulting
from back pressure caused by the emission control system.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must
determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, we have determined
that the final rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it
could have an annual effect on the economy of over $100 million.
Consequently, this action was submitted to OMB for review under
Executive Order 12866. Any written comments from OMB and written EPA
responses are available in the docket.
As stipulated in Executive Order 12866, in deciding how or whether
to regulate, EPA is required to assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not
regulating. To this end, EPA prepared a detailed benefit-cost analysis
in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines NESHAP,'' which is contained in the docket. The
following is a summary of the benefit-cost analysis.
It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the final
rule, HAP will be reduced by 5,600 tpy due to reductions in
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and several other HAP
from some existing and all new internal combustion engines.
Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde have been classified as
[[Page 33499]]
``probable human carcinogens'' based on scientific studies conducted
over the past 20 years. These studies have determined a relationship
between exposure to these HAP and the onset of cancer; however, there
are some questions remaining on how cancers that may result from
exposure to these HAP can be quantified in terms of dollars. Acrolein,
methanol and the other HAP emitted from RICE sources are not considered
carcinogenic but have been reported to cause several noncarcinogenic
effects.
The control technology to reduce the level of HAP emitted from RICE
are also expected to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, primarily
CO, NOX, and PM, however, VOC are also reduced to a minor
extent. It is estimated that CO emissions reductions totals
approximately 234,400 tpy, NOX emissions reductions totals
approximately 167,900 tpy, and PM emissions reductions totals
approximately 3,700 tpy. These reductions occur from new and existing
engines in operation 5 years after the implementation of the rule and
are expected to continue throughout the life of the engines and
continue to grow as new engines (that otherwise would not be
controlled) are purchased for operation.
Human health effects associated with exposure to CO include
cardiovascular system and CNS effects, which are directly related to
reduced oxygen content of blood and which can result in modification of
visual perception, hearing, motor and sensorimotor performance,
vigilance, and cognitive ability. Emissions of NOX can
transform into PM in the atmosphere, which produces a variety of health
and welfare effects. In general, exposure to high concentrations of
PM2.5 may aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular
disease including asthma, bronchitis and emphysema, especially in
children and the elderly. Nitrogen oxides are also a contributor to
acid deposition, or acid rain, which causes acidification of lakes and
streams and can damage trees, crops, historic buildings and statues.
Exposure to PM2.5 can lead to decreased lung function, and
alterations in lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract
defense mechanisms which may then lead to increased respiratory
symptoms and disease, or in more severe cases, premature death or
increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Children, the
elderly, and people with cardiopulmonary disease, such as asthma, are
most at risk from these health effects. Fine PM can also form a haze
that reduces the visibility of scenic areas, can cause acidification of
water bodies, and have other impacts on soil, plants, and materials. As
NOX emissions transform into PM, they can lead to the same
health and welfare effects listed above.
At the present time, the Agency cannot provide a monetary estimate
for the benefits associated with the reductions in CO. For
NOX and PM, we conducted an air quality assessment to
determine the change in concentrations of PM that result from
reductions of NOX and direct emissions of PM at all sources
of RICE. Because we are unable to identify the location of all affected
existing and new sources of RICE, our analysis is conducted in two
phases. In the first phase, we conduct an air quality analysis assuming
a 50 percent reduction of 1996-levels of NOX emissions and a
100 percent reduction of PM10 emissions for all RICE sources
throughout the country. The results of this analysis serve as a
reasonable approximation of air quality changes to transfer to the
final rule's emissions reductions at affected sources. The results of
the air quality assessment served as input to a model that estimates
the benefits related to the health effects listed above. In the second
phase of our analysis, the value of the benefits per ton of
NOX and PM reduced (e.g., $ benefit/ton reduced) associated
with the air quality scenarios are then applied to the tons of
NOX and PM emissions expected to be reduced by the final
rule. We also used the benefit transfer method to value improvements in
ozone based on the transfer of benefit values from an analysis of the
1998 NOX SIP call. In addition, although the benefits of the
welfare effects of NOX are monetized in other Agency
analyses, we chose not to do an analysis of the improvements in welfare
effects that will result from the final rule. Alternatively, we could
transfer the estimates of welfare benefits from these other studies to
this analysis, but chose not to do so because these studies with
estimated welfare benefits differ in the source and location of
emissions and associated impacted populations.
The benefit estimates derived from the air quality modeling in the
first phase of our analysis uses an analytical structure and sequence
similar to that used in the benefits analyses for the proposed Nonroad
Diesel rule and proposed Integrated Air Quality Rule (IAQR) and in the
``section 812 studies'' analysis of the total benefits and costs of the
CAA. We used many of the same models and assumptions used in the
Nonroad Diesel and IAQR analyses as well as other Regulatory Impact
Analyses (RIA) prepared by the Office of Air and Radiation. By adopting
the major design elements, models, and assumptions developed for the
section 812 studies and other RIA, we have largely relied on methods
which have already received extensive review by the independent Science
Advisory Board (SAB), the National Academies of Sciences, by the
public, and by other Federal agencies.
The benefits transfer method used in the second phase of the
analysis is similar to that used to estimate benefits at the proposal
of the rule, and in the proposed Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters
NESHAP. A similar method has also been used in recent benefits analyses
for the proposed Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational
Engines rule (67 FR 68241, November 8, 2002).
The sum of benefits from the two phases of analysis and the ozone
benefit transfer estimate provide an estimate of the total benefits of
the final rule. Total benefits of the final rule are approximately $280
million (1998$).
Every benefit-cost analysis examining the potential effects of a
change in environmental protection requirements is limited, to some
extent, by data gaps, limitations in model capabilities (such as
geographic coverage), and uncertainties in the underlying scientific
and economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models.
Deficiencies in the scientific literature often result in the inability
to estimate changes in health and environmental effects. Deficiencies
in the economics literature often result in the inability to assign
economic values even to those health and environmental outcomes that
can be quantified. While these general uncertainties in the underlying
scientific and economics literatures are discussed in detail in the RIA
and its supporting documents and references, the key uncertainties
which have a bearing on the results of the benefit-cost analysis of
today's action are the following:
(1) The exclusion of potentially significant benefit categories
(e.g., health and ecological benefits of reduction in HAP emissions);
(2) Errors in measurement and projection for variables such as
population growth;
(3) Uncertainties in the estimation of future year emissions
inventories and air quality;
(4) Uncertainties associated with the extrapolation of air quality
monitoring data to some unmonitored areas required to better capture
the effects of the standards on the affected population;
[[Page 33500]]
(5) Variability in the estimated relationships of health and
welfare effects to changes in pollutant concentrations; and
(6) Uncertainties associated with the benefit transfer approach.
Despite these uncertainties, we have determined that the benefit-
cost analysis provides a reasonable indication of the expected economic
benefits of the final rule under a given set of assumptions.
In addition to the presentation of quantified health benefits, our
estimate also includes a ``B'' to represent those additional health and
environmental benefits which could not be expressed in quantitative
incidence and/or economic value terms. A full appreciation of the
overall economic consequences of the RICE NESHAP requires consideration
of all benefits and costs expected to result from the new standards,
not just those benefits and costs which could be expressed here in
dollar terms. A full listing of the benefit categories that could not
be quantified or monetized in our estimate are provided in Table 2 of
this preamble.
Table 2.--Unquantified Benefit Categories From RICE Emissions Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unquantified benefit Unquantified benefit Unquantified benefit
categories associated categories associated categories associated
with HAP with Ozone with PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Categories.................. Carcinogenicity Airway responsiveness; Changes in pulmonary
mortality; Genotoxicity Pulmonary inflammation; function;
mortality; Non-Cancer Increased Morphological changes;
lethaity; Pulmonary susceptibility to Altered host defense
function decrement; respiratory infection; mechanisms; Cancer;
Dermal irritation; Eye Acute inflammation and Other chronic
irritation; respiratory cell respiratory disease;
Neurotoxicity; damage; Chronic Emergency room visits
Immunotoxicity; respiratory damage/ for asthma; Lower and
Pulmonary function Premature aging of upper respiratory
decrement; Liver lungs; Emergency room symptoms; Acute
damage; visits for asthma. bronchitis; Shortness
Gastrointestinal of breath.
toxicity; Kidney
damage; Cardiovascular
impairment;
Hematopoietic; (Blood
disorders);
Reproductive/
Developmental toxicity.
Welfare Categories................. Corrosion/Deterioration; Ecosystem and vegetation Materials change;
Unpleasant odors; effects in Class I Damage to ecosystems
Transportation safety areas (e.g., national (e.g., acid sulfate
concerns; Yield parks); Damage to urban deposition); Nitrates
reductions/Foliar ornamentals (e.g., in drinking water.
injury; Biomass grass, flowers, shrubs,
decrease; Species and trees in urban
richness decline; areas); Commercial
Species richness field crops; Fruit and
decline; Species vegetable crops;
diversity decline; Reduced yields of tree
Community size seedlings, commercial
decrease; Organism and non-commercial
lifespan decrease; forests; Damage to
Trophic web shortening. ecosystems, Materials
damage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefit-cost comparison (or net benefits) is another tool used to
evaluate the reallocation of society's resources needed to address the
pollution externality created by the operation of RICE units. The
additional costs of internalizing the pollution produced at major
sources of emissions from RICE units is compared to the improvement in
society's well-being from a cleaner and healthier environment.
Comparing benefits of the final rule to the costs imposed by
alternative ways to control emissions optimally identifies a strategy
that results in the highest net benefit to society. In the case of the
RICE NESHAP, we are specifying only one option, the minimal level of
control mandated by the CAA, or the MACT floor.
Based on estimated compliance costs (control + administrative costs
associated with Paperwork Reduction Act requirements associated with
the final rule and predicted changes in the price and output of
electricity and other affected products), the estimated social costs of
the RICE NESHAP are $248 million (1998$). Social costs are different
from compliance costs in that social costs take into account the
interactions between affected producers and the consumers of affected
products in response to the imposition of the compliance costs.
As explained above, we estimate $280 million in benefits from the
final rule, compared to $248 million in costs. Thus, the total benefits
(associated with NOX and PM reductions) exceed the estimated
total costs of the final rule by $30 million + B. It is important to
put the results of this analysis in the proper context. The large
benefit estimate is not attributable to reducing human and
environmental exposure to the HAP that are reduced by the final rule.
It arises from ancillary reductions in PM and NOX that
result from controls aimed at complying with the NESHAP. Although
consideration of ancillary benefits is reasonable, we note that these
benefits are not uniquely attributable to the regulation. The Agency
has determined that the key rationale for controlling formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and the other HAP associated with the
final rule is to reduce public and environmental exposure to these HAP,
thereby reducing risk to public health and wildlife. Although the
available science does not support quantification of these benefits at
this time, the Agency has determined that the qualitative benefits are
large enough to justify substantial investment in these emissions
reductions.
It should be recognized, however, that this analysis does not
account for many of the potential benefits that may result from these
actions. The net benefits would be greater if all the benefits of the
other pollutant reductions could be quantified. Notable omissions to
the net benefits include all benefits of HAP reductions, including
reduced cancer incidences, toxic morbidity effects, and cardiovascular
and CNS effects, and all welfare effects from reduction of ambient PM
and SO2.
Table 3 presents a summary of the costs, emission reductions, and
quantifiable benefits by engine type. Table 4 presents a summary of net
benefits. Approximately 90 percent of the total benefits ($255 million
+ B) are associated with NOX reductions from the 4SRB
subcategory for new and existing engines. Approximately 10 percent of
the total benefits ($25 million + B) are associated with the PM
reductions from the compression ignition engine subcategory at new
sources.
In both cases, net benefits would be greater if all the benefits of
the HAP and
[[Page 33501]]
other pollutant reductions could be quantified. Notable omissions to
the net benefits include all benefits of HAP and CO reductions,
including reduced cancer incidences, toxic morbidity effects, and
cardiovascular and CNS effects. It is also important to note that not
all benefits of NOX reductions have been monetized.
Categories which have contributed significantly to monetized benefits
in past analyses (see the RIA for the Heavy Duty Engine/Diesel
standards) include commercial agriculture and forestry, recreational
and residential visibility improvements, and estuarine improvements.
Table 3.--Summary of Costs, Emission Reductions, and Quantifiable Benefits by Engine Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Emission reductions \1\ (tons/yr in 2005)
annualized ----------------------------------------------------
Type of engine cost Quantifiable annual monetized benefits
(million $/ HAP CO NOX PM \2\ (million) $/yr in 2005)
yr in 2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2SLB--New...................................... $3 250 2,025 0 0 B1
4SLB--New...................................... 64 4,035 36,240 0 0 B3
4SRB--Existing................................. 37 230 98,040 69,900 0 $105 + B5
4SRB--New...................................... 47 215 91,820 98,000 0 150 + B9
CI--New........................................ 96 305 6,320 0 3,700 25 + B13
--------------
Total.................................... 248 5,035 234,445 167,900 3,700 $280 + B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All benefits values are rounded to the nearest $5 million.
\2\ Benefits of HAP and CO emissions reductions are not quantified in this analysis and, therefore, are not presented in this table. The quantifiable
benefits are from emission reductions of NOX and PM only. For notational purposes, unquantified benefits are indicated with a ``B'' to represent
monetary benefits. A detailed listing of unquantified NOX, PM, and HAP related health effects is provided in Table 2 of this preamble.
Table 4.--Annual Net Benefits of the RICE NESHAP in 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 1998$ 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Costs 2.......................... $250
Social Benefits 2 3: ..............................
HAP-related benefits................ Not monetized
CO-related benefits................. Not monetized
Ozone- and PM-related Welfare Not monetized
benefits.
Ozone- and PM-related Health $280 + B
benefits.
Net Benefits (Benefits-Costs)3.......... $30 + B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All costs and benefits are rounded to the nearest $5 million.
\2\ Note that costs are the total costs of reducing all pollutants,
including HAP and CO, as well as NOX and PM10. Benefits in this table
are associated only with PM and NOX reductions.
\3\ Not all possible benefits or disbenefits are quantified and
monetized in this analysis. Potential benefit categories that have not
been quantified and monetized are listed in Table 2 of this preamble.
B is the sum of all unquantified benefits and disbenefits.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in the final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information requirements are not enforceable
until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The final rule will require maintenance inspections of the control
devices but will not require any notifications or reports beyond those
required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping requirements
require only the specific information needed to determine compliance.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of
the final rule) is estimated to be 141,984 labor hours per year at a
total annual cost of $11,377,592. This estimate includes a one-time
performance test, semiannual excess emission reports, maintenance
inspections, notifications, and recordkeeping. Total capital/startup
costs associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3-year
period of the information collection request (ICR) are estimated at
$5,302,416 (an average of $1,767,472 per year), with operation and
maintenance costs of $1,206,212/yr.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When the ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical
[[Page 33502]]
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB
control number for the approved information collection requirements
contained in the final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
We have determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of the final rule on small
entities, ``small entity'' is defined as: (1) A small business whose
parent company has fewer than 500 employees (for most affected
industries); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
or a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field. It should be noted that the final
rule covers more than 25 different industries. For each industry, we
applied the definition of a small business provided by the Small
Business Administration (SBA) at 13 CFR 121, classified by the NAICS.
The SBA defines small businesses in most industries affected by the
final rule as those with fewer than 500 employees. However, SBA has
defined ``small business'' differently for a limited number of
industries, either through reference to another employment cap or
through the substitution of total yearly revenues in place of an
employment limit. For more information on the size standards for
particular industries, please refer to the regulatory impact analysis
in the docket.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, we have concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In support of this conclusion, we examined the percentage of annual
revenues that compliance costs may consume if small entities must
absorb all of the compliance costs associated with the final rule.
Since many firms will be able to pass along some or all compliance
costs to customers, actual impacts to affected firms will frequently be
lower than those analyzed here.
As is mentioned in section II.A of this preamble, the final rule
will set standards for new and existing 4SRB units. We identified a
total of 26,832 existing engines located at commercial, industrial, and
government facilities. From this initial population of 26,832 engines,
10,118 engines were excluded because the final rule will not cover
engines 500 brake HP or less, emergency, or limited use engines. Of the
16,714 units remaining, 2,645 units had sufficient information to
assign to model unit numbers developed during the cost analysis. These
2,645 units were linked to 834 existing facilities, owned by 153 parent
companies. Sales and employment information was unavailable for 12 of
the 153 parent companies. A total of 47 companies linked to engines
with sufficient information to be included in the cost analysis were
identified as small entities, and 13 of them own 4SRB engines. These
small entities own a total of 39 4SRB units at 21 facilities.
Based on a technical support document in the docket (Docket ID Nos.
OAR-2002-0059 and A-95-35) discussing the distribution of major and
area sources of RICE units, we anticipate that about 60 percent of
existing and future stationary RICE units will be located at area
sources. This is because most RICE engines or groups of RICE engines
are not major sources of HAP emissions by themselves, but may be major
because they are co-located at major HAP sites. Because area sources
are not covered by the NESHAP, engines located at area sources will not
incur any compliance costs associated with the RICE NESHAP. Thus, 40
percent of the existing 4SRB engines that are above 500 HP and are not
backup/emergency units (the only existing engines that receive costs
under the rule) and 40 percent of all new RICE projected to be added in
the future (above 500 HP that are not backup/emergency units) are
expected to be subject to today's action. Based on this assumption,
about 16 of the 39 4SRB units identified at facilities owned by small
businesses would be located at major sources.
In applying the compliance costs to our modeling for generating
economic impact and small business analyses, we calculate impacts (as
mentioned in Section 6 of the economic impact analysis) presuming that
all 39 4SRB engines are located at major sources and hence will bear
compliance costs associated with this action. We make this presumption
because it is highly uncertain which facilities are major sources and
which are area sources. Thus, we assume a worst case scenario that all
existing 4SRB owned by small businesses are located at major sources
and subject to the rule to provide a conservative or high estimate of
the small business impacts. This is called an ``upper bound cost
scenario'' because only 40 percent and not 100 percent of all RICE
units are estimated to be at major sources, and therefore subject to
the rule. It is reasonable to expect that the percentage of facilities
owned by small businesses that are major sources would be lower than
the average for the whole source category, so even fewer existing 4SRB
owned by small businesses may be affected.
Under the upper bound cost scenario, there are no small firms that
have compliance costs above 3 percent of firm revenues and two small
firms owning 4SRB engines that have impacts between 1 and 3 percent of
revenues. In addition to 12 small firms with 4SRB engines, there is one
small government in the population database affected by the final rule.
The costs to this city are approximately $3 per capita annually
assuming their engine is affected by the final rule, less than 0.01
percent of median household income.
Based on this subset of the existing engines population, the final
rule will not affect small entities owning RICE at a cost to sales
ratio (CSR) greater than 3 percent, while potentially up to 15 percent
(2/13) of those small entities owning RICE greater than 500 HP will
have compliance costs between 1 and 3 percent of sales under an upper
bound cost scenario.
Assuming the same breakdown of large and small company ownership of
engines in the total population of existing engines as in the subset
with parent company information identified, the Agency expects that
approximately 82 (13 x 16,714/2,645) small entities in the existing
population of RICE owners would have CSR between 1 and 3 percent under
the upper bound cost scenario described earlier in this preamble
section.
In addition, because many small entities owning RICE will not be
affected because of the exclusion of engines 500 brake HP or less, the
percentage of all small companies owning RICE that are affected by the
final rule is even smaller. Based on the proportion of engines in the
population database that are greater than 500 brake HP and are not
backup units (16,714/26,832, or 62.3 percent) and assuming that small
companies own the same proportion of small engines (500 brake HP or
less) as they do of engines greater than 500 brake HP, the Agency
estimates that 628 small companies own RICE. Of all small companies
owning RICE, 13 percent (82/628) are expected to have CSR between 1 and
3 percent under the upper bound cost scenario described earlier in this
preamble section and in the economic impact analysis report. If the
percentage of RICE owned by small companies that are located at major
sources is the same as the engine population overall (40 percent),
about 5 percent of small
[[Page 33503]]
companies owning RICE would be expected to have CSR greater than 1
percent.
The median profit margin for the industries in our analysis is
approximately 2 to 7 percent. Therefore, based on this median profit
margin data, it seems reasonable to consider the number of small firms
with CSR above 3 percent in screening for significant economic impacts
on small businesses.
This screening analysis shows that none of the small entities in
the population database have impacts greater than 3 percent and two
small firms that we were able to analyze with the available data have
impacts between 1 and 3 percent even under the upper bound cost
scenario described earlier in this preamble section and in the economic
impact analysis report.
Section II.A also states that new 4SRB engines will be affected by
today's action. For new sources, it can be reasonably assumed that the
investment decision to purchase a new engine may be slightly altered as
a result of the final rule. In fact, as shown in section 6 of the
economic impact analysis, for the entire population of affected engines
(approximately 20,000 new engines over a 5-year period), 2 fewer
engines (0.01 percent) may be purchased due to changes in costs of the
engines and market responses to the final rule. It is not possible,
however, to determine future investment decisions by the small entities
in the affected industries, so we cannot link these 2 engines to any
one firm (small or large). Overall, it is very unlikely that a
substantial number of small firms who may consider purchasing a new
engine will be significantly impacted, because the decision to purchase
new engines is not altered to a large extent. In addition to this
consideration of costs on some firms attributable to the final rule, we
note the final rule is likely to increase revenues for many small
firms, including those not regulated by the final rule, due to a
predictable increase in prices of natural gas in the industry. An
increase in natural gas prices is expected since the compliance costs
of today's action will lead to market adjustments such as decreased
output, thereby leading to increased prices. Concurrent with this
increase in natural gas prices will be some increase in revenues for
those small firms in affected industries that are not subject to this
action, for they experience revenues due to the increased natural gas
prices without bearing any of the compliance costs.
Although the final rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, we nonetheless have tried to
reduce the impact of the final rule on small entities. In the final
rule, we are applying the minimum level of control allowed by the CAA
(i.e., the MACT floor), and the minimum level of monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting by affected sources. In addition, as
mentioned in section II of the preamble, new RICE units with capacities
500 brake HP or less and those that operate as emergency and limited
use units are not covered by the final rule, provisions that should
greatly reduce the level of small entity impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, we must develop a small
government agency plan under section 203 of the UMRA. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that the final rule contains a Federal
mandate that will result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any 1 year. Accordingly, we have prepared a written statement
under section 202 of the UMRA which is summarized below. The written
statement is in the docket.
Statutory Authority
As discussed previously in this preamble, the statutory authority
for the final rule is section 112 of the CAA. Section 112(b) lists the
189 chemicals, compounds, or groups of chemicals deemed by Congress to
be HAP. These toxic air pollutants are to be regulated by NESHAP.
Section 112(d) of the CAA directs us to develop NESHAP based on
MACT which require existing and new major sources to control emissions
of HAP. These NESHAP apply to all stationary RICE located at major
sources of HAP emissions, however, only certain existing and new or
reconstructed stationary RICE have substantive regulatory requirements.
In compliance with section 205(a), we identified and considered a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. The regulatory
alternative upon which the rule is based represents the MACT floor for
stationary RICE and, as a result, it is the least costly and least
burdensome alternative.
Social Costs and Benefits
The RIA prepared for the final rule, including the Agency's
assessment of costs and benefits, is detailed in the ``Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the Final RICE NESHAP'' in the docket. Based on
estimated compliance costs on all sources associated with the final
rule and the predicted change in prices and production in the affected
industries, the estimated social costs of the final rule are $248
million (1998$).
It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the final
rule, HAP will be reduced by 5,600 tpy due to reductions in
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol and other HAP from
existing and new stationary RICE. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde have
been classified as ``probable human carcinogens.'' Acrolein, methanol
and the other HAP are not considered carcinogenic, but produce several
other toxic effects. The final rule will also achieve reductions in
234,400 tons of CO, approximately 167,900 tons of NOX per
year, and approximately 3,700 tons of PM per year. Exposure to CO can
effect the cardiovascular system and the central nervous system.
Emissions of NOX can transform into PM, which can result in
fatalities and many respiratory problems
[[Page 33504]]
(such as asthma or bronchitis); and NOX can also transform
into ozone causing several respiratory problems to affected
populations.
At the present time, the Agency cannot provide a monetary estimate
for the benefits associated with the reductions in HAP and CO. For
NOX and PM, we estimated the benefits associated with health
effects of PM directly and secondary PM that is formed from
NOX, but were unable to quantify all categories of benefits
of NOX (particularly those associated with ecosystem and
environmental effects). Unquantified benefits are noted with ``B'' in
the estimates presented below. Total monetized benefits are
approximately $280 million + B (1998$). These monetized benefits should
be considered along with the many categories of benefits that we are
unable to place a dollar value on to consider the total benefits of the
final rule.
Future and Disproportionate Costs
The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is
reasonably feasible, future compliance costs imposed by the rule and
any disproportionate budgetary effects. Our estimates of the future
compliance costs of the final rule are discussed previously in this
preamble.
We do not feel that there will be any disproportionate budgetary
effects of the final rule on any particular areas of the country, State
or local governments, types of communities (e.g., urban, rural), or
particular industry segments.
Effects on the National Economy
The UMRA requires that we estimate the effect of the final rule on
the national economy. To the extent feasible, we must estimate the
effect on productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of
productive jobs, and international competitiveness of the U.S. goods
and services if we determine that accurate estimates are reasonably
feasible and that such effect is relevant and material.
The nationwide economic impact of the final rule is presented in
the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for RICE NESHAP'' in the docket. This
analysis provides estimates of the effect of the final rule on most of
the categories mentioned above. The results of the economic impact
analysis are summarized previously in this preamble.
Consultation With Government Officials
The UMRA requires that we describe the extent of our prior
consultation with affected State, local, and tribal officials,
summarize the officials' comments or concerns, and summarize our
response to those comments or concerns. In addition, section 203 of
UMRA requires that we develop a plan for informing and advising small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by a
proposal. Although the final rule does not affect any State, local, or
tribal governments, we have consulted with State and local air
pollution control officials. We also have held meetings on the final
rule with many of the stakeholders from numerous individual companies,
environmental groups, consultants and vendors, labor unions, and other
interested parties. We have added materials to the docket to document
these meetings.
In addition, we have determined that the final rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Therefore, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires us to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
The final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The final rule primarily affects
private industry, and does not impose significant economic costs on
State or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to the final rule.
Although not required by Executive Order 13132, we consulted with
representatives of State and local governments to enable them to
provide meaningful and timely input into the development of the final
rule. This consultation took place during the ICCR committee meetings
where members representing State and local governments participated in
developing recommendations for EPA's combustion-related rules,
including the final rule. The concerns raised by representatives of
State and local governments were considered during the development of
the final rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
The final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives.
We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. The final rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks.
[[Page 33505]]
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
The final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The basis for this determination is
provided below.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) estimates changes in prices
and production levels for all energy markets (i.e., petroleum, natural
gas, electricity, and coal). We also estimate how changes in the energy
markets will impact other users of energy, such as manufacturing
markets and residential, industrial and commercial consumers of energy.
The results of the economic impact analysis for the final rule are
shown for 2005, for this is the year in which full implementation of
the final rule is expected to occur. These results show that there will
be minimal changes in price, if any, for most energy products affected
by implementation of the final rule. Only a slight price increase
(about 0.008 percent to 0.04 percent) may occur in three of the energy
sectors: Petroleum, electricity, and coal products nationwide; and
approximately a three-tenths of one percent (i.e., 0.30 percent) change
in natural gas prices. The change in energy costs associated with the
final rule, however, represents only 0.08 percent of expected annual
energy expenditures by residential consumers in 2005, a 0.02 percent
change for transportation consumers of energy, and about 0.07 percent
of energy expenditures in the commercial sector. In addition, no
discernable impact on exports or imports of energy products is
expected. Therefore, the impacts on energy markets and users will be
relatively small nationwide as a result of implementation of the final
rule. In addition, as is discussed in previous sections of this
preamble, the economic analysis for RICE assumed that all existing 4SRB
engines and all new engines were located at major HAP emission sources
and are required to install controls. However, we anticipate that at
least 60 percent of the stationary RICE will be located at area sources
which are not affected by the final rule. Therefore, the economic
impacts on the energy sector as described above would be reduced.
Therefore, we conclude that the final rule when implemented will
not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA
to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
The final rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the
following methods in the final rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 3A, 3B, 4, 10
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; EPA Methods 320 and 323 of 40 CFR part
63, appendix A; and PS 3, and PS 4A, of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary
consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods/performance
specifications. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were
identified for EPA Methods 1A, PS 3, and PS 4A. The search and review
results have been documented and are placed in the docket (Docket ID
Nos. OAR-2002-0059 and A-95-35) for the final rule.
Two voluntary consensus standards were identified as acceptable
alternatives to the EPA methods specified in the final rule. One
voluntary consensus standard, ASTM D6522-00 ``Standard Test Method for
the Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen
Concentrations in Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating
Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers and Process Heaters Using
Portable Analyzers,'' is cited in the final rule as an acceptable
alternative to EPA Methods 3A and 10 for identifying carbon monoxide
and oxygen concentrations for the final rule when the fuel is natural
gas.
The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-03, ``Standard Test
Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct
Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 for formaldehyde measurement
provided in ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the
percent R must be greater than or equal to 70 and less than or equal to
130.
In addition to the voluntary consensus standards EPA uses in the
final rule, the search for emissions measurement procedures identified
six other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined that five
of these six standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or
surrogates subject to emission standards in the final rule were
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods/performance specifications
for the purposes of the final rule. Therefore, the EPA does not intend
to adopt these standards. The reasons for the determinations of these
five methods are discussed below.
The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D3154-00, ``Standard Method
for Average Velocity in a Duct (Pitot Tube Method),'' is impractical as
an alternative to EPA Methods 1, 3B, and 4 for the purposes of the
final rule since the standard appears to lack in quality control and
quality assurance requirements. Specifically, ASTM D3154-00 does not
include the following: (1) Proof that openings of standard pitot tube
have not plugged during the test; (2) if differential pressure gauges
other than inclined manometers (e.g., magnehelic gauges) are used,
their calibration must be checked after each test series; and (3) the
frequency and validity range for calibration of the temperature
sensors.
The voluntary consensus standard, CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86(1986),
``Method for the Continuous Measurement of Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide,
Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur Dioxide, and Oxides of Nitrogen in Enclosed
Combustion Flue Gas Streams,'' is unacceptable as a substitute for EPA
Method 3A since it does not include quantitative specifications for
measurement system performance, most notably the calibration procedures
and instrument performance characteristics. The instrument performance
characteristics that are provided are nonmandatory and also do not
provide the same level of quality assurance as the EPA methods. For
example, the zero and span/calibration drift is only checked weekly,
whereas the EPA methods requires drift checks after each run.
Two very similar standards, ASTM D5835-95, ``Standard Practice for
Sampling Stationary Source Emissions for Automated Determination of Gas
Concentration,'' and ISO 10396:1993, ``Stationary Source Emissions:
Sampling for the Automated Determination of Gas Concentrations,'' are
impractical alternatives to EPA Method 3A for the purposes of the final
rule because they
[[Page 33506]]
lack in detail and quality assurance/quality control requirements.
Specifically, these two standards do not include the following: (1)
Sensitivity of the method; (2) acceptable levels of analyzer
calibration error; (3) acceptable levels of sampling system bias; (4)
zero drift and calibration drift limits, time span, and required
testing frequency; (5) a method to test the interference response of
the analyzer; (6) procedures to determine the minimum sampling time per
run and minimum measurement time; and (7) specifications for data
recorders, in terms of resolution (all types) and recording intervals
(digital and analog recorders, only).
The voluntary consensus standard ISO 12039:2001, ``Stationary
Source Emissions--Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and
Oxygen--Automated Methods,'' is not acceptable as an alternative to EPA
Method 3A. This ISO standard is similar to EPA Method 3A, but is
missing some key features. In terms of sampling, the hardware required
by ISO 12039:2001 does not include a 3-way calibration valve assembly
or equivalent to block the sample gas flow while calibration gases are
introduced. In its calibration procedures, ISO 12039:2001 only
specifies a two-point calibration while EPA Method 3A specifies a
three-point calibration. Also, ISO 12039:2001 does not specify
performance criteria for calibration error, calibration drift, or
sampling system bias tests as in the EPA method, although checks of
these quality control features are required by the ISO standard.
One of the six voluntary consensus standards identified in this
search, ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse''
(for EPA Method 2 and possibly 1), was not available at the time the
review was conducted for the purposes of the final rule because it was
under development by a voluntary consensus body.
Tables 4, 5, and 6 to 40 CFR part 60, subpart ZZZZ, list the EPA
testing methods included in the final rule. Under Sec. Sec. 63.7(f)
and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply
to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative
monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA testing methods,
performance specifications, or procedures.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing
today's final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The
final rule will be effective on August 16, 2004.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: February 26, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63
of the Code of the Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(27) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(27) ASTM D6522-00, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in
Emissions from Natural Gas Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion
Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers, IBR
approved for Sec. 63.9307(c)(2) and Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of part
63.
* * * * *
0
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart ZZZZ to read as follows:
Subpart ZZZZ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.6580 What is the purpose of subpart ZZZZ?
63.6585 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.6590 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.6595 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission Limitations
63.6600 What emission limitations and operating limitations must I
meet?
General Compliance Requirements
63.6605 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
63.6610 By what date must I conduct the initial performance tests or
other initial compliance demonstrations?
63.6615 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.6620 What performance tests and other procedures must I use?
63.6625 What are my monitoring, installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
63.6630 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations and operating limitations?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.6635 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.6640 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitations and operating limitations?
Notification, Reports, and Records
63.6645 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.6650 What reports must I submit and when?
63.6655 What records must I keep?
63.6660 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.6665 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.6670 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.6675 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63
Table 1a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63--Emission Limitations for
Existing, New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary
RICE
Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63--Operating Limitations for
Existing, New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary
RICE
Table 2a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63--Emission Limitations for New
and Reconstructed Lean Burn and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE
Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63--Operating Limitations for New
and Reconstructed Lean Burn and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE
Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63--Subsequent Performance Tests
[[Page 33507]]
Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63--Requirements for Performance
Tests
Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63--Initial Compliance with Emission
Limitations and Operating Limitations
Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with
Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations
Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart ZZZZ
Subpart ZZZZ--National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.6580 What is the purpose of subpart ZZZZ?
Subpart ZZZZ establishes national emission limitations and
operating limitations for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from
stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) located at
major sources of HAP emissions. This subpart also establishes
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and operating limitations.
Sec. 63.6585 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a stationary
RICE at a major source of HAP emissions, except if the stationary RICE
is being tested at a stationary RICE test cell/stand.
(a) A stationary RICE is any internal combustion engine which uses
reciprocating motion to convert heat energy into mechanical work and
which is not mobile. Stationary RICE differ from mobile RICE in that a
stationary RICE is not a non-road engine as defined at 40 CFR 1068.30,
and is not used to propel a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for
competition.
(b) A major source of HAP emissions is a plant site that emits or
has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons (9.07
megagrams) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25
tons (22.68 megagrams) or more per year, except that for oil and gas
production facilities, a major source of HAP emissions is determined
for each surface site.
Sec. 63.6590 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
This subpart applies to each affected source.
(a) Affected source. An affected source is any existing, new, or
reconstructed stationary RICE with a site-rating of more than 500 brake
horsepower located at a major source of HAP emissions, excluding
stationary RICE being tested at a stationary RICE test cell/stand.
(1) Existing stationary RICE. A stationary RICE is existing if you
commenced construction or reconstruction of the stationary RICE before
December 19, 2002. A change in ownership of an existing stationary RICE
does not make that stationary RICE a new or reconstructed stationary
RICE.
(2) New stationary RICE. A stationary RICE is new if you commenced
construction of the stationary RICE on or after December 19, 2002.
(3) Reconstructed stationary RICE. A stationary RICE is
reconstructed if you meet the definition of reconstruction in Sec.
63.2 and reconstruction is commenced on or after December 19, 2002.
(b) Stationary RICE subject to limited requirements. (1) An
affected source which meets either of the criteria in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) through (ii) of this section does not have to meet the
requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of this part except for
the initial notification requirements of Sec. 63.6645(d).
(i) The stationary RICE is a new or reconstructed emergency
stationary RICE; or
(ii) The stationary RICE is a new or reconstructed limited use
stationary RICE.
(2) A new or reconstructed stationary RICE which combusts landfill
or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat
input on an annual basis must meet the initial notification
requirements of Sec. 63.6645(d) and the requirements of Sec. Sec.
63.6625(c), 63.6650(g), and 63.6655(c). These stationary RICE do not
have to meet the emission limitations and operating limitations of this
subpart.
(3) A stationary RICE which is an existing spark ignition 2 stroke
lean burn (2SLB) stationary RICE, an existing spark ignition 4 stroke
lean burn (4SLB) stationary RICE, an existing compression ignition (CI)
stationary RICE, an existing emergency stationary RICE, an existing
limited use stationary RICE, or an existing stationary RICE that
combusts landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more
of the gross heat input on an annual basis, does not have to meet the
requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of this part. No initial
notification is necessary.
Sec. 63.6595 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) Affected sources. (1) If you have an existing stationary RICE,
you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and operating
limitations no later than June 15, 2007.
(2) If you start up your new or reconstructed stationary RICE
before August 16, 2004, you must comply with the applicable emission
limitations and operating limitations in this subpart no later than
August 16, 2004.
(3) If you start up your new or reconstructed stationary RICE after
August 16, 2004, you must comply with the applicable emission
limitations and operating limitations in this subpart upon startup of
your affected source.
(b) Area sources that become major sources. If you have an area
source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that
it becomes a major source of HAP, the compliance dates in paragraphs
(b)(1) and (2) of this section apply to you.
(1) Any stationary RICE for which construction or reconstruction is
commenced after the date when your area source becomes a major source
of HAP must be in compliance with this subpart upon startup of your
affected source.
(2) Any stationary RICE for which construction or reconstruction is
commenced before your area source becomes a major source of HAP must be
in compliance with this subpart within 3 years after your area source
becomes a major source of HAP.
(c) If you own or operate an affected source, you must meet the
applicable notification requirements in Sec. 63.6645 and in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart A.
Emission and Operating Limitations
Sec. 63.6600 What emission limitations and operating limitations must
I meet?
(a) If you own or operate an existing, new, or reconstructed spark
ignition 4 stroke rich burn (4SRB) stationary RICE located at a major
source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the emission limitations
in Table 1a of this subpart and the operating limitations in Table 1b
of this subpart which apply to you.
(b) If you own or operate a new or reconstructed 2SLB or 4SLB
stationary RICE or a new or reconstructed CI stationary RICE located at
a major source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the emission
limitations in Table 2a of this subpart and the operating limitations
in Table 2b of this subpart which apply to you.
(c) If you own or operate: An existing 2SLB stationary RICE, an
existing 4SLB stationary RICE, or an existing CI stationary RICE; a
stationary RICE that combusts landfill gas or digester gas equivalent
to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual basis; an
emergency stationary RICE; or a limited use stationary RICE, you do not
need to
[[Page 33508]]
comply with the emission limitations in Tables 1a and 2a of this
subpart or operating limitations in Tables 1b and 2b of this subpart.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.6605 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations and
operating limitations in this subpart that apply to you at all times,
except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(b) If you must comply with emission limitations and operating
limitations, you must operate and maintain your stationary RICE,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions at all times, including during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.6610 By what date must I conduct the initial performance
tests or other initial compliance demonstrations?
(a) You must conduct the initial performance test or other initial
compliance demonstrations in Table 4 of this subpart that apply to you
within 180 days after the compliance date that is specified for your
stationary RICE in Sec. 63.6595 and according to the provisions in
Sec. 63.7(a)(2).
(b) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between
December 19, 2002 and June 15, 2004, you must demonstrate initial
compliance with either the proposed emission limitations or the
promulgated emission limitations no later than February 10, 2005 or no
later than 180 days after startup of the source, whichever is later,
according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
(c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between
December 19, 2002 and June 15, 2004, and you chose to comply with the
proposed emission limitations when demonstrating initial compliance,
you must conduct a second performance test to demonstrate compliance
with the promulgated emission limitations by December 13, 2007 or after
startup of the source, whichever is later, according to Sec.
63.7(a)(2)(ix).
(d) An owner or operator is not required to conduct an initial
performance test on units for which a performance test has been
previously conducted, but the test must meet all of the conditions
described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The test must have been conducted using the same methods
specified in this subpart, and these methods must have been followed
correctly.
(2) The test must not be older than 2 years.
(3) The test must be reviewed and accepted by the Administrator.
(4) Either no process or equipment changes must have been made
since the test was performed, or the owner or operator must be able to
demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or without
adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process or
equipment changes.
(5) The test must be conducted at any load condition within plus or
minus 10 percent of 100 percent load.
Sec. 63.6615 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
If you must comply with the emission limitations and operating
limitations, you must conduct subsequent performance tests as specified
in Table 3 of this subpart.
Sec. 63.6620 What performance tests and other procedures must I use?
(a) You must conduct each performance test in Tables 3 and 4 of
this subpart that applies to you.
(b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and under the specific conditions that
this subpart specifies in Table 4. The test must be conducted at any
load condition within plus or minus 10 percent of 100 percent load.
(c) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(d) You must conduct three separate test runs for each performance
test required in this section, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3). Each
test run must last at least 1 hour.
(e)(1) You must use Equation 1 of this section to determine
compliance with the percent reduction requirement:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN04.012
Where:
Ci = concentration of CO or formaldehyde at the control
device inlet,
Co = concentration of CO or formaldehyde at the control
device outlet, and
R = percent reduction of CO or formaldehyde emissions.
(2) You must normalize the carbon monoxide (CO) or formaldehyde
concentrations at the inlet and outlet of the control device to a dry
basis and to 15 percent oxygen, or an equivalent percent carbon dioxide
(CO2). If pollutant concentrations are to be corrected to 15
percent oxygen and CO2 concentration is measured in lieu of
oxygen concentration measurement, a CO2 correction factor is
needed. Calculate the CO2 correction factor as described in
paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Calculate the fuel-specific Fo value for the fuel
burned during the test using values obtained from Method 19, section
5.2, and the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN04.013
Where:
Fo = Fuel factor based on the ratio of oxygen volume to the
ultimate CO2 volume produced by the fuel at zero percent
excess air.
0.209 = Fraction of air that is oxygen, percent/100.
Fd = Ratio of the volume of dry effluent gas to the gross
calorific value of the fuel from Method 19, dsm 3/J (dscf/10
6 Btu).
Fc = Ratio of the volume of CO2 produced to the
gross calorific value of the fuel from Method 19, dsm 3/J
(dscf/10 6 Btu).
(ii) Calculate the CO2 correction factor for correcting
measurement data to 15 percent oxygen, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN04.014
Where:
Xco2 = CO2 correction factor, percent.
5.9 = 20.9 percent O2-15 percent O2, the defined
O2 correction value, percent.
(iii) Calculate the NOX and SO2 gas
concentrations adjusted to 15 percent O2 using
CO2 as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JN04.015
Where:
%CO2 = Measured CO2 concentration measured, dry
basis, percent.
(f) If you comply with the emission limitation to reduce CO and you
are not using an oxidation catalyst, if you comply with the emission
limitation to reduce formaldehyde and you are not using NSCR, or if you
comply with the emission limitation to limit the concentration of
formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you are not using an
oxidation catalyst or NSCR, you must petition the Administrator for
operating limitations to be established during the initial performance
test and continuously monitored thereafter; or
[[Page 33509]]
for approval of no operating limitations. You must not conduct the
initial performance test until after the petition has been approved by
the Administrator.
(g) If you petition the Administrator for approval of operating
limitations, your petition must include the information described in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as
operating limitations;
(2) A discussion of the relationship between these parameters and
HAP emissions, identifying how HAP emissions change with changes in
these parameters, and how limitations on these parameters will serve to
limit HAP emissions;
(3) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/or lower
values for these parameters which will establish the limits on these
parameters in the operating limitations;
(4) A discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure
and the instruments you will use to monitor these parameters, as well
as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and
instruments; and
(5) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for
recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these
parameters.
(h) If you petition the Administrator for approval of no operating
limitations, your petition must include the information described in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Identification of the parameters associated with operation of
the stationary RICE and any emission control device which could change
intentionally (e.g., operator adjustment, automatic controller
adjustment, etc.) or unintentionally (e.g., wear and tear, error, etc.)
on a routine basis or over time;
(2) A discussion of the relationship, if any, between changes in
the parameters and changes in HAP emissions;
(3) For the parameters which could change in such a way as to
increase HAP emissions, a discussion of whether establishing
limitations on the parameters would serve to limit HAP emissions;
(4) For the parameters which could change in such a way as to
increase HAP emissions, a discussion of how you could establish upper
and/or lower values for the parameters which would establish limits on
the parameters in operating limitations;
(5) For the parameters, a discussion identifying the methods you
could use to measure them and the instruments you could use to monitor
them, as well as the relative accuracy and precision of the methods and
instruments;
(6) For the parameters, a discussion identifying the frequency and
methods for recalibrating the instruments you could use to monitor
them; and
(7) A discussion of why, from your point of view, it is infeasible
or unreasonable to adopt the parameters as operating limitations.
(i) The engine percent load during a performance test must be
determined by documenting the calculations, assumptions, and
measurement devices used to measure or estimate the percent load in a
specific application. A written report of the average percent load
determination must be included in the notification of compliance
status. The following information must be included in the written
report: the engine model number, the engine manufacturer, the year of
purchase, the manufacturer's site-rated brake horsepower, the ambient
temperature, pressure, and humidity during the performance test, and
all assumptions that were made to estimate or calculate percent load
during the performance test must be clearly explained. If measurement
devices such as flow meters, kilowatt meters, beta analyzers, stain
gauges, etc. are used, the model number of the measurement device, and
an estimate of its accurate in percentage of true value must be
provided.
Sec. 63.6625 What are my monitoring, installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
(a) If you elect to install a CEMS as specified in Table 5 of this
subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS to monitor CO
and either oxygen or CO2 at both the inlet and the outlet of
the control device according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (4) of this section.
(1) Each CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according
to the applicable performance specifications of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B.
(2) You must conduct an initial performance evaluation and an
annual relative accuracy test audit (RATA) of each CEMS according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.8 and according to the applicable
performance specifications of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B as well as
daily and periodic data quality checks in accordance with 40 CFR part
60, appendix F, procedure 1.
(3) As specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(ii), each CEMS must complete a
minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and data
recording) for each successive 15-minute period. You must have at least
two data points, with each representing a different 15-minute period,
to have a valid hour of data.
(4) The CEMS data must be reduced as specified in Sec. 63.8(g)(2)
and recorded in parts per million or parts per billion (as appropriate
for the applicable limitation) at 15 percent oxygen or the equivalent
CO2 concentration.
(b) If you are required to install a continuous parameter
monitoring system (CPMS) as specified in Table 5 of this subpart, you
must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.8.
(c) If you are operating a new or reconstructed stationary RICE
which fires landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or
more of the gross heat input on an annual basis, you must monitor and
record your fuel usage daily with separate fuel meters to measure the
volumetric flow rate of each fuel. In addition, you must operate your
stationary RICE in a manner which reasonably minimizes HAP emissions.
Sec. 63.6630 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations and operating limitations?
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission and
operating limitation that applies to you according to Table 5 of this
subpart.
(b) During the initial performance test, you must establish each
operating limitation in Tables 1b and 2b of this subpart that applies
to you.
(c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.6645.
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.6635 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) If you must comply with emission and operating limitations, you
must monitor and collect data according to this section.
(b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously at all times that the stationary RICE is
operating.
(c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or
operating levels. You must, however, use all the valid data collected
during all other periods.
[[Page 33510]]
Sec. 63.6640 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and operating limitations?
(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission
limitation and operating limitation in Tables 1a and 1b and Tables 2a
and 2b of this subpart that apply to you according to methods specified
in Table 6 of this subpart.
(b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each
emission limitation or operating limitation in Tables 1a and 1b and
Tables 2a and 2b of this subpart that apply to you. These instances are
deviations from the emission and operating limitations in this subpart.
These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.6650. If you change your catalyst, you must reestablish the
values of the operating parameters measured during the initial
performance test. When you reestablish the values of your operating
parameters, you must also conduct a performance test to demonstrate
that you are meeting the required emission limitation applicable to
your stationary RICE.
(c) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must
operate in accordance with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan.
(d) Consistent with Sec. Sec. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
from the emission or operating limitations that occur during a period
of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you
demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating
in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. For
new, reconstructed, and rebuilt stationary RICE, deviations from the
emission or operating limitations that occur during the first 200 hours
of operation from engine startup (engine burn-in period) are not
violations.
Rebuilt stationary RICE means a stationary RICE that has been
rebuilt as that term is defined in 40 CFR Sec. 94.11(a).
(e) You must also report each instance in which you did not meet
the requirements in Table 8 of this subpart that apply to you. If you
own or operate an existing 2SLB stationary RICE, an existing 4SLB
stationary RICE, an existing CI stationary RICE, an existing emergency
stationary RICE, an existing limited use emergency stationary RICE, or
an existing stationary RICE which fires landfill gas or digester gas
equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual
basis, you do not need to comply with the requirements in Table 8 of
this subpart. If you own or operate a new or reconstructed stationary
RICE that combusts landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10
percent or more of the gross heat input on an annual basis, a new or
reconstructed emergency stationary RICE, or a new or reconstructed
limited use stationary RICE, you do not need to comply with the
requirements in Table 8 of this subpart, except for the initial
notification requirements.
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.6645 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec. 63.7(b)
and (c), 63.8(e), (f)(4) and (f)(6), 63.9(b) through (e), and (g) and
(h) that apply to you by the dates specified.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your
stationary RICE before the effective date of this subpart, you must
submit an Initial Notification not later than December 13, 2004.
(c) If you start up your new or reconstructed stationary RICE on or
after August 16, 2004, you must submit an Initial Notification not
later than 120 days after you become subject to this subpart.
(d) If you are required to submit an Initial Notification but are
otherwise not affected by the requirements of this subpart, in
accordance with Sec. 63.6590(b), your notification should include the
information in Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through (v), and a statement that
your stationary RICE has no additional requirements and explain the
basis of the exclusion (for example, that it operates exclusively as an
emergency stationary RICE).
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a Notification of Intent to conduct a performance test at least
60 days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as required
in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(f) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other
initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 5 to this
subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according
to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii).
(1) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 5
of this subpart that does not include a performance test, you must
submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the close of
business on the 30th day following the completion of the initial
compliance demonstration.
(2) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 5
of this subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to
the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the
Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test
results, before the close of business on the 60th day following the
completion of the performance test according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
Sec. 63.6650 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit each report in Table 7 of this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
by the date in Table 7 of this subpart and according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first Compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.6595 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the first calendar half after the
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.6595.
(2) The first Compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.6595.
(3) Each subsequent Compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent Compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each stationary RICE that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6 (a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6 (a)(3)(iii)(A),
you may submit the first and subsequent Compliance reports according to
the dates the permitting authority has established instead of according
to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(c) The Compliance report must contain the information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report.
[[Page 33511]]
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
reporting period, the compliance report must include the information in
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there are no deviations from any emission or operating
limitations that apply to you, a statement that there were no
deviations from the emission or operating limitations during the
reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which the continuous monitoring
system (CMS), including CEMS and CPMS, was out-of-control, as specified
in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods during
which the CMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.
(d) For each deviation from an emission or operating limitation
that occurs for a stationary RICE where you are not using a CMS to
comply with the emission or operating limitations in this subpart, the
Compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (4) of this section and the information in paragraphs (d)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(1) The total operating time of the stationary RICE at which the
deviation occurred during the reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(e) For each deviation from an emission or operating limitation
occurring for a stationary RICE where you are using a CMS to comply
with the emission and operating limitations in this subpart, you must
include information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (e)(1) through
(12) of this section.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-of-control,
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction or
during another period.
(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems,
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
(7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the
reporting period, and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent
of the total operating time of the stationary RICE at which the CMS
downtime occurred during that reporting period.
(8) An identification of each parameter and pollutant (CO or
formaldehyde) that was monitored at the stationary RICE.
(9) A brief description of the stationary RICE.
(10) A brief description of the CMS.
(11) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
(12) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls
since the last reporting period.
(f) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 must report all deviations as
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by
40 CFR 70.6 (a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected
source submits a Compliance report pursuant to Table 7 of this subpart
along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the
Compliance report includes all required information concerning
deviations from any emission or operating limitation in this subpart,
submission of the Compliance report shall be deemed to satisfy any
obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring
report. However, submission of a Compliance report shall not otherwise
affect any obligation the affected source may have to report deviations
from permit requirements to the permit authority.
(g) If you are operating as a new or reconstructed stationary RICE
which fires landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or
more of the gross heat input on an annual basis, you must submit an
annual report according to Table 7 of this subpart by the date
specified unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule,
according to the information described in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(5) of this section. You must report the data specified in (g)(1)
through (g)(3) of this section.
(1) Fuel flow rate of each fuel and the heating values that were
used in your calculations. You must also demonstrate that the
percentage of heat input provided by landfill gas or digester gas is
equivalent to 10 percent or more of the total fuel consumption on an
annual basis.
(2) The operating limits provided in your federally enforceable
permit, and any deviations from these limits.
(3) Any problems or errors suspected with the meters.
Sec. 63.6655 What records must I keep?
(a) If you must comply with the emission and operating limitations,
you must keep the records described in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(3), (b)(1) through (b)(3) and (c) of this section.
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you
submitted, according to the requirement in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(3) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as
required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(b) For each CEMS or CPMS, you must keep the records listed in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
(2) Previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan as required in Sec. 63.8(d)(3).
(3) Requests for alternatives to the relative accuracy test for
CEMS or CPMS as required in Sec. 63.8(f)(6)(i), if applicable.
(c) If you are operating a new or reconstructed stationary RICE
which fires landfill gas or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or
more of the gross heat input on an annual basis, you must keep the
records of your daily fuel usage monitors.
(d) You must keep the records required in Table 6 of this subpart
to show continuous compliance with each emission or operating
limitation that applies to you.
Sec. 63.6660 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record readily accessible in hard copy or
electronic form on-site for at least 2 years after the date of each
occurrence, measurement,
[[Page 33512]]
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to Sec.
63.10(b)(1). You can keep the records off-site for the remaining 3
years.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.6665 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 8 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. If you own or operate an
existing 2SLB, an existing 4SLB stationary RICE, an existing CI
stationary RICE, an existing stationary RICE that combusts landfill gas
or digester gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat
input on an annual basis, an existing emergency stationary RICE, or an
existing limited use stationary RICE, you do not need to comply with
any of the requirements of the General Provisions. If you own or
operate a new stationary RICE that combusts landfill gas or digester
gas equivalent to 10 percent or more of the gross heat input on an
annual basis, a new emergency stationary RICE, or a new limited use
stationary RICE, you do not need to comply with the requirements in the
General Provisions except for the initial notification requirements.
Sec. 63.6670 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart is implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA, or a
delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the
U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or
tribal agency, then that agency (as well as the U.S. EPA) has the
authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact
your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out whether this subpart is
delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section
are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are:
(1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emission
limitations and operating limitations in Sec. 63.6600 under Sec.
63.6(g).
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(5) Approval of a performance test which was conducted prior to the
effective date of the rule, as specified in Sec. 63.6610(b).
Sec. 63.6675 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA);
in 40 CFR 63.2, the General Provisions of this part; and in this
section as follows:
Area source means any stationary source of HAP that is not a major
source as defined in part 63.
Associated equipment as used in this subpart and as referred to in
section 112(n)(4) of the CAA, means equipment associated with an oil or
natural gas exploration or production well, and includes all equipment
from the well bore to the point of custody transfer, except glycol
dehydration units, storage vessels with potential for flash emissions,
combustion turbines, and stationary RICE.
CAA means the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., as amended by
Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399).
Compression ignition engine means any stationary RICE in which a
high boiling point liquid fuel injected into the combustion chamber
ignites when the air charge has been compressed to a temperature
sufficiently high for auto-ignition, including diesel engines, dual-
fuel engines, and engines that are not spark ignition.
Custody transfer means the transfer of hydrocarbon liquids or
natural gas: After processing and/or treatment in the producing
operations, or from storage vessels or automatic transfer facilities or
other such equipment, including product loading racks, to pipelines or
any other forms of transportation. For the purposes of this subpart,
the point at which such liquids or natural gas enters a natural gas
processing plant is a point of custody transfer.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation or
operating limitation;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation or operating limitation
in this subpart during malfunction, regardless or whether or not such
failure is permitted by this subpart.
(4) Fails to conform to any provision of the applicable startup,
shutdown, or malfunction plan, or to satisfy the general duty to
minimize emissions established by Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i).
Diesel engine means any stationary RICE in which a high boiling
point liquid fuel injected into the combustion chamber ignites when the
air charge has been compressed to a temperature sufficiently high for
auto-ignition. This process is also known as compression ignition.
Diesel fuel means any liquid obtained from the distillation of
petroleum with a boiling point of approximately 150 to 360 degrees
Celsius. One commonly used form is fuel oil number 2.
Digester gas means any gaseous by-product of wastewater treatment
typically formed through the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste
materials and composed principally of methane and CO2.
Dual-fuel engine means any stationary RICE in which a liquid fuel
(typically diesel fuel) is used for compression ignition and gaseous
fuel (typically natural gas) is used as the primary fuel.
Emergency stationary RICE means any stationary RICE that operates
in an emergency situation. Examples include stationary RICE used to
produce power for critical networks or equipment (including power
supplied to portions of a facility) when electric power from the local
utility is interrupted, or stationary RICE used to pump water in the
case of fire or flood, etc. Emergency stationary RICE may be operated
for the purpose of maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided
that the tests are recommended by the manufacturer, the vendor, or the
insurance company associated with the engine. Required testing of such
units should be minimized, but there is no time limit on the use of
emergency stationary RICE in emergency situations and for routine
testing and maintenance. Emergency stationary RICE may also operate an
additional 50 hours per year in non-emergency situations.
Four-stroke engine means any type of engine which completes the
power cycle in two crankshaft revolutions, with intake and compression
strokes in the first revolution and power and exhaust strokes in the
second revolution.
Gaseous fuel means a material used for combustion which is in the
gaseous state at standard atmospheric temperature and pressure
conditions.
Glycol dehydration unit means a device in which a liquid glycol
[[Page 33513]]
(including, but not limited to, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, or
triethylene glycol) absorbent directly contacts a natural gas stream
and absorbs water in a contact tower or absorption column (absorber).
The glycol contacts and absorbs water vapor and other gas stream
constituents from the natural gas and becomes ``rich'' glycol. This
glycol is then regenerated in the glycol dehydration unit reboiler. The
``lean'' glycol is then recycled.
Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) means any air pollutants listed in
or pursuant to section 112(b) of the CAA.
ISO standard day conditions means 288 degrees Kelvin (15 degrees
Celsius), 60 percent relative humidity and 101.3 kilopascals pressure.
Landfill gas means a gaseous by-product of the land application of
municipal refuse typically formed through the anaerobic decomposition
of waste materials and composed principally of methane and
CO2.
Lean burn engine means any two-stroke or four-stroke spark ignited
engine that does not meet the definition of a rich burn engine.
Limited use stationary RICE means any stationary RICE that operates
less than 100 hours per year.
Liquefied petroleum gas means any liquefied hydrocarbon gas
obtained as a by-product in petroleum refining of natural gas
production.
Liquid fuel means any fuel in liquid form at standard temperature
and pressure, including but not limited to diesel, residual/crude oil,
kerosene/naphtha (jet fuel), and gasoline.
Major Source, as used in this subpart, shall have the same meaning
as in Sec. 63.2, except that:
(1) Emissions from any oil or gas exploration or production well
(with its associated equipment (as defined in this section)) and
emissions from any pipeline compressor station or pump station shall
not be aggregated with emissions from other similar units, to determine
whether such emission points or stations are major sources, even when
emission points are in a contiguous area or under common control;
(2) For oil and gas production facilities, emissions from
processes, operations, or equipment that are not part of the same oil
and gas production facility, as defined in Sec. 63.1271 of subpart HHH
of this part, shall not be aggregated;
(3) For production field facilities, only HAP emissions from glycol
dehydration units, storage vessel with the potential for flash
emissions, combustion turbines and reciprocating internal combustion
engines shall be aggregated for a major source determination; and
(4) Emissions from processes, operations, and equipment that are
not part of the same natural gas transmission and storage facility, as
defined in Sec. 63.1271 of subpart HHH of this part, shall not be
aggregated.
Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.
Failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless
operation are not malfunctions.
Natural gas means a naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbon and
non-hydrocarbon gases found in geologic formations beneath the Earth's
surface, of which the principal constituent is methane. May be field or
pipeline quality.
Non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) means an add-on catalytic
nitrogen oxides (NOX) control device for rich burn engines
that, in a two-step reaction, promotes the conversion of excess oxygen,
NOX, CO, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) into
CO2, nitrogen, and water.
Oil and gas production facility as used in this subpart means any
grouping of equipment where hydrocarbon liquids are processed, upgraded
(i.e., remove impurities or other constituents to meet contract
specifications), or stored prior to the point of custody transfer; or
where natural gas is processed, upgraded, or stored prior to entering
the natural gas transmission and storage source category. For purposes
of a major source determination, facility (including a building,
structure, or installation) means oil and natural gas production and
processing equipment that is located within the boundaries of an
individual surface site as defined in this section. Equipment that is
part of a facility will typically be located within close proximity to
other equipment located at the same facility. Pieces of production
equipment or groupings of equipment located on different oil and gas
leases, mineral fee tracts, lease tracts, subsurface or surface unit
areas, surface fee tracts, surface lease tracts, or separate surface
sites, whether or not connected by a road, waterway, power line or
pipeline, shall not be considered part of the same facility. Examples
of facilities in the oil and natural gas production source category
include, but are not limited to, well sites, satellite tank batteries,
central tank batteries, a compressor station that transports natural
gas to a natural gas processing plant, and natural gas processing
plants.
Oxidation catalyst means an add-on catalytic control device that
controls CO and VOC by oxidation.
Peaking unit or engine means any standby engine intended for use
during periods of high demand that are not emergencies.
Percent load means the fractional power of an engine compared to
its maximum manufacturer's design capacity at engine site conditions.
Percent load may range between 0 percent to above 100 percent.
Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a stationary source
to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any
physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the stationary
source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment
and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of
material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of
its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions
is federally enforceable. For oil and natural gas production facilities
subject to subpart HH of this part, the potential to emit provisions in
Sec. 63.760(a) may be used. For natural gas transmission and storage
facilities subject to subpart HHH of this part, the maximum annual
facility gas throughput for storage facilities may be determined
according to Sec. 63.1270(a)(1) and the maximum annual throughput for
transmission facilities may be determined according to Sec.
63.1270(a)(2).
Production field facility means those oil and gas production
facilities located prior to the point of custody transfer.
Production well means any hole drilled in the earth from which
crude oil, condensate, or field natural gas is extracted.
Propane means a colorless gas derived from petroleum and natural
gas, with the molecular structure C3H8.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Rich burn engine means any four-stroke spark ignited engine where
the manufacturer's recommended operating air/fuel ratio divided by the
stoichiometric air/fuel ratio at full load conditions is less than or
equal to 1.1. Engines originally manufactured as rich burn engines, but
modified prior to December 19, 2002 with passive emission control
technology for NOX (such as pre-combustion chambers) will be
considered lean burn engines. Also, existing engines where there are no
manufacturer's recommendations regarding air/fuel ratio will be
considered a rich burn engine if the excess oxygen content of the
exhaust at
[[Page 33514]]
full load conditions is less than or equal to 2 percent.
Site-rated HP means the maximum manufacturer's design capacity at
engine site conditions.
Spark ignition engine means a type of engine in which a compressed
air/fuel mixture is ignited by a timed electric spark generated by a
spark plug.
Stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) means
any reciprocating internal combustion engine which uses reciprocating
motion to convert heat energy into mechanical work and which is not
mobile. Stationary RICE differ from mobile RICE in that a stationary
RICE is not a non-road engine as defined at 40 CFR 1068.30, and is not
used to propel a motor vehicle or a vehicle used solely for
competition.
Stationary RICE test cell/stand means an engine test cell/stand, as
defined in subpart PPPPP of this part, that tests stationary RICE.
Stoichiometric means the theoretical air-to-fuel ratio required for
complete combustion.
Storage vessel with the potential for flash emissions means any
storage vessel that contains a hydrocarbon liquid with a stock tank
gas-to-oil ratio equal to or greater than 0.31 cubic meters per liter
and an American Petroleum Institute gravity equal to or greater than 40
degrees and an actual annual average hydrocarbon liquid throughput
equal to or greater than 79,500 liters per day. Flash emissions occur
when dissolved hydrocarbons in the fluid evolve from solution when the
fluid pressure is reduced.
Subpart means 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ.
Surface site means any combination of one or more graded pad sites,
gravel pad sites, foundations, platforms, or the immediate physical
location upon which equipment is physically affixed.
Two-stroke engine means a type of engine which completes the power
cycle in single crankshaft revolution by combining the intake and
compression operations into one stroke and the power and exhaust
operations into a second stroke. This system requires auxiliary
scavenging and inherently runs lean of stoichiometric.
Tables to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.6600 and 63.6640, you must comply with
the following emission limitations for existing, new and reconstructed
4SRB stationary RICE at 100 percent load plus or minus 10 percent:
Table 1a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Emission Limitations for Existing,
New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary RICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet one of the following
For each . . . emission limitations . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 4SRB RICE................. a. Reduce formaldehyde emissions by 76
percent or more. If you commenced
construction or reconstruction between
December 19, 2002 and June 15, 2004, you
may reduce formaldehyde emissions by 75
percent or more until June 15, 2007, or
b. Limit the concentration of
formaldehyde in the stationary RICE
exhaust to 350 ppbvd or less at 15
percent O2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.6600, 63.6630 and 63.6640, you must
comply with the following operating emission limitations for existing,
new and reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE:
Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Operating Limitations for
Existing, New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary RICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following emission
For each . . . limitation . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 4SRB stationary RICE a. Maintain your catalyst so that the
complying with the pressure drop across the catalyst does
requirement to reduce not change by more than two inches of
formaldehyde emissions by 76 water at 100 percent load plus or minus
percent or more (or by 75 10 percent from the pressure drop across
percent or more, if the catalyst measured during the initial
applicable) and using NSCR; performance test; and
or 4SRB stationary RICE b. Maintain the temperature of your
complying with the stationary RICE exhaust so that the
requirement to limit the catalyst inlet temperature is greater
concentration of than or equal to 750[deg]F and less than
formaldehyde in the or equal to 1250[deg]F.
stationary RICE exhaust to
350 ppbvd or less at 15
percent O2 and using NSCR.
2. 4SRB stationary RICE Comply with any operating limitations
complying with the approved by the Administrator.
requirement to reduce
formaldehyde emissions by 76
percent or more (or by 75
percent if applicable) and
not using NSCR; or 4SRB
stationary RICE complying
with the requirement to
limit the concentration of
formaldehyde in the
stationary RICE exhaust to
350 ppbvd or less at 15
percent O2 and not using
NSCR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.6600 and 63.6640, you must comply with
the following emission limitations for new and reconstructed lean burn
and new and reconstructed compression ignition stationary RICE at 100
percent load plus or minus 10 percent:
[[Page 33515]]
Table 2a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Emission Limitations for New and
Reconstructed Lean Burn and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following emission
For each . . . limitation . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB stationary RICE...... a. Reduce CO emissions by 58 percent or
more; or
b. Limit concentration of formaldehyde in
the stationary RICE exhaust to 12 ppmvd
or less at 15 percent O2. If you
commenced construction or reconstruction
between December 19, 2002 and June 15,
2004, you may limit concentration of
formaldehyde to 17 ppmvd or less at 15
percent O2 until June 15, 2007.
2. 4SLB stationary RICE...... a. Reduce CO emissions by 93 percent or
more; or
b. Limit concentration of formaldehyde in
the stationary RICE exhaust to 14 ppmvd
or less at 15 percent O2.
3. CI stationary RICE........ a. Reduce CO emissions by 70 percent or
more; or
b. Limit concentration of formaldehyde in
the stationary RICE exhaust to 580 ppbvd
or less at 15 percent O2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.6600, 63.6630, and 63.6640, you must
comply with the following operating limitations for new and
reconstructed lean burn and new and reconstructed compression ignition
stationary RICE:
Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Operating Limitations for New and
Reconstructed Lean Burn and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following operating
For each . . . limitation . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary a. Maintain your catalyst so that the
RICE and CI stationary RICE pressure drop across the catalyst does
complying with the not change by more than two inches of
requirement to reduce CO water at 100 percent load plus or minus
emissions and using an 10 percent from the pressure drop across
oxidation catalyst; or 2SLB the catalyst that was measured during
and 4SLB stationary RICE and the initial performance test; and
CI stationary RICE complying b. Maintain the temperature of your
with the requirement to stationary RICE exhaust so that the
limit the concentration of catalyst inlet temperature is greater
formaldehyde in the than or equal to 450[deg]F and less than
stationary RICE exhaust and or equal to 1350[deg]F.
using an oxidation catalyst.
2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary Comply with any operating limitations
RICE and CI stationary RICE approved by the Administrator.
complying with the
requirement to reduce CO
emissions and not using an
oxidation catalyst; or 2SLB
and 4SLB stationary RICE and
CI stationary RICE complying
with the requirement to
limit the concentration of
formaldehyde in the
stationary RICE exhaust and
not using an oxidation
catalyst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.6615 and 63.6620, you must comply with
the following subsequent performance test requirements:
Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Subsequent Performance Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complying with the
For each . . . requirement to . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary Reduce CO emissions Conduct subsequent
RICE and CI stationary RICE. and not using a performance tests
CEMS. semiannually.\1\
2. 4SRB stationary RICE with Reduce formaldehyde Conduct subsequent
a brake horsepower >=5,000. emissions. performance tests
semiannually.\1\
3. Stationary RICE (all Limit the Conduct subsequent
stationary RICE concentration of performance tests
subcategories and all brake formaldehyde in the semiannually.\1\
horsepower ratings). stationary RICE
exhaust.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ After you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive tests,
you may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance tests to
annually. If the results of any subsequent annual performance test
indicate the stationary RICE is not in compliance with the CO or
formaldehyde emission limitation, or you deviate from any of your
operating limitations, you must resume semiannual performance tests.
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.6610, 63.6620, and 63.6640, you must
comply with the following requirements for performance tests:
Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complying with the According to the
For each . . . requirement to . . You must . . . Using . . . following
. requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE a. Reduce CO i. Measure the O2 (1) Portable CO (a) Using ASTM
and CI stationary RICE. emissions. at the inlet and and O2 analyzer. D6522-00 \1\
outlet of the (incorporated by
control device; reference, see
and Sec. 63.14).
Measurements to
determine O2 must
be made at the
same time as the
measurements for
CO concentration.
[[Page 33516]]
ii. Measure the CO (1) Portable CO (a) Using ASTM
at the inlet and and O2 analyzer. D6522-00 \1\
the outlet of the (incorporated by
control device. reference, see
Sec. 63.14).
The CO
concentration
must be at 15
percent O2, dry
basis.
2. 4SRB stationary RICE......... a. Reduce i. Select sampling (1) Method 1 or 1A (a) Sampling sites
formaldehyde port location and of 40 CFR part 60 must be located
emissions. the number of appendix A Sec. at the inlet and
traverse points; 63.7(d)(1)(i). outlet of the
and control device.
ii. Measure O2 at (1) Method 3 or 3A (a) Measurements
the inlet and or 3B of 40 CFR to determine O2
outlet of the part 60, appendix concentration
control device; A. must be made at
and the same time as
the measurements
for formaldehyde
concentration.
iii. Measure (1) Method 4 of 40 (a) Measurements
moisture content CFR part 60, to determine
at the inlet and appendix A, or moisture content
outlet of the Test Method 320 must be made at
control device; of 40 CFR part the same time and
and 63, appendix A, location as the
or ASTM D 6348-03. measurements for
formaldehyde
concentration.
iv. Measure (1) Method 320 or (a) Formaldehyde
formaldehyde at 323 of 40 CFR concentration
the inlet and the part 63, appendix must be at 15
outlet of the A; or ASTM D6348- percent O2, dry
control device 03 \2\, provided basis. Results of
in ASTM D6348-03 this test consist
Annex A5 (Analyte of the average of
Spiking the three 1-hour
Technique), the or longer runs.
percent R must be
greater than or
equal to 70 and
less than or
equal to 130.
3. Stationary RICE.............. a. Limit the i. Select the (1) Method 1 or 1A (a) If using a
concentration of sampling port of 40 CFR part control device,
formaldehyde in location and the 60, appendix A the sampling site
the stationary number of Sec. must be located
RICE exhaust. traverse points; 63.7(d)(1)(i). at the outlet of
and the control
device.
ii. Determine the (1) Method 3 or 3A (a) Measurements
O2 concentration or 3B of 40 CFR to determine O2
of the stationary part 60, appendix concentration
RICE exhaust at A. must be made at
the sampling port the same time and
location; and location as the
measurements for
formaldehyde
concentration.
iii. Measure (1) Method 4 of 40 (a) Measurements
moisture content CFR part 60, to determine
of the stationary appendix A, or moisture content
RICE exhaust at Test Method 320 must be made at
the sampling port of 40 CFR part the same time and
location; and 63, appendix A, location as the
or ASTM D 6348-03. measurements for
formaldehyde
concentration.
iv. Measure (1) Method 320 or (a) Formaldehyde
formaldehyde at 323 of 40 CFR concentration
the exhaust of part 63, appendix must be at 15
the stationary A; or ASTM D6348- percent O2, dry
RICE. 03 \2\, provided basis. Results of
in ASTM D6348-03 this test consist
Annex A5 (Analyte of the average of
Spiking the three 1-hour
Technique), the or longer runs.
percent R must be
greater than or
equal to 70 and
less than or
equal to 130.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ You may also use Methods 3A and 10 as options to ASTM-D6522-00. You may obtain a copy of ASTM-D6522-00 from
at least one of the following addresses: American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,
West Conshohochen, PA 19428-2959, or University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI
48106.
\2\ You may obtain a copy of ASTM-D6348-03 from at least one of the following addresses: American Society for
Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohochen, PA 19428-2959, or University Microfilms
International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.6625 and 63.6630, you must initially
comply with the emission and operating limitations as required by the
following:
[[Page 33517]]
Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Operating Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have
For each . . . Complying with the demonstrated initial
requirement to . . . compliance if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary a. Reduce CO i. the average
RICE and CI stationary RICE. emissions and using reduction of
oxidation catalyst, emissions of CO
and using a CPMS. determined from the
initial performance
test achieves the
required CO percent
reduction; and
ii. You have
installed a CPMS to
continuously
monitor catalyst
inlet temperature
according to the
requirements in
Sec. 63.6625(b);
and
iii. You have
recorded the
catalyst pressure
drop and catalyst
inlet temperature
during the initial
performance test.
2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary a. Reduce CO i. The average
RICE and CI stationary RICE. emissions and not reduction of
using oxidation emissions of CO
catalyst. determined from the
initial performance
test achieves the
required CO percent
reduction; and
ii. You have
installed a CPMS to
continuously
monitor operating
parameters approved
by the
Administrator (if
any) according to
the requirements in
Sec. 63.6625(b);
and
iii. You have
recorded the
approved operating
parameters (if any)
during the initial
performance test.
3. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary a. Reduce CO i. You have
RICE and CI stationary RICE. emissions, and installed a CEMS to
using a CEMS. continuously
monitor CO and
either O2 or CO2 at
both the inlet and
outlet of the
oxidation catalyst
according to the
requirements in
Sec. 63.6625(a);
and
ii. You have
conducted a
performance
evaluation of your
CEMS using PS 3 and
4A of 40 CFR part
60, appendix B; and
iii. The average
reduction of CO
calculated using
Sec. 63.6620
equals or exceeds
the required
percent reduction.
The initial test
comprises the first
4-hour period after
successful
validation of the
CEMS. Compliance is
based on the
average percent
reduction achieved
during the 4-hour
period.
4. 4SRB stationary RICE..... a. Reduce i. The average
formaldehyde reduction of
emissions and using emissions of
NSCR. formaldehyde
determined from the
initial performance
test is equal to or
greater than the
required
formaldehyde
percent reduction;
and
ii. You have
installed a CPMS to
continuously
monitor catalyst
inlet temperature
according to the
requirements in
Sec. 63.6625(b);
and
iii. You have
recorded the
catalyst pressure
drop and catalyst
inlet temperature
during the initial
performance test.
5. 4SRB stationary RICE..... a. Reduce i. The average
formaldehyde reduction of
emissions and not emissions of
using NSCR. formaldehyde
determined from the
initial performance
test is equal to or
greater than the
required
formaldehyde
percent reduction;
and
ii. You have
installed a CPMS to
continuously
monitor operating
parameters approved
by the
Administrator (if
any) according to
the requirements in
Sec. 63.6625(b);
and
iii. You have
recorded the
approved operating
parameters (if any)
during the initial
performance test.
6. Stationary RICE.......... a. Limit the i. The average
concentration of formaldehyde
formaldehyde in the concentration,
stationary RICE corrected to 15
exhaust and using percent O2, dry
oxidation catalyst basis, from the
or NSCR. three test runs is
less than or equal
to the formaldehyde
emission
limitation; and
ii. You have
installed a CPMS to
continuously
monitor catalyst
inlet temperature
according to the
requirements in
Sec. 63.6625(b);
and
iii. You have
recorded the
catalyst pressure
drop and catalyst
inlet temperature
during the initial
performance test.
[[Page 33518]]
7. Stationary RICE.......... a. Limit the i. The average
concentration of formaldehyde
formaldehyde in the concentration,
stationary RICE corrected to 15
exhaust and not percent O2, dry
using oxidation basis, from the
catalyst or NSCR. three test runs is
less than or equal
to the formaldehyde
emission
limitation; and
ii. You have
installed a CPMS to
continuously
monitor operating
parameters approved
by the
Administrator (if
any) according to
the requirements in
Sec. 63.6625(b);
and
iii. You have
recorded the
approved operating
parameters (if any)
during the initial
performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.6640, you must continuously comply with the
emissions and operating limitations as required by the following:
Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Operating Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate
Complying with the continuous
For each . . . requirement to . . . compliance by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary a. Reduce CO i. Conducting
RICE and CI stationary RICE. emissions and using semiannual
an oxidation performance tests
catalyst, and using for CO to
a CPMS. demonstrate that
the required CO
percent reduction
is achieved \1\;
and
ii. Collecting the
catalyst inlet
temperature data
according to Sec.
63.6625(b); and
iii. Reducing these
data to 4-hour
rolling averages;
and
iv. Maintaining the
4-hour rolling
averages within the
operating
limitations for the
catalyst inlet
temperature; and
v. Measuring the
pressure drop
across the catalyst
once per month and
demonstrating that
the pressure drop
across the catalyst
is within the
operating
limitation
established during
the performance
test.
2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary a. Reduce CO i. Conducting
RICE and CI stationary RICE. emissions and not semiannual
using an oxidation performance tests
catalyst, and using for CO to
a CPMS. demonstrate that
the required CO
percent reduction
is achieved \1\;
and
ii. Collecting the
approved operating
parameter (if any)
data according to
Sec. 63.6625(b);
and
iii. Reducing these
data to 4-hour
rolling averages;
and
iv. Maintaining the
4-hour rolling
averages within the
operating
limitations for the
operating
parameters
established during
the performance
test.
3. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary a. Reduce CO i. Collecting the
RICE and CI stationary RICE. emissions and using monitoring data
a CEMS. according to Sec.
63.6625(a),
reducing the
measurements to 1-
hour averages,
calculating the
percent reduction
of CO emissions
according to Sec.
63.6620; and
ii. Demonstrating
that the catalyst
achieves the
required percent
reduction of CO
emissions over the
4-hour averaging
period; and
iii. Conducting an
annual RATA of your
CEMS using PS 3 and
4A of 40 CFR part
60, appendix B, as
well as daily and
periodic data
quality checks in
accordance with 40
CFR part 60,
appendix F,
procedure 1.
4. 4SRB stationary RICE..... a. Reduce i. Collecting the
formaldehyde catalyst inlet
emissions and using temperature data
NSCR. according to Sec.
63.6625(b); and
ii. Reducing these
data to 4-hour
rolling averages;
and
iii. Maintaining the
4-hour rolling
averages within the
operating
limitations for the
catalyst inlet
temperature; and
[[Page 33519]]
iv. Measuring the
pressure drop
across the catalyst
once per month and
demonstrating that
the pressure drop
across the catalyst
is within the
operating
limitation
established during
the performance
test.
5. 4SRB stationary RICE..... a. Reduce i. Collecting the
formaldehyde approved operating
emissions and not parameter (if any)
using NSCR. data according to
Sec. 63.6625(b);
and
ii. reducing these
data to 4-hour
rolling averages;
iii. Maintaining the
4-hour rolling
averages within the
operating
limitations for the
operating
parameters
established during
the performance
test.
6. 4SRB stationary RICE with Reduce formaldehyde Conducting
a brake horsepower >=5,000. emissions. semiannual
performance tests
for formaldehyde to
demonstrate that
the required
formaldehyde
percent reduction
is achieved \1\.
7. Stationary RICE.......... Limit the i. Conducting
concentration of semiannual
formaldehyde in the performance tests
stationary RICE for formaldehyde to
exhaust and using demonstrate that
oxidation catalyst your emissions
or NSCR. remain at or below
the formaldehyde
concentration limit
\1\; and
ii. Collecting the
catalyst inlet
temperature data
according to Sec.
63.6625(b); and
iii. Reducing these
data to 4-hour
rolling averages;
and
iv. Maintaining the
4-hour rolling
averages within the
operating
limitations for the
catalyst inlet
temperature; and
v. Measuring the
pressure drop
across the catalyst
once per month and
demonstrating that
the pressure drop
across the catalyst
is within the
operating
limitation
established during
the performance
test.
8. Stationary RICE.......... Limit the i. Conducting
concentration of semiannual
formaldehyde in the performance tests
stationary RICE for formaldehyde to
exhaust and not demonstrate that
using oxidation your emissions
catalyst or NSCR. remain at or below
the formaldehyde
concentration limit
\1\; and
ii. Collecting the
approved operating
parameter (if any)
data according to
Sec. 63.6625(b);
and
ii. Reducing these
data to 4-hour
rolling averages;
and
iii. Maintaining the
4-hour rolling
averages within the
operating
limitations for the
operating
parameters
established during
the performance
test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ After you have demonstrated compliance for two consecutive tests,
you may reduce the frequency of subsequent performance tests to
annually. If the results of any subsequent annual performance test
indicate the stationary RICE is not in compliance with the CO or
formaldehyde emission limitation, or you deviate from any of your
operating limitations, you must resume semiannual performance tests.
As stated in Sec. 63.6650, you must comply with the following
requirements for reports:
Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report must You must submit the
You must submit a(n) contain . . . report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report........ a. If there are no i. Semiannually
deviations from any according to the
emission requirements in
limitations or Sec. 63.6650(b).
operating
limitations that
apply to you, a
statement that
there were no
deviations from the
emission
limitations or
operating
limitations during
the reporting
period. If there
were no periods
during which the
CMS, including CEMS
and CPMS, was out-
of-control, as
specified in Sec.
63.8(c)(7), a
statement that
there were not
periods during
which the CMS was
out-of-control
during the
reporting period;
or
[[Page 33520]]
b. If you had a i. Semiannually
deviation from any according to the
emission limitation requirements in
or operating Sec. 63.6650(b).
limitation during
the reporting
period, the
information in Sec.
63.6650(d). If
there were periods
during which the
CMS, including CEMS
and CPMS, was out-
of-control, as
specified in Sec.
63.8(c)(7), the
information in Sec.
63.6650(e); or
c. If you had a i. Semiannually
startup, shutdown according to the
or malfunction requirements in
during the Sec. 63.6650(b).
reporting period,
the information in
Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i).
2. An immediate startup, a. Actions taken for i. By fax or
shutdown, and malfunction the event; and telephone within 2
report if actions working days after
addressing the startup, starting actions
shutdown, or malfunction inconsistent with
were inconsistent with your the plan.
startup, shutdown, or
malfunction plan during the
reporting period.
b. The information i. By letter within
in Sec. 7 working days
63.10(d)(5)(ii). after the end of
the event unless
you have made
alternative
arrangements with
the permitting
authorities. (Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii))
3. Report................... a. The fuel flow i. Annually,
rate of each fuel according to the
and the heating requirements in
values that were Sec. 63.6650.
used in your
calculations, and
you must
demonstrate that
the percentage of
heat input provided
by landfill gas or
digester gas, is
equivalent to 10
percent or more of
the gross heat
input on an annual
basis; and
b. The operating i. See item 3.a.i.
limits provided in
your federally
enforceable permit,
and any deviations
from these limits;
and
c. Any problems or i. See item 3.a.i.
errors suspected
with the meters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in Sec. 63.6665, you must comply with the following
applicable general provisions:
Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart ZZZZ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisions citation Subject of citation Applies to subpart Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1........................ General applicability Yes. ......................
of the General
Provisions.
Sec. 63.2........................ Definitions........... Yes........................ Additional terms
defined in Sec.
63.6675.
Sec. 63.3........................ Units and Yes. ......................
abbreviations.
Sec. 63.4........................ Prohibited activities Yes. ......................
and circumvention.
Sec. 63.5........................ Construction and Yes. ......................
reconstruction.
Sec. 63.6(a)..................... Applicability......... Yes. ......................
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4).............. Compliance dates for Yes.
new and reconstructed
sources.
Sec. 63.6(b)(5).................. Notification.......... Yes. ......................
Sec. 63.6(b)(6).................. [Reserved]. ...........................
Sec. 63.6(b)(7).................. Compliance dates for Yes.
new and reconstructed
area sources that
become major sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2).............. Compliance dates for Yes.
existing sources.
Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4).............. [Reserved]. ...........................
Sec. 63.6(c)(5).................. Compliance dates for Yes.
existing area sources
that become major
sources.
Sec. 63.6(d)..................... [Reserved]. ...........................
Sec. 63.6(e)(1).................. Operation and Yes.
maintenance.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2).................. [Reserved]. ...........................
Sec. 63.6(e)(3).................. Startup, shutdown, and Yes.
malfunction plan.
Sec. 63.6(f)(1).................. Applicability of Yes.
standards except
during startup
shutdown malfunction
(SSM).
Sec. 63.6(f)(2).................. Methods for Yes.
determining
compliance.
Sec. 63.6(f)(3).................. Finding of compliance. Yes.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3).............. Use of alternate Yes.
standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)..................... Opacity and visible No......................... Subpart ZZZZ does not
emission standards. contain opacity or
visible emission
standards.
Sec. 63.6(i)..................... Compliance extension Yes.
procedures and
criteria.
[[Page 33521]]
Sec. 63.6(j)..................... Presidential Yes.
compliance exemption.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2).............. Performance test dates Yes........................ Subpart ZZZZ contains
performance test
dates at Sec.
63.6610.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3).................. CAA section 114 Yes.
authority.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1).................. Notification of Yes.
performance test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2).................. Notification of Yes.
rescheduling.
Sec. 63.7(c)..................... Quality assurance/test Yes.
plan.
Sec. 63.7(d)..................... Testing facilities.... Yes.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1).................. Conditions for Yes.
conducting
performance tests.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2).................. Conduct of performance Yes........................ Subpart ZZZZ specifies
tests and reduction test methods at Sec.
of data. 63.6620.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3).................. Test run duration..... Yes. ......................
Sec. 63.7(e)(4).................. Administrator may Yes. ......................
require other testing
under section 114 of
the CAA.
Sec. 63.7(f)..................... Alternative test Yes. ......................
method provisions.
Sec. 63.7(g)..................... Performance test data Yes. ......................
analysis,
recordkeeping, and
reporting.
Sec. 63.7(h)..................... Waiver of tests....... Yes. ......................
Sec. 63.8(a)(1).................. Applicability of Yes........................ Subpart ZZZZ contains
monitoring specific requirements
requirements. for monitoring at
Sec. 63.6625.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2).................. Performance Yes. ......................
specifications.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3).................. [Reserved]............ ........................... ......................
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).................. Monitoring for control No. ......................
devices.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1).................. Monitoring............ Yes. ......................
Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3).............. Multiple effluents and Yes. ......................
multiple monitoring
systems.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1).................. Monitoring system Yes. ......................
operation and
maintenance.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)............... Routine and Yes. ......................
predictable SSM.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii).............. SSM not in Startup Yes. ......................
Shutdown Malfunction
Plan.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............. Compliance with Yes. ......................
operation and
maintenance
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3).............. Monitoring system Yes. ......................
installation.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).................. Continuous monitoring Yes........................ Except that subpart
system (CMS) ZZZZ does not require
requirements. Continuous Opacity
Monitoring System
(COMS).
Sec. 63.8(c)(5).................. COMS minimum No......................... Subpart ZZZZ does not
procedures. require COMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6)-(8).............. CMS requirements...... Yes........................ Except that subpart
ZZZZ does not require
COMS.
Sec. 63.8(d)..................... CMS quality control... Yes. ......................
Sec. 63.8(e)..................... CMS performance Yes........................ Except for Sec.
evaluation. 63.8(e)(5)(ii), which
applies to COMS.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5).............. Alternative monitoring Yes. ......................
method.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).................. Alternative to Yes. ......................
relative accuracy
test.
Sec. 63.8(g)..................... Data reduction........ Yes........................ Except that provisions
for COMS are not
applicable. Averaging
periods for
demonstrating
compliance are
specified at Sec.
Sec. 63.6635 and
63.6640.
Sec. 63.9(a)..................... Applicability and Yes. ......................
State delegation of
notification
requirements.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(5).............. Initial notifications. Yes........................ Except that Sec.
63.9(b)(3) is
reserved.
Sec. 63.9(c)..................... Request for compliance Yes. ......................
extension.
Sec. 63.9(d)..................... Notification of Yes. ......................
special compliance
requirements for new
sources.
Sec. 63.9(e)..................... Notification of Yes. ......................
performance test.
Sec. 63.9(f)..................... Notification of No......................... Subpart ZZZZ does not
visible emission (VE)/ contain opacity or VE
opacity test. standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1).................. Notification of Yes. ......................
performance
evaluation.
Sec. 63.9(g)(2).................. Notification of use of No......................... Subpart ZZZZ does not
COMS data. contain opacity or VE
standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(3).................. Notification that Yes........................ If alternative is in
criterion for use.
alternative to RATA
is exceeded.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(6).............. Notification of Yes........................ Except that
compliance status. notifications for
sources using a CEMS
are due 30 days after
completion of
performance
evaluations. Sec.
63.9(h)(4) is
reserved.
Sec. 63.9(i)..................... Adjustment of Yes. ......................
submittal deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j)..................... Change in previous Yes. ......................
information.
[[Page 33522]]
Sec. 63.10(a).................... Administrative Yes. ......................
provisions for record-
keeping/reporting.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................. Record retention...... Yes. ......................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v).......... Records related to SSM Yes. ......................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi)........ Records............... Yes. ......................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)............ Record when under Yes. ......................
waiver.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)........... Records when using Yes........................ For CO standard if
alternative to RATA. using RATA
alternative.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)............ Records of supporting Yes. ......................
documentation.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................. Records of Yes. ......................
applicability
determination.
Sec. 63.10(c).................... Additional records for Yes........................ Except that Sec.
sources using CEMS. 63.10(c)(2)-(4) and
(9) are reserved.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)................. General reporting Yes. ......................
requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2)................. Report of performance Yes. ......................
test results.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................. Reporting opacity or No......................... Subpart ZZZZ does not
VE observations. contain opacity or VE
standards.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................. Progress reports...... Yes. ......................
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................. Startup, shutdown, and Yes. ......................
malfunction reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1) and (2)(i)...... Additional CMS reports Yes. ......................
Sec. 63.10(e)(2)(ii)............. COMS-related report... No......................... Subpart ZZZZ does not
require COMS.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3)................. Excess emission and Yes........................ Except that Sec.
parameter exceedances 63.10(e)(3)(i)(C) is
reports. reserved.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................. Reporting COMS data... No......................... Subpart ZZZZ does not
require COMS.
Sec. 63.10(f).................... Waiver for Yes. ......................
recordkeeping/
reporting.
Sec. 63.11....................... Flares................ No. ......................
Sec. 63.12....................... State authority and Yes. ......................
delegations.
Sec. 63.13....................... Addresses............. Yes. ......................
Sec. 63.14....................... Incorporation by Yes. ......................
reference.
Sec. 63.15....................... Availability of Yes. ......................
information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 04-4816 Filed 6-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U