[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 3, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9648-9690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3508]
[[Page 9647]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 9648]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708, FRL-9115-7]
RIN 2060-AP36
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants for existing stationary compression ignition
reciprocating internal combustion engines that either are located at
area sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions or that have a site
rating of less than or equal to 500 brake horsepower and are located at
major sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions. In addition, EPA is
promulgating national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
for existing non-emergency stationary compression ignition engines
greater than 500 brake horsepower that are located at major sources of
hazardous air pollutant emissions. Finally, EPA is revising the
provisions related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction for the
engines that were regulated previously by these national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants.
DATES: This final rule is effective on May 3, 2010.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708. EPA also relies on materials in Docket ID
Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0029, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-
0030 and incorporates those dockets into the record for the final rule.
All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334, EPA West Building, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
hours of operation will be 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
(EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Melanie King, Energy Strategies
Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number (919) 541-2469; facsimile number (919) 541-5450; e-
mail address [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Information Document. On March 5,
2009 (71 FR 9698), EPA proposed national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for existing stationary reciprocating
internal combustion engines (RICE) that either are located at area
sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions or that have a site
rating of less than or equal to 500 brake horsepower (HP) and are
located at major sources of HAP emissions. In addition, EPA proposed
national emission standards for HAP for existing stationary compression
ignition (CI) engines greater than 500 brake HP that are located at
major sources. A summary of the public comments on the proposal and
EPA's responses to the comments, as well as the Regulatory Impact
Analysis Report, are available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708.
Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in the preamble.
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
C. Judicial Review
D. Why is EPA not promulgating a final decision for spark
ignition engines?
II. Background
III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What is the source category regulated by the final rule?
B. What are the pollutants regulated by the final rule?
C. What are the final requirements?
D. What are the operating limitations?
E. What are the requirements for demonstrating compliance?
F. What are the reporting and recordkeeping requirements?
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability
B. Final Emission Standards
C. Management Practices
D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
E. Other
V. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. Applicability
B. Final Emission Requirements
C. Management Practices
D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
E. Emergency Engines
F. Emissions Data
G. Final Rule Impacts
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the benefits?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy
impacts?
VII. 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 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. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS \1\ entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industry using a stationary 2211 Electric power
internal combustion engine as generation,
defined in this final rule. transmission, or
distribution.
622110 Medical and surgical
hospitals.
48621 Natural gas
transmission.
211111 Crude petroleum and
natural gas
production.
211112 Natural gas liquids
producers.
[[Page 9649]]
92811 National security.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 engine is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria of this 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.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by May
3, 2010. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to
this final rule that was 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 this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
D. Why is EPA not promulgating a final decision for spark ignition
engines?
In the notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule, published on
March 5, 2009, EPA proposed the NESHAP for all existing stationary RICE
located at area sources of HAP emissions and existing stationary RICE
that had a site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP and
located at major sources of HAP emissions. Also, EPA proposed NESHAP
for existing stationary CI engines greater than 500 brake HP located at
major sources.
During the comment period following the proposal, EPA received a
number of comments stating that EPA had insufficient emissions data for
existing spark ignition (SI) engines. Because commenters believed that
EPA had inadequate emissions data for SI engines, they suggested that
EPA should consider seeking an extension of its February 10, 2010
consent decree deadline to allow additional time for the collection of
emissions data for SI engines. Several commenters indicated that they
would work with EPA to gather the necessary test data to obtain
adequate and sufficient emissions tests for SI engines. Among other
things, the commenters noted that developing the final requirements for
SI engines later in 2010 would provide sufficient time for industry to
develop test programs, conduct testing of engines, assemble test
results, and submit the complete results to EPA for review. Other
commenters requested that EPA seek a one year extension of its consent
decree deadline for SI engines, which would mean a final rule for these
engines by February 10, 2011.
In consideration of the comments, EPA sought and obtained a six
month extension of its February 10, 2010 deadline for SI engines. EPA
maintains that this period is sufficient for the commenters to provide
additional test data for the SI engines. Thus, pursuant to the revised
consent decree between EPA and Sierra Club, EPA will finalize
requirements for existing stationary SI engines that are less than or
equal to 500 HP and located at major sources of HAP emissions and
existing stationary SI engines that are located at area sources of HAP
emissions by August 10, 2010. For these reasons, this final rule does
not contain standards for existing stationary SI engines that are less
than or equal to 500 HP and located at major sources of HAP emissions
and existing stationary SI engines that are located at area sources of
HAP emissions.
Consistent with the original consent decree, EPA is finalizing
regulations for existing stationary CI engines that are less than or
equal to 500 HP and located at major sources and existing stationary CI
engines that are located at area sources in this final rule. EPA is
also promulgating requirements for existing stationary non-emergency CI
engines that are greater than 500 HP and located at major sources.
EPA plans to continue to work with affected stakeholders over the
next several months in order to obtain more complete emissions data for
existing stationary SI engines. The emissions data collected will be
analyzed and if EPA's review indicates that the submitted data meets
acceptance criteria, EPA will include the data in developing final
standards. EPA will promulgate regulations for existing stationary SI
engines by August 10, 2010.
II. Background
This action promulgates NESHAP for existing stationary CI RICE with
a site rating of less than or equal to 500 HP located at major sources,
existing non-emergency CI engines with a site rating greater than 500
HP at major sources, and existing stationary CI RICE of any power
rating located at area sources. EPA is finalizing these standards to
meet its statutory obligation to address HAP emissions from these
sources under sections 112(d), 112(c)(3) and 112(k) of the CAA. The
final NESHAP for stationary RICE will be promulgated
[[Page 9650]]
under 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, which already contains standards
applicable to new stationary RICE and some existing stationary RICE.
EPA promulgated NESHAP for existing, new, and reconstructed
stationary RICE greater than 500 HP located at major sources on June
15, 2004 (69 FR 33474). EPA promulgated NESHAP for new and
reconstructed stationary RICE that are located at area sources of HAP
emissions and for new and reconstructed stationary RICE that have a
site rating of less than or equal to 500 HP that are located at major
sources of HAP emissions on January 18, 2008 (73 FR 3568). At that
time, EPA did not promulgate final requirements for existing stationary
RICE that are located at area sources of HAP emissions or for existing
stationary RICE that have a site rating of less than or equal to 500 HP
that are located at major sources of HAP emissions. Although EPA
proposed standards for these sources, EPA did not finalize these
standards due to comments received indicating that the proposed Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) determinations for existing
sources were inappropriate because of a decision by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 13, 2007, which
vacated EPA's MACT standards for the Brick and Structural Clay Products
Manufacturing source category (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ). Sierra
Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (DC Cir. 2007). Among other things, the DC
Circuit found that EPA's no emission reduction MACT determination in
the challenged rule was unlawful. Because EPA had used a MACT floor
methodology in the proposed stationary RICE rule similar to the
methodology used in the Brick MACT, EPA decided to re-evaluate the MACT
floors for existing major sources that have a site rating of less than
or equal to 500 brake HP consistent with the Court's decision in the
Brick MACT case. Also, EPA has re-evaluated the standards for existing
area sources in light of the comments received on the proposed rule.
In addition, stakeholders have encouraged the Agency to review
whether there are further ways to reduce emissions of pollutants from
existing stationary diesel engines. In its comments on EPA's 2005
proposed rule for new stationary diesel engines (70 FR 39870), the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) suggested several possible avenues for
the regulation of existing stationary diesel engines, including use of
diesel oxidation catalysts or catalyzed diesel particulate filters
(CDPF), as well as the use of ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel. EDF
suggested that such controls can provide significant pollution
reductions at reasonable cost. EPA issued an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) in January 2008, where it solicited comment on
several issues concerning options to regulate emissions of pollutants
from existing stationary diesel engines, generally, and specifically
from larger, older stationary diesel engines. EPA solicited comment and
collected information to aid decision-making related to the reduction
of HAP emissions from existing stationary diesel engines and
specifically from larger, older engines under CAA section 112
authorities. The Agency sought comment on the larger, older non-
emergency CI engines because available data indicate that those engines
emit the majority of particulate matter (PM) and toxic emissions from
non-emergency stationary CI engines as a whole. A summary of comments
and responses that were received on the ANPRM is included in docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0995. EPA proposed and is finalizing emissions
reductions from existing non-emergency stationary diesel engines at
major sources that have a site rating greater than 500 HP.
This action also revises the provisions of the existing NESHAP as
it applies to periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. This
revision affects all stationary engines regulated in this NESHAP,
including stationary engines that were regulated by the 2004 and 2008
NESHAP. The revision of these provisions is a result of a Court
decision that invalidated regulations related to startup, shutdown and
malfunction in the General Provisions of Part 63 (Sierra Club v. EPA,
551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008)).
III. Summary of the Final Rule
A. What is the source category regulated by the final rule?
This final rule addresses emissions from existing stationary CI
engines less than or equal to 500 HP located at major sources and all
existing stationary CI engines located at area sources. This final rule
also addresses emissions from existing stationary non-emergency CI
engines greater than 500 HP at major sources. A major source of HAP
emissions is generally a stationary source 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. An area source of HAP emissions is a
source that is not a major source.
This action revises the regulations at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
ZZZZ, currently applicable to new and reconstructed stationary RICE and
to existing stationary RICE greater than 500 HP located at major
sources. Through this action, we are adding to subpart ZZZZ
requirements for: Existing CI stationary RICE less than or equal to 500
HP located at major sources and existing CI stationary RICE located at
area sources.
1. Stationary CI RICE <=500 HP at Major Sources
This action revises 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, to address HAP
emissions from existing stationary CI RICE less than or equal to 500 HP
located at major sources. For stationary engines less than or equal to
500 HP at major sources, EPA must determine what is the appropriate
MACT for those engines under sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) of the CAA.
EPA has divided stationary CI RICE into emergency and non-emergency
engines in order to capture the unique differences between these types
of engines.
2. Stationary CI RICE at Area Sources
This action revises 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ, in order to
address HAP emissions from existing stationary RICE located at area
sources. Section 112(d) of the CAA requires EPA to establish NESHAP for
both major and area sources of HAP that are listed for regulation under
CAA section 112(c). As noted above, an area source is a stationary
source that is not a major source.
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least
30 HAP that, as a result of emissions of area sources, pose the
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas.
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air
Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the
Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health
threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban
HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) of the CAA requires EPA to list sufficient
categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources
representing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are
subject to regulation. EPA implemented these requirements through the
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). The
area source stationary engine source category was one of the listed
categories. A primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent
reduction in cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from
stationary sources.
[[Page 9651]]
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), EPA may elect to promulgate standards
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of
generally available control technologies or management practices by
such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.''
Additional information on generally available control technologies
(GACT) and management practices is found in the Senate report on the
legislation (Senate report Number 101-228, December 20, 1989), which
describes GACT as:
* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.
Consistent with the legislative history, EPA can consider costs and
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important
when developing regulations for source categories, like this one, that
have many small businesses.
Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control
technologies and management practices that are generally available to
the area sources in the source category. EPA also considers the
standards applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to
determine if the control technologies and management practices are
transferable and generally available to area sources. In appropriate
circumstances, EPA may also consider technologies and practices at area
and major sources in similar categories to determine whether such
technologies and practices could be considered generally available for
the area source category at issue. Finally, as EPA has already noted,
in determining GACT for a particular area source category, EPA
considers the costs and economic impacts of available control
technologies and management practices on that category.
The urban HAP that must be regulated at stationary RICE to achieve
the CAA section 112(c)(3) requirement to regulate categories accounting
for 90 percent of the urban HAP are: 7 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH), formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, beryllium
compounds, and cadmium compounds. As explained below, EPA chose to
select formaldehyde to serve as a surrogate for HAP emissions.
Formaldehyde is the hazardous air pollutant present in the highest
concentration from stationary engines. In addition, emissions data show
that formaldehyde emission levels are related to other HAP emission
levels. EPA has previously demonstrated that carbon monoxide (CO) is an
appropriate surrogate for formaldehyde and is consequently finalizing
emission standards in terms of CO for existing stationary CI RICE at
area sources.
Consistent with existing stationary CI RICE at major sources, EPA
has also divided the existing stationary CI RICE at area sources into
emergency and non-emergency engines in order to properly take into
account the differences between these engines.
3. Stationary CI RICE > 500 HP at Major Sources
In addition, EPA is finalizing emission standards for non-emergency
stationary CI engines greater than 500 HP at major sources.
B. What are the pollutants regulated by the final rule?
The final rule regulates emissions of HAP. Available emissions data
show that several HAP, which are formed during the combustion process
or which are contained within the fuel burned, are emitted from
stationary engines. The HAP which have been measured in emission tests
conducted on diesel fired stationary RICE include: 1, 3-butadiene,
acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, n-hexane,
naphthalene, PAH, polycyclic organic matter, styrene, toluene, and
xylene. Metallic HAP from diesel fired stationary RICE that have been
measured include: Cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel,
and selenium.
EPA described the health effects of these HAP and other HAP emitted
from the operation of stationary RICE in the preamble to 40 CFR part
63, subpart ZZZZ, published on June 15, 2004 (69 FR 33474). More detail
on the health effects of these HAP and other HAP emitted from the
operation of stationary RICE can be found in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) for the final rule. These HAP emissions are known to
cause, or contribute significantly to air pollution, which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
The final rule will limit emissions of HAP through emissions
standards for CO for existing stationary CI RICE. Carbon monoxide has
been shown to be an appropriate surrogate for HAP emissions from CI
engines. For the NESHAP promulgated in 2004, EPA found that there is a
relationship between CO emissions reductions and HAP emissions
reductions from CI stationary engines. Therefore, because testing for
CO emissions has many advantages over testing for HAP emissions, CO
emissions were chosen as a surrogate for HAP emissions reductions for
CI stationary engines.
For the standards being finalized in this action, EPA believes that
previous decisions regarding the appropriateness of using CO in
concentration (parts per million (ppm)) levels as has been done for
stationary sources before as surrogates for HAP are still valid.\1\
Consequently, EPA is finalizing emission standards for CO for
stationary CI engines in order to regulate HAP emissions. In addition,
EPA is promulgating separate provisions relevant to emissions of
metallic HAP from existing diesel engines, as discussed in section
III.C. of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In contrast, mobile source emission standards for diesel
engines (both nonroad and on-highway) are promulgated on a mass/bhp-
hr basis rather than concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to reducing HAP and CO, the final rule will result in
the reduction of PM emissions from existing stationary diesel engines.
The aftertreatment technologies expected to be used to reduce HAP and
CO emissions also reduce emissions of PM from diesel engines. Also, the
final rule requires the use of ULSD for diesel-fueled stationary non-
emergency CI engines greater than 300 HP with a displacement of less
than 30 liters per cylinder. This will result in lower emissions of
sulfur oxides (SOX) and sulfate particulate from these
engines by reducing the sulfur content in the fuel.
C. What are the final requirements?
1. Existing Stationary RICE at Major Sources.
The numerical emission standards that are being finalized in this
action for stationary non-emergency CI RICE located at major sources
are shown in Table 1 of this preamble. The numerical emission standards
are in units of ppm by volume, dry basis (ppmvd) or percent reduction.
[[Page 9652]]
Table 1--Numerical Emission Standards for Existing Stationary CI RICE
Located at Major Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except during periods of
Subcategory startup
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emergency CI 100<=HP<=300.......... 230 ppmvd CO at 15% O2.
Non-Emergency CI 300500 HP............... 23 ppmvd CO at 15% O2 or 70% CO
reduction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, certain existing stationary RICE located at major
sources are subject to fuel requirements. Owners and operators of
existing stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than 300 HP with a
displacement of less than 30 liters per cylinder located at major
sources that use diesel fuel must use only diesel fuel meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b). This section requires that diesel
fuel have a maximum sulfur content of 15 ppm and either a minimum
cetane index of 40 or a maximum aromatic content of 35 volume percent.
These fuel requirements are being finalized in order to reduce the
potential formation of sulfate compounds that are emitted when high
sulfur diesel fuel is used in combination with oxidation catalysts and
to assist in the efficient operation of the oxidation catalysts.
EPA is finalizing work practice standards for existing stationary
emergency CI RICE less than or equal to 500 HP located at major sources
and existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE less than 100 HP located
at major sources. Existing stationary emergency CI RICE less than or
equal to 500 HP located at major sources are subject to the following
work practices:
Change oil and filter every 500 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first, except that sources can extend the
period for changing the oil if the oil is part of an oil analysis
program as discussed below and none of the condemning limits are
exceeded;
Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first; and
Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours of operation
or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as necessary.
Existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE less than 100 HP located at
major sources are subject to the following work practices:
Change oil and filter every 1,000 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first, except that sources can extend the
period for changing the oil if the oil is part of an oil analysis
program as discussed below and none of the condemning limits are
exceeded;
Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first; and
Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours or annually,
whichever comes first, and replace as necessary.
Sources also have the option to use an oil change analysis program to
extend the oil change frequencies specified above. The analysis program
must at a minimum analyze the following three parameters: Total Base
Number, viscosity, and percent water content. The analysis must be
conducted at the same frequencies specified for changing the engine
oil. If the condemning limits provided below are not exceeded, the
engine owner or operator is not required to change the oil. If any of
the condemning limits are exceeded, the engine owner or operator must
change the oil before continuing to use the engine. The condemning
limits are as follows:
Total Base Number is less than 30 percent of the Total
Base Number of the oil when new; or
Viscosity of the oil has changed by more than 20 percent
from the viscosity of the oil when new; or
Percent water content (by volume) is greater than 0.5.
Pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR 63.6(g), sources can also
request that the Administrator approve alternative work practices.
EPA is also including in the final rule additional capture and
collection requirements to reduce metallic HAP emissions. Owners and
operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than
300 HP located at major sources must do one of the following if the
engine is not already equipped with a closed crankcase ventilation
system: (1) Install a closed crankcase ventilation system that prevents
crankcase emissions from being emitted to the atmosphere, or (2)
install an open crankcase filtration emission control system that
reduces emissions from the crankcase by filtering the exhaust stream to
remove oil mist, particulates, and metals.
2. Existing Stationary RICE at Area Sources
The numerical emission standards that are being finalized in this
action for stationary CI RICE located at area sources are shown in
Table 2 of this preamble. Existing stationary emergency engines at area
sources located at residential, commercial, or institutional facilities
are not part of the source category and therefore are not subject to
any requirements under this final rule.
Although existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE greater than 300
HP that are located at area sources in Alaska that are not accessible
by the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS) do not have to meet the CO
emission standards specified in Table 2 of this preamble, they must
meet the management practices discussed in this section for non-
emergency CI RICE less than or equal to 300 HP.
Table 2--Numerical Emission Standards for Existing Stationary RICE
Located at Area Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except during periods of
Subcategory startup
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Emergency CI 300500 HP................ 23 ppmvd CO at 15% O2 or 70% CO
reduction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI
engines greater than 300 HP with a displacement of less than 30 liters
per cylinder located at area sources that use diesel fuel must use only
diesel fuel meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 80.510(b). This section
requires that diesel fuel have a maximum sulfur content of 15 ppm and
either a minimum cetane index of 40 or a maximum aromatic content of 35
volume percent.
[[Page 9653]]
EPA is finalizing management practices for existing stationary
emergency CI RICE located at area sources and existing stationary non-
emergency CI RICE less than or equal to 300 HP located at area sources.
Existing stationary emergency CI RICE located at area sources are
subject to the following management practices:
Change oil and filter every 500 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first, except that sources can extend the
period for changing the oil if the oil is part of an oil analysis
program as discussed below and the condemning limits are not exceeded;
Inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first; and
Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours of operation
or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as necessary.
Existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE less than or equal to 300 HP
located at area sources are subject to the following management
practices:
Change oil and filter every 1,000 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first, except that sources can extend the
period for changing the oil if the oil is part of an oil analysis
program as discussed below and the condemning limits are not exceeded;
Inspect air cleaner every 1000 hours of operation or
annually, whichever comes first; and
Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours or annually,
whichever comes first, and replace as necessary.
As discussed above for major sources, these sources may utilize an oil
analysis program in order to extend the specified oil change
requirement specified above. Also, sources have the option to work with
State permitting authorities pursuant to EPA's regulations at 40 CFR
subpart E (``Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal
Authorities'') for approval of alternative management practices.
Subpart E implements section 112(l) of the CAA, which authorizes EPA to
approve alternative State/local/Tribal HAP standards or programs when
such requirements are demonstrated to be no less stringent than EPA
promulgated standards.
Finally, in order to reduce metallic HAP emissions, existing
stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than 300 HP located at area
sources must do one of the following if the engine is not already
equipped with a closed crankcase ventilation system: (1) Install a
closed crankcase ventilation system that prevents crankcase emissions
from being emitted to the atmosphere, or (2) install an open crankcase
filtration emission control system that reduces emissions from the
crankcase by filtering the exhaust stream to remove oil mist,
particulates, and metals.
3. Startup Requirements
The following stationary engines are subject to specific
operational standards during engine startup:
Existing CI RICE less than or equal to 500 HP located at
major sources,
Existing non-emergency CI RICE greater than 500 HP located
at major sources,
Existing CI RICE located at area sources,
New or reconstructed non-emergency two-stroke lean burn
(2SLB) >500 HP located at a major source of HAP emissions,
New or reconstructed non-emergency four-stroke lean burn
(4SLB) >=250 HP located at a major source of HAP emissions,
Existing non-emergency four-stroke rich burn (4SRB) >500
HP located at a major source of HAP emissions,
New or reconstructed non-emergency 4SRB >500 HP located at
a major source of HAP emissions, and
New or reconstructed non-emergency CI >500 HP located at a
major source of HAP emissions.
Engine startup is defined as the time from initial start until applied
load and engine and associated equipment reaches steady state or normal
operation. For stationary engines with catalytic controls, engine
startup means the time from initial start until applied load and engine
and associated equipment reaches steady state, or normal operation,
including the catalyst. Owners and operators must minimize the engine's
time spent at idle and minimize the engine's startup to a period needed
for appropriate and safe loading of the engine, not to exceed 30
minutes, after which time the engine must meet the otherwise applicable
emission standards. These requirements will limit the HAP emissions
during periods of engine startup. Pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR
63.6(g), engines at major sources may petition the Administrator for an
alternative work practice. An owner or operator of an engine at an area
source can work with its State permitting authority pursuant to EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR subpart E for approval of an alternative
management practice. See 40 CFR Subpart E (setting forth requirements
for, among other things, equivalency by permit, rule substitution).
D. What are the operating limitations?
In addition to the standards discussed above, EPA is finalizing
operating limitations for stationary non-emergency CI RICE that are
greater than 500 HP. Owners and operators of engines that are equipped
with oxidation catalyst must 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 that was measured during the
initial performance test. Owners and operators of these engines must
also maintain the temperature of the stationary RICE exhaust so that
the catalyst inlet temperature is between 450 and 1350 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F). Owners and operators may petition for a different
temperature range; the petition must demonstrate why it is
operationally necessary and appropriate to operate below the
temperature range specified in the rule (see 40 CFR 63.8(f)). Owners
and operators of engines that are not using oxidation catalyst must
comply with any operating limitations approved by the Administrator.
Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI
engines greater than 300 HP meeting the requirement to use open or
closed crankcases must follow the manufacturer's specified maintenance
requirements for operating and maintaining the open or closed crankcase
ventilation systems and replacing the crankcase filters, or can request
the Administrator to approve different maintenance requirements that
are as protective as manufacturer requirements.
E. What are the requirements for demonstrating compliance?
The following sections describe the requirements for demonstrating
compliance under the final rule.
1. Existing Stationary CI RICE at Major Sources
Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE
located at major sources that are less than 100 HP and stationary
emergency CI RICE located at major sources must operate and maintain
their stationary RICE and aftertreatment control device (if any)
according to the manufacturer's emission-related written instructions
or develop their own maintenance plan. Owners and operators of existing
stationary non-emergency CI RICE located at major sources that are less
than 100 HP and existing stationary emergency CI RICE located at major
sources do not have to conduct any
[[Page 9654]]
performance testing because they are not subject to numerical emission
standards.
Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE
located at major sources that are greater than or equal to 100 HP and
less than or equal to 500 HP must conduct an initial performance test
to demonstrate that they are achieving the required emission standards.
Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE
greater than 500 HP located at major sources must conduct an initial
performance test and must test every 8,760 hours of operation or 3
years, whichever comes first, to demonstrate that they are achieving
the required emission standards.
Owners and operators of stationary non-emergency CI RICE that are
greater than 500 HP and are located at a major source must continuously
monitor and record the catalyst inlet temperature if an oxidation
catalyst is being used on the engine. The pressure drop across the
catalyst must also be measured monthly. If an oxidation catalyst is not
being used on the engine, the owner or operator must continuously
monitor and record the operating parameters (if any) approved by the
Administrator.
On October 9, 2008 (73 FR 59956), EPA proposed performance
specification requirements for continuous parametric monitoring systems
(CPMS). Currently there are no performance specifications for the CPMS
that are required for continuously monitoring the catalyst inlet
temperature. The timetable for finalizing the proposed performance
specification requirements is uncertain; therefore, EPA plans to
finalize performance specification requirements in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart ZZZZ for the CPMS systems used for continuous catalyst inlet
temperature monitoring when the final requirements are promulgated for
existing SI engines in August 2010.
2. Existing Stationary RICE at Area Sources
Owners and operators of existing stationary RICE located at area
sources that are subject to management practices, as shown in Table 2
of this preamble, must develop a maintenance plan that specifies how
the management practices will be met. Owners and operators of existing
stationary RICE that are subject to management practices do not have to
conduct any performance testing.
Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE
greater than 300 HP that are located at area sources must conduct an
initial performance test to demonstrate that they are achieving the
required emission standards.
Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE
that are greater than 500 HP and located at area sources and are not
limited use stationary RICE must conduct an initial performance test
and must test every 8,760 hours of operation or 3 years, whichever
comes first, to demonstrate that they are achieving the required
emission standards. Owners and operators of existing stationary non-
emergency CI RICE that are greater than 500 HP and located at area
sources and are limited use stationary RICE must conduct an initial
performance test and must test every 8,760 hours of operation or 5
years, whichever comes first, to demonstrate that they are achieving
the required emission standards.
Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE
that are greater than 500 HP and are located at an area source must
continuously monitor and record the catalyst inlet temperature if an
oxidation catalyst is being used on the engine. The pressure drop
across the catalyst must also be measured monthly. If an oxidation
catalyst is not being used on the engine, the owner or operator must
continuously monitor and record the operating parameters (if any)
approved by the Administrator.
F. What are the reporting and recordkeeping requirements?
The following sections describe the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements that are required under the final rule.
Owners and operators of existing stationary emergency RICE that do
not meet the requirements for non-emergency engines are required to
keep records of their hours of operation. Owners and operators of
existing stationary emergency RICE must install a non-resettable hour
meter on their engines to record the hours of operation of the engine.
Emergency stationary RICE may be operated for the purpose of
maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the tests are
recommended by the Federal, State or local government, the
manufacturer, the vendor, or the insurance company associated with the
engine. Maintenance checks and readiness testing of such units are
limited to 100 hours per year. There is no time limit on the use of
emergency stationary engines in emergency situations; however, the
owner or operator is required to record the length of operation and the
reason the engine was in operation during that time. Records must be
maintained documenting why the engine was operating to ensure the 100
hours per year limit for maintenance and testing operation is not
exceeded. In addition, owners and operators are allowed to operate
their stationary emergency RICE for non-emergency purposes for 50 hours
per year, but those 50 hours are counted towards the total 100 hours
provided for operation other than for true emergencies. The 50 hours
per year for non-emergency purposes cannot be used to generate income
for a facility, for example, to supply power to an electric grid or
otherwise supply power as part of a financial arrangement with another
entity. However, owners and operators may operate the emergency engine
for a maximum of 15 hours per year as part of a demand response program
if the regional transmission organization or equivalent balancing
authority and transmission operator has determined there are emergency
conditions that could lead to a potential electrical blackout, for
example unusually low frequency, equipment overload, capacity or energy
deficiency, or unacceptable voltage level. The engine may not be
operated for more than 30 minutes prior to the time when the emergency
condition is expected to occur, and the engine operation must be
terminated immediately after the facility is notified that the
emergency condition is no longer imminent. The 15 hours per year of
demand response operation are counted as part of the 50 hours of
operation per year provided for non-emergency situations. Owners and
operators must keep records showing how they were notified of the
emergency condition and by whom, and the time that the engine was
operated as part of demand response.
Owners and operators of existing stationary CI RICE located at area
sources that are subject to management practices as shown in Table 2 of
this preamble are required to keep records that show that management
practices that are required are being met. These records must include,
at a minimum: Oil and filter change dates and corresponding hour on the
hour meter; inspection and replacement dates for air cleaners, hoses,
and belts; and records of other emission-related repairs and
maintenance performed.
Owners and operators of existing non-emergency stationary CI RICE
greater than 300 HP must keep records of the manufacturer's recommended
maintenance procedures for the closed crankcase ventilation system or
open crankcase filtration system and records of the maintenance
performed on the system.
[[Page 9655]]
In terms of reporting requirements, owners and operators of
existing stationary RICE, except stationary RICE that are less than 100
HP, existing emergency stationary RICE, and existing stationary RICE
that are not subject to numerical emission standards, 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, and a notification of
compliance for each stationary RICE which must comply with the
specified emission limitations.
IV. 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 preamble to the proposed rule is not repeated in the final rule,
and the rationale sections of the rule, as proposed, should be referred
to. Major changes that have been made to the rule since proposal are
discussed in this section with rationale following in the Summary of
Responses to Major Comments section.
A. Applicability
EPA proposed to regulate HAP emissions from existing stationary
engines less than or equal to 500 HP located at major sources and all
existing stationary engines located at area sources. EPA also proposed
NESHAP for existing stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than
500 HP that are located at major sources.
In the final rule, EPA is only regulating HAP emissions from
existing stationary CI engines. EPA will address HAP emissions from
existing stationary SI engines in a separate rulemaking later this
year.
Another change from the proposal is that the final rule is not
applicable to existing stationary emergency engines at area sources
that are located at residential, commercial, or institutional
facilities. These engines are not subject to any requirements under the
final rule because they are not part of the regulated source category.
EPA has found that existing stationary emergency engines located at
residential, commercial, and institutional facilities that are area
sources were not included in the original Urban Air Toxics Strategy
inventory and were not included in the listing of urban area sources.
More information on this issue can be found in the memorandum entitled,
``Analysis of the Types of Engines Used to Estimate the CAA Section
112(k) Area Source Inventory for Stationary Reciprocating Internal
Combustion Engines,'' available from the rulemaking docket.
B. Final Emission Standards
1. Existing Stationary CI Engines <100 HP Located at Major Sources
For the proposed rule, EPA required existing stationary engines
less than 50 HP that are located at major sources to meet a
formaldehyde emission standard. EPA is not finalizing a formaldehyde
emission standard for stationary CI engines less than 50 HP, but is
instead requiring compliance with a work practice. In addition, in
light of several comments asserting that the level at which we
subcategorized small engines at major sources was inappropriate, EPA is
finalizing a work practice standard for engines less than 100 HP.
In the proposed rule, existing stationary CI engines less than 100
HP located at major sources were required to meet a 40 ppmvd CO at 15
percent oxygen (O2) standard. In the final rule, all
existing stationary CI engines less than 100 HP located at major
sources must meet work practices. These work practices are described in
section III.C. of this preamble. EPA believes that work practices are
appropriate and justified for this group of stationary engines because
the application of measurement methodology is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations. Further information on EPA's
decision can be found in section V.B. below and in the memorandum
entitled, ``MACT Floor Determination for Existing Stationary Non-
Emergency CI RICE Less Than 100 HP and Existing Stationary Emergency CI
RICE Located at Major Sources and GACT for Existing Stationary CI RICE
Located at Area Sources,'' which is available from the rulemaking
docket.
2. Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI Engines 100<=HP<=300
EPA is finalizing a CO emission standard for existing stationary
non-emergency CI engines greater than or equal to 100 HP and less than
or equal to 300 HP located at major sources of 230 ppmvd CO at 15
percent O2 standard. EPA revised the proposed CO standard
for this group of engines based on additional information and data
received after the proposal, which led to a reevaluation of the MACT
floor for these stationary engines. A discussion of the final MACT
floor determination can be found in the memo entitled ``MACT Floor and
MACT Determination for Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI RICE
Greater Than or Equal to 100 HP Located at Major Sources,'' which is
available from the rulemaking docket. All existing stationary CI
engines less than or equal to 300 HP located at area sources, both
emergency and non-emergency, are subject to management practice
standards under the final rule, as was proposed.
3. Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI Engines >300 HP
EPA proposed that existing stationary non-emergency CI engines
greater than 300 HP meet a 4 ppmvd CO at 15 percent O2
standard or a 90 percent CO reduction standard. Numerous commenters
indicated that EPA's dataset was insufficient and urged EPA to gather
more data to obtain a more complete representation of emissions from
existing stationary CI engines. Commenters also questioned the emission
standard setting approach that EPA used at proposal and claimed that
the proposed standards did not take into account emissions variability
and may not be achievable. For the final rule EPA has obtained
additional test data for existing stationary CI engines and has
included this additional data in the MACT floor analysis. EPA is also
using an approach that better considers emissions variability, as
discussed in V.B. below.
In the final rule, EPA is providing owners and operators the option
of meeting either a CO concentration or a CO percent reduction
standard. Owners and operators of existing stationary non-emergency CI
engines greater than 300 HP and less than or equal to 500 HP located at
major and area sources must either reduce CO emissions by at least 70
percent or limit the concentration of CO in the engine exhaust to 49
ppmvd, at 15 percent O2. Owners and operators of existing
stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than 500 HP located at
major and area sources must either reduce CO emissions by at least 70
percent or limit the concentration of CO in the engine exhaust to 23
ppmvd, at 15 percent O2. EPA's review of the data indicate
that it is appropriate to base the MACT standard on a reduction level
of 70 percent, which takes into account the variability of the emission
reduction efficiency of aftertreatment under various operational
conditions.
4. Existing Stationary Emergency CI Engines 100<=HP<=500 Located at
Major Sources
For existing stationary emergency engines located at major sources,
we proposed that these engines be subject to a 40 ppmvd CO at 15
percent O2 standard. In the final rule, existing stationary
emergency CI engines greater than or equal to 100 HP and less than
[[Page 9656]]
or equal to 500 HP and located at major sources must meet work
practices. These work practices are described in section III.C. of this
preamble. EPA believes that work practices are appropriate and
justified for this group of stationary engines because the application
of measurement methodology is not practicable due to technological and
economic limitations. Further information on EPA's decision can be
found in the memorandum entitled ``MACT Floor Determination for
Existing Stationary Non-Emergency CI RICE Less Than 100 HP and Existing
Stationary Emergency CI RICE Located at Major Sources and GACT for
Existing Stationary CI RICE Located at Area Sources,'' which is
available from the rulemaking docket.
5. Existing Stationary Emergency CI Engines >500 HP Located at Area
Sources
For existing stationary emergency engines located at area sources,
EPA reevaluated the information available for emergency engines and
considered extensive input received from industry and other groups who
asserted that the proposed standards were not GACT for emergency
engines at area sources. In the final rule, as discussed below in
section V.B., all existing stationary emergency CI engines located at
area sources must meet management practice standards.
C. Management Practices
EPA proposed management practices for several subcategories of
engines located at area sources. EPA explained that the proposed
management practices would be expected to ensure that emission control
systems are working properly and would help minimize HAP emissions from
the engines. EPA proposed specific maintenance practices and asked for
comments on the need and appropriateness for those procedures. Based on
feedback received during the public comment period, which included
information submitted in comment letters and additional information EPA
received following the close of the comment period from different
industry groups, EPA is finalizing management practices for existing
stationary non-emergency CI engines less than or equal to 300 HP
located at area sources and all existing emergency stationary CI
engines located at area sources.
Existing stationary non-emergency CI engines less than or equal to
300 HP located at area sources are required to change the oil and
filter every 1,000 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes
first, inspect air cleaner every 1,000 hours of operation or annually,
whichever comes first, and inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours
of operation or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as
necessary. Existing emergency stationary CI engines located at area
sources are required under the final rule to change the oil and filter
every 500 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes first,
inspect air cleaner every 1000 hours of operation or annually,
whichever comes first, and inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours
of operation or annually, whichever comes first, and replace as
necessary. EPA is adding an option for sources to use an oil change
analysis program to extend the oil change frequencies specified above.
The analysis program must at a minimum analyze the following three
parameters: Total Base Number, viscosity, and percent water content. If
the condemning limits provided below are not exceeded, the engine owner
or operator is not required to change the oil. If any of the limits are
exceeded, the engine owner or operator must change the oil before
continuing to use the engine. The condemning limits are as follows:
Total Base Number is less than 30 percent of the Total
Base Number of the oil when new; or
Viscosity of the oil has changed by more than 20 percent
from the viscosity of the oil when new; or
Percent water content (by volume) is greater than 0.5.
Owners and operators of all engines subject to management practices
also have the option to work with State permitting authorities pursuant
to EPA's regulations at 40 CFR subpart E for alternative maintenance
practices to be used instead of the specific maintenance practices
promulgated in this rule. The maintenance practices must be at least as
stringent as those specified in the final rule.
The final rule specifies that in situations where an emergency
engine is operating during an emergency and it is not possible to shut
down the engine in order to perform the work or management practice
requirements on the schedule required in the final rule, or if
performing the work or management practice on the required schedule
would otherwise pose an unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or
local law, the maintenance activity can be delayed until the emergency
is over or the unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or local law has
abated. The maintenance should be performed as soon as practicable
after the emergency has ended or the unacceptable risk under Federal,
State, or local law has abated. Sources must report any failure to
perform the work practice on the schedule required and the Federal,
State or local law under which the risk was deemed unacceptable.
D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
EPA proposed formaldehyde and CO emission standards for existing
stationary engines at major sources to apply during periods of startup
and malfunction. EPA also proposed certain standards for existing
stationary engines at area sources that would apply during startup and
malfunction. Based on various comments and concerns with the proposed
emission standards for periods of startup, EPA has determined that it
is not feasible to finalize numerical emission standards that would
apply during startup because the application of measurement methodology
to this operation is not practicable due to technological and economic
limitations, as discussed in detail in section V.D.
As a result, EPA is promulgating operational standards during
startup that specify that owners and operators must limit the engine
startup time to no more than 30 minutes and must minimize the engine's
time spent at idle during startup. Based on information reviewed by
EPA, engine startup typically requires no more than 30 minutes. We
received comments indicating that there are conditions where it may
take more than 30 minutes to startup the engine, for example for cold
starts or where the ambient conditions are very cold. However,
commenters did not provide enough specificity in their comments, nor
did commenters provide data, to determine whether any scenarios were
appropriate to allow a longer startup period. Owners and operators of
engines at major sources have the option to petition the Administrator
pursuant to 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices. Any petition
must be based on specific factual information indicating the reason the
alternative work practice is necessary for that engine and is no less
stringent than startup requirements in the rule. An owner or operator
of an engine at an area source can work with its State permitting
authority pursuant to EPA's regulations at 40 CFR subpart E for
approval of an alternative management practice, based on specific
factual information indicating the reason that an alternative
management practice is necessary for that engine. Such alternative
management practice must be demonstrated to be no less
[[Page 9657]]
stringent than EPA promulgated standards.
As discussed further below, in section V.D., EPA is not setting
separate standards for malfunctions in this rule. Therefore, the
standards that apply during normal operation also apply during
malfunction. EPA believes that any emissions occurring during a
malfunction would be of such a short duration compared to the emissions
averaged during overall testing time (three one-hour runs) that the
engine would still be able to comply with the emission standard. In
addition, EPA does not view malfunction as a distinct operating mode
and, therefore, any emissions that occur at such times do not need to
be taken into account in setting CAA section 112(d) standards. Further,
as is explained in more detail in Section V.D. below, even if
malfunctions were considered a distinct operating mode, we believe it
would be impracticable to take into account malfunctions in setting CAA
section 112(d) standards.
E. Other
EPA is including an additional requirement in the final rule that
will reduce metallic HAP emissions. Owners and operators of existing
stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than 300 HP must do one of
the following if the engine is not already equipped with a closed
crankcase ventilation system: (1) Install a closed crankcase
ventilation system that prevents crankcase emissions from being emitted
to the atmosphere, or (2) install an open crankcase filtration emission
control system that reduces the crankcase emissions by filtering the
exhaust stream to remove oil mist, particulates, and metals. Owners and
operators must follow the manufacturer's specified maintenance
requirements for operating and maintaining the open or closed crankcase
ventilation systems and replacing the crankcase filters, or can request
the Administrator to approve different maintenance requirements that
are as protective as manufacturer requirements.
EPA is including special provisions in the final rule for existing
stationary non-emergency CI RICE greater than 300 HP located at area
sources in Alaska not accessible by the FAHS. Owners and operators of
these engines do not have to meet the CO emission standards specified
in Table 2 of this preamble, but must instead meet the management
practices that are described for stationary non-emergency CI RICE less
than or equal to 300 HP in section III.C. of this preamble.
The final rule specifies that stationary CI engines that are used
to startup combustion turbines should meet the same requirements as
stationary emergency CI engines.
V. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A more detailed summary of comments and EPA's responses can be
found in the document entitled ``Response to Public Comments on
Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Existing Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines Located
at Area Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions or Have a Site
Rating Less Than or Equal to 500 Brake HP Located at Major Sources of
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions,'' which is available from the
rulemaking docket (see ADDRESSES section).
A. Applicability
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed concern over EPA's decision
to not distinguish between rural and urban engines at area sources in
the proposed rule. Several commenters requested that EPA reevaluate its
congressional authority to regulate area HAP sources in rural areas.
The commenters believed that the proposal is inconsistent with 42
U.S.C. 7412(n)(4)(B) [CAA section 112(n)(4)(B)]. Commenters requested
clarification of EPA's rationale to regulate low levels of emissions
from engines at oil and gas production facilities outside metropolitan
areas, contending that EPA has applied this rule more broadly than the
Congressional intent of the CAA, and requested that EPA reevaluate this
issue of whether EPA can regulate rural area sources in light of the 42
U.S.C. 7412(n)(4)(B) language.
Commenters stated that EPA has based this rulemaking for area
sources on sections of the CAA and its Urban Air Toxics Strategy that
are intended to remove threats to public health in urban areas. The
commenters do not believe that the remote RICE at area sources in the
oil and gas industry threaten public health in urban areas. Several
commenters noted that the NESHAP for glycol gas dehydrators (40 CFR
part 63, subpart HH) takes into account the location of area sources
and does not apply the specific requirements of the rule to rural area
sources. The commenters believe that the same approach should be used
for the RICE rule, i.e., engines that are not located in or near
populated areas should be exempt or subject to an alternative set of
requirements so as not to force expensive requirements on remote
engines that have no impact on public health.
One commenter on behalf of the agricultural industry expressed that
the operational area of these engines has not been studied to evaluate
the environmental benefit obtained in congested areas as compared to
open agricultural locations. This commenter opined that there should be
some measure of variable compliance provided in relation to the area of
operation of these engines.
Response: EPA is finalizing its proposal to regulate existing
stationary CI engines located at area sources on a nationwide basis.
EPA has not made a final determination with regard to existing SI
engines at area sources, and will do so in the later rule finalizing
regulations for SI engines. EPA believes that the CAA provides the
Agency with the authority to regulate area sources nationwide. Section
112(k)(1) of the CAA states that ``It is the purpose of this subsection
to achieve a substantial reduction in emissions of hazardous air
pollutants from area sources and an equivalent reduction in the public
health risks associated with such sources including a reduction of not
less than 75 per centum in the incidence of cancer attributable to
emissions from such sources.'' Consistent with this expressed purpose
of section 112(k) of the CAA to reduce both emissions and risks, CAA
section 112(k)(3)(i) requires that EPA list not less than 30 HAP that,
as a result of emissions from area sources, present the greatest threat
to public health in the largest number of urban areas. Sections
112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(ii) of the CAA require that EPA list area source
categories that represent not less than 90 percent of the area source
emissions of each of the listed HAP. Section 112(c) of the CAA requires
that EPA issue standards for listed categories under CAA section
112(d). These relevant statutory provisions authorize EPA to regulate
listed area source engines and not just engines located in urban areas.
EPA believes that sections 112(c) and 112(k) of the CAA do not prohibit
issuing area source rules of national applicability. EPA also disagrees
with the statement that the proposal was inconsistent with section
112(n)(4)(B) of the CAA. The term ``associated equipment'' was defined
for the purposes of subpart ZZZZ in the first RICE MACT rule not to
include stationary RICE. EPA has not revisited that issue in this rule
and the commenters have not provided sufficient reason to revisit that
issue.
EPA does not believe that existing stationary CI engines are more
prevalent
[[Page 9658]]
in rural areas than in urban areas. Indeed, EPA estimates that only 17
percent of stationary CI area source engines subject to the rule are
located in rural areas, using the definitions used in the Urban Air
Toxics Strategy. Given the requirement to regulate all engines in the
source category in urban areas, we do not believe requiring regulation
on a national basis is inappropriate.
The majority of stationary CI engines are used for emergency
purposes. EPA has estimated that 80 percent of stationary CI engines
are emergency engines and EPA has taken steps in the final rule to
reduce the burden on owners and operators of these engines. All
emergency CI engines located at area sources of HAP emissions are
subject only to management practices under the final rule. EPA has also
determined that existing emergency engines located at residential,
institutional, and commercial facilities that are area sources of HAP
emissions were not included in the original Urban Air Toxics Strategy
inventory and therefore are not included in the source category
listing. In the final rule, EPA has specified that those engines are
not subject to subpart ZZZZ. In addition, existing non-emergency CI
engines less than or equal to 300 HP that are located at area sources
of HAP emissions are also only subject to management practices. EPA
believes that requiring management practices instead of specific
emission limitations and/or control efficiency requirements on the
majority of existing stationary CI engines at area sources alleviates
concerns regarding costly and burdensome requirements for rural
sources.
For existing stationary non-emergency CI engines greater than 300
HP, EPA determined that GACT was the use of oxidation catalyst control.
The commenters did not provide a reason that GACT would be different
for non-emergency stationary CI engines located in rural areas. In
determining GACT, EPA can consider factors such as availability and
feasibility of control technologies and management practices, as well
as costs and economic impacts. These factors are not different for
existing stationary non-emergency CI engines in urban versus rural
areas. For example, the availability of oxidation catalysts would be
the same for urban and rural engines, and if an engine was in a rural
location, that would not preclude an owner from being able to install
aftertreatment controls. For the final rule, EPA estimated the capital
cost of retrofitting an existing stationary non-emergency CI engine to
around $7,000 for a 300 HP engine. Annual costs of operating and
maintaining the control device are estimated to be approximately $2,000
per year for the same engine. These costs would not be prohibitive for
any engines and either rural or urban areas and are expected to be the
same no matter the location. Furthermore, the controls that are
expected to be used on non-emergency engines above 300 HP will have the
co-benefit of PM reductions. PM emissions can travel tens or hundreds
of miles from their source, so emissions from diesel engines in rural
areas can impact urban populations. There is also no reason to
distinguish between the rural and urban area source engines that are
subject to management practices. There is nothing limiting owners and
operators of existing stationary CI engines located in rural areas from
following the management practices specified in the final rule.
In response to requests that agricultural stationary engines should
be treated differently from other engines and should be allowed special
provisions, EPA is of the understanding that the majority of stationary
engines used for agricultural purposes are below 300 HP. Several
commenters representing agricultural interests have made the statement
to EPA that most of their engines are below 300 HP. As previously
discussed in this response, EPA is finalizing management practices for
area source engines less than or equal to 300 HP. Therefore, it is not
expected that many stationary agricultural engines will be required to
put on controls. Agricultural engines less than or equal to 300 HP at
rural and urban area sources would be required to follow the management
practices specified in the final rule. Management practices will ensure
that emissions are reduced and engines are properly operated.
Consistent with the proposal and for the reasons discussed, EPA is
finalizing national requirements for existing stationary CI engines
without a distinction between urban and non-urban areas.
Comment: Five commenters expressed that EPA's proposal would have a
significant impact to the State of Alaska, especially with respect to
power generation in their rural communities. They explained that Alaska
has unique regional circumstances whereby regulating diesel engine
emissions in rural Alaska in the same manner as other engines
nationwide could have unintended negative consequences. The commenters
were concerned about the extension of section 112(k) of the CAA
requirements to rural sources, expressing that the purpose of CAA
section 112(k) is to address urban issues. The commenters opined that
the scale of HAP emissions in rural areas of Alaska is different and
should be addressed in a way that is appropriate to the rural
conditions that exist there. The commenters expressed that,
historically, EPA has recognized the unique aspects of rural Alaska's
diesel distribution system and diesel engine use and has allowed Alaska
some flexibility (e.g., under the CI NSPS). The commenters requested
that EPA assess and consider rural Alaska's situation and allow for
flexibility to address the challenges associated with the proposed
rule.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenters that stationary CI area
source engines located in remote areas of Alaska have special
challenges that should be taken into consideration. As the commenters
noted, over 180 rural communities in Alaska that are not accessible by
the Federal Aid Highway System rely on stationary diesel engines and
fuel for electricity. They are scattered over long distances in remote
areas and are not connected to population centers by road or power
grid. They are located in the most severe arctic environments in the
United States. Transportation of diesel fuel to these areas is
dependent on weather and communities typically pay some of the highest
prices for fuel in the United States. Stationary engines located in
rural areas of Alaska have different fuel storage and use logistics and
higher operating and compliance costs. Many of these communities are
accessible only by plane. In light of the comments, we believe it is
appropriate to treat engines located at area sources in areas of Alaska
that are not accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System as a separate
subcategory. We re-evaluated GACT for the subcategory of stationary
engines located at area sources of HAP that are in an area of Alaska
that is not accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System. For these
engines, we determined that GACT is the same management practices as
those required for non-emergency CI RICE less than or equal to 300 HP
located at area sources. For more discussion of this issue, refer to
the memo entitled ``MACT Floor Determination for Existing Stationary
Non-Emergency CI RICE Less Than 100 HP and Existing Stationary
Emergency CI RICE Located at Major Sources and GACT for Existing
Stationary CI RICE Located at Area Sources.''
B. Final Emission Requirements
Comment: Several commenters expressed opposition to EPA's proposal
to have emission standards apply to
[[Page 9659]]
small engines at major sources. Three commenters said that EPA should
not finalize emission limits for engines less than 100 HP. One
commenter argued that stationary engines that are less than 100 HP
should be exempted from numerical HAP emission standards. In the
commenter's opinion, it is not cost effective to install add-on
controls on small engines or to purchase a new engine. According to the
commenter, the majority of engines in this size range are operated for
intermittent household or other infrequent use and emissions are
naturally limited, the commenter said, and low emissions do not justify
the costs associated with requiring a numerical HAP limit. One
commenter does not believe that measurement is economically practicable
for a small unit as the cost of testing will likely exceed the value of
the engine itself. The commenter urged EPA to exclude small sources
from the category.
Response: EPA has reanalyzed its proposed standards based on the
information and data presented and EPA concludes that it is not
feasible within the context of this rulemaking to prescribe emission
limitations for existing stationary CI engines smaller than 100 HP
located at major sources, because the measurement of emissions from
these engines is not practicable due to technological and economic
limitations. In order to measure the emissions from these engines on a
ppmvd at 15 percent O2 basis, the following test methods are
required: EPA Method 1 or 1A for selection of sampling ports; EPA
Method 3, 3A, or 3B for determining the O2 concentration;
EPA Method 4 for measuring the moisture content, and EPA Method 10 or
ASTM D6522-00 (2005) for measuring the CO concentration. These test
methods require the sample point to be a certain distance between the
engine and the exhaust. Because engines below 100 HP often have exhaust
pipes with very small diameters and lengths, stack testing using these
methods could require a modification or extension of the exhaust pipe
to accomplish the test. The cost to do the testing ranges from
approximately $1,000-$5,000 depending on the method used. Generally,
100 HP engines cost around $5,000-$7,000 dollars and 50 HP engines cost
approximately $4,000-$5,000, so the cost of performance testing could
approach the cost of the engine itself. Given the cost of the testing
itself, the physical adjustments necessary to accomplish the test, and
the particular circumstances pertaining to stationary engines below 100
HP, we believe that the application of measurement methodology to this
class of engines is not practicable due to technological and economic
limitations. Therefore, EPA is promulgating work practice standards for
these engines. Additional detail regarding this analysis can be found
in the memorandum entitled ``MACT Floor Determination for Existing
Stationary Non-Emergency CI RICE Less Than 100 HP and Existing
Stationary Emergency CI RICE Located at Major Sources and GACT for
Existing Stationary CI RICE Located at Area Sources.''
Comment: One commenter stated that the use of CO as a surrogate for
HAP emissions from stationary diesel engines is flawed and does not
meet the DC Courts three part test for reasonableness. According to the
commenter, the DC Court surrogate three part test requires EPA to
demonstrate each of the following: (1) HAP from the source must be
``invariantly present'' in the surrogate; (2) control technology that
reduces the surrogate must ``indiscriminately capture'' HAP from the
source; and (3) control of the surrogate is the only means to control
HAP from the source. The commenter pointed out that EPA admitted that
CO may not be an adequate surrogate for metallic HAP emissions in the
current proposal. The commenter argued that oxidation catalyst is only
capable of 30 percent reduction of PM, thus allowing 70 percent of the
PM, including metallic and semi-volatile HAP to be emitted to the
atmosphere. In addition, the commenter pointed out that technologies
that control CO are not the only means by which a source can achieve
reductions in HAP emitted from stationary diesel engines. The commenter
believes that based on the DC Court's three tests, final standards are
not appropriate, and recommended that EPA adopt standards based on PM
rather than CO reductions.
Response: EPA believes that CO emissions are an appropriate
surrogate for HAP emissions for stationary CI engines. EPA has
demonstrated the relationship between CO emissions and HAP emissions in
previous rulemakings for stationary engines. EPA does not have any data
to support a relationship between PM emissions and HAP emissions for
stationary CI engines, nor did the commenter provide any data to
support such a relationship for this source category. It is clear that
there are methods for reducing PM emissions, like reducing sulfur from
fuel, that may not lead to a reduction in HAP. In addition, it is not
clear that reductions in PM would reduce emissions of all HAP emitted
from stationary engines, particularly emissions of formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, etc., that represent the vast majority of the HAP
emissions from this source category. Therefore, for this particular
source category, use of PM as a surrogate for HAP is not appropriate.
The commenter also did not provide any data from testing of stationary
CI engines to show that CO is not a good surrogate for metallic HAP. CO
is also a better surrogate for HAP emitted from stationary CI engines
than PM because PM is more difficult and expensive to measure than CO
for this source category. For semi-volatile HAP, the testing conducted
by EPA at Colorado State University showed that an oxidation catalyst
reduced PAH emissions by greater than 90 percent for most of the PAH
that were tested, and that CO level reductions correlated with level
reductions in such HAP.
In addition, as discussed above, EPA is taking an additional action
pursuant to its authority under section 112(d)(2)(B) and (C) for
further control of metallic HAP. EPA determined that the most effective
and achievable method for of controlling metallic HAP emissions from
existing stationary CI engines is through the use of crankcase emission
control systems. Combustion gases and oil mist that are vented from the
engine crankcase are a substantial source of any metallic HAP emissions
from stationary CI engines. EPA is promulgating a further standard
under section 112(d)(2)(B) and (C) that requires stationary non-
emergency diesel engines greater than 300 HP to install either an open
or closed crankcase filtration emission control system if the engine is
not already equipped with one. The open crankcase filtration emission
control system reduces emissions from the crankcase by filtering the
exhaust stream to remove oil mist, particulates, and metals. In the
case of the closed system, crankcase emissions are collected and
filtered and those that remain in a gaseous state are routed to the
intake manifold for burning. We believe this requirement will reduce
metallic HAP from the stationary engine emissions.
Comment: Multiple commenters were concerned with how EPA set the
MACT floor for the proposed rule. Several commenters said that EPA has
not considered variability in setting the MACT floor for the proposed
rule. A commenter cited the recent Brick MACT ruling which indicated
that ``floors may legitimately account for variability [in the best
performing sources that are the MACT floor basis] because ``each
[source] must meet the [specified] standard every day and under all
operating conditions.'' The commenters
[[Page 9660]]
stated EPA's data set is not sufficient in covering variability. One
commenter noted that the Courts have been critical of EPA's process for
setting minimum allowable emission limits. The commenter stated that
EPA set the emission limits by averaging the best 12 percent of all
performance tests for each subcategory, but did not consider
operational variations of the units. The commenter recommended that EPA
set emission limits at the emissions level that is actually achieved
under the worst reasonably foreseeable circumstances for the best
performing 12 percent as allowed by the Courts in the Cement Kiln MACT
and Brick Kiln MACT decisions.
Multiple commenters suggested that EPA should consider a scenario
under which lower temperatures and reduced catalyst efficiencies may
occur due to reduced engine speed or load, resulting in lower
temperatures and consider an alternative work practice under section
112(h) of the CAA for the situation. Two commenters noted that the
emission standards in the proposed rule apply at all times, but that
there is no data or information in the rulemaking docket that supports
the proposed limits at low loads or at operating conditions other than
high load. The commenters expressed that EPA should provide data and
analysis that supports requiring emission limits to be met at all
times. Also, for compliance at all times, the commenter asked what
averaging times apply.
Response: EPA agrees that emissions variability should be better
analyzed and has included a revised approach to variability in the MACT
floor analysis. The final emission standards are based on test data
collected from stationary engines produced by different engine
manufacturers, operating at various loads and other conditions, and
located in various types of service and locations. The engines range in
size from 160 HP to 3,570 HP. The data includes engines operating at
loads from 25-100 percent. To the extent commenters believed further
data would have beneficial to EPA, EPA must make its determinations
based on the information available to it. EPA asked for further data,
and EPA did receive further data following the proposal, which led to
changes in the final regulations. For engines operating at reduced
speed or loads resulting in a reduced exhaust temperature, EPA believes
that numerical emission requirements are still appropriate and there is
no justification to only require work practice standards during these
situations. We do not believe that the provisions of section 112(h) of
the CAA are met (except as discussed elsewhere with regard to periods
of start-up, emergency engines, and engines below 100 HP) because
testing is not economically and technologically impractical and the
emissions can be readily routed through a conveyance for purposes of
emission testing. EPA believes that the final emission standards will
be achievable at all times covered by the standards and will reflect
the numerous engine models and operating scenarios that can be expected
from stationary engines.
Regarding the comment asking about the averaging times that apply,
EPA has clarified in the final rule that the emission standards are
based on the average of three one-hour runs.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern with the proposed
limits for emergency engines at both area and major sources. Numerous
commenters stated that EPA should adopt management practices for
emergency engines at area sources and not require emission limits from
these engines. Commenters stated that emergency engines need special
consideration, due to minimal operation, and the commenters said that
EPA should apply section 112(h) of the CAA for emergency engines at
major sources because of this limited operation. Several commenters
recommended that emergency engines be subject to only work practice
standards that limit the number of hours allowed for operation during
non-emergency events.
Several commenters recommended that EPA require management
practices rather than a numerical emission limit for emergency diesel
generators greater than 500 HP at area sources. The commenters
suggested that such management practices could replace the existing
proposed emission standard requirements for emergency CI engines
greater than 500 HP. The commenters stated that the proposed rule and
related docket indicates that CI emergency diesel engines can achieve a
40 ppmvd CO emission standard for both normal operations and startup or
malfunction periods without add-on technology, which the commenters did
not believe was correct. The commenters said the proposed rulemaking
does not provide any basis for the proposed standards for emergency
engines of this size range, and the GACT determination has not been
properly established for these engines. In particular, according to the
commenters, subsection 1 of section IV.B. of the proposed rule, which
is cited in subsection 2 as the basis for the area source standards for
large CI engines, does not appear to include any discussion of emission
controls for emergency CI engines greater than 500 HP. In the absence
of such justification, the commenters state that the MACT floor for
these large engines is no controls. The commenter acknowledged that
such a no control argument may not be acceptable under the MACT because
of the Brick MACT court case, but the commenters stated that there is
no such limitation in making GACT determinations. The commenter was
concerned that establishing an emission standard for large emergency CI
engines would establish requirements for the installation of add-on
controls for some, if not most of the sources in that category. EPA
needs to conduct a regulatory analysis and assessment of the costs of
these controls. The commenter gave an example of the impact of an
emission limit and the impact of installing controls on one of his
units. The commenter concluded that because of the unit's limited
operation, an oxidation catalyst control will have limited, if any,
control effectiveness in actual use.
The commenters said that despite EPA's claims that the agency is
not requiring performance tests of emergency engines, major sources
with existing emergency engines appear to have an implicit testing
requirement to demonstrate that they comply with concentration limits.
Such testing could significantly increase the time the typical
emergency engine would be used in year and impose additional
environmental impact and costs. The commenters said EPA needs to
resolve the conflict between the preamble and the regulatory language
and replace the emission limits for emergency engines with work
practices. The commenters raised similar concerns about the apparent
requirement for performance testing of emergency RICE due to ambiguous
rule language and said it should be clarified to explicitly state that
such testing is not required. The commenter said the rule would require
not only initial performance testing, but testing every 3 years.
Because engine operation for performance testing would likely exceed
typical operation for operational testing and maintenance, these
testing requirements would result in increased operation of the engine
with a corresponding significant increase in operating costs and
emissions of other pollutants such as NOX. The commenters
said emergency engines are used only during emergencies, other than
short (less than one-half hour) weekly tests to assure the engines will
perform. According to the commenter, performance tests (initial or
[[Page 9661]]
every 3 years) consisting of three 1-hour runs typically cost about
$10,000 each and are not justified for limited use engines, the tests
alone would add substantially to the fuel use of these engines are
result in additional and unnecessary emissions and work practice
standards under section 112(h) are more appropriate due to
``technological and economic limitations.''
Response: EPA reviewed the information submitted by the commenters
and determined that it would be appropriate to require management
practices for all emergency stationary CI engines at area sources.
Because these engines are typically used only a few number of hours per
year, the costs of emission control and the costs of emission testing
are not warranted when compared to the emission reductions that would
be achieved. The proposed numeric emission levels are not GACT for
emergency engines at area sources. Such engines rarely if ever use the
type of emission controls that might have been necessary for many
engines to meet the numeric standard, and such engines are rarely if
ever subjected to emissions testing. Therefore, EPA determined that
GACT for all stationary emergency engines at area sources is the use of
management practices.
EPA also analyzed the types of engines that were included in the
area source category listing for stationary RICE. As a result of this
analysis, EPA determined that emissions from existing stationary
emergency engines located at residential, commercial, and institutional
facilities that are area sources of HAP were not included in the 1990
baseline emissions inventory that was used as the basis for the listing
of source categories needed to ensure that 90 percent of area source
emissions are regulated. Existing stationary emergency engines located
at residential, commercial, and institutional facilities that are area
sources are therefore not subject to this regulation.
For stationary emergency engines at major sources, EPA determined
that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard
because the application of measurement methodology to this class of
engines is impracticable due to technological and economic limitations.
A more detailed discussion of this determination can be found in the
memorandum entitled ``MACT Floor Determination for Existing Stationary
Non-Emergency CI RICE Less Than 100 HP and Existing Stationary
Emergency CI RICE Located at Major Sources and GACT for Existing
Stationary CI RICE Located at Area Sources.'' EPA determined that it is
impracticable to test stationary CI emergency engines using the test
procedures specified in subpart ZZZZ because using these procedures
would increase the required number of hours of operation of the engine
beyond the routinely scheduled reliability testing and maintenance
operation, thereby increasing emissions. While emergency engines have
periods of operation for scheduled maintenance and reliability testing,
those periods are usually several hours shorter than the number of
hours that would be required to run the necessary emissions tests under
subpart ZZZZ. CARB conducted a survey of stationary emergency diesel
engines in 2002 \2\ to determine the average number of hours that
stationary emergency diesel engines operate. The average hours of
operation for maintenance and testing were 22 hours per year, which is
less than two hours per month. For the engines that CARB surveyed, 86
percent operated less than 30 hours/year for testing and maintenance.
Thirty percent operated less than 10 hours/year. National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) codes require that stationary diesel
engines that are used for emergency purposes are run 30 minutes per
week (27 hours per year) for maintenance and testing purposes. It is
impracticable to test emergency stationary engines as a result of
emergency operation because emergencies are unplanned events and
implementation of the test procedures specified in subpart ZZZZ require
advance planning before tests are conducted. In an emergency, the
owner/operator does not have the advance planning time necessary to
implement subpart ZZZZ. It is also impracticable to test stationary CI
emergency engines at major sources because of the large population of
these engines. EPA estimates that there are over 200,000 existing
stationary CI engines from 100-500 HP at major sources that are subject
to this rulemaking. There are only approximately 300-400 testing firms
and these stationary engines are not the only sources that are required
to be tested, so if testing were required for these engines, it would
take many years to test all of these engines. The cost for testing all
of these engines would also be approximately $200 million, which would
be unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ California Air Resources Board Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking. Airborne Toxic Control
Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines. Stationary
Source Division, Emissions Assessment Branch. September 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA expects that these changes from the proposed rule address the
concerns expressed by the commenters about the requirements for
stationary emergency CI engines. Regarding the comments pertaining to
performance testing for emergency engines, EPA did not intend for the
rule to require performance testing for emergency engines. The final
rule does not contain any performance testing requirements for
emergency engines.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the standard require CDPF
or a combination of oxidation catalysts and CDPF for new or existing
non-emergency diesel RICE. The commenter stated that EPA's proposal
calls for oxidation catalysts on non-emergency CI engines, which EPA
reports will result in a 90 percent reduction in CO and 30 percent
reduction in PM, whereas CDPF would result in greater reductions in PM
(90 percent reductions or greater).
Another commenter reported that it had conducted risk assessment
evaluations for diesel particulate emissions from non-emergency diesel
engines and found that the diesel particulate emissions from non-
emergency diesel engines and found that the diesel particulate
emissions often create a significant cancer risk even when there is a
30 percent PM reduction. The commenter recommended that EPA base
standards on CDPF or a combination of oxidation catalyst and CDPF, for
existing and new non-emergency diesel engines.
Response: The standards that EPA proposed and that EPA is
finalizing do not require a particular control technology. For the
proposed rule, EPA's beyond-the-floor analysis resulted in standards
that were based on the use of oxidation catalyst control for stationary
non-emergency diesel engines above 300 HP; EPA has made the same
determination for the beyond-the-floor standards in the final rule. EPA
determined that the MACT standards should be based on oxidation
catalyst rather than CDPF because we do not have any data that shows
that CDPFs get greater reductions of HAP than oxidation catalysts on
stationary engines, and CDPFs are approximately four times as costly as
oxidation catalysts.\3\ EPA also has concerns regarding the technical
feasibility of CDPFs for existing stationary diesel engines. Many
existing diesel engines are not electronically controlled, and PM
emissions from older engines are often too high for efficient operation
of
[[Page 9662]]
a CDPF. Further, engine exhaust temperatures are often not high enough
for regeneration of the CDPF filter substrate. EPA notes that owners
and operators are free to choose whichever control technology, which
could be oxidation catalyst or CDPF, as long as they meet the final
standards. EPA is not addressing new diesel engines in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ California Air Resources Board Staff Report: Initial
Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking. Airborne Toxic Control
Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines. Stationary
Source Division, Emissions Assessment Branch. September 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: A few commenters were concerned about requirements that
might apply to engines that startup turbines. Four commenters suggested
that RICE used to startup combustion turbines be exempt from the
proposed rule, or deemed to fall under the ``emergency'' definition in
40 CFR Sec. 63.6675. One commenter explained that turbine RICE only
run for a few minutes to get the unit started and the total fuel
consumption is not significant. One commenter was concerned that the
short run-time during each operation may not be long enough to get the
filter up to its design temperature for achievement of its removal
efficiency (and note that EPA discusses it in the preamble) or that a
filter may require additional run time for regeneration. The commenter
further noted that the additional run-time required by the 3 year
testing requirement could outstrip the run-time needed to support these
combustion turbine peaking unit starting devices just for compliance
with the RICE rule. The commenter noted that increased consumption of
fuel for rule compliance would be wasting the natural resource and
adding emissions for no measurable reduction being gained by the rule.
Two commenters noted that every major power plant in the United States
is required to have black start capability, which typically involves a
small combustion turbine equipped with a diesel engine used for startup
of the turbine. According to the commenter, the diesel starting engine,
rated less than 500 HP, generally operates less than 10 minutes per
combustion turbine start. The commenter indicated that the majority of
black start units only operate during emergencies or unusually high
demand days, and that a review of the commenter's company's operating
data determined that seven black start units in the system averaged 32
starts per year (which equates to less than 6 hours of operation per
year, although some limited additional operation may occur as a result
of routine maintenance and readiness testing).
Response: In the final rule EPA has required that stationary
engines used to startup combustion turbines meet work practice
standards. EPA finds that the short time of operation for these engines
(10-15 minutes per start) makes application of measurement methodology
for these engines using the required procedures, which require
continuous hours of operation, impracticable. Requiring numerical
emission standards for these engines would actually require
substantially longer operation than would occur normally in use,
leading to greater emissions and greater costs. EPA also agrees with
the commenters that it would not be appropriate to set emission limits
that are based on the use of aftertreatment control for the subcategory
of stationary CI engines that are used to startup combustion turbines.
Oxidation catalyst control would not be effective for these engines due
to their short time of operation (10-15 minutes per start).
C. Management Practices
Comment: Several commenters did not agree with the specific
management practices that EPA has proposed in the rule for area sources
or recommended different maintenance practices. According to the
commenters, the maintenance frequency in the proposed rule exceeds
current practices or is not supported in the proposed rule. Several
commenters agreed that management practices are appropriate for the
proper operation of the engines and is a reasonable means to reduce HAP
emissions, however, did not agree with the specific maintenance
practices proposed by EPA. Numerous commenters recommended that EPA
allow owners/operators to follow engine manufacturers' recommended
practices or the owners/operators own site-specific maintenance plan.
One commenter pointed out that operators have a direct interest in
maintaining engine oil, hoses, and belts, so the engine runs reliably,
but the appropriate frequency for these maintenance practices are
specific to engine design and are not ``one size fits all.'' Ten
commenters recommended that EPA revise fixed maintenance (one-size-
fits-all) requirements to maintenance plans. The commenters stated
that, while fixed maintenance intervals work well for new mass produced
engines similar to those in automobiles, they are inappropriate for the
wide variety of existing engines used in the oil and gas, agriculture,
and power generation industries across the nation. The commenters
pointed out that EPA allows the use of operator-defined maintenance
plans that are ``consistent with good air pollution control practice
for minimizing emissions'' to be used in other portions of this same
rule, and asserted that EPA should allow the use of operator-defined
maintenance plans to greatly reduce cost and allow operators to
optimize maintenance for each type of engine.
One of these commenters added that current industry engine
maintenance programs are driven by tried-and-true practices and since
these practices effectively keep the engines running, they allow the
products of the members of the commenter's organization to go to
market. The commenter stated that additional, burdensome, frequent, and
time-consuming maintenance requirements will cause the members of the
commenter's organization to more-frequently shut down engines and thus
shut down production.
Two commenters said that if EPA keeps the management practices as
proposed, the frequencies associated with conducting engine maintenance
should be revised to be commensurate with today's practices. The
commenter believes the maintenance practices, as proposed, are
significantly burdensome and lack basis. According to the commenters,
EPA should replace the maintenance hour intervals with company
recommended performance-based maintenance practices to be documented in
an operator-defined maintenance plan consistent with requirements in 40
CFR part 60, subpart JJJJ.
One commenter stated that most of the engine manufacturers for the
engines in the oil and gas industry recommend oil changes on a monthly
schedule. The commenter also indicated that it is common practice to
periodically sample and test the engine oil to see if the oil
properties are sufficient to extend this time period between oil
changes. According to the commenter, this testing has shown in many
cases that the oil change interval can be extended without any
detrimental effects on the engine, which allows industry to maximize
efficiencies, minimize oil usage, reduce waste, and streamline
operations with no negative impacts to the engine or emissions.
One commenter expressed that inspection of hoses and belts has no
impact on HAP emissions. The commenter expressed that, generally, it
agreed that performing maintenance on engines will help to reduce HAP
emissions, but that while inspecting belts and hoses is an important
part of general engine maintenance (and most sources likely conduct
regular inspections of their engines), such inspections have no effect
on emissions and should be removed from the proposed rule.
[[Page 9663]]
Response: EPA proposed to require specific management practices for
certain engines, primarily for smaller existing stationary engines at
area sources where EPA thought that add-on controls were not GACT. EPA
indicated at proposal that the management practices specified in the
proposal reflected GACT and that such practices would provide a
reasonable level of control, while at the same time ensuring that the
burden on particularly small businesses and individual owners and
operators would be minimized. EPA asked for comment on the proposed
management practices and received comments on the proposal from
industry.
EPA agrees with the commenters that it is difficult to adopt a set
of management practices that are appropriate for all types of
stationary engines. Regardless, EPA must promulgate emission standards
pursuant to section 112(d)(5) for all engines at area sources covered
by the final rule. EPA still believes that a management practice
approach reflects GACT for emergency engines and smaller engines at
area sources. These management practices represent what is generally
available among such engines to reduce HAP, and the practices will
ensure that emissions are minimized and engines are properly operated.
EPA does not agree with the commenters that it would be appropriate to
simply specify that owners and operators follow the manufacturer's
recommended maintenance practices for the engine. EPA cannot delegate
to manufacturers the final decision regarding the proper management
practices required by section 112(d). To address the comments that
there may be special and unique operating situations where the
management practices in the rule may not be appropriate, for example
engines using a synthetic lubricant, EPA notes that owners/operators
may work with State permitting authorities pursuant to 40 CFR subpart E
(``Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal Authorities'')
for approval of alternative management practices for their engines.
Subpart E implements section 112(l) of the CAA, which authorizes EPA to
approve alternative State/local/Tribal HAP standards or programs when
such requirements are demonstrated to be no less stringent than EPA
promulgated standards.
The management practices EPA proposed for stationary engines
greater than 50 HP included changing the oil and filter every 500
hours, replacing the spark plugs every 1,000 hours, and inspecting all
hoses and belts every 500 hours and replacing as necessary. For engines
less than 50 HP, EPA proposed to require that these engines change the
oil and filter every 200 hours, replace spark plugs every 500 hours,
and inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours and replace as
necessary.
EPA agrees that there is a wide range of recommended maintenance
procedures, but EPA must promulgate specific requirements pursuant to
section 112(d) for this source category. Based on the different
suggested maintenance recommendations EPA has reviewed, maintenance
requirements appear to vary depending on whether the engine is used for
standby, intermittent, or continuous operation. Maintenance is also
dependent on the engine application, design, and model. Taking into
consideration the information received from commenters on the proposed
maintenance practices for oil and filter changes and carefully
reviewing engine manufacturer recommended maintenance procedures, EPA
has determined that for stationary non-emergency engines below 300 HP,
GACT will require the oil and filter to be changed every 1,000 hours of
operation or annually, whichever comes first, which reflects the
management practices that are generally available. For stationary
emergency engines, the final rule requires the oil and filter to be
changed every 500 hours of operation or annually, whichever comes
first. EPA notes that in the final rule it has clarified that spark
plug changes are not required for stationary diesel engines since
diesel engines do not use spark plugs. EPA also determined that it
would be appropriate to include the option to use an oil analysis
program in the final rule.
EPA does not agree with the comments that inspecting belts and
hoses has no impact on emissions. Ensuring that the engine is properly
operated and maintained will help minimize the HAP emissions from the
engine. Properly maintained belts and hoses allow the engine to operate
at maximum efficiency. Hoses are generally used to move coolant through
the engine to prevent the engine from overheating. Overheating of the
engine can cause a malfunction in the combustion process, and may also
burn the engine oil in the combustion chamber. Both of these conditions
may increase pollutant emissions from the engine. Belts are commonly
used for electrical generation and engine timing, and if worn or broken
can cause damage to the engine and increase emissions. Therefore, EPA
has required management practices that reflect GACT and that, in EPA's
view, will ensure the proper operation and maintenance of the engine.
D. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
Comment: Several commenters expressed serious concern over the
proposed emission standards for periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM). The commenters state that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District Columbia Circuit vacated the SSM exemption in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart A on December 19, 2008, and the decision requires the
Agency to implement standards that apply at all times, including during
SSM periods. Numerous commenters thought the quick response to the
December 2008 Court decision on the SSM issue is premature and
recommended that EPA wait for a final decision before incorporate
elements from this case. Numerous commenters are of the opinion that
EPA has not provided a technical basis for its establishment of SSM
limits and that any SSM limits should be replaced with work practice
standards and disagreed with the decision to include limits for SSM
periods. In addition, several commenters said that emissions during SSM
events cannot be measured and therefore cannot be confirmed and limits
are not enforceable. One commenter recommended that EPA require a SSM
plan similar to the SSM plan currently required under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart ZZZZ. The commenter also pointed out that 40 CFR 63.6650(b) in
the existing rule requires operators to operate and maintain their
equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practices at all times, including periods of SSM. The commenter
believed that this requirement in conjunction with a SSM plan will
achieve the same goals as the proposed rules in a much more cost
effective and logical manner.
Many commenters recommended that EPA consider other alternatives to
implement during SSM periods, such as possibly requiring work practice
standards, which the commenters believe is the most reasonable approach
and is justified under the CAA. Commenters believed that work practice
standards that minimize the emissions during SSM periods is the most
practical method of keeping HAP emissions from engines as low as
possible.
Several commenters said that there is no method to determine
compliance during SSM periods. The commenters said that it will be
difficult or impossible to design a test program to describe emissions
during SSM events, e.g., the commenter is not sure how a
[[Page 9664]]
malfunction would be defined considering the unexpected and anomalous
nature of the event. Therefore, emissions during these periods cannot
be confirmed, the commenters said. Similarly, commenters believed that
it is not reasonable to set numerical limits during startup because
there are no available or repeatable test methods or procedures for
measuring emissions during startup or malfunction, plus there is no
prescribed definition of what constitutes startup of an engine, which
can vary significantly for a number of reasons such as engine and
catalyst type, fuel, climatic conditions, application and load.
One commenter said that there are no viable measurement methods
available to measure CO, formaldehyde or VOC during transient operation
and a review conducted by the commenter of Table 4 in the proposed rule
shows the inconsistencies related to transient measurement
acceptability with respect to stack gas moisture and flow rate, delays
in the actual response of analyzers, issues in obtaining an accurate
measurement during a transient test due to an axial diffusion function
in long gaseous emissions sample lines, and field gaseous emission
measurements require stack traverse as well for the emissions under
measurement, per EPA Methods 7, 10, 25, etc., which eliminates the
possibility of getting an accurate measurement during transient events
such as a startup.
One commenter claimed that issuance of numerical limits for SSM
based on the emissions of the ``best controlled sources prior to full
warm up of the catalytic control'' fails to consider emissions during
malfunction of the engines themselves. The commenter asserts that while
EPA appropriately determined that during a control device malfunction,
the floor and standard cannot be set assuming operation of the control
device, EPA errs in limiting its analysis solely to operation of the
controls since emissions can increase as a result of engine
malfunctions as well. The commenter noted that its experience is
consistent with EPA's statements that emissions during an engine
malfunction may increase due to the effects on exhaust temperatures and
composition. The commenter concluded that emission limits would need to
be based on the emissions level from the best performing sources
without control while the engine is malfunctioning. One commenter added
that it does not make sense to set any numerical standards during a
malfunction of an engine because inherent in the concept of a
malfunction is that emissions will be malfunctioning as well. It is
also not logical to apply the concept of ``best performing''
malfunctioning engine, the commenter said. For these reasons, it is
unreasonable for EPA to promulgate numerical emission limits for
periods of malfunction, in the commenter's opinion. Emission testing
for malfunctions would be near impossible to conduct given the sporadic
and unpredictable nature of the events, the commenter said. The
commenter said that the nature of malfunctions means it is not feasible
to predict or simulate emissions that occur during periods of
malfunctions. The commenter asserted that with respect to engines, it
is not technologically or economically feasible to apply measurement
methodology for the emissions during SSM periods and further, that it
is unreasonable for the Agency in the face of the lack of accurate
emission measurements to simply set the standard at the level for
normal operations (e.g., for sources not using a control device). The
commenter stated that this situation is precisely the circumstance in
which Congress envisioned that a work practice standard would be
established, and urged EPA to adopt a work practice standard applicable
to malfunction and startup periods for engines consistent with section
112(h) of the CAA and not to apply the numerical limits for normal
operations.
One commenter stated that EPA solicited comment on the level of
specificity needed to define the periods of startup and malfunction.
The commenter believes the responses differ based on whether the event
is a startup or malfunction. The commenter noted that startup of an
engine begins with the start of fuel flow to the engine and ends when
the engine has achieved normal operating temperature and air to fuel
flows as indicated by the manufacturers' specifications, and while the
initiation of a startup is predictable, its conclusion is not time-
determined, but operationally-determined. The commenter noted where a
catalyst is used to control emissions; startup does not end until the
required catalyst bed temperature has been achieved, however, this may
happen before the engine air and fuel flows are normal and thus
catalyst bed temperature is not the exclusive criterion that defines
the end of the startup period. The commenter noted that the start of
the malfunction should be defined as when the normal operation emission
limit is exceeded and the end of the malfunction should be set as when
the normal operation emission limit is restored or the engine is
shutdown. The commenter noted that malfunctions often require shutdown
to address, but such shutdowns can be delayed because immediate engine
shutdown would cause other upsets. Therefore, the commenter believes it
would not be reasonable to set any specific time limits on either
startup or malfunction periods, because their duration can be a
function of operational need. Similarly, one commenter disagreed that
it would be appropriate to set a specific limit on the time allowed for
startup because not all engines experience the same type of startup and
malfunction. The length of startup will depend on many factors
including engine type, size, fuel type and duty cycle, plus the
frequency of required startups will also vary greatly among engines
because some engines are only used for intermittent operation.
Some commenters thought that limiting the engine startup time is a
reasonable method to limit emissions. The commenter added that the most
effective way to control emissions during startup for engines with
catalysts is to limit the amount of time it takes to warm up the
exhaust to initialize the catalyzation process and startup time can be
easily monitored. The commenter added that the time to be monitored at
startup be defined as from the initial engine in-cylinder combustion,
corresponding with continuous operation, up to the point that a defined
catalyst inlet temperature is reached. The commenter also recommended
that owners/operators be able to request additional startup time if
necessary in special circumstances, e.g., in extremely cold climates or
where sufficient load cannot be reached within 30 minutes. The
commenters recommended a limit of one hour for startup and 30 minutes
for shutdown. The rule should not include a time limit for
malfunctions, as the length of time during which an engine will be out
of compliance would depend on the type of malfunction, the commenters
said. The commenters suggested that each affected source would be
required to prepare a SSM plan, which would have to address appropriate
actions and time limits for malfunctions. The commenter suggested that
for engine startups, the work practice should require loading the
engine to normal operating load as soon as practicable so that the
catalytic controls are within operating range as soon as practicable
The commenters also objected to EPA's proposed second option. The
commenter said the data are apparently derived from the best controlled
engines not using catalytic controls. The commenter said that emissions
data
[[Page 9665]]
from steady-state operation of uncontrolled engines does not account
for the cooler engine and fuel temperature conditions during startup.
Nor does the second option properly account for malfunctions.
One commenter proposed that EPA treat SSM emissions as de minimis,
using the DC Circuit rationale in Alabama Power Co. v. Costle. The
commenter noted that catalyst systems do not perform at low
temperatures, and the SSM periods vary in duration and intensity, which
can significantly impact actual emissions profiles. The commenter
provided examples of why an assumption that SSM emissions are identical
to normal stable operations emissions is erroneous and a gross over-
simplification of unit operations.
Response: EPA received extensive comments on the proposed
requirements applicable to existing stationary engines during SSM.
Consistent with the recent Court decision that vacated the exemption in
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) for SSM (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d
1019), EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all
times. EPA disagrees with those comments suggesting that EPA was
premature in proposing standards during periods of startup, shutdown
and malfunction. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued its opinion vacating the SSM exemption in
December 2008, and we appropriately accounted for that decision in
proposing the rule in February 2009. EPA does not believe it is
appropriate to promulgate final rules that are inconsistent with the
decision of the DC Circuit.
EPA has determined that the emissions from stationary CI engines
during startup are significantly different than the emissions during
normal operation. During startup, incomplete combustion of the diesel
fuel causes variations in the pollutant concentrations and fluctuations
in the flow rate of the exhaust gas. Incomplete combustion is due to
cold areas of the cylinder walls that cause the temperature to be too
low for efficient combustion. As the engine continues to operate, these
cold regions begin to heat up and allow for more complete combustion of
the diesel fuel and stabilization of the exhaust flow rate and
pollutant concentrations. In addition, the engine experiences extreme
transient conditions during startup, including variations in speed and
load, poor atomization of the fuel injection, which leads to variable
engine and engine exhaust temperatures, variable exhaust gas flow
rates, and variable diluent pollutant concentration. Note for example
the brief time spent at different load conditions as shown in Figure 1
of the attachment to EMA's letter dated February 17, 2009 (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0708-0019), which illustrates the transient nature of the engine
startup phase. Other factors that cause emissions to be higher during
startup, including for engines that are not equipped with oxidation
catalyst, are a higher propensity for engine misfire and poorer
atomization of the fuel spray during startup. After-treatment
technologies like oxidation catalysts and CDPFs must also reach a
threshold temperature in order to reduce emissions effectively. In the
February 17, 2009, EMA letter, EMA provided various graphs illustrating
sample engine startup profiles and graphs demonstrating the effect of
engine exhaust temperature on catalyst efficiency. Figure 6 of the
attachment to EMA's letter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0019.1) shows how the
CO efficiency is a function of the catalyst inlet temperature.
EPA has evaluated the criteria in section 112(h) and carefully
considered and reviewed the comments on this issue. EPA has determined
that it is not feasible to prescribe a numerical emission standard for
stationary CI engines during periods of startup because the application
of measurement methodology to these engines is not practicable due to
the technological and economic limitations described below.
EPA test methods (e.g., 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Methods 2, 3A,
4, and 10) do not respond adequately to the relatively short term and
highly variable exhaust gas characteristics occurring during these
periods. The innate and substantial changes in the engine operations
during startup operations create rapid variations in exhaust gas flow
rate as well as changes in both pollutant and diluent gas
concentrations. Correlating the exhaust gas flow rates and the gas
components concentration data for each fraction of time over the entire
period of a startup operation is necessary to apportion the values
appropriately and to determine representative average emissions
concentrations or total mass emissions rate.
Measuring flow and concentration data in the types of rapidly
changing exhaust gas conditions characteristic of stationary CI engines
is unachievable with current technologies applicable to stack emissions
testing. For example, application of Method 2 to measure stack flow
rate requires collecting data for velocity pressure and stack
temperature at each of 12 traverse points and a corresponding stack
moisture and oxygen concentration (for molecular weight determination).
This traverse operation requires about 30 minutes to complete to
produce a single value for the test period, which is approximately the
same amount of time as the engine startup period. Clearly a single flow
rate value would not sufficiently represent the variable flow
conditions nor allow appropriate apportioning of the pollutant
concentration measurements over that same period for calculating a
representative average emissions value. Even if the start-up period is
longer than 30 minutes, the stack flow rate test period could not be
short enough to represent the short term (e.g., minute-by-minute)
result necessary for representative emissions calculations. These
findings lead us to conclude that correlating the flow and
concentration data as necessary to determine appropriate proportional
contributions to the emissions rates or concentrations in calculating
representative emissions over these short highly variable conditions
with currently available field testing procedures is problematic for
stationary CI engines. In addition, even were it technically feasible
to measure emissions during startups for stationary CI engines, the
cost of doing so for every startup at every covered engine would impose
a substantial economic burden. There are approximately 936,000 existing
stationary CI engines that are subject to this rule; the cost for
testing every one of these engines during engine startup could be more
than $1 billion.
EPA is therefore finalizing an operational standard in lieu of a
numerical emission limit during periods of startup in accordance with
section 112(h) of the CAA. EPA is limited to the information before it,
which, of course, includes any information provided by the commenters.
See 112(d)(3)(A). In this case, EPA carefully analyzed all of the
information before it, including that provided by commenters, and
determined that this standard complies with the requirements of
sections 112(d) and 112(h). The final rule requires that owners and
operators of stationary engines limit the startup time to 30 minutes or
less. Engine startup is defined as the time from initial start until
applied load and engine and associated equipment reaches steady state
or normal operation. For stationary engine with catalytic controls,
engine startup means the time from initial start until applied load and
engine and associated equipment reaches steady state or normal
operation, including the catalyst. EPA is also including a requirement
in the final rule to
[[Page 9666]]
minimize the engine's time spent at idle and minimize the engine's
startup time at startup to a period needed for appropriate and safe
loading of the engine, not to exceed 30 minutes, after which time the
otherwise applicable emission standards apply. As with any work
practice, CAA section 112(h)(3) and EPA's implementing regulations at
40 CFR 63.6(g) provide that major sources can petition the
Administrator for approval of an alternative work practice, which must
be at least as stringent as what is required in the regulation.
Regarding shutdown, EPA determined that it was not necessary to
establish different standards that would be applicable during shutdown
for stationary CI engines. The commenters did not provide any
information that shows emissions would be higher during shutdown than
during normal operation. In addition, commenters are incorrect that
compliance with the standards must be instantaneous. Compliance with
these emission standards has always been based on the results of
testing that is conducted over a three-hour period; EPA has made this
more explicit in this rule. Since the shutdown period for stationary CI
engines is typically only a matter of minutes, it is believed that even
if a shutdown occurred during the performance test, the engine would
still be able to comply with the emission limitation. In a letter dated
February 17, 2009 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0019), EMA indicates that HAP
emissions will be sufficiently controlled during periods of shutdown.
EMA stated in its letter that according to manufacturers, emissions
control equipment would most likely continue to reduce emissions as
designed throughout the shutdown period. According to EMA, this is
because engine emissions control systems and equipment are, during the
start of an engine shutdown, at high enough temperatures to control HAP
emissions and will continue to be sufficiently high until the engine
shuts down. This trend is illustrated in the attachment to EMA's
February 17, 2009, letter to EPA, where EMA provided two graphs with
sample engine shutdown profiles. Figure 2 of the attachment to EMA's
letter (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0019.1) shows catalyst temperatures versus
minutes during engine shutdown and illustrates stable catalyst
temperatures.
In establishing the standards in this rule, EPA has taken into
account startup periods and, for the reasons explained above, has
established different standards for those periods. With respect to
malfunctions, EPA proposed two options for subcategories where the
proposed emission standard was based on the use of catalytic controls.
The first proposed option was to have the same standards apply during
normal operation and malfunctions. The second proposed option was that
standards during malfunctions be based on emissions expected from the
best controlled sources prior to the full warm-up of the catalytic
control. For subcategories where the proposed emission standard was not
based on the use of catalytic controls, we proposed the same emission
limitations apply during malfunctions and periods of normal operations.
EPA is finalizing the first option described above, which is that the
same standards apply during normal operation and malfunctions. In the
proposed rule, EPA expressed the view that there are different modes of
operation for any stationary source, and that these modes generally
include startup, normal operations, shutdown, and malfunctions.
However, after considering the issue of malfunctions more carefully,
EPA believes that malfunctions are distinguishable from startup,
shutdown and normal operations.
Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring
equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or
usual manner * * *'' (40 CFR 63.2). EPA has determined that
malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating mode and,
therefore, any emissions that occur at such times do not need to be
factored into development of CAA section 112(d) standards, which, once
promulgated, apply at all times. For example, we note that Section 112
uses the concept of ``best performing'' sources in defining MACT, the
level of stringency that major source standards must meet. One
commenter expressed the view that it is not logical to apply the
concept of ``best performing'' to a source that is malfunctioning.
Indeed, the goal of best performing sources is to operate in such a way
as to avoid malfunctions of their units. Similarly, although standards
for area sources are not required to be set based on ``best
performers,'' we believe that what is ``generally available'' should
not be based on periods in which there is a ``failure to operate.''
Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a distinct operating
mode, we believe it would be impracticable to take malfunctions into
account in setting CAA section 112(d) standards for stationary CI
engines. As noted above, by definition, malfunctions are sudden and
unexpected events and it would be difficult to set a standard that
takes into account the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources. Moreover, malfunctions can vary in frequency,
degree, and duration, further complicating standard setting.
Finally, EPA believes that malfunctions will not cause stationary
CI engines to violate the standard that applies during normal
operations. Stationary CI engines would in most cases shut down
immediately or with very little delay in the event of a malfunction.
Because the standard is expressed as the average of three one-hour
runs, or a work or management practice, any emissions that occur prior
to engine shutdown should not affect a source's ability to comply with
the standard. Commenters' concerns regarding compliance certifications
should not be a concern for this same reason. This approach will also
encourage shutdowns as soon as practicable when a malfunction that
affects emissions occurs. In the unlikely event that a source fails to
comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of
a malfunction event, EPA would determine an appropriate response based
on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to
minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative
and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and
rectify excess emissions. EPA would also consider whether the source's
failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact,
``sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable'' and was not instead
``caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.'' 40 CFR
63.2 (definition of malfunction).
EPA does not agree with the commenter who said that EPA should
treat SSM emissions as de minimis. It is doubtful whether a de minimis
exemption is even possible under section 112(d) of the Act in these
circumstances, see National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 640 (DC
Cir, 2000), but in any case the commenter provides no specific
information to justify EPA making such a de minimis finding in this
instance. Given the very narrow and specific circumstances delineated
by the court in Alabama Power v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (DC Cir. 1979)
for making such a finding, and the lack of specific information from
the commenter that these circumstances exist in this instance, we do
not make a de minimis finding.
[[Page 9667]]
E. Emergency Engines
Comment: Several commenters stated that EPA's proposed definition
of emergency is not clear as to whether it includes emergency engines
that operate in emergency demand response (DR) programs. The commenter
believed that the record on 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII, from which
the proposed rule definition was drawn, clearly indicates that the 40
CFR part 60, subpart IIII definition was meant to address peak shaving,
not emergency engines participating in emergency DR programs. Several
commenters requested that EPA modify the proposed definition of
emergency engines to enable engines to maintain their status as
emergency engines, even though the engines that are used in DR programs
are part of a financial agreement and based on the current definition
would not be considered emergency engines. Two commenters stated that
emergency DR programs should not be confused with economic DR programs
(e.g., peak shaving). Emergency DR programs are initiated by the
transmission system operators when the threat of power outages is
imminent and are critical to maintaining available power during periods
of extreme load on the electric power infrastructure, according to the
commenters. The events are rare and unplanned, out of the control of
emergency engine owners/operators, and no power is supplied to the
grid, but used at the individual facility, the commenter said. The
commenter said that emergency DR events during the year are typically
limited to no longer than 2 to 6 hours per event, with the number of
events per year capped by the regional power pool. The commenter
believed that, by establishing a subcategory for generators that serve
facilities participating in a DR program and that only operate 200 hrs/
yr, including any hours operated for maintenance purposes, EPA could
require maintenance practices, and remove any disincentive that may be
created over the increased administrative burden and potential post-
combustion control retrofit costs if their emergency stationary RICE
would be required to be re-characterized as ``non-emergency'' in order
to participate in DR programs. The commenter suggested that a 100 hour
operating limit could also be considered as an alternative. Three
commenters (stated that they receive many benefits from their
participation in the local DR program, and that they use emergency DR
events and tests events to replace some of the Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations' mandated hospital generator
tests. According to the commenters the costs that they would have to
absorb to meet the proposed emission limits would be prohibitive and
that to require facilities to meet rigid emission limits with very
little reduction in emissions is not encouraged. Emergency engines are
used throughout the U.S. and provide vital safety requirements at
hospitals and healthcare institutions, the commenters said. Commenters
stated that emergency engines participating in emergency DR programs
provide a critical service in stabilizing the electric grid on the rare
occasions when the grid is about to fail. Many States endorse the use
of emergency engines participating in emergency DR programs, according
to commenter 82. Two commenters cited various DR programs in the New
England area that existing engines participate in. A commenter provided
detailed discussion of several emergency DR programs across the
country, including States in New England, the Mid Atlantic and Midwest,
and the South, that are supportive of using emergency engines as part
of their emergency DR programs, and that accommodate operation of these
engines through various definitions of emergency, or through
permitting. The commenter concluded that it is very important that EPA
not adopt rules that conflict with how much of the U.S. handles
emergency DR.
Response: EPA agrees that it would be appropriate to allow
emergency engines to operate as part of emergency demand response
programs for a limited number of hours of operation per year in
situations where grid failure and a blackout are imminent. In the final
rule, EPA has revised the requirements for emergency engines to reflect
this.
F. Emissions Data
Comment: Multiple commenters believe that the emissions data for
engines is not adequate to conduct an appropriate MACT floor analysis.
EPA should collect additional data and redo the MACT floor analysis,
according to numerous commenters. The commenters also stated that EPA
did not consider emissions variability in setting the MACT floor.
Commenters stated that the MACT floors should not be based on data
using single measurements, when three measurements are a standard
requirement for demonstrating compliance. In the absence of multiple
measurements, outliers and erroneous errors cannot be caught, according
to the commenters.
The commenters said that EPA should use data from units of similar
size to set standards for sources of the same size, e.g., emissions
from a large engine should not be used to set standards for a 100 HP
engine unless EPA can demonstrate that such an assumption is justified.
The commenters are concerned that the data EPA has used for the MACT
floor analysis is not representative of the current population of
engines.
Commenters criticized the applicability and use of the RICE
emissions database as representative of the engines being regulated.
One commenter noted that the 40 ppmvd numerical emissions limit for CO
appears to be based on 10 tests of only one make and model of engine
(Caterpillar, Model No. 3508) over a 3-day period in the Research and
Development Laboratory of CSU in 1999 (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-
0006). The commenter states that according to the engine population
data presented in the impacts document in the docket (Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0798-0028) the promulgated rule would impose limits on more
than 50,000 CI engines. The commenter believed that basing the limit on
such a small and unrepresentative sample jeopardizes the accuracy of
any assumptions made about the operational conditions or performance of
the regulated population as well as the accuracy of any cost of
compliance estimates, and leads to an underestimation of the impact of
the rule.
Response: Section 112(d)(3) of the CAA requires EPA to set MACT
standards based on the test data that is available to the Agency and
this is what EPA did at proposal. EPA recognizes that it had limited
emissions test data at the time it developed the proposed rule.
However, EPA notes that it used the data that was available at the time
of proposal. EPA requested additional test data to supplement the
emissions database during the development of previous rules for
stationary engines and also in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
for this rule and did not receive any data. EPA again requested
additional test data during the comment period for the current engine
rulemaking and made an additional effort post-proposal to reach out to
industry and other sources in order to supplement the existing emission
data set. EPA did receive additional emissions data for stationary CI
engines during the post-proposal period for this rulemaking. The
additional data include tests for 11 stationary engines, ranging in
size from 160 HP to 3,570 HP. The
[[Page 9668]]
inclusion of this additional data in the MACT floor analysis for the
final rule addresses the commenters' concerns about using data for one
large engine to set the MACT floor for smaller engines.
EPA understands the concerns of commenters with regard to whether
the MACT floor analysis for the proposed rule took emissions
variability appropriately into account. EPA took emissions variability
into account to a greater degree when conducting the MACT floor
analysis for the final rule. For engines where EPA had data for
multiple tests on the same engine, EPA used the highest test run
concentration as the representative emissions for that engine. EPA also
used the lowest percent reduction observed in determining the percent
reduction expected from applicable aftertreatment controls in
determining beyond-the-floor MACT standards. Therefore, the variability
in emissions from the engine was factored into the MACT floor analysis
and the beyond-the-floor MACT analysis.
EPA does not agree that it would be inappropriate to use data from
one run in setting MACT floors; using the highest run from the testing
takes into account the variability of emissions.
G. Final Rule Impacts
Comment: Several commenters indicated that the costs are not
representative of actual costs of implementing the rule and numerous
commenters said that the proposed rule will have a significant
financial impact on their sources. According to the commenters, EPA has
underestimated the cost impacts of the rule by an order of magnitude or
more. Numerous commenters indicated that EPA has used old, faulty, and
inappropriate data on the cost of controls, testing, recordkeeping and
reporting to estimate the economic impacts of the rule. Commenters said
that EPA should gather current information on the cost of controls and
redo the cost calculations. The commenters provided specific examples
of where they believe EPA has used inappropriate cost information. One
concern expressed was that the cost of oxidation catalyst control for
diesel engines was based on the cost of oxidation catalyst control for
gas engines. Commenters also said that not all existing engines have
hour meters. Commenters believed that EPA has underestimated the total
cost of this rule by underestimating the number of engines requiring
the addition of catalyst; assuming that catalysts can simply be added
to effectively control existing engines; overlooking the significant
cost of field installation; and underestimating the complexity of and
administrative/operational burdens added by this rule.
Several commenters provided comments about the economic impact of
the rule on emergency units. One commenter stated that overall the cost
per ton of HAP or CO removal would be excessive for emergency CI
engines since emissions were well below a ton/yr and the units use is
very limited and intermittent. Another commenter noted that engine
manufacturers do not recommend the use of after treatment devices for
emergency engines, and that EPA appeared to support that position in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), which states that cost per ton
removal of HAP ranged from $1 million to $2.8 million for engines
larger than 500 HP and from $3.7 million to $8.7 million for engines
between 50 and 500 HP. One commenter said EPA does not appear to
consider any costs associated with testing emergency engines, even
though owners may deem it prudent to test to confirm they are meeting
the standard rather than risk an enforcement action if the unit does
not meet the standard. Testing to comply with the 100 percent load
requirement will require owners to purchase or rent load banks to meet
the conditions contemplated in the standard, which can cost up to
$10,000 per site. The load bank costs alone could add up to as much as
$973 million. In addition, equipment modifications (sample ports) would
be necessary to test emissions, and EPA has not included these costs in
its calculations.
One commenter said that the proposed rule for existing CI engines
greater than 300 HP at area sources is cost prohibitive for facilities
with peak shaving engines with low operating hours. The commenter
estimated that the cost per ton of HAP removed from these units would
range from $200,000 to $1 million, similar to the cost for emergency
generators.
While reducing HAP is an important goal, one commenter believed
that the overbroad approach taken by EPA in subjecting all the RICE
equipment in question to the requirements proposed, regardless of
whether the equipment is located in urban or rural areas, particularly
when considering the Congressional intent of reducing HAP in urban
areas given the potential risks to public health, and the imposition of
costs in excess of $528 million to reduce 13,000 tons of HAP a year
(i.e., a cost of $40,615 per ton) should be carefully scrutinized.
One commenter noted an additional concern with the proposed rule is
the potential impact of parasitic load resulting from the use of
catalytic diesel particulate filters (CDPF) and oxidation catalysts.
Some back pressure penalty is associated with the use of both CDPF and
oxidation catalysts methods to control HAP, the back pressure can
increase with time, which may require regeneration of the catalyst or
changing filters. The commenter believed that for those utilities that
operate RICE with only marginal excess capacity, addition of either
type of control could require installation of additional RICE capacity
to maintain the needed reliability level. The commenter noted that it
will not be possible to design around the pressure drop for existing
engines and that the penalty should have been addressed and included by
EPA in the cost assessment of retrofit and operation for the control
devices.
Another commenter indicated that EPA's estimates are low for the
capital and operating costs associated with the use of catalytic
control, and are based on pricing data from one vendor and a limited
number of data points. The commenter asserted that EPA's capital
estimate and annual operating cost estimate for catalytic controls are
each low by an order of magnitude of 2 to 3. The commenter also stated
that because beyond-the-floor standards (which require catalytic
controls) are based on the cost per ton of HAP removed and EPA
significantly underestimated capital and operating costs of catalytic
controls, EPA must reanalyze the proposed rule with better cost data to
determine when catalysts are economically practical.
One commenter said the cost information contained in the docket for
test costs is not representative of the sampling costs required to
comply with the standards as proposed. Members of the commenter's
organization indicated that the cost per sample run using Methods 1, 3,
4, and 10 could easily exceed $10,000, excluding costs to prepare for
the sampling (i.e., scaffolding, stack extensions, etc.). In addition
to these cost considerations, as a practical matter, there would be
significant difficulty in performing these EPA test methods on engine
exhaust.
The commenter claimed that EPA has proposed compliance requirements
that are more stringent than GACT requirements or management practices
and that EPA has decided to institute MACT. However, even under MACT
EPA can consider cost and energy impacts. The commenter disagreed with
EPA's conclusion in the RIA that the rule will not likely have a
significant impact on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The
commenter said that the proposed standards could have a
[[Page 9669]]
very detrimental impact on energy reliability, and many units may have
to be shut down due to the cost of compliance.
Response: EPA used the information it had available at the time of
proposal to estimate the cost impacts associated with the rule. This
information included cost data obtained for the development of previous
stationary engine rulemakings, which EPA believed would be appropriate
to use for this rulemaking. Based on the significant number of comments
received on the proposed rule costs, EPA revisited its cost analysis
and assumptions underlying the proposed rule and revised that analysis
and assumptions in the final rule.
EPA has made several attempts to obtain more current cost
information, including through an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
for this rule. EPA agrees with the commenters that it is inappropriate
to base the cost for a diesel oxidation catalyst on the costs for
oxidation catalysts for spark ignition engines. Therefore, EPA has
based the catalyst cost estimate in the final rule on cost data for
diesel oxidation catalysts obtained from a CARB study. More information
on the cost estimate can be found in the memorandum entitled ``Control
Costs for Existing Stationary CI RICE.'' The cost estimates are based
on the use of diesel oxidation catalyst rather than CDPF because we
believe that sources will choose to use oxidation catalyst control
because they are less costly than CDPF and achieve similar reduction in
HAP. Based on a reanalysis of the MACT floor data and above-the-floor
options, taking variability into account, the final rule requires
engines equipped with catalysts to achieve 70 percent reduction rather
than the 90 percent that was proposed.
Regarding the comment that catalysts cannot be added to existing
engines, the commenter did not provide any information to show what
engines would not be able to be retrofit. Regarding the concerns
expressed about backpressure increases, the commenter did not provide
any data to support the claim that the backpressure increases are so
high that they would severely impact the engine output.
EPA does not agree with the claim that the rule will put a strain
on hospitals. The stationary diesel engines at hospitals are typically
emergency engines and EPA has determined that emergency engines located
at institutional facilities such as hospitals that are area sources are
not part of the listed source category and are therefore not subject to
the final rule. EPA does not agree with the commenters that it is not
appropriate to require peaking units and stationary diesel engines that
are located in rural areas to install controls. This is discussed in
more detail in the summary of comments and responses. EPA has specified
in the final rule that performance testing is not limited to 100
percent load, so it should not be necessary to include the cost of a
load bank in the performance testing cost. EPA has incorporated the
costs for testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting in the cost
analysis and believes that its estimates for these costs are
appropriate. The costs for testing are based on information from source
testing companies. As a result of the comments on testing costs, EPA
reevaluated the estimate of how many engines could be tested in a
single day and determined that two engines could be tested at a
facility in one day, rather than three as was estimated in the
proposal.
Regarding the concerns expressed by the commenters about the impact
of the rule on emergency engines, the final rule requires existing
stationary emergency engines to meet work practice or management
practice standards, rather than numeric emission limitations; these
work practices and management practices do not require that these
engines be retrofit with aftertreatment controls or be performance
tested to determine compliance. Information provided to EPA by engine
manufacturers indicates that most engines are already equipped with an
hour meter; therefore, EPA did not add this cost into the rule. EPA
does not believe that the final rule will cause owners/operators to
replace their emergency engines. The final rule imposes work or
management practices on these engines, which EPA believes will not be
overly burdensome to facilities and will not cause the retirement of
existing stationary emergency engines.
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
The final rule is expected to reduce total HAP emissions from
stationary RICE by 1,010 tons per year (tpy) beginning in the year 2013
or the first year the rule will become effective. EPA estimates that
over 900,000 stationary CI engines will be subject to the rule. These
estimates include stationary engines located at major and area sources;
however, not all stationary engines are subject to numerical emission
standards. Further information regarding the estimated reductions of
the final rule can be found in the memorandum entitled ``Impacts
Associated with NESHAP for Existing Stationary RICE,'' which is
available in the docket.
In addition to HAP emissions reductions, the final rule will reduce
other pollutants such as CO, PM, SOX, and volatile organic
compounds (VOC). The final rule is expected to reduce emissions of CO
by 14,000 tpy in the year 2013. Reductions of PM are estimated at 2,800
tpy in the year 2013. Emissions of VOC are estimated to be reduced by
27,000 tpy in the year 2013. The final rule will also reduce emissions
of SOX through the use of ULSD. We have not quantified the
SOX reductions that would occur as a result of engines
switching to ULSD because we are unable to estimate the number of
engines that already use ULSD and therefore we are unable to estimate
the percentage of engines that may switch to ULSD due to this rule. If
none of the affected engines would use ULSD without this rule, then we
estimate the SOX reductions are 31,000 tpy in the year 2013.
If all of the affected engines would use ULSD regardless of the rule,
then the additional SOX reductions would be zero.
B. What are the cost impacts?
The total national capital cost for the final rule for existing
stationary RICE is estimated to be $744 million, with a total national
annual cost of $373 million in year 2013 (the first year the rule is
implemented). Further information regarding the estimated cost impacts
of this proposed rule can be found in the memorandum entitled ``Impacts
Associated with NESHAP for Existing Stationary CI RICE,'' which is
available in the docket.
C. What are the benefits?
We calculated the benefits of this rule in terms of the co-benefits
associated with reducing fine particulate matter (PM) rather than
calculating the benefits associated with reducing hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs). These PM reductions are a consequence of the
technologies installed to reduce HAP emissions from RICE. We estimate
the monetized PM2.5 co-benefits of this final regulatory
action to be $940 million to $2.3 billion (2008$, 3 percent discount
rate) in the fifth year (2013). The PM2.5 co-benefits at a 7
percent discount rate are $850 million to $2.1 billion (2008$). Because
the magnitude of the PM2.5 co-benefits is largely driven by
the concentration-response function for premature mortality, we
examined alternate relationships between PM2.5 and premature
mortality supplied by
[[Page 9670]]
experts. Higher and lower co-benefits estimates are plausible, but most
of the expert-based estimates fall between these two estimates
above.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Roman et al., 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment of the
Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in
the U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268-2274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A summary of the monetized co-benefits estimates at discount rates
of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 4 of this preamble.
Table 4--Summary of the Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits Estimates for Final RICE NESHAP
[Millions of 2008$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission
Pollutant reductions Total monetized co- Total monetized co-
(tons) benefits (3% discount) benefits (7% discount)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct PM2.5............................ 2,844 $910 to $2,200............ $820 to $2,000.
PM2.5 Precursors:
VOC................................. 27,395 $33 to $82................ $30 to $74.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... .............. $940 to $2,300............ $850 to $2,100.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All estimates are for the analysis year (the fifth year), and are rounded to two significant figures so
numbers may not sum across rows. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the
benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors because each ton of precursor reduced has a different
propensity to form PM2.5. We assume that all PM reductions for this rule are PM2.5 reductions. Benefits from
reducing hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are not included.
The benefits estimates of population-level improvements to human
health from reductions in PM2.5 air pollution. We generated
estimates that represent the total monetized human health co-benefits
(the sum of premature mortality and morbidity) of reducing a ton of
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor emissions. We base the
estimate of human health co-benefits derived from the PM2.5
and PM2.5 precursor emission reductions on the general
approach and methodology laid out in the Technical Support Document
that accompanied the RIA for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Ground-level Ozone (NAAQS) and Fann et al. (2009).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. The influence of
location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human health
benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. Air Qual Atmos Health
(2009) 2:169-176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To generate the benefit-per-ton estimates, we used a model to
convert emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors into changes in PM2.5 air quality and another
model to estimate the changes in human health based on that change in
air quality. Finally, the monetized health co-benefits were divided by
the emission reductions to create the benefit-per-ton estimates. Even
though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health
effects, the benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors because
each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form
PM2.5. For example, SOX has a lower benefit-per-
ton estimate than direct PM2.5 because it does not form as
much PM2.5, thus the exposure would be lower, and the
monetized health co-benefits would be lower.
For context, it is important to note that the magnitude of the PM
benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function for
premature mortality. Experts have advised EPA to consider a variety of
assumptions, including estimates based both on empirical
(epidemiological) studies and judgments elicited from scientific
experts, to characterize the uncertainty in the relationship between
PM2.5 concentrations and premature mortality. For this final
rule we cite two key empirical studies, one based on the American
Cancer Society cohort study \6\ and the extended Six Cities cohort
study.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Pope et al, 2002. ``Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality,
and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.'' Journal
of the American Medical Association 287:1132-1141.
\7\ Laden et al, 2006. ``Reduction in Fine Particulate Air
Pollution and Mortality.'' American Journal of Respiratory and
Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA strives to use the best available science to support our
benefits analyses. We recognize that interpretation of the science
regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and evolving. The
question of whether or not to assume a threshold in calculating the co-
benefits associated with reductions in PM2.5 is an issue
that affects the benefits calculations for many EPA rulemakings and
analyses. Due to these implications, we solicited comment on
appropriateness of both the no-threshold and threshold model for PM
benefits analysis as part of the Portland Cement NESHAP (May 2009). The
comment period closed on September 4, 2009, and EPA is still reviewing
those comments. Since then, EPA finalized the Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter,\8\ which was reviewed by EPA's Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee. Based on EPA's review of the body of
scientific literature and the Integrated Science Assessment, EPA has
concluded that the no-threshold model most adequately portrays the
relationship between fine particles and premature mortality. Although
this document does not necessarily represent agency policy, it provides
a basis for reconsidering the application of thresholds in
PM2.5 concentration-response functions used in EPA's RIAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009.
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP
Division. December. Available on the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PM2.5 co-benefits for the incremental emission
reductions from this final regulatory action reflect EPA's most current
interpretation of the scientific literature, including four key changes
from previous analyses for refineries: (1) A no-threshold model for
PM2.5 that calculates incremental co-benefits down to the
lowest modeled air quality levels; (2) a revised Value of a Statistical
Life (VSL); (3) two technical updates to the population dataset and
aggregation method; and (4) presentation of results derived from Pope
et al. (2002) and Laden et al. (2006) instead of using the extremes of
EPA's Expert Elicitation on PM Mortality (Roman et al., 2008). For more
information on the updates to the benefit estimates, please refer to
the RIA for this rule, which is available in the docket.
It should be noted that the PM2.5 co-benefits estimates
provided above do not include benefits from reduced hazardous air
pollutants, improved
[[Page 9671]]
visibility, reduced aquatic and terrestrial acidification. The benefits
from reducing 1,014 tons of HAPs each year have not been monetized in
this analysis. We do not have sufficient information or modeling
available to provide such estimates for this rulemaking. In addition,
we have not quantified the benefits attributable to the SO2
reductions that would occur as a result of these engines switching to
ULSD. Although we are confident that some SO2 reductions
would occur as a result of this rule, we are unable to estimate the
percentage of engines that may switch to ULSD in the absence of this
rule or the number of engines that already use ULSD. As a
PM2.5 precursor, these SO2 emission reductions
would lead to fewer PM2.5-related health effects. Because of
uncertainty in the magnitude of the attributable SO2
reductions and to avoid the appearance of double-counting, we have
chosen to not include these estimates in the results table shown above.
If none of the affected engines would use ULSD without this rule, then
we estimate the additional monetized PM2.5-related health
co-benefits would be $720 million to $1.8 billion in 2013 (2008$, 3%
discount rate). If all of the affected engines would use ULSD
regardless of the rule, then the additional monetized co-benefits from
SO2 reductions would be zero.
This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty
assessment found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA because we lack
the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits
model. However, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis
provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to the use of
alternative concentration response functions, including those derived
from the PM expert elicitation study.
The costs of this rulemaking are estimated to be $373 million
(2008$) in the fifth year, and the monetized PM2.5 co-
benefits are estimated at $940 million to $2.3 billion (2008$, 3
percent discount rate) for that same year. The co-benefits at a 7
percent discount rate are $850 million to $2.1 billion (2008$). Thus,
net benefits of this rulemaking are estimated at $570 million to $1.9
billion (2008$, 3 percent discount rate) and $480 million to $1.7
billion (2008$, 7 percent discount rate). Using alternate relationships
between PM2.5 and premature mortality supplied by experts,
higher and lower co-benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the
expert-based estimates fall between the two estimates we present above.
EPA believes that the co-benefits are likely to exceed the costs even
when taking into account the uncertainties in the cost and benefit
estimates.
For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the
RIA for this rulemaking, which is available in the docket.
D. What are the economic impacts?
The economic impact analysis (EIA) that is included in the RIA
indicates that prices of affected output from the affected industries
will increase as a result of the rule, but the changes will be small.
The largest impacts are on the electric power generating industry
because it bears more costs from the rule than any other affected
industry (nearly 80 percent of the total annualized costs). For all
affected industries, annualized compliance costs are 0.6 percent or
less on average of sales for firms. Thus, output prices will not
increase more than 0.6 percent for consumers and producers affected by
this rule.
Based on the estimated compliance costs associated with this rule
and the predicted changes in prices and output in affected markets, the
estimated social costs are $373 million (2008 dollars), which is the
same as the estimated compliance costs.
For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the
RIA for this rulemaking, which is available in the docket.
E. What are the non-air health, environmental and energy impacts?
EPA does not anticipate any significant non-air health,
environmental or energy impacts as a result of the final rule.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), this action is an ``economically significant
regulatory action'' because it is likely to 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.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this action.
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 collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
The information collection activities in this final rule include
performance testing for non-emergency engines larger than 100 HP, one-
time notifications and periodic reports, recording information,
monitoring and the maintenance of records. The information generated by
these activities will be used by EPA to ensure that affected facilities
comply with the emission limits and other requirements. Records and
reports are necessary to enable EPA or States to identify affected
facilities that may not be in compliance with the requirements. Based
on reported information, EPA will decide which units and what records
or processes should be inspected. The amendments do 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. These recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114
(42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to EPA policies
in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, Confidentiality of Business Information.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after sources must comply)
is estimated to be 2,232,379 labor hours per year at a total annual
cost of $4,200,492. This estimate includes notifications of compliance
and performance tests, engine performance testing, semiannual
compliance reports, continuous monitoring, and recordkeeping. The total
capital costs associated with the requirements over the 3-year period
of the ICR is estimated to be $20,444,316 per year. There are no
additional operation and maintenance costs for the requirements over
the 3-year period of the ICR. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
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 this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical
[[Page 9672]]
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB
control number for the approved information collection requirements
contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
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. The companies owning facilities with
affected RICE can be grouped into small and large categories using
Small Business Administration (SBA) general size standard definitions.
Size standards are based on industry classification codes (i.e., North
American Industrial Classification System, or NAICS) that each company
uses to identify the industry or industries in which they operate in.
The SBA defines a small business in terms of the maximum employment,
annual sales, or annual energy-generating capacity (for electricity
generating units--EGUs) of the owning entity. These thresholds vary by
industry and are evaluated based on the primary industry classification
of the affected companies. In cases where companies are classified by
multiple NAICS codes, the most conservative SBA definition (i.e., the
NAICS code with the highest employee or revenue size standard) was
used.
As mentioned earlier in this preamble, facilities across several
industries use affected RICE; therefore, a number of size standards are
utilized in this analysis. For the 9 industries identified at the 6-
digit NAICS code represented in this analysis, the employment size
standard varies from 500 to 1,000 employees. The annual sales standard
is as low as 0.75 million dollars and as high as 34 million dollars. In
addition, for the electric power generation industry, the small
business size standard is an ultimate parent entity defined as having a
total electric output of 4 million megawatt-hours (MW-hr) in the
previous fiscal year. The specific SBA size standard is identified for
each affected industry within the industry profile to support this
economic analysis.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
certification is based on the economic impact of this final action to
all affected small entities across all industries affected. We estimate
that all small entities will have annualized costs of less than 1
percent of their sales in all industries except NAICS 2211 (electric
power generation, transmission, and distribution) and NAICS 111 (Crop
and Animal Production). For these industries, the number of small
entities having annualized costs of greater than 1 percent of their
sales is less than 5 percent. Hence, we conclude that there is no
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
(SISNOSE) for this rule.
For more information on the small entity impacts associated with
the final rule, please refer to the Economic Impact and Small Business
Analyses in the public docket. These analyses can be found in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for this final rule.
Although the final rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless tried
to reduce the impact of the final rule on small entities. When
developing the revised standards, EPA took special steps to ensure that
the burdens imposed on small entities were minimal. EPA conducted
several meetings with industry trade associations to discuss regulatory
options and the corresponding burden on industry, such as recordkeeping
and reporting. In this rule, we are applying the minimum level of
control (i.e., the MACT floor) to small engines and emergency engines
located at major HAP sources and the minimum level of testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting to affected RICE sources, both
major and area, allowed by the CAA. Other alternatives considered that
provided more than the minimum level of control were deemed as not
technically feasible or cost-effective for EPA to implement for small
engines and emergency engines as explained earlier in the preamble.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on
State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. This final
rule contains a Federal mandate that may 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, EPA has
prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written statement which is
summarized below.
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. EPA is required to address HAP emissions from stationary RICE
located at area sources under section 112(k) of the CAA, based on
criteria set forth by EPA in the Urban Air Toxics Strategy previously
discussed in this preamble. These NESHAP apply to existing stationary
CI RICE less than or equal to 500 HP located at major sources of HAP
emissions, existing non-emergency stationary CI RICE greater than 300
HP, and existing stationary CI RICE located at area sources of HAP
emissions.
In compliance with section 205(a), we identified and considered a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. EPA carefully examined
the regulatory alternatives, and selected the lowest cost/least
burdensome alternative that EPA deems adequate to achieve the statutory
requirements of Clean Air Act section 112 and effectively reduce
emissions of HAP.
1. 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 assuming passthrough of costs to affected consumers, the
estimated social costs of the final rule are $373 million (2008
dollars). It is estimated that by 2013, HAP will be reduced by 1,010
tpy
[[Page 9673]]
due to reductions in formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol and
other HAP from existing stationary RICE. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde
have been classified as ``probable human carcinogens.'' Acrolein and
the other HAP are not considered carcinogenic, but produce several
other toxic effects. The final rule is expected to reduce emissions of
CO by more than 14,000 tpy in the year 2013. Reductions of PM are
estimated at 2,800 tpy in the year 2013. Emissions of VOC are estimated
to be reduced by 27,000 tpy in the year 2013. Exposure to CO can affect
the cardiovascular system and the central nervous system.
The total monetized benefits of the final rule range from $940
million to $2.3 billion (2008 dollars).
2. 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 believe 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.
3. 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 were
summarized previously in this preamble. In addition, we have determined
that the final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, this
rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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 and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on
technology performance.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This 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 impact on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. EPA has prepared an analysis of energy
impacts that explains this conclusion as follows below.
With respect to energy supply and prices, our analysis suggests
that at the industry level, the annualized costs represent a very small
fraction of revenue (generally less than 0.6 percent). As a result, we
can conclude supply and price impacts on affected energy producers and
consumers should be small.
To enhance understanding regarding the regulation's influence on
energy consumption, we examined publicly available data describing
energy consumption for the electric power sector. The electric power
sector is expected to incur about 80 percent of the $373 million in
compliance costs associated with the final rule, and is the industry
expected to incur the greatest share of the costs relative to other
affected industries. The Annual Energy Outlook 2010 (EIA, 2009)
provides energy consumption data. Since this final rule only affects
diesel-fired RICE, our analysis focuses on impacts of consumption of
these fuels. As shown in Table 5 of this preamble, the electric power
sector accounts for less than 0.5 percent of the U.S. total liquid
fuels (which includes diesel fuel). As a result, any energy consumption
changes attributable to the final rule should not significantly
influence the supply, distribution, or use of energy nationwide.
Table 5--U.S. Electric Power a Sector Energy Consumption
[Quadrillion BTUs]: 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share of total
Quantity energy use
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distillate fuel oil..................... 0.12 0.1
Residual fuel oil....................... 0.34 0.3
Liquid fuels subtotal................... 0.45 0.5
Natural gas............................. 5.17 5.1
Steam coal.............................. 20.69 20.6
Nuclear power........................... 8.59 8.5
Renewable energy \b\.................... 6.06 6.0
[[Page 9674]]
Electricity Imports..................... 0.09 0.1
-------------------------------
Total Electric Power Energy 41.18 40.9
Consumption \c\....................
-------------------------------
Delivered Energy Use.................... 72.41 72.0
===============================
Total Energy Use.................... 100.59 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes consumption of energy by electricity-only and combined heat
and power plants whose primary business is to sell electricity, or
electricity and heat, to the public. Includes small power producers
and exempt wholesale generators.
\b\ Includes conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood and wood
waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, other biomass, petroleum coke,
wind, photovoltaic and solar thermal sources. Excludes net electricity
imports.
\c\ Includes non-biogenic municipal waste not included above.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2009. Supplemental
Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2010.
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, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
This final rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
Under Sec. 63.7(f) and Sec. 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
required or referenced testing methods, performance specifications, or
procedures.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This rule is a nationwide standard that reduces air
toxics emissions from existing stationary CI engines, thus decreasing
the amount of such emissions to which all affected populations are
exposed.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 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. EPA will submit a report containing this 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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published 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 May 3, 2010.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 17, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of 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 63.6590 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (3) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.6590 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(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(f).
* * * * *
(3) A stationary RICE which is an existing spark ignition 4 stroke
rich burn (4SRB) stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP
emissions; an existing spark ignition 4SRB stationary RICE with a site
rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP located at a major source
of HAP emissions; 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 emergency stationary
RICE with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP located at a
[[Page 9675]]
major source of HAP emissions; an existing spark ignition emergency or
limited use stationary RICE; an existing limited use stationary RICE
with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP located at a major source
of HAP emissions; 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; or an existing stationary residential,
commercial, or institutional emergency stationary RICE located at an
area source of HAP emissions, does not have to meet the requirements of
this subpart and of subpart A of this part. No initial notification is
necessary.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 63.6595 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.6595 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) * * *
(1) If you have an existing stationary RICE, excluding existing
non-emergency CI stationary RICE, with a site rating of more than 500
brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions, you must comply
with the applicable emission limitations and operating limitations no
later than June 15, 2007. If you have an existing non-emergency CI
stationary RICE with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP located at
a major source of HAP emissions, an existing stationary CI RICE with a
site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP located at a major
source of HAP emissions, or an existing stationary CI RICE located at
an area source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the applicable
emission limitations and operating limitations no later than May 3,
2013.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 63.6600 is amended by adding an introductory paragraph,
revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6600 What emission limitations and operating limitations must
I meet if I own or operate a stationary RICE with a site rating of more
than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions?
Compliance with the numerical emission limitations established in
this subpart is based on the results of testing the average of three 1-
hour runs using the testing requirements and procedures in Sec.
63.6620 and Table 4 to this subpart.
* * * * *
(c) If you own or operate any of the following stationary RICE with
a site rating of more than 500 brake HP located at a major source of
HAP emissions, you do not need to comply with the emission limitations
in Tables 1a, 2a, 2c, and 2d to this subpart or operating limitations
in Tables 1b and 2b to this subpart: an existing 2SLB stationary RICE;
an existing 4SLB 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.
(d) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency stationary CI
RICE with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP located at a major
source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the emission limitations
in Table 2c to this subpart and the operating limitations in Table 2b
to this subpart which apply to you.
0
5. Section 63.6601 is amended by adding a sentence at the beginning of
the section to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6601 What emission limitations must I meet if I own or
operate a 4SLB stationary RICE with a site rating of greater than or
equal to 250 brake HP and less than 500 brake HP located at a major
source of HAP emissions?
Compliance with the numerical emission limitations established in
this subpart is based on the results of testing the average of three 1-
hour runs using the testing requirements and procedures in Sec.
63.6620 and Table 4 to this subpart. * * *
0
6. Section 63.6602 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6602 What emission limitations must I meet if I own or
operate an existing stationary CI RICE with a site rating of equal to
or less than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions?
If you own or operate an existing stationary CI RICE with a site
rating of equal to or less than 500 brake HP located at a major source
of HAP emissions, you must comply with the emission limitations in
Table 2c to this subpart which apply to you. Compliance with the
numerical emission limitations established in this subpart is based on
the results of testing the average of three 1-hour runs using the
testing requirements and procedures in Sec. 63.6620 and Table 4 to
this subpart.
0
7. Section 63.6603 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6603 What emission limitations and operating limitations must
I meet if I own or operate an existing stationary CI RICE located at an
area source of HAP emissions?
Compliance with the numerical emission limitations established in
this subpart is based on the results of testing the average of three 1-
hour runs using the testing requirements and procedures in Sec.
63.6620 and Table 4 to this subpart.
(a) If you own or operate an existing stationary CI RICE located at
an area source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the requirements
in Table 2d to this subpart and the operating limitations in Table 2b
to this subpart which apply to you.
(b) If you own or operate an existing stationary non-emergency CI
RICE greater than 300 HP located at area sources in areas of Alaska not
accessible by the Federal Aid Highway System (FAHS) you do not have to
meet the numerical CO emission limitations specified in Table 2d to
this subpart. Existing stationary non-emergency CI RICE greater than
300 HP located at area sources in areas of Alaska not accessible by the
FAHS must meet the management practices that are shown for stationary
non-emergency CI RICE less than or equal to 300 HP in Table 2d to this
subpart.
0
8. Section 63.6604 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6604 What fuel requirements must I meet if I own or operate
an existing stationary CI RICE?
If you own or operate an existing non-emergency CI stationary RICE
with a site rating of more than 300 brake HP with a displacement of
less than 30 liters per cylinder that uses diesel fuel, you must use
diesel fuel that meets the requirements in 40 CFR 80.510(b) for nonroad
diesel fuel. Existing non-emergency CI stationary RICE located in Guam,
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or at
area sources in areas of Alaska not accessible by the FAHS are exempt
from the requirements of this section.
0
9. Section 63.6605 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:
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.
(b) At all times you must operate and maintain any affected source,
including associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring
equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to
minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to
[[Page 9676]]
reduce emissions if levels required by this standard have been
achieved. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance
procedures are being used will be based on information available to the
Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of
operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 63.6612 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6612 By what date must I conduct the initial performance
tests or other initial compliance demonstrations if I own or operate an
existing stationary RICE with a site rating of less than or equal to
500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions or an existing
stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions?
If you own or operate an existing CI stationary RICE with a site
rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP located at a major source
of HAP emissions or an existing stationary CI RICE located at an area
source of HAP emissions you are subject to the requirements of this
section.
(a) You must conduct any initial performance test or other initial
compliance demonstration according to Tables 4 and 5 to 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) An owner or operator is not required to conduct an initial
performance test on a unit for which a performance test has been
previously conducted, but the test must meet all of the conditions
described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) 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.
0
11. Section 63.6620 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.6620 What performance tests and other procedures must I use?
* * * * *
(b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the
requirements that this subpart specifies in Table 4 to this subpart. If
you own or operate a non-operational stationary RICE that is subject to
performance testing, you do not need to start up the engine solely to
conduct the performance test. Owners and operators of a non-operational
engine can conduct the performance test when the engine is started up
again.
(c) [Reserved]
* * * * *
12. Section 63.6625 is amended by revising the section heading and
adding new paragraphs (e) through (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6625 What are my monitoring, installation, collection,
operation, and maintenance requirements?
* * * * *
(e) If you own or operate an existing stationary RICE with a site
rating of less than 100 brake HP located at a major source of HAP
emissions, an existing stationary emergency RICE, or an existing
stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions not subject
to any numerical emission standards shown in Table 2d to this subpart,
you must operate and maintain the stationary RICE and after-treatment
control device (if any) according to the manufacturer's emission-
related written instructions or develop your own maintenance plan which
must provide to the extent practicable for the maintenance and
operation of the engine in a manner consistent with good air pollution
control practice for minimizing emissions.
(f) If you own or operate an existing emergency stationary RICE
with a site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP located at a
major source of HAP emissions or an existing emergency stationary RICE
located at an area source of HAP emissions, you must install a non-
resettable hour meter if one is not already installed.
(g) If you own or operate an existing non-emergency CI engine
greater than or equal to 300 HP that is not equipped with a closed
crankcase ventilation system, you must comply with either paragraph
(g)(1) or paragraph (g)(2) of this section. Owners and operators must
follow the manufacturer's specified maintenance requirements for
operating and maintaining the open or closed crankcase ventilation
systems and replacing the crankcase filters, or can request the
Administrator to approve different maintenance requirements that are as
protective as manufacturer requirements. Existing CI engines located at
area sources in areas of Alaska not accessible by the FAHS do not have
to meet the requirements of paragraph (g) in this section.
(1) Install a closed crankcase ventilation system that prevents
crankcase emissions from being emitted to the atmosphere, or
(2) Install an open crankcase filtration emission control system
that reduces emissions from the crankcase by filtering the exhaust
stream to remove oil mist, particulates, and metals.
(h) If you operate a new or existing stationary engine, you must
minimize the engine's time spent at idle during startup and minimize
the engine's startup time to a period needed for appropriate and safe
loading of the engine, not to exceed 30 minutes, after which time the
emission standards applicable to all times other than startup in Tables
1a, 2a, 2c, and 2d to this subpart apply.
(i) If you own or operate a stationary engine that is subject to
the work, operation or management practices in items 1, 2, or 4 of
Table 2c to this subpart or in items 1 or 4 of Table 2d to this
subpart, you have the option of utilizing an oil analysis program in
order to extend the specified oil change requirement in Tables 2c and
2d to this subpart. The oil analysis must be performed at the same
frequency specified for changing the oil in Table 2c or 2d to this
subpart. The analysis program must at a minimum analyze the following
three parameters: Total Base Number, viscosity, and percent water
content. The condemning limits for these parameters are as follows:
Total Base Number is less than 30 percent of the Total Base Number of
the oil when new; viscosity of the oil has changed by more than 20
percent from the viscosity of the oil when new; or percent water
content (by volume) is greater than 0.5. If all of these condemning
limits are not exceeded, the engine owner or operator is not required
to change the oil. If any of the limits are exceeded, the engine owner
or operator must change the oil before continuing to use the engine.
The owner or operator must keep records of the parameters that are
analyzed as part of the program, the results of the analysis, and the
oil changes for the engine. The analysis program must be part of the
maintenance plan for the engine.
0
13. Section 63.6640 is amended by:
0
(a) Revising paragraph (a);
0
(b) Revising paragraph (b);
0
(c) Revising paragraph (d);
[[Page 9677]]
0
(d) Revising paragraph (e); and
0
(e) Adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
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, Tables 2a and
2b, Table 2c, and Table 2d to this subpart that apply to you according
to methods specified in Table 6 to 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, Tables
2a and 2b, Table 2c, and Table 2d to 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.
* * * * *
(d) 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 94.11(a).
(e) You must also report each instance in which you did not meet
the requirements in Table 8 to this subpart that apply to you. If you
own or operate a new or reconstructed stationary RICE with a site
rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP located at a major source
of HAP emissions (except new or reconstructed 4SLB engines greater than
or equal to 250 and less than or equal to 500 brake HP), a new or
reconstructed stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP
emissions, or any of the following RICE with a site rating of more than
500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions, you do not
need to comply with the requirements in Table 8 to this subpart: An
existing 2SLB stationary RICE, an existing 4SLB stationary RICE, an
existing emergency stationary RICE, an existing limited use 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. If you own or operate any of the following RICE
with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP located at a major source
of HAP emissions, you do not need to comply with the requirements in
Table 8 to this subpart, except for the initial notification
requirements: 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.
(f) If you own or operate an existing emergency stationary RICE
with a site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake HP located at a
major source of HAP emissions, a new emergency stationary RICE with a
site rating of more than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP
emissions that was installed on or after June 12, 2006, or an existing
emergency stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions,
you must operate the engine according to the conditions described in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) For owners and operators of emergency engines, any operation
other than emergency operation, maintenance and testing, and operation
in non-emergency situations for 50 hours per year, as permitted in this
section, is prohibited.
(2) There is no time limit on the use of emergency stationary RICE
in emergency situations.
(3) You may operate your emergency stationary RICE for the purpose
of maintenance checks and readiness testing, provided that the tests
are recommended by Federal, State or local government, the
manufacturer, the vendor, or the insurance company associated with the
engine. Maintenance checks and readiness testing of such units is
limited to 100 hours per year. The owner or operator may petition the
Administrator for approval of additional hours to be used for
maintenance checks and readiness testing, but a petition is not
required if the owner or operator maintains records indicating that
Federal, State, or local standards require maintenance and testing of
emergency RICE beyond 100 hours per year.
(4) You may operate your emergency stationary RICE up to 50 hours
per year in non-emergency situations, but those 50 hours are counted
towards the 100 hours per year provided for maintenance and testing.
The 50 hours per year for non-emergency situations cannot be used for
peak shaving or to generate income for a facility to supply power to an
electric grid or otherwise supply power as part of a financial
arrangement with another entity; except that owners and operators may
operate the emergency engine for a maximum of 15 hours per year as part
of a demand response program if the regional transmission organization
or equivalent balancing authority and transmission operator has
determined there are emergency conditions that could lead to a
potential electrical blackout, such as unusually low frequency,
equipment overload, capacity or energy deficiency, or unacceptable
voltage level. The engine may not be operated for more than 30 minutes
prior to the time when the emergency condition is expected to occur,
and the engine operation must be terminated immediately after the
facility is notified that the emergency condition is no longer
imminent. The 15 hours per year of demand response operation are
counted as part of the 50 hours of operation per year provided for non-
emergency situations. The supply of emergency power to another entity
or entities pursuant to financial arrangement is not limited by this
paragraph (f)(4), as long as the power provided by the financial
arrangement is limited to emergency power.
0
14. Section 63.6645 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
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 if you own or operate any
of the following;
(1) An existing stationary CI RICE with a site rating of less than
or equal to 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions.
(2) An existing stationary CI RICE located at an area source of HAP
emissions.
(3) A stationary RICE with a site rating of more than 500 brake HP
located at a major source of HAP emissions.
(4) A new or reconstructed 4SLB stationary RICE with a site rating
of greater than or equal to 250 HP located at a major source of HAP
emissions.
(5) This requirement does not apply if you own or operate an
existing stationary CI RICE less than 100 HP, an existing stationary
emergency CI RICE, or an existing stationary CI RICE that is not
subject to any numerical emission standards.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 63.6650 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c)(4) to
read as follows:
[[Page 9678]]
Sec. 63.6650 What reports must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(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 (b)(9) of this section.
(1) For semiannual Compliance reports, 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) For semiannual Compliance reports, 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) For semiannual Compliance reports, 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) For semiannual Compliance reports, 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 (b)(4) of this section.
(6) For annual Compliance reports, 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 December 31.
(7) For annual Compliance reports, the first Compliance report must
be postmarked or delivered no later than January 31 following the end
of the first calendar year after the compliance date that is specified
for your affected source in Sec. 63.6595.
(8) For annual Compliance reports, each subsequent Compliance
report must cover the annual reporting period from January 1 through
December 31.
(9) For annual Compliance reports, each subsequent Compliance
report must be postmarked or delivered no later than January 31.
(c) * * *
(4) If you had a malfunction during the reporting period, the
compliance report must include the number, duration, and a brief
description for each type of malfunction which occurred during the
reporting period and which caused or may have caused any applicable
emission limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a
description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a
malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance
with Sec. 63.6605(b), including actions taken to correct a
malfunction.
* * * * *
0
16. Section 63.6655 is amended by:
0
(a) Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
(b) Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
(c) Adding paragraph (a)(4);
0
(d) Adding paragraph (a)(5);
0
(e) Adding paragraph (e); and
0
(f) Adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
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)(5), (b)(1) through (b)(3) and (c) of this section.
(1) * * *
(2) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control and
monitoring equipment.
(3) * * *
(4) Records of all required maintenance performed on the air
pollution control and monitoring equipment.
(5) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec. 63.6605(b), including
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of
operation.
* * * * *
(e) You must keep records of the maintenance conducted on the
stationary RICE in order to demonstrate that you operated and
maintained the stationary RICE and after-treatment control device (if
any) according to your own maintenance plan if you own or operate any
of the following stationary RICE;
(1) An existing stationary CI RICE with a site rating of less than
100 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions.
(2) An existing stationary emergency CI RICE.
(3) An existing stationary CI RICE located at an area source of HAP
emissions subject to management practices as shown in Table 2d to this
subpart.
(f) If you own or operate any of the stationary RICE in paragraphs
(f)(1) or (2) of this section, you must keep records of the hours of
operation of the engine that is recorded through the non-resettable
hour meter. The owner or operator must document how many hours are
spent for emergency operation, including what classified the operation
as emergency and how many hours are spent for non-emergency operation.
If the engines are used for demand response operation, the owner or
operator must keep records of the notification of the emergency
situation, and the time the engine was operated as part of demand
response.
(1) An existing emergency stationary CI RICE with a site rating of
less than or equal to 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP
emissions that does not meet the standards applicable to non-emergency
engines.
(2) An existing emergency stationary CI RICE located at an area
source of HAP emissions that does not meet the standards applicable to
non-emergency engines.
0
17. Section 63.6660 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.6660 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
* * * * *
(c) You must keep each record readily accessible in hard copy or
electronic form for at least 5 years after the date of each occurrence,
measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record,
according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
0
18. Section 63.6665 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6665 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 8 to 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 a
new or reconstructed stationary RICE with a site rating of less than or
equal to 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions
(except new or reconstructed 4SLB engines greater than or equal to 250
and less than or equal
[[Page 9679]]
to 500 brake HP), a new or reconstructed stationary RICE located at an
area source of HAP emissions, or any of the following RICE with a site
rating of more than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP
emissions, you do not need to comply with any of the requirements of
the General Provisions specified in Table 8: An existing 2SLB
stationary RICE, an existing 4SLB stationary RICE, an existing
stationary RICE that combusts landfill 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.
If you own or operate any of the following RICE with a site rating of
more than 500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions, you
do not need to comply with the requirements in the General Provisions
specified in Table 8 except for the initial notification requirements:
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.
0
19. Section 63.6675 is amended:
0
(a) By revising the definition of Diesel fuel;
0
(b) By revising the definition of Emergency stationary RICE;
0
(c) By adding the definition of Black start engine;
0
(d) By adding the definition of Engine startup; and
0
(e) By adding the definition of Residential/commercial/institutional
emergency stationary RICE, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:
Sec. 63.6675 What definitions apply to this subpart?
* * * * *
Black start engine means an engine whose only purpose is to start
up a combustion turbine.
* * * * *
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. Diesel fuel also
includes any non-distillate fuel with comparable physical and chemical
properties (e.g. biodiesel) that is suitable for use in compression
ignition engines.
* * * * *
Emergency stationary RICE means any stationary internal combustion
engine whose operation is limited to emergency situations and required
testing and maintenance. Examples include stationary ICE used to
produce power for critical networks or equipment (including power
supplied to portions of a facility) when electric power from the local
utility (or the normal power source, if the facility runs on its own
power production) is interrupted, or stationary ICE used to pump water
in the case of fire or flood, etc. Stationary CI ICE used for peak
shaving are not considered emergency stationary ICE. Stationary CI ICE
used to supply power to an electric grid or that supply non-emergency
power as part of a financial arrangement with another entity are not
considered to be emergency engines, except as permitted under Sec.
63.6640(f). Emergency stationary RICE with a site-rating of more than
500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions that were
installed prior to June 12, 2006, 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 with a site-rating of more than
500 brake HP located at a major source of HAP emissions that were
installed prior to June 12, 2006, may also operate an additional 50
hours per year in non-emergency situations. All other emergency
stationary RICE must comply with the requirements specified in Sec.
63.6640(f).
Engine startup means the time from initial start until applied load
and engine and associated equipment reaches steady state or normal
operation. For stationary engine with catalytic controls, engine
startup means the time from initial start until applied load and engine
and associated equipment, including the catalyst, reaches steady state
or normal operation.
* * * * *
Residential/commercial/institutional emergency stationary RICE
means an emergency stationary RICE used in residential establishments
such as homes or residences, commercial establishments such as office
buildings, hotels, or stores, or institutional establishments such as
medical centers, research centers, and institutions of higher
education.
* * * * *
0
20. Table 1a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 1a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Emission Limitations for Existing,
New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary RICE >500 HP
Located at a Major Source of HAP Emissions
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:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the
following emission During periods of
For each . . . limitation, except startup you must . .
during periods of .
startup . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 4SRB stationary RICE..... a. Reduce Minimize the
formaldehyde engine's time spent
emissions by 76 at idle and
percent or more. If minimize the
you commenced engine's startup
construction or time at startup to
reconstruction a period needed for
between December appropriate and
19, 2002 and June safe loading of the
15, 2004, you may engine, not to
reduce formaldehyde exceed 30 minutes,
emissions by 75 after which time
percent or more the non-startup
until June 15, 2007 emission
or. limitations
apply.\1\
b. Limit the ....................
concentration of
formaldehyde in the
stationary RICE
exhaust to 350
ppbvd or less at 15
percent O2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the requirements
of 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices.
[[Page 9680]]
0
21. Table 2a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 2a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Emission Limitations for New and
Reconstructed 2SLB and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE >500 HP and
New and Reconstructed 4SLB Stationary RICE >=250 HP Located at a Major
Source of HAP Emissions
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:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the
following emission During periods of
For each . . . limitation, except startup you must . .
during periods of .
startup . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB stationary RICE..... a. Reduce CO Minimize the
emissions by 58 engine's time spent
percent or more; or at idle and
b. Limit minimize the
concentration of engine's startup
formaldehyde in the time at startup to
stationary RICE a period needed for
exhaust to 12 ppmvd appropriate and
or less at 15 safe loading of the
percent O2. If you engine, not to
commenced exceed 30 minutes,
construction or after which time
reconstruction the non-startup
between December emission
19, 2002 and June limitations
15, 2004, you may apply.\1\
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the requirements
of 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices.
0
22. Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Operating Limitations for New and
Reconstructed 2SLB and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE >500 HP
Located at a Major Source of HAP Emissions, Existing Non-Emergency
Compression Ignition Stationary RICE >500 HP, and New and Reconstructed
4SLB Burn Stationary RICE >=250 HP Located at a Major Source of HAP
Emissions
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.6600, 63.6601, 63.6630, and 63.6640, you
must comply with the following operating limitations for new and
reconstructed lean burn and existing, new and reconstructed compression
ignition stationary RICE:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following
For each . . . operating limitation . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI a. Maintain your catalyst so
stationary RICE complying with the that the pressure drop across
requirement to reduce CO emissions and the catalyst does not change
using an oxidation catalyst; or 2SLB by more than 2 inches of water
and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI at 100 percent load plus or
stationary RICE complying with the minus 10 percent from the
requirement to limit the concentration pressure drop across the
of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE catalyst that was measured
exhaust and using an oxidation during the initial performance
catalyst. test; and
b. Maintain the temperature of
your stationary RICE exhaust
so that the catalyst inlet
temperature is greater than or
equal to 450 [deg]F and less
than or equal to 1350
[deg]F.\1\
2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI Comply with any operating
stationary RICE complying with the limitations approved by the
requirement to reduce CO emissions and Administrator.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the requirements
of 40 CFR 63.8(g) for a different temperature range.
[[Page 9681]]
0
23. Add Tables 2c and 2d to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 to read as follows:
Table 2c to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Existing
Compression Ignition Stationary Rice Located at Major Sources of HAP
Emissions
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.6600 and 63.6640, you must comply with
the following requirements for existing compression ignition stationary
RICE:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the
following During periods of
For each . . . requirement, except startup you must . .
during periods of .
startup . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Emergency CI and black a. Change oil and Minimize the
start CI.\1\. filter every 500 engine's time spent
hours of operation at idle and
or annually, minimize the
whichever comes engine's startup
first; \2\ time at startup to
b. Inspect air a period needed for
cleaner every 1,000 appropriate and
hours of operation safe loading of the
or annually, engine, not to
whichever comes exceed 30 minutes,
first;. after which time
c. Inspect all hoses the non-startup
and belts every 500 emission
hours of operation limitations
or annually, apply.\3\
whichever comes
first, and replace
as necessary.\3\.
2. Non-Emergency, non-black a. Change oil and
start CI < 100 HP. filter every 1,000
hours of operation
or annually,
whichever comes
first; \2\
b. Inspect air
cleaner every 1,000
hours of operation
or annually,
whichever comes
first;
c. Inspect all hoses
and belts every 500
hours of operation
or annually,
whichever comes
first, and replace
as necessary.\3\
3. Non-Emergency, non-black Limit concentration
start CI RICE 100<=HP<=300 of CO in the
HP. stationary RICE
exhaust to 230
ppmvd or less at 15
percent O2.
4. Non-Emergency, non-black a. Limit
start CI 300500 HP. concentration of CO
in the stationary
RICE exhaust to 23
ppmvd or less at 15
percent O2; or
b. Reduce CO
emissions by 70
percent or more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If an emergency engine is operating during an emergency and it is
not possible to shut down the engine in order to perform the work
practice requirements on the schedule required in Table 2c of this
subpart, or if performing the work practice on the required schedule
would otherwise pose an unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or
local law, the work practice can be delayed until the emergency is
over or the unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or local law has
abated. The work practice should be performed as soon as practicable
after the emergency has ended or the unacceptable risk under Federal,
State, or local law has abated. Sources must report any failure to
perform the work practice on the schedule required and the Federal,
State or local law under which the risk was deemed unacceptable.
\2\ Sources have the option to utilize an oil analysis program as
described in Sec. 63.6625(i) in order to extend the specified oil
change requirement in Table 2c of this subpart.
\3\ Sources can petition the Administrator pursuant to the requirements
of 40 CFR 63.6(g) for alternative work practices.
Table 2d to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Existing
Compression Ignition Stationary RICE Located at Area Sources of HAP
Emissions
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.6600 and 63.6640, you must comply with
the following emission and operating limitations for existing
compression ignition stationary RICE:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the
following During periods of
For each . . . requirement, except startup you must . .
during periods of .
startup . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Non-Emergency, non-black a. Change oil and
start CI <= 300 HP. filter every 1,000
hours of operation
or annually,
whichever comes
first;\1\
b. Inspect air Minimize the
cleaner every 1,000 engine's time spent
hours of operation at idle and
or annually, minimize the
whichever comes engine's startup
first; time at startup to
a period needed for
appropriate and
safe loading of the
engine, not to
exceed 30 minutes,
after which time
the non-startup
emission
limitations apply.
c. Inspect all hoses
and belts every 500
hours of operation
or annually,
whichever comes
first, and replace
as necessary.
[[Page 9682]]
2. Non-Emergency, non-black a. Limit
start CI 300 500 HP. concentration of CO
in the stationary
RICE exhaust to 23
ppmvd at 15 percent
O2; or
b. Reduce CO
emissions by 70
percent or more.
4. Emergency CI and black a. Change oil and
start CI.\2\. filter every 500
hours of operation
or annually,
whichever comes
first;\1\
b. Inspect air
cleaner every 1,000
hours of operation
or annually,
whichever comes
first; and
c. Inspect all hoses
and belts every 500
hours of operation
or annually,
whichever comes
first, and replace
as necessary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sources have the option to utilize an oil analysis program as
described in Sec. 63.6625(i) in order to extend the specified oil
change requirement in Table 2d of this subpart.
\2\ If an emergency engine is operating during an emergency and it is
not possible to shut down the engine in order to perform the
management practice requirements on the schedule required in Table 2d
of this subpart, or if performing the management practice on the
required schedule would otherwise pose an unacceptable risk under
Federal, State, or local law, the management practice can be delayed
until the emergency is over or the unacceptable risk under Federal,
State, or local law has abated. The management practice should be
performed as soon as practicable after the emergency has ended or the
unacceptable risk under Federal, State, or local law has abated.
Sources must report any failure to perform the management practice on
the schedule required and the Federal, State or local law under which
the risk was deemed unacceptable.
0
24. Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Subsequent Performance Tests
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.6615 and 63.6620, you must comply with
the following subsequent performance test requirements:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complying with the
For each . . . requirement to . . . You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary Reduce CO emissions Conduct subsequent
RICE with a brake and not using a performance tests
horsepower >500 located at CEMS. semiannually.\1\
major sources and new or
reconstructed CI stationary
RICE with a brake
horsepower >500 located at
major sources.
2. 4SRB stationary RICE with Reduce formaldehyde Conduct subsequent
a brake horsepower >=5,000 emissions. performance tests
located at major sources. semiannually.\1\
3. Stationary RICE with a Limit the Conduct subsequent
brake horsepower >500 concentration of performance tests
located at major sources. formaldehyde in the semiannually.\1\
stationary RICE
exhaust.
4. Existing non-emergency, Limit or reduce CO Conduct subsequent
non-black start CI or formaldehyde performance tests
stationary RICE with a emissions. every 8,760 hrs or
brake horsepower >500 that 3 years, whichever
are not limited use comes first.
stationary RICE.
5. Existing non-emergency, .................... Conduct subsequent
non-black start CI performance tests
stationary RICE with a every 8,760 hrs or
brake horsepower >500 that 5 years, whichever
are limited use stationary comes first.
RICE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
0
25. Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Performance Tests
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.6610, 63.6611, 63.6612, 63.6620, and
63.6640, you must comply with the following requirements for
performance tests for stationary RICE for existing sources:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complying with the According to the
For each . . . requirement to . . You must . . . Using . . . following
. requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI stationary a. Reduce CO i. Measure the O2 (1) Portable CO (a) Using ASTM
RICE. emissions. at the inlet and and O2 analyzer.. D6522-00 (2005)
outlet of the \a\ (incorporated
control device; by reference, see
and Sec. 63.14).
Measurements to
determine O2 must
be made at the
same time as the
measurements for
CO concentration.
[[Page 9683]]
ii. Measure the CO (1) Portable CO (a) Using ASTM
at the inlet and and O2 analyzer.. D6522-00 (2005)
the outlet of the \a,b\
control device. (incorporated by
reference, see
Sec. 63.14) or
Method 10 of 40
CFR appendix A.
The CO
concentration
must be at 15
percent O2, dry
basis.
2. 4SRB stationary RICE......... a. Reduce i. Select the (1) Method 1 or 1A (a) Sampling sites
formaldehyde sampling port of 40 CFR part must be located
emissions. location and the 60, appendix A at the inlet and
number of Sec. outlet of the
traverse points; 63.7(d)(1)(i). control device.
and
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, or ASTM Method must be made at
and D6522-00 (2005). 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 of (a) Formaldehyde
formaldehyde at 40 CFR part 63, concentration
the inlet and the appendix A; or must be at 15
outlet of the ASTM D6348-03 percent O2, dry
control device. \c\, provided in basis. Results of
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 or location and the 60, appendix A the sampling site
CO in the number of Sec. must be located
stationary RICE traverse points; 63.7(d)(1)(i). at the outlet of
exhaust. 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, or ASTM Method must be made at
the sampling port D6522-00 (2005). 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 of (a) Formaldehyde
formaldehyde at 40 CFR part 63, concentration
the exhaust of appendix A; or must be at 15
the stationary ASTM D6348-03 percent O2, dry
RICE; or \c\, provided in basis. Results of
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.
v. Measure CO at (1) Method 10 of (a) CO
the exhaust of 40 CFR part 60, concentration
the stationary appendix A, ASTM must be at 15
RICE. Method D6522-00 percent O2, dry
(2005) \a\, basis. Results of
Method 320 of 40 this test consist
CFR part 63, of the average of
appendix A, or the three 1-hour
ASTM D6348-03. longer runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ You may also use Methods 3A and 10 as options to ASTM-D6522-00 (2005). You may obtain a copy of ASTM-D6522-
00 (2005) from at least one of the following addresses: American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road,
Ann Arbor, MI 48106. ASTM-D6522-00 (2005) may be used to test both CI and SI stationary RICE.
\b\ You may also use Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, or ASTM D6348-03.
\c\ 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 Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, or University Microfilms
International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.
[[Page 9684]]
0
25. Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Operating Limitations
As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.6612, 63.6625 and 63.6630, you must
initially comply with the emission and operating limitations as
required by the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 >500 HP located at a emissions and using reduction of
major source and new or oxidation catalyst, emissions of CO
reconstructed CI stationary and using a CPMS. determined from the
RICE >500 HP located at a initial performance
major source. 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 >500 HP located at a emissions and not reduction of
major source and new or using oxidation emissions of CO
reconstructed CI stationary catalyst. determined from the
RICE >500 HP located at a initial performance
major source. 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 >500 HP located at a emissions, and installed a CEMS to
major source and new or using a CEMS. continuously
reconstructed CI stationary monitor CO and
RICE >500 HP located at a either O2 or CO2 at
major source. 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 >500 a. Reduce i. The average
HP located at a major formaldehyde reduction of
source. 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 >500 a. Reduce i. The average
HP located at a major formaldehyde reduction of
source. 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 >500 HP a. Limit the i. The average
located at a major source. 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
[[Page 9685]]
iii. You have
recorded the
catalyst pressure
drop and catalyst
inlet temperature
during the initial
performance test.
7. Stationary RICE >500 HP a. Limit the i. The average
located at a major source. 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.
8. Existing stationary non- a. Reduce CO or i. The average
emergency RICE >=100 HP formaldehyde reduction of
located at a major source, emissions. emissions of CO or
existing non-emergency CI formaldehyde, as
stationary RICE >500 HP, applicable
and existing stationary non- determined from the
emergency RICE >=100 HP initial performance
located at an area source. test is equal to or
greater than the
required CO or
formaldehyde, as
applicable, percent
reduction.
9. Existing stationary non- a. Limit the i. The average
emergency RICE >=100 HP concentration of formaldehyde or CO
located at a major source, formaldehyde or CO concentration, as
existing non-emergency CI in the stationary applicable,
stationary RICE >500 HP, RICE exhaust. corrected to 15
and existing stationary non- percent O2, dry
emergency RICE >=100 HP basis, from the
located at an area source. three test runs is
less than or equal
to the formaldehyde
or CO emission
limitation, as
applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
26. Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Continuous Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Operating Limitations
As stated in Sec. 63.6640, you must continuously comply with the
emissions and operating limitations as required by the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must demonstrate
Complying with the continuous
For each . . . requirement to . . . compliance by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary a. Reduce CO i. Conducting
RICE >500 HP located at a emissions and using semiannual
major source and CI an oxidation performance tests
stationary RICE >500 HP catalyst, and using for CO to
located at a major source. a CPMS. demonstrate that
the required CO
percent reduction
is achieved \a\;
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 >500 HP located at a emissions and not semiannual
major source and CI using an oxidation performance tests
stationary RICE >500 HP catalyst, and using for CO to
located at a major source. a CPMS. demonstrate that
the required CO
percent reduction
is achieved \a\;
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 >500 HP located at a emissions and using monitoring data
major source and CI a CEMS. according to Sec.
stationary RICE >500 HP 63.6625(a),
located at a major source. 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
[[Page 9686]]
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 >500 a. Reduce i. Collecting the
HP located at a major formaldehyde catalyst inlet
source. 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
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 >500 a. Reduce i. Collecting the
HP located at a major formaldehyde approved operating
source. 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;
and
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 HP >=5,000 located emissions. semiannual
at a major source. performance tests
for formaldehyde to
demonstrate that
the required
formaldehyde
percent reduction
is achieved.\a\
7. Stationary RICE >500 HP Limit the i. Conducting
located at a major source. 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
\a\; 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 >500 HP Limit the i. Conducting
located at a major source. 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
\a\; 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.
9. Existing stationary CI a. Work or i. Operating and
RICE not subject to any Management maintaining the
numerical emission practices. stationary RICE
limitations. according to the
manufacturer's
emission-related
operation and
maintenance
instructions; or
ii. Develop and
follow your own
maintenance plan
which must provide
to the extent
practicable for the
maintenance and
operation of the
engine in a manner
consistent with
good air pollution
control practice
for minimizing
emissions.
[[Page 9687]]
10. Existing stationary RICE a. Reduce CO or i. Conducting
>500 HP that are not formaldehyde performance tests
limited use stationary emissions; or. every 8,760 hours
RICE, except 4SRB >500 HP b. Limit the or 3 years,
located at major sources. concentration of whichever comes
formaldehyde or CO first, for CO or
in the stationary formaldehyde, as
RICE exhaust. appropriate, to
demonstrate that
the required CO or
formaldehyde, as
appropriate,
percent reduction
is achieved or that
your emissions
remain at or below
the CO or
formaldehyde
concentration
limit.
11. Existing limited use a. Reduce CO or i. Conducting
stationary RICE >500 HP formaldehyde performance tests
that are limited use CI emissions; or. every 8,760 hours
stationary RICE. b. Limit the or 5 years,
concentration of whichever comes
formaldehyde or CO first, for CO or
in the stationary formaldehyde, as
RICE exhaust. appropriate, to
demonstrate that
the required CO or
formaldehyde, as
appropriate,
percent reduction
is achieved or that
your emissions
remain at or below
the CO or
formaldehyde
concentration
limit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 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.
0
27. Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Requirements for Reports
As stated in Sec. 63.6650, you must comply with the following
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.
operating 63.6650(b)(1)-(5)
limitations that for engines that
apply to you, a are not limited use
statement that stationary CI RICE
there were no subject to
deviations from the numerical emission
emission limitations; and
limitations or ii. Annually
operating according to the
limitations during requirements in
the reporting Sec.
period. If there 63.6650(b)(6)-(9)
were no periods for engines that
during which the are limited use
CMS, including CEMS stationary CI RICE
and CPMS, was out- subject to
of-control, as numerical emission
specified in Sec. limitations.
63.8(c)(7), a
statement that
there were not
periods during
which the CMS was
out-of-control
during the
reporting period;
or
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
malfunction during according to the
the reporting requirements in
period, the Sec. 63.6650(b).
information in Sec.
63.6650(c)(4).
2. 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 2.a.i.
limits provided in
your Federally
enforceable permit,
and any deviations
from these limits;
and
c. Any problems or i. See item 2.a.i.
errors suspected
with the meters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9688]]
0
28. Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63 is revised to read as follows:
Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63. Applicability of General Provisions
to Subpart ZZZZ.
As stated in Sec. 63.6665, you must comply with the following
applicable general provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisions citation Subject of citation Applies to subpart Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1....................... General applicability of Yes. .........................
the General Provisions.
Sec. 63.2....................... Definitions............... Yes.................. Additional terms defined
in Sec. 63.6675.
Sec. 63.3....................... Units and abbreviations... Yes. .........................
Sec. 63.4....................... Prohibited activities and Yes. .........................
circumvention.
Sec. 63.5....................... Construction and Yes. .........................
reconstruction.
Sec. 63.6(a).................... Applicability............. Yes. .........................
Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4)............. Compliance dates for new Yes. .........................
and reconstructed sources.
Sec. 63.6(b)(5)................. Notification.............. Yes. .........................
Sec. 63.6(b)(6)................. [Reserved] .........................
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)................. Compliance dates for new Yes. .........................
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).................... Operation and maintenance. No. .........................
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................. Applicability of standards No. .........................
Sec. 63.6(f)(2)................. Methods for determining Yes. .........................
compliance.
Sec. 63.6(f)(3)................. Finding of compliance..... Yes. .........................
Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3)............. Use of alternate standard. Yes. .........................
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.
Sec. 63.6(j).................... Presidential compliance Yes. .........................
exemption.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)............. Performance test dates.... Yes.................. Subpart ZZZZ contains
performance test dates
at Sec. Sec. 63.6610,
63.6611, and 63.6612.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)................. CAA section 114 authority. Yes. .........................
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)................. Notification of Yes.................. Except that Sec.
performance test. 63.7(b)(1) only applies
as specified in Sec.
63.6645.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)................. Notification of Yes.................. Except that Sec.
rescheduling. 63.7(b)(2) only applies
as specified in Sec.
63.6645.
Sec. 63.7(c).................... Quality assurance/test Yes.................. Except that Sec.
plan. 63.7(c) only applies as
specified in Sec.
63.6645.
Sec. 63.7(d).................... Testing facilities........ Yes. .........................
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)................. Conditions for conducting No................... Subpart ZZZZ specifies
performance tests. conditions for
conducting performance
tests at Sec. 63.6620.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)................. Conduct of performance Yes.................. Subpart ZZZZ specifies
tests and reduction of test methods at Sec.
data. 63.6620.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3)................. Test run duration......... Yes. .........................
Sec. 63.7(e)(4)................. Administrator may require Yes. .........................
other testing under
section 114 of the CAA.
Sec. 63.7(f).................... Alternative test method Yes. .........................
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 requirements. specific requirements
for monitoring at Sec.
63.6625.
Sec. 63.8(a)(2)................. Performance specifications Yes.
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 predictable Yes. .........................
SSM.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)............. SSM not in Startup Yes. .........................
Shutdown Malfunction Plan.
[[Page 9689]]
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)............ Compliance with operation Yes. .........................
and maintenance
requirements.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)............. Monitoring system Yes. .........................
installation.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................. Continuous monitoring Yes.................. Except that subpart ZZZZ
system (CMS) requirements. does not require
Continuous Opacity
Monitoring System
(COMS).
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)................. COMS minimum procedures... No................... Subpart ZZZZ does not
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 evaluation Yes.................. Except for Sec.
63.8(e)(5)(ii), which
applies to COMS.
Except that Sec.
63.8(e) only applies as
specified in Sec.
63.6645.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)............. Alternative monitoring Yes.................. Except that Sec.
method. 63.8(f)(4) only applies
as specified in Sec.
63.6645.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................. Alternative to relative Yes.................. Except that Sec.
accuracy test. 63.8(f)(6) only applies
as specified in Sec.
63.6645.
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 State Yes. .........................
delegation of
notification requirements.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(5)............. Initial notifications..... Yes.................. Except that Sec.
63.9(b)(3) is reserved.
Except that Sec.
63.9(b) only applies as
specified in Sec.
63.6645.
Sec. 63.9(c).................... Request for compliance Yes.................. Except that Sec.
extension. 63.9(c) only applies as
specified in Sec.
63.6645.
Sec. 63.9(d).................... Notification of special Yes.................. Except that Sec.
compliance requirements 63.9(d) only applies as
for new sources. specified in Sec.
63.6645.
Sec. 63.9(e).................... Notification of Yes.................. Except that Sec.
performance test. 63.9(e) only applies as
specified in Sec.
63.6645.
Sec. 63.9(f).................... Notification of visible No................... Subpart ZZZZ does not
emission (VE)/opacity contain opacity or VE
test. standards.
Sec. 63.9(g)(1)................. Notification of Yes.................. Except that Sec.
performance evaluation. 63.9(g) only applies as
specified in Sec.
63.6645.
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 use.
criterion for alternative
to RATA is exceeded.
Except that Sec.
63.9(g) only applies as
specified in Sec.
63.6645.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(6)............. Notification of compliance Yes.................. Except that notifications
status. for sources using a CEMS
are due 30 days after
completion of
performance evaluations.
Sec. 63.9(h)(4) is
reserved.
Except that Sec.
63.9(h) only applies as
specified in Sec.
63.6645.
Sec. 63.9(i).................... Adjustment of submittal Yes. .........................
deadlines.
Sec. 63.9(j).................... Change in previous Yes. .........................
information.
Sec. 63.10(a)................... Administrative provisions Yes. .........................
for recordkeeping/
reporting.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1)................ Record retention.......... Yes. .........................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v)......... Records related to SSM.... No. .........................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi)....... Records................... Yes. .........................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii)........... Record when under waiver.. Yes. .........................
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii).......... Records when using Yes.................. For CO standard if using
alternative to RATA. RATA alternative.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv)........... Records of supporting Yes. .........................
documentation.
Sec. 63.10(b)(3)................ Records of applicability Yes. .........................
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 test Yes. .........................
results.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3)................ Reporting opacity or VE No................... Subpart ZZZZ does not
observations. contain opacity or VE
standards.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4)................ Progress reports.......... Yes. .........................
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)................ Startup, shutdown, and No. .........................
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.
[[Page 9690]]
Sec. 63.10(e)(4)................ Reporting COMS data....... No................... Subpart ZZZZ does not
require COMS.
Sec. 63.10(f)................... Waiver for recordkeeping/ Yes. .........................
reporting.
Sec. 63.11...................... Flares.................... No. .........................
Sec. 63.12...................... State authority and Yes. .........................
delegations.
Sec. 63.13...................... Addresses................. Yes. .........................
Sec. 63.14...................... Incorporation by reference Yes. .........................
Sec. 63.15...................... Availability of Yes. .........................
information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2010-3508 Filed 3-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P