[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77830-77874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-31232]
[[Page 77829]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2002 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 77830]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2002-0059; FRL--7417-9]
RIN 2060-AG-63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary reciprocating internal
combustion engines (RICE) with manufacturer's nameplate rating above
500 brake horsepower located at major sources of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP). We have identified stationary RICE as a major source
category of HAP emissions such as formaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and
acetaldehyde. The proposed rule would implement section 112(d) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission
standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) for RICE. We estimate that 40 percent of stationary
RICE will be located at major sources and thus subject to the proposed
rule. As a result, the environmental, energy, and economic impacts
presented in this preamble reflect these estimates. We estimate that
the proposed rule would reduce nationwide HAP emissions from major
stationary RICE by approximately 5,000 tons/year in the 5th year after
the standards are implemented. The emissions reductions achieved by
these standards will provide protection to the public and achieve a
primary goal of the CAA.
DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 18, 2003, or by
February 20, 2003 if a public hearing is held.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a
public hearing by January 8, 2003, a public hearing will be held on
January 21, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail (in duplicate, if
possible) to EPA West (Air Docket), U.S. EPA (MD-6102T), Room B-108,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket
ID No. OAR-2002-0059. By hand delivery/courier, comments may be
submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to EPA Docket Center (Air
Docket), U.S. EPA, (MD-6102T), Room B-108, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0059. Also,
comments may be submitted electronically according to the detailed
instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the
new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or
at an alternate site nearby.
Docket. Docket No. OAR-2002-0059 contains supporting information
used in developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S.
EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 in room B108,
and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Sims Roy, Combustion Group,
Emission Standards Division, (MD-C439-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 541-5263; facsimile
number (919) 541-5450; electronic mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by this action include:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category SIC NAICS Examples of regulated entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industry using a stationary RICE as 4911 2211 Electric power generation, transmission, or distribution.
defined in the proposed rule.
4922 48621 Natural gas transmission.
1311 211111 Crude petroleum and natural gas production.
1321 211112 Natural gas liquids producers.
9711 92811 National security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a guide for
readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To
determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.6585 of the proposed
rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0059. The official public docket
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any
public comments received, and other information related to this action.
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA
West, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for
the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying docket materials.
Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,''
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. The EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not
be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only
in printed paper form in the official public docket. To the extent
feasible, publicly available docket
[[Page 77831]]
materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the
system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in
EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may
be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly
available docket materials through the docket facility identified
above. The EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to
all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic
public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.
For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket
visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the
first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are
submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after
the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' The EPA is not
required to consider these late comments. However, late comments may be
considered if time permits.
Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed
below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and
an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your
comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any
disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the
disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. The EPA's policy is that
EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact
information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part
of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic
public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select ``Information
Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, select
``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0059. The system is
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0059. In contrast to
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the
mailing address identified below. These electronic submissions will be
accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special
characters and any form of encryption.
By Mail. Send your comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. EPA, Mailcode: 6102T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID
No. OAR-2002-0059. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the
contact person listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket
Center, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0059. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified
above.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail.
Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following
address: Mr. Sims Roy, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-
2), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 27711, Attention Docket ID No.
OAR-2002-0059. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI
by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit
CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that
support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
[[Page 77832]]
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Federal Register citation related to your comments.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Mrs.
Kelly Hayes, Combustion Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-C439-
01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-
5578 at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons
interested in attending the public hearing must also call Mrs. Hayes to
verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The public hearing
will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views,
or arguments concerning the proposed rule. If a public hearing is
requested and held, EPA will ask clarifying questions during the oral
presentation but will not respond to the presentations or comments.
Written statements and supporting information will be considered with
equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting information
presented at a public hearing, if held.
Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as
follows:
I. Background
A. What is the regulatory development background of this source
category?
B. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
C. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
D. What are the health effects associated with HAP from
stationary RICE?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. Am I subject to the proposed rule?
B. What source categories and subcategories are affected by the
proposed rule?
C. What are the primary sources of HAP emissions and what are
the emissions?
D. What are the emission limitations and operating limitations?
E. What are the initial compliance requirements?
F. What are the continuous compliance provisions?
G. What monitoring and testing methods are available to measure
these low concentrations of CO and formaldehyde?
H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements?
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How did we select the source category and any subcategories?
B. What is the affected source?
C. How did we determine the basis and level of the proposed
emission limitations and operating limitations?
D. Why does the proposed rule not apply to stationary RICE of
500 brake horsepower or less?
E. Why does the proposed rule not apply to stationary RICE
located at area sources?
F. How did we select the format of the standard?
G. How did we select the initial compliance requirements?
H. How did we select the continuous compliance requirements?
I. What monitoring and testing methods are available to measure
these low concentrations of CO and formaldehyde?
J. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. What are the air quality impacts?
B. What are the cost impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
D. What are the nonair health, environmental and energy impacts?
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Background
A. What Is the Regulatory Development Background of the Source
Category?
In September 1996, we chartered the Industrial Combustion
Coordinated Rulemaking (ICCR) advisory committee under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The committee's objective was to develop
recommendations for regulations for several combustion source
categories under sections 112 and 129 of the CAA. The ICCR advisory
committee, also known as the Coordinating Committee, formed Source Work
Groups for the various combustor types covered under the ICCR. One work
group, the RICE Work Group, was formed to research issues related to
stationary RICE units. The RICE Work Group submitted recommendations,
information, and data analyses to the Coordinating Committee, which in
turn considered them and submitted recommendations and information to
EPA. The Committee's 2-year charter expired in September 1998. We
considered the Committee's recommendations in developing the proposed
rule for stationary RICE.
B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The
stationary RICE source category was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR
31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit
greater than 10 ton/yr of any one HAP or 25 ton/yr of any combination
of HAP. Most RICE engines or groups of RICE engines are not major HAP
emission sources by themselves but are major because they are co-
located at major HAP sites.
C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing sources in regulated source
categories. The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree
of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of
control is commonly referred to as the MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that the standards are set at a level that assures that
all major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as
that already achieved by the better controlled and lower emitting
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. The MACT
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best performing
5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent
than the floor based on the consideration of
[[Page 77833]]
cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any nonair quality health
and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
D. What Are the Health Effects Associated With HAP From Stationary
RICE?
Emission data collected during development of the proposed NESHAP
show that several HAP are emitted from stationary RICE. These HAP
emissions are formed during combustion or result from HAP compounds
contained in the fuel burned.
Hazardous air pollutants which have been measured in emission tests
conducted on natural gas fired and distillate oil fired RICE include:
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,3-butadiene, 2,2,4-trimethylpentane,
acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, chlorobenzene, chloroethane,
ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, methanol, methylene chloride, n-hexane,
naphthalene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polycyclic organic
matter, styrene, tetrachloroethane, toluene, and xylene. Metallic HAP
from distillate oil fired stationary RICE that have been measured are:
Cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium.
Although numerous HAP may be emitted from RICE, only a few account
for essentially all of the mass of HAP emissions from stationary RICE.
These HAP are: Formaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and acetaldehyde.
The hazardous air pollutant emitted in the largest quantities from
stationary RICE is formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a probable human
carcinogen and can cause irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract,
coughing, dry throat, tightening of the chest, headache, and heart
palpitations. Acute inhalation has caused bronchitis, pulmonary edema,
pneumonitis, pneumonia, and death due to respiratory failure. Long-term
exposure can cause dermatitis and sensitization of the skin and
respiratory tract.
Acrolein is a cytotoxic agent, a powerful lacrimating agent, and a
severe tissue irritant. Acute exposure to acrolein can cause severe
irritation or corrosion of the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, with
tearing, pain in the chest, and delayed-onset pulmonary injury with
depressed pulmonary function. Chronic exposure to acrolein can cause
skin sensitization and contact dermatitis. Acrolein is not considered
carcinogenic to humans.
Humans are very sensitive to the toxic effects of methanol
including formic acidaemia, metabolic acidosis, ocular toxicity,
nervous system depression, blindness, coma, and death. A majority of
the available information on methanol toxicity in humans is based on
acute rather than long-term exposure. However, recent animal studies
also indicate potential reproductive and developmental health
consequences following exposure to methanol in both mice and primates.
Methanol has not been classified with respect to carcinogenicity.
The health effects for acetaldehyde are irritation of the eye
mucous membranes, skin, and upper respiratory tract, and a central
nervous system (CNS) depressant in humans. Chronic exposure can cause
conjunctivitis, coughing, difficult breathing, and dermatitis. Chronic
exposure may cause heart and kidney damage, embryotoxicity, and
teratogenic effects. Acetaldehyde is a probable carcinogen in humans.
We recently reviewed health effects associated with emissions of
particulates from diesel engines in the context of regulating heavy
duty motor vehicles and engines (66 FR 5001, January 18, 2001). Diesel
particulate matter is not currently listed as a hazardous air pollutant
for stationary sources under section 112 of the CAA and was not
specifically reviewed under the proposed rule, though constituent parts
of diesel particulate matter are subject to the proposed rule. We are
continuing to review this issue in the context of regulating stationary
internal combustion engines.
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. Am I Subject to the Proposed Rule?
The proposed rule applies to you if you own or operate stationary
RICE which are located at a major source of HAP emissions, except if
your stationary RICE are all rated at or under 500 brake horsepower. A
major source of HAP emissions is a plant site that emits or has the
potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons (9.07 megagrams)
or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons (22.68
megagrams) or more per year.
Section 112(n)(4) of the CAA requires that the aggregation of HAP
for purposes of determining whether an oil and gas production facility
is major or nonmajor be done only with respect to particular sites
within the source and not on a total aggregated site basis. We
incorporated the requirements of section 112(n)(4) of the CAA into our
NESHAP for Oil and Natural Gas Production Facilities in subpart HH of
40 CFR part 63. As in subpart HH, we plan to aggregate HAP emissions
for the purposes of determining a major HAP source for RICE only with
respect to particular sites within an oil and gas production facility.
The sites are called surface sites and may include a combination of any
of the following equipment: glycol dehydrators, tanks which have
potential for flash emissions, RICE and combustion turbines.
The standards proposed in the rule have specific requirements for
all new or reconstructed stationary RICE and for existing spark
ignition 4 stroke rich burn (4SRB) stationary RICE located at a major
source of HAP emissions, except that stationary RICE with a
manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less are not
addressed in the proposed rule. Stationary RICE which operate
exclusively as emergency power/limited use units or which combust
landfill gas or digester gas as primary fuel are subject only to
initial notification requirements.
An emergency power/limited use unit means any stationary RICE that
operates as a mechanical or electrical power source during emergencies,
when the primary power source for a facility has been rendered
inoperable by an emergency situation. One example is when electric
power from the local utility is interrupted. Another example is to pump
water in the case of fire or flood. Emergency power/limited use units
include units that operate less than 50 hours per year in non-emergency
situations, including certain peaking units at electric facilities or
stationary RICE at industrial facilities.
With the exception of existing spark ignition 4SRB stationary RICE,
other types of existing stationary RICE (i.e., spark ignition 2 stroke
lean burn (2SLB), spark ignition 4 stroke lean burn (4SLB), and
compression ignition (CI)) located at a major source of HAP emissions
are not subject to any specific requirement under the proposed rule.
Finally, the proposed rule does not apply to stationary RICE test
cells/stands since these facilities will be covered by another NESHAP,
subpart PPPPP of 40 CFR part 63.
B. What Source Categories and Subcategories Are Affected by the
Proposed Rule?
The proposed rule covers new or reconstructed stationary RICE and
existing spark ignition 4SRB stationary RICE. A RICE is any spark
ignition or compression ignition reciprocating internal combustion
engine. A stationary RICE is any RICE which is not mobile.
Stationary RICE differ from mobile RICE in that stationary RICE are
not self-
[[Page 77834]]
propelled, are not intended to be propelled while performing their
function, or are not portable or transportable as that term is
identified in the definition of non-road engine at 40 CFR 89.2.
We divided the stationary RICE source category into four
subcategories: (1) Emergency power/limited use units, (2) stationary
RICE that combust landfill gas or digester gas as their primary fuel,
(3) stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake
horsepower or less, and (4) other stationary RICE. We further divided
the last subcategory into four subcategories: (1) 2SLB stationary RICE,
(2) 4SLB stationary RICE, (3) 4SRB stationary RICE, and (4) CI
stationary RICE.
We are specifically soliciting comments on creating a subcategory
of limited use engines with a capacity utilization of 10 percent or
less. This is further discussed in the ``Solicitation of Comments and
Public Participation'' section of this preamble.
The proposed rule does not apply to stationary RICE test cells/
stands since these facilities will be covered by another NESHAP,
subpart PPPPP of 40 CFR part 63.
The proposed rule also does not apply to existing, new, or
reconstructed stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP
emissions. An area source of HAP emissions is a plant site that does
not emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons (9.07 megagrams) or
greater per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons (22.68
megagrams) or greater per year. In addition, the proposed rule does not
apply to stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500
brake horsepower or below. These engines have been discussed previously
in this preamble.
C. What Are the Primary Sources of HAP Emissions and What Are the
Emissions?
The primary sources of HAP emissions are exhaust gases from
combustion of gaseous fuels and liquid fuels in stationary RICE.
Formaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and acetaldehyde are HAP that are
present in significant quantities from stationary RICE.
D. What Are the Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations?
As the owner or operator of an affected source, you must do one of
the following: (1) Each existing, new, or reconstructed 4SRB stationary
RICE must comply with each emission limitation in Table 1(a) of
proposed subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63, and each operating limitation in
Table 1(b) of proposed subpart ZZZZ that apply, or (2) each new or
reconstructed 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or CI stationary RICE must
comply with each emission limitation in Table 2(a) of proposed subpart
ZZZZ and operating limitation in Table 2(b) of proposed subpart ZZZZ
that apply.
Existing 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or existing CI stationary
RICE, stationary RICE that operate exclusively as emergency power/
limited use units, or stationary RICE that combust digester gas or
landfill gas as their primary fuel have an emission standard of no
emission reduction, and will not be tested to meet any specific
emission limitation or operating limitation. In addition, any
stationary RICE located at an area source of HAP emissions, any
stationary RICE that have a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500
brake horsepower or less, or stationary RICE that are being tested at
stationary RICE test cells/stands are not addressed in the proposed
rule and, therefore, do not need to comply with any emission limitation
or operating limitation.
E. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements?
If your stationary RICE must meet specific emission limitations and
operating limitations, then you must meet the following initial
compliance requirements. The testing and initial compliance
requirements are different, depending on whether you demonstrate
compliance with the carbon monoxide (CO) emission reduction
requirement, formaldehyde emission reduction requirement, or the
requirement to limit the formaldehyde concentration in the stationary
RICE exhaust.
1. If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE, or a CI
stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating less than 5000
brake horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions
using a oxidation catalyst, you must install a continuous parameter
monitoring system (CPMS) to continuously monitor the pressure drop
across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature. You must
conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate that you are
achieving the required CO percent reduction, corrected to 15 percent
oxygen, dry basis. During the initial performance test, you must record
the initial pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet
temperature.
2. If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE, or a CI
stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating greater than or
equal to 5000 brake horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce
CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst, you must install a continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) to measure CO and either carbon
dioxide or oxygen simultaneously at the inlet and outlet of the
oxidation catalyst. To demonstrate initial compliance, you must conduct
an initial performance evaluation using Performance Specifications (PS)
3 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. You must demonstrate that the
reduction of CO emissions meets the required percent reduction using
the first 4-hour average after a successful performance evaluation.
Your measurements at the inlet and the outlet of the oxidation catalyst
must be on a dry basis and corrected to 15 percent oxygen or equivalent
carbon dioxide content.
3. If you own or operate a 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the
requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using non-selective
catalytic reduction (NSCR), you must install a CPMS to continuously
monitor the pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet
temperature, and the temperature rise across the catalyst.
You must conduct an initial performance test to demonstrate that
you are achieving the required formaldehyde percent reduction,
corrected to 15 percent oxygen, dry basis. During the initial
performance test, you must record the initial values of the pressure
drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature, and the
temperature rise across the catalyst.
4. If you are complying with the requirement to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, you must
conduct an initial performance test using Test Method 320 or 323 of 40
CFR part 63, appendix A, California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method
430, or EPA Solid Waste (SW)-846 Method 0011 to demonstrate that the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust is less
than or equal to the emission limit, corrected to 15 percent oxygen,
dry basis, that applies to you. To correct to 15 percent oxygen, dry
basis, you must measure oxygen using Method 3A or 3B of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, and measure moisture using Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. The initial performance test must be conducted at the
lowest load at which you will operate your stationary RICE and at the
typical load at which you will operate your stationary RICE. This
initial performance test establishes the lowest load or the minimum
fuel flow rate at which you may operate your stationary RICE.
To demonstrate initial compliance, you must also install a CPMS to
continuously monitor stationary RICE load or fuel flow rate and other
(if any)
[[Page 77835]]
operating parameters approved by the Administrator.
If you choose to comply with the emission limitation to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde, you must also petition the Administrator
for approval of additional operating limitations or approval of no
additional operating limitations. If the Administrator approves your
petition for additional operating limitations, the operating
limitations must also be established during the initial performance
test.
If you petition the Administrator for approval of additional
operating limitations, your petition must include the following: (1)
Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as
additional operating limitations; (2) a discussion of the relationship
between the parameters and HAP emissions, identifying how HAP emissions
change with changes in the parameters, and how limitations on the
parameters will serve to limit HAP emissions; (3) a discussion of how
you will establish the upper and/or lower values for the parameters
which will establish the limits on the parameters in the operating
limitations; (4) a discussion identifying the methods you will use to
measure and the instruments you will use to monitor the parameters, as
well as the relative accuracy and precision of the methods and
instruments; and (5) a discussion identifying the frequency and methods
for recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring the
parameters.
If you petition the Administrator for approval of no additional
operating limitations, your petition must include the following: (1)
Identification of the parameters associated with operation of the
stationary RICE and any emission control device which could change
intentionally (e.g., operator adjustment, automatic controller
adjustment, etc.) or unintentionally (e.g., wear and tear, error, etc.)
on a routine basis or over time; (2) a discussion of the relationship,
if any, between changes in the parameters and changes in HAP emissions;
(3) for those parameters with a relationship to HAP emissions, a
discussion of whether establishing limitations on the parameters would
serve to limit HAP emissions; (4) for those parameters with a
relationship to HAP emissions, a discussion of how you could establish
upper and/or lower values for the parameters which would establish
limits on these parameters in operating limitations; (5) for the
parameters with a relationship to HAP emissions, a discussion
identifying the methods you could use to measure the parameters and the
instruments you could use to monitor them, as well as the relative
accuracy and precision of the methods and instruments; (6) for the
parameters, a discussion identifying the frequency and methods for
recalibrating the instruments you could use to monitor them; and (7) a
discussion of why, from your point of view, it is infeasible or
unreasonable to adopt the parameters as operating limitations.
F. What Are the Continuous Compliance Provisions?
Several general continuous compliance requirements apply to all
stationary RICE meeting various specified emission and operating
limitations. If your stationary RICE is required to meet specific
emission and operating limitations, then you are required to comply
with the emission and operating limitations at all times, except during
startup, shutdown, and malfunction of your stationary RICE. You must
also operate and maintain your stationary RICE, air pollution control
equipment, and monitoring equipment according to good air pollution
control practices at all times, including startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. You must conduct all monitoring at all times that the
stationary RICE is operating, except during periods of malfunction of
the monitoring equipment or necessary repairs or quality assurance or
control activities, such as calibration checks.
1. For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a
manufacturer's nameplate rating less than 5000 brake horsepower,
complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an
oxidation catalyst, you must conduct quarterly performance tests for CO
and oxygen using a portable CO monitor to demonstrate that the required
CO percent reduction is achieved. To demonstrate continuous compliance
with the CO percent reduction requirement, you must continuously
monitor and record the pressure drop across the catalyst and the
catalyst inlet temperature. The 4-hour rolling average of the valid
data must be within the operating limitations. If you change your
oxidation catalyst (i.e., replace catalyst elements), you must
reestablish your pressure drop and catalyst inlet temperature.
2. For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a
manufacturer's nameplate rating greater than or equal to 5000 brake
horsepower, complying with the CO percent reduction emission limitation
using an oxidation catalyst, you must calibrate and operate your CEMS
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8. You must continuously
monitor and record the CO concentration at the inlet and outlet of the
oxidation catalyst and calculate the percent reduction of CO emissions
hourly. The reduction of CO must be at least the required percent
reduction, based on a rolling 4-hour average, averaged every hour. You
must also conduct an annual relative accuracy test audit (RATA) of your
CEMS using PS 3 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, as well as daily
and periodic data quality checks in accordance with 40 CFR part 60,
appendix F, procedure 1.
3. For existing, new, or reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE
complying with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using
NSCR, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by continuously
monitoring the pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet
temperature and the temperature rise across the catalyst.
The 4-hour rolling average of the valid data must be above and/or
below the lower bounds and/or upper bounds of the operating parameters
corresponding to compliance with the requirement to reduce formaldehyde
emissions. If you change your NSCR (i.e., replace catalyst elements),
you must reestablish the values of the pressure drop across the
catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and the temperature rise
across the catalyst.
The 4SRB stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating
greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower must also conduct
semiannual performance tests to demonstrate that the percent reduction
for formaldehyde emissions is achieved. If you demonstrate compliance
with the percent reduction requirement for two successive performance
tests, you may reduce the frequency of performance testing to annually.
However, if an annual performance test indicates a deviation from the
percent reduction requirement, you must return to semiannual
performance tests.
4. If you are complying with the requirement to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, the
following requirements must be met:
a. Proper maintenance. At all times, the owner or operator shall
maintain the monitoring equipment including, but not limited to,
maintaining necessary parts for routine repairs of the monitoring
equipment.
b. Continued operation. Except for, as applicable, monitoring
malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or
control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and
required zero and span adjustments), the owner or operator
[[Page 77836]]
shall conduct all monitoring in continuous operation at all times that
the unit is operating. Data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, out-of-control periods, and required quality
assurance or control activities shall not be used for purposes of
calculating data averages. The owner or operator shall use all the data
collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. A
monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable failure of the monitoring equipment to provide valid data.
Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or
careless operation are not malfunctions. Any period for which the
monitoring system is out-of-control and data are not available for
required calculations constitutes a deviation from the monitoring
requirements.
To demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating
limitations, you must continuously monitor and record the operating
load or fuel flow rate of the stationary RICE, and the values of any
other parameters which have been approved by the Administrator as
operating limitations. The 4-hour rolling average of the operating load
or fuel flow rate must be no lower than 5 percent below the operating
limitations established during the initial performance test.
After completion of the initial performance test, you must
demonstrate that formaldehyde emissions remain at or below the
formaldehyde concentration limit by performing semiannual performance
tests. If you demonstrate compliance with the requirement to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust for two
successive performance tests, you may reduce the frequency of
performance testing to annually. However, if an annual performance test
indicates a deviation of formaldehyde emissions from the formaldehyde
concentration limit, you must return to semiannual performance tests.
Also, if your stationary RICE will be operated at a load that is lower
than the load at which you operated the stationary RICE during the
initial performance test, you must conduct a performance test and
reestablish the minimum values for the stationary RICE.
G. What Monitoring and Testing Methods Are Available To Measure These
Low Concentrations of CO and Formaldehyde?
Continuous emissions monitoring systems are available which can
accurately measure CO emissions at the low concentrations found in the
exhaust of a stationary RICE following an oxidation catalyst emission
control device. Our PS 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, for CO CEMS,
however, has not been updated recently and does not reflect the
performance capabilities of the systems. We are currently undertaking a
review of PS 4 and 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, for CO CEMS, and
in conjunction with this effort, we solicit comments on the performance
capabilities of CO CEMS to accurately measure the low concentrations of
CO experienced in the exhaust of a stationary RICE following an
oxidation catalyst emission control device.
Similarly, our Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) test method,
Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, CARB Method 430, as well as
EPA SW-846 Method 0011 can be used to accurately measure formaldehyde
concentrations in the exhaust of a stationary RICE as low as 350 parts
per billion by volume, dry basis (ppbvd). Similar to our current
performance specifications for CO CEMS, as both of these test methods
are currently written, they do not provide for this level of accuracy.
The methods must be used with some revisions to achieve such accuracy.
As a result, we are currently undertaking a review of our FTIR
method, Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to incorporate
revisions to ensure it can be used to accurately measure formaldehyde
concentrations as low as 8 ppbvd in the exhaust from a stationary RICE.
In conjunction with this effort, we solicit comments on revisions to
Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to ensure accurate
measurement of such low concentrations of formaldehyde.
In addition, we are also proposing another EPA method for measuring
formaldehyde from natural gas-fired stationary RICE. This impinger-
based method, EPA Method 323 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, Measurement
of Formaldehyde Emissions From Natural Gas-fired Stationary Sources--
Acetyl Acetone Derivitization Method, may be an acceptable method for
measuring low concentrations as required by the proposed rule.
H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements?
If you own or operate a stationary RICE which is located at a major
source of HAP emissions, you must submit all of the applicable
notifications as listed in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part
63, subpart A), including an initial notification, notification of
performance test or evaluation, and a notification of compliance for
each stationary RICE which must comply with the specified emission and
operating limitations. In addition, you must submit an initial
notification for each stationary RICE which operates exclusively as an
emergency power/limited use unit or a stationary RICE which combusts
digester gas or landfill gas as primary fuel.
You must record all of the data necessary to determine if you are
in compliance with the emission limitations and operating limitations
(if applicable) as required by the proposed rule. Your records must be
in a form suitable and readily available for review. You must also keep
each record for 5 years following the date of each occurrence,
measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. Records
must remain on site for at least 2 years and then can be maintained
offsite for the remaining 3 years.
You must submit a compliance report semiannually. This report
should contain information including company name and address, a
statement by a responsible official that the report is accurate, and a
statement of compliance or documentation of any deviation from the
requirements of the proposed rule during the reporting period.
III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards
A. How Did We Select the Source Category and Any Subcategories?
Stationary RICE are listed as a major source category for
regulatory development under section 112 of the CAA. The CAA allows us
discretion in defining the appropriate scope of the category and
subcategories. We considered several criteria associated with
stationary RICE which could lead to establishment of subcategories
including differences in emission characteristics, fuel, mode of
operation, size of source, and type of source.
We identified four subcategories of stationary RICE located at
major sources: (1) Emergency power/limited use units, (2) stationary
RICE which combust landfill gas or digester gas as their primary fuel,
(3) stationary RICE with a manufacturer's rating of 500 brake
horsepower or less, and (4) other stationary RICE.
We identified emergency power/limited use units as a subcategory.
Emergency power/limited use units operate only in emergencies, such as
a loss of power provided by another source. These types of stationary
RICE operate infrequently and, when called upon to operate, must
respond without failure and without lengthy periods of startup. These
conditions limit the
[[Page 77837]]
applicability of HAP emission control technology to emergency power/
limited use units.
Similarly, stationary RICE which combust landfill gas or digester
gas as their primary fuel were identified as a subcategory. Landfill
and digester gases contain a family of chemicals referred to as
siloxanes, which limits the application of HAP emission control
technology.
Stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake
horsepower or less were also identified as a subcategory. We know very
little about these stationary RICE and without further knowledge have
concerns about the applicability of HAP emission control technology to
them. As discussed above, we have not addressed these stationary RICE
in the proposed rule.
Finally, in considering the fourth subcategory (i.e., other
stationary RICE located at major sources of HAP emissions), we
identified four additional subcategories of stationary RICE within this
fourth subcategory: (1) 2SLB stationary RICE, (2) 4SLB stationary RICE,
(3) 4SRB stationary RICE, and (4) CI stationary RICE. The further
subcategorization is necessary because engine design characteristics,
HAP emissions, and the application of HAP emission control technology
differ among the subcategories. For further information on our
rationale for subcategorization, see the memorandum entitled
``Subcategorization of Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines for the Purpose of NESHAP'' in the docket.
Stationary RICE being tested at stationary RICE test cells/stands
are not covered by the proposed rule since they will be covered by a
separate NESHAP, subpart PPPPP of 40 CFR part 63.
B. What Is the Affected Source?
The affected source for the proposed rule is any stationary RICE
located at a major source of HAP emissions with a manufacturer's
nameplate rating above 500 brake horsepower and not being tested at a
stationary RICE test cell/stand.
C. How Did We Determine the Basis and Level of the Proposed Emission
Limitations and Operating Limitations?
1. Overview
As established in section 112(d) of the CAA, the emission standards
must be no less stringent than the MACT floor, which for existing
sources is the average emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources. The MACT floor for new
sources must be no less stringent than the level of emission control
that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source. As
outlined below, the MACT floors and MACT for existing and new
stationary RICE were developed primarily through analyses of the
population database and the emissions database.
The population database provides population information on
operating stationary RICE in the United States and was constructed to
support the proposed rule. The population database contains information
from available databases, such as the Aerometric Information Retrieval
System, the Ozone Transport and Assessment Group, and State and local
agencies' databases. The first version of the database was released in
1997. Subsequent versions have been released reflecting additional or
updated data. The most recent release of the database is version 4,
released in November 1998.
The population database contains information on approximately
28,000 stationary RICE. We believe the current stationary RICE
population is about 37,000, including those under 500 horsepower and
those at area sources, therefore, we believe the population database
represents about 75 percent of the stationary RICE in the United
States. As a result, we believe the information in the population
database is representative of the stationary RICE industry subject to
the proposed rule.
The emissions database is a compilation of available HAP emission
test reports created to support the proposed rule. The majority of HAP
emission test reports were conducted in the State of California as part
of the Air Toxics ``Hot Spots'' Information Assessment Act of 1987
program. Complete copies of HAP emission test reports for stationary
RICE were gathered from air districts in California and taken from a
previous EPA effort referred to as the Source Test Information
Retrieval System. Other States and trade associations such as Western
States Petroleum Association and Gas Research Institute (GRI) were
contacted for available HAP emission test reports. Finally, the
emissions database also includes preliminary results from a joint EPA-
industry HAP emission testing program on stationary RICE at the Engines
and Energy Conversion Laboratory at Colorado State University (CSU).
2. General
We considered several approaches to identify MACT floors for
stationary RICE. One approach was to review State regulations and
permits for stationary RICE. We found no State regulations or State
permits which specifically limit HAP emissions from stationary RICE.
Another approach we considered to identify MACT floors for
stationary RICE was that of good combustion practices. We tried to
identify specific practices which might be considered improved
maintenance or operation, such as frequent checks or tune ups, which
serve to maintain a stationary RICE in good operating condition. We
thought the use of such practices might prevent increases in HAP
emissions which could arise from poor operation or failure of a
stationary RICE.
Toward that end, we contacted State and local permitting
authorities, as well as the manufacturers and the owners and operators
of stationary RICE. A more detailed discussion is presented in
``Pollution Prevention for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines''
in the docket. We were unable to identify any specific good combustion
practices from these efforts which we could relate directly to reduced
HAP emissions.
As mentioned above, the primary approach we ultimately used to
identify MACT floors and MACT was to review information in the
population and emissions databases. We reviewed the information in the
databases to identify stationary RICE operating with emission control
systems and then to identify the level of performance, in terms of HAP
emissions reductions, associated with the use of the emission control
systems.
We reviewed MACT floors and MACT for the four subcategories
separately. The MACT for emergency power/limited use units and
landfill/digester gas units are discussed later in this preamble. As
discussed above, we did not address engines with manufacturer's
nameplate ratings at or below 500 brake horsepower in the proposed rule
nor do we address stationary RICE that are tested at stationary RICE
test cells/stands. The MACT for other stationary RICE are discussed
below.
We found several stationary RICE operating with oxidation catalyst
systems and several operating with NSCR systems. Oxidation catalyst
systems have been installed primarily to reduce CO emissions and, to
some extent, volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions, from 2SLB and
4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE. Non-selective catalytic
reduction systems, on the other hand, have been installed primarily to
reduce nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions from 4SRB stationary
RICE.
Examination of HAP emission data from the emissions database, as
well as preliminary emission data from HAP emission testing at CSU
leads us to
[[Page 77838]]
conclude that oxidation catalyst systems will reduce HAP emissions from
2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE, as discussed
further below. Similarly, examination of HAP emission data leads us to
conclude that NSCR will reduce HAP emissions from 4SRB stationary RICE.
3. Existing Source MACT Floor for Other Stationary RICE Subcategory
As mentioned in the previous section, MACT floors for existing RICE
could not be established based on State and local permit information
because there are no State or local regulations for RICE regarding HAP
and the use of good operating practices because no operating practices
could be specifically linked to HAP emissions reductions.
Review of the population database indicates that few existing 2SLB
and 4SLB stationary RICE or CI stationary RICE use oxidation catalyst
systems. The number is less than 1 percent for 2SLB stationary RICE,
about 3 percent for 4SLB stationary RICE, and less than 1 percent for
CI stationary RICE. In addition, less than 1 percent of existing CI
stationary RICE use a catalyzed diesel particulate filter (C-DPF),
which is believed to reduce HAP emissions to some extent. However, all
of these percentages are well below the criteria for a MACT floor that
would require emissions reductions for existing sources (average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of
existing sources). We have interpreted average emission limitation of
the best performing 12 percent to refer to either the numerical mean or
the numerical median. In this case, EPA has used the median value, that
is, the level of control at the 6th (best performing) percentile to
determine the average. Thus, we conclude the MACT floor for existing
2SLB, 4SLB, and CI stationary RICE is no emissions reductions.
Unlike the situation outlined above, more than 6 percent of
existing 4SRB stationary RICE use NSCR systems. Therefore, we conclude
the MACT floor for 4SRB existing stationary RICE is the level of HAP
emissions reductions achieved by the use of NSCR systems. We discuss
this in more detail below.
4. Existing Source MACT
To determine MACT for the subcategories of existing 2SLB and 4SLB
stationary RICE and existing CI stationary RICE, we evaluated two
regulatory alternatives more stringent than the MACT floor.
Specifically, we considered the use of oxidation catalyst systems as a
beyond-the-floor regulatory alternative and fuel switching. With one
exception noted below, these are the only options we know of which
could serve as the basis for MACT to reduce HAP emissions from the
subcategories of stationary RICE.
In our review of oxidation catalyst systems, we concluded that this
alternative would be inappropriate given the cost per ton of HAP
removed. Non-air quality health, environmental impacts, and energy
effects were not significant factors.
The second option considered was to switch fuels in existing RICE
from fuels which result in higher HAP emissions to fuels that result in
lower HAP emissions. When we compared the CAA section 112 HAP emissions
factors of the various fuels from RICE, using the July 2000 revision of
Chapter 3.2 (Natural Gas Fired Reciprocating Internal Combustion
Engines) and the October 1996 revision of Chapter 3.3 (Gasoline and
Diesel Industrial Engines) of ``Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area
Sources,'' we could not find a fuel that was clearly less HAP emitting.
The summation of emission factors for various HAP when using natural
gas (usually considered the cleanest fuel) or diesel fuel were
comparable based on the emission factor information that is available.
Therefore, we could find no basis to consider fuel switching as a
beyond-the-floor HAP emissions reductions option.
For existing compression ignition stationary RICE, we also
considered another beyond-the-floor regulatory alternative, the use of
C-DPF. Some believe the use of such filters will reduce HAP emissions;
however, there are no data available to quantify what the level of the
reduction might be. Most speculate that it is less than that achieved
through the use of oxidation catalyst systems. The cost of C-DPF,
however, is greater than that of oxidation catalyst systems and, for
that reason, we consider the alternative to also be inappropriate as
well. Non-air quality health, environmental impacts, and energy effects
were not significant factors.
We conclude, therefore, that MACT for existing 2SLB and 4SLB
stationary RICE and existing CI stationary RICE is the MACT floor
(i.e., no emissions reductions). As a result, we propose no
requirements for emissions testing for existing 2SLB and 4SLB
stationary RICE and existing CI stationary RICE. For further
information on the determination of MACT, refer to the Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the proposed rule and memoranda entitled
``Regulatory Alternatives and MACT for Stationary Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines'' and ``National Impacts Associated with
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines'' in the docket.
For 4SRB stationary RICE, we know of no other HAP emission control
technology other than the use of NSCR systems. The fuel switching
analysis presented previously also applies to existing 4SRB RICE.
Therefore, we are unable to identify any beyond-the-floor regulatory
alternative for this subcategory of stationary RICE. Consequently, we
conclude that MACT for existing 4SRB stationary RICE is also equivalent
to the MACT floor (i.e., the level of HAP emission control achieved
through the use of NSCR systems).
To determine the level of performance associated with the use of
NSCR systems on 4SRB stationary RICE, we examined HAP emission data
from the emissions database. We also examined a recent industry
sponsored formaldehyde emission test conducted on two 4SRB stationary
RICE equipped with NSCR.
Emission testing to measure HAP emitted from stationary RICE is
very expensive, and we know of no CEMS which could be used to
continuously monitor all HAP emissions. As a result, we first examined
the emission data mentioned above to determine if a single pollutant
could serve as a surrogate for HAP emissions.
We focused on CO emissions initially because CO is easy to measure.
In addition, CEMS for CO emissions are readily available and, in most
cases, the costs associated with their use are considered reasonable.
Unfortunately, there is not a good relationship between CO emission
concentration or CO emissions reductions and HAP emissions
concentrations or HAP emissions reductions from 4SRB stationary RICE
equipped with NSCR. Thus, CO emission concentration and CO emission
reduction cannot serve as surrogates for HAP emissions for 4SRB
stationary RICE.
Next, we considered the use of formaldehyde concentration as a
surrogate for all HAP emissions. Formaldehyde is the hazardous air
pollutant present in the highest concentrations in emissions from 4SRB
stationary RICE and, more importantly, the level of formaldehyde
emissions are related to the level of other HAP emissions. When
formaldehyde emissions are reduced through the use of NSCR systems, HAP
emissions are reduced as well. Consequently, we conclude that
reductions in formaldehyde emissions can serve as a surrogate for
reductions in HAP emissions for 4SRB stationary RICE operating with
NSCR systems.
[[Page 77839]]
The emissions database contains several emission test reports that
measured formaldehyde emissions from 4SRB stationary RICE equipped with
NSCR, but no tests measure the emissions both before and after the
control device, so the control efficiency of NSCR systems could not be
determined from the emissions database. Moreover, the test reports in
the emissions database provide single snapshot emission readings from
stationary RICE, which does not account for variability of emissions
that may occur as engines are operated in actual use. The data, for
example, provided little or no information regarding variable
parameters such as timing and load. As a result, we examined data from
an industry sponsored formaldehyde emission test conducted on two 4SRB
stationary RICE equipped with NSCR to determine the level of
performance of NSCR systems. These test reports were reviewed, and we
concluded that the engines and control devices were operated correctly
during the tests and the tests were conducted properly. We considered
several factors, such as load, which could have an effect on the
efficiency of the control device, but could find no reason for the
variability of the test results between the two engines.
We selected the best performing engine based on the highest average
formaldehyde percent reduction. The average reduction was 79 percent
for that engine; however, to establish variability, we looked at each
of the 12 individual test runs performed on that engine. The percent
reduction varied from 75 percent to 81 percent. We selected 75 percent
for the MACT floor, which takes into account the variability of the
best performing engine. The HAP emission data outlined above show that
the use of NSCR systems on 4SRB stationary RICE will reduce
formaldehyde emissions by 75 percent or more. As a result, we propose a
75 percent or more reduction in formaldehyde emissions as the emission
limitation for existing 4SRB stationary RICE.
For existing 4SRB engines that choose to use a control or reduction
technology that is not an NSCR system, an alternative standard was
developed based on a formaldehyde concentration limit. For existing
4SRB engines the alternative emission limitation is 350 ppbvd corrected
to 15 percent oxygen. The alternative formaldehyde concentration limit
standard is discussed in more detail below.
5. New Source MACT Floor
Several existing 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and existing CI
stationary RICE currently operate with oxidation catalyst systems. No
technology achieving greater emissions reductions was found. Thus, we
conclude the MACT floor for new 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and new
CI stationary RICE is the level of HAP emission control achieved
through the use of oxidation catalyst systems. The level of HAP
reductions achieved through oxidation catalysts differs for each of the
subcategories as discussed in more detail below.
Again, for new compression ignition stationary RICE, we considered
whether the use of C-DPF might be the basis for the MACT floor.
However, since oxidation catalyst systems achieve greater HAP emissions
reductions, we concluded that oxidation catalyst systems, not C-DPF,
are the basis for the MACT floor for new compression ignition
stationary RICE.
As mentioned earlier, a number of existing 4SRB stationary RICE use
NSCR systems. As a result, the use of NSCR systems is the best
performing technology identified for use by 4SRB stationary RICE.
Consequently, we conclude the MACT floor for new 4SRB stationary RICE
is the level of HAP emissions reductions achieved through the use of
NSCR systems.
6. New Source MACT
For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE, we know
of no other HAP emission control technology than the use of oxidation
catalyst systems (other than possibly the use of C-DPF on compression
ignition stationary RICE, as discussed earlier). The fuel switching
analysis presented previously also applies to new 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI
RICE. Therefore, we were unable to identify any beyond-the-floor
regulatory alternative for these subcategories of stationary RICE.
Consequently, we conclude that MACT for new 2SLB and 4SLB stationary
RICE and new CI stationary RICE is equivalent to the MACT floor (i.e.,
the level of HAP emission control achieved through the use of oxidation
catalyst systems).
Although the basis for MACT for each of these subcategories of
stationary RICE is the same, as outlined below, HAP emission data from
the emissions database and preliminary emission data from the HAP
emission testing program at CSU indicate that the level of performance
achieved by oxidation catalyst systems on each of these subcategories
of stationary RICE differ. As a result, we propose different emission
limitations for each of these subcategories of new stationary RICE.
As mentioned above, emission testing to measure HAP emissions is
expensive, and we know of no CEMS which could be used to continuously
monitor all HAP emissions. As a result, we first examined the emission
data to determine if a single pollutant could serve as a surrogate for
HAP emissions.
Again, we focused on CO emission concentration and CO emissions
reductions initially. In this case, we found that there is a good
relationship between CO emissions reductions and HAP emissions
reductions from 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE
equipped with oxidation catalyst systems. When CO emissions are
reduced, HAP emissions are reduced in a relatively proportional manner.
As a result, CO emissions reductions can serve as a surrogate for HAP
emissions reductions for 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI
stationary RICE operating with oxidation catalyst systems.
A joint EPA-industry HAP emission testing program at CSU provided
HAP and CO emissions data which form the basis for the MACT floor and
MACT for 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI stationary RICE. A single engine of each
type equipped with an oxidation catalyst control system was tested. The
engines were all overhauled before the testing and were expected to
operate as well as new engines. The oxidation catalyst control systems
represented the best HAP emission control known for each type of
engine. All catalyst systems were new but were operated for a number of
hours until the CO percent reduction stabilized. This assured that the
performance would be not overestimated by the use of a new catalyst.
Prior to the testing, EPA and industry developed a list of engine
operating parameters that were known to vary throughout the U.S. for
each type of engine. The engines and control devices were tested at
typical engine conditions in which these operating parameters were
varied. The variations in the emission reduction results for each
engine type are due to the variability of the engine and control system
and include a representation of the performance of the best controlled
source for new engines. The fluctuations in HAP emission control
represent the variability inherent in operating the engine and control
device combination under various conditions. Some parameters such as
the exhaust temperature are an important determinate of the catalytic
activity and resulting emissions reductions but
[[Page 77840]]
cannot be controlled by the operator because they are a result of
factors such as engine design, ambient temperature, and designed air-
to-fuel ratio. These result in a significant source of variability that
cannot be controlled.
The HAP emission data mentioned above show that the use of
oxidation catalyst systems on 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI
stationary RICE will reduce uncontrolled CO emissions by 60 percent or
more, 93 percent or more, and 70 percent or more, respectively, taking
into account the variability of results achieved when tested under
various operating parameters. As a result, we propose: (1) A 60 percent
or more reduction in CO uncontrolled emissions as the emission
limitation for new 2SLB stationary RICE, (2) a 93 percent or more
reduction in CO emissions as the emission limitation for new 4SLB
stationary RICE, and (3) a 70 percent or more reduction in CO emissions
as the emission limitation for new CI stationary RICE. The variation in
percent reduction of CO achieved between 2SLB stationary RICE and 4SLB
stationary RICE is a result of the higher exhaust temperatures for 4SLB
stationary RICE. The 2SLB stationary RICE tested at CSU had an average
exhaust temperature of 530 degrees Fahrenheit, while the 4SLB
stationary RICE had an average exhaust temperature of 691 degrees
Fahrenheit. In general, higher exhaust temperatures lead to better
catalyst performance. This difference in temperatures is a function of
the inherent design of these engine types and cannot be controlled by
the operator.
For 4SRB stationary RICE, we know of no other HAP emission control
technology than the use of NSCR systems. The fuel switching analysis
presented previously also applies to new 4SRB RICE. As a result, we
were unable to identify any beyond-the-floor regulatory alternative.
Consequently, we conclude that MACT for new 4SRB stationary RICE is
equivalent to the MACT floor (i.e., the level of HAP emission control
achieved through the use of NSCR systems).
The basis for MACT for new 4SRB stationary RICE, therefore, is the
same as that for existing 4SRB stationary RICE. We believe NSCR systems
will achieve the same level of performance on existing as well as new
4SRB stationary RICE. Consequently, we propose the same emission
limitation for both existing and new 4SRB stationary RICE (i.e., 75
percent or more reduction in formaldehyde emissions).
For new 4SRB engines that choose to use a control or reduction
technology that is not an NSCR system, and for new 2SLB, 4SLB, and CI
engines that choose a control or reduction technology that is not an
oxidation catalyst system, an alternative standard was developed based
on formaldehyde concentration limits. The alternative emission limits
for new RICE sources are: 17 parts per million by volume dry basis
(ppmvd) formaldehyde for 2SLB engines, 14 ppmvd formaldehyde for 4SLB
engines, 350 ppbvd formaldehyde for 4SRB engines, and 580 ppbvd
formaldehyde for CI engines, all corrected to 15 percent oxygen. The
alternative formaldehyde concentration limit standard is discussed in
more detail below.
7. MACT Floor and MACT for Other Subcategories
Although the proposed rule applies to all stationary RICE with a
manufacturer's nameplate rating above 500 brake horsepower located at
major sources excluding stationary RICE being tested at stationary RICE
test cells/stands, there are two subcategories of stationary RICE for
which the appropriate emission standard is no emissions reductions;
therefore, they would not be required to comply with any emissions
limitations or operating limitations under the proposed rule. These
subcategories are stationary RICE which combust digester or landfill
gas as the primary fuel and emergency power/limited use stationary
RICE.
a. Stationary RICE Combusting Digester or Landfill Gas
Examination of the population database shows that there are no
stationary RICE burning digester gas or landfill gas as the primary
fuel operating with emission control technologies which reduce HAP
emissions. Therefore, we conclude the MACT floor for the subcategory is
no emissions reductions for both existing as well as new stationary
RICE.
We considered the applicability of HAP emission control technology,
such as the use of an oxidation catalyst system for example, to this
subcategory of stationary RICE for beyond-the-floor controls. However,
digester gases and landfill gases contain a family of silicon based
compounds called siloxanes. Combustion of siloxanes can foul post
combustion catalysts, rendering them inoperable within a short period
of time. We considered pretreatment systems to remove siloxanes from
the gases prior to combustion; however, we found no pretreatment
systems in use and the long-term effectiveness is unknown. As a result,
we know of no emission control technology which could be applied to the
subcategory of stationary RICE to reduce HAP emissions.
We also considered fuel switching for this subcategory of RICE.
Switching to a different fuel such as natural gas or diesel would
potentially allow the RICE to apply the MACT controls. However, fuel
switching would defeat the purpose of these units, which are intended
to use this type of fuel. Fuel switching would also cause the landfill/
digester gas either to escape uncontrolled or to be burned in a flare
with no energy recovery. We believe that switching landfill or digester
gas to another fuel is inappropriate and is an environmentally inferior
option.
For that reason, we were unable to identify a beyond-the-floor
regulatory alternative for either existing or new stationary RICE
combusting digester gases or landfill gases as the primary fuel.
Consequently, we conclude that MACT for the subcategory of stationary
RICE is the MACT floor (i.e., no emissions reductions). Thus, we
propose no requirements for emissions testing for stationary RICE which
combust landfill gases or digester gases as the primary fuels.
b. Emergency Power/Limited Use Stationary RICE
Emergency power/limited use stationary RICE operate only in
emergencies when the normal source of power at a facility fails. Based
on our review of the population database, there are no emergency power/
limited use stationary RICE which operate with HAP emission control
technology. Thus, we conclude the MACT floor for the subcategory is no
emissions reductions for both existing as well as new stationary RICE.
As with stationary RICE burning digester gases or landfill gases,
we also have a number of concerns regarding the applicability of HAP
emission control technology to emergency power/limited use stationary
RICE. Emergency power/limited use stationary RICE operate infrequently
but when called upon to operate, they must respond immediately without
fail and without lengthy startup periods. Under such conditions, we
have doubts whether HAP emission control technology, such as the use of
oxidation catalyst systems, would effectively reduce HAP emissions.
Despite the concerns, we examined the cost per ton of HAP removed
for emergency power/limited use stationary RICE as a beyond-the-floor
regulatory alternative. Whether our concerns are warranted or not, we
consider the cost per ton of HAP removed for the alternative
unreasonable, primarily because of the very small reductions in
[[Page 77841]]
HAP emissions which might be achieved. Non-air quality health,
environmental impacts, nor energy effects were significant factors.
For all of the reasons listed above, we conclude that MACT for both
existing as well as new emergency power/limited use stationary RICE is
the MACT floor (i.e., no emissions reductions). Consequently, we
propose no requirements for emissions testing for emergency power/
limited use stationary RICE.
D. Why Does the Proposed Rule Not Apply to Stationary RICE of 500 Brake
Horsepower or Less?
In reviewing the population database to identify stationary RICE
with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less,
we found extremely little information. In discussions with State and
local permitting officials, the manufacturers, and some of the owners
and operators of stationary RICE, we found that such small stationary
RICE have generally not been regarded as significant sources of air
pollutant emissions. As a result, the small stationary RICE have not
been subjected to the same level of scrutiny, examination, or review as
larger stationary RICE. Little information has been gathered or
compiled by anyone for this subcategory of stationary RICE.
Thus, at this point, we know very little about stationary RICE with
a manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less. For
example, we do not know how many of the small stationary RICE exist. In
addition, we know little about the operating characteristics and
emissions, the current use of, as well as the applicability of,
emission control technologies, the costs of emission control for the
small stationary RICE, or the economic impacts and benefits associated
with regulation. In the absence of such information, we have concerns
with the applicability of HAP emission control technology to these
stationary RICE. As a result, we believe it is appropriate to defer a
decision on regulation of stationary RICE with a manufacturer's
nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less until further
information on the engines can be obtained and analyzed.
We believe this subcategory of stationary RICE is likely to be more
similar to stationary RICE located at area sources than to stationary
RICE located at major sources. Thus, we plan to include this
subcategory of stationary RICE in our considerations to develop
regulations for stationary RICE located at area sources.
E. Why Does the Proposed Rule Not Apply to Stationary RICE Located at
Area Sources?
The proposed rule does not apply to stationary RICE located at area
sources. In developing our Urban Air Toxics Strategy (64 FR 38706, July
19, 1999), we identified stationary RICE at area sources as a category
which would be subject to standards to protect the environment and the
public health and satisfy the statutory requirements in section 112 of
the CAA pertaining to area sources.
We are not setting standards at this time, because of insufficient
information regarding the operating characteristics and the emissions,
the current use of, as well as the applicability of, emission control
technologies to stationary RICE at area sources, the costs of emission
control for such stationary RICE, and the economic impacts and benefits
associated with regulation of the stationary RICE.
F. How Did We Select the Format of the Standards?
1. CO Percent Reduction Standard
We are proposing a CO percent reduction standard if you use an
oxidation catalyst to reduce HAP emissions from new or reconstructed
2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE. A control
efficiency for CO was chosen because CO control is a surrogate for HAP
control for 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE, and
because it is easier to monitor CO than several HAP.
2. Formaldehyde Percent Reduction Standard
We are proposing a formaldehyde percent reduction standard if you
use NSCR to reduce HAP emissions from existing, new, and reconstructed
4SRB stationary RICE. A control efficiency for formaldehyde was chosen
because formaldehyde control is a surrogate for HAP control for 4SRB
stationary RICE, and because a good relationship was not found between
CO emissions reductions and HAP emissions reductions for 4SRB
stationary RICE.
3. Formaldehyde Concentration Limit
We are also proposing alternative emission limitations to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust for new
2SLB, 4SLB, and CI engines not using oxidation catalyst control systems
and for existing and new 4SRB engines not using NSCR control systems.
If you own or operate a 2SLB or 4SLB stationary RICE or a CI
stationary RICE using an oxidation catalyst, you must comply with the
CO percentage emission limitation. If you use some means other than an
oxidation catalyst, you must comply with the alternative emission
limitation to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary
RICE exhaust.
If you own or operate a 4SRB stationary RICE using NSCR, you must
comply with the formaldehyde percentage emission limitation. If you use
some means other than NSCR, you must comply with the alternative
emission limitation to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the
stationary RICE exhaust.
As mentioned earlier, we know of no other emission control
technology other than oxidation catalyst and NSCR systems which can be
used to reduce HAP emissions from stationary RICE. However, we would
like to promote the development and eventual use of alternative
emission control technologies to reduce HAP emissions, and we believe
alternative emission limitations written as formaldehyde concentration
limits will serve to do so.
For the alternative emission limitation, we propose to use
formaldehyde concentration as a surrogate for all HAP. Formaldehyde is
the hazardous air pollutant emitted in the highest concentrations from
stationary RICE. In addition, the emission data show that formaldehyde
emission levels and other HAP emission levels are related, in the sense
that when emissions of one are lowered, emissions of the other are
lowered. That leads us to conclude that emission control technologies
which lead to reductions in formaldehyde emissions will lead to
reductions in other HAP emissions.
The alternative emission limitation is in units of parts per
billion by volume or parts per million by volume, and all measurements
are corrected to 15 percent oxygen, dry basis, to provide a common
basis. A volume concentration was chosen for these emission limitations
to limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE
exhaust because it can be measured directly.
We utilized the same data used to establish the percent reduction
requirements to determine the alternative emission limitation for each
subcategory. As with the control efficiencies discussed previously, the
concentrations for the formaldehyde emission limitations are based on
the minimum level of control achieved by the best controlled source for
each type of engine. This approach takes into account the variability
of the best performing engine. For the 2SLB engine tested at CSU, the
controlled
[[Page 77842]]
formaldehyde emissions ranged from 7.5 parts per million (ppm) to 17
ppm; therefore, we selected 17 ppm for the emission limitation. The
controlled formaldehyde emissions for the 4SLB engine tested at CSU
ranged from 6.4 ppm to 14 ppm. We chose the highest controlled level of
14 ppm for the alternative standard for the 4SLB subcategory.
Similarly, for the CI engine tested at CSU, the controlled formaldehyde
emissions ranged from 130 to 580 parts per billion (ppb), and we,
therefore, set an emission limitation of 580 ppb for the CI
subcategory. For 4SRB engines, we chose the best performing engine from
the industry testing. The controlled formaldehyde emissions for this
engine ranged from 330 to 350 ppb.
In summary, the alternative emission limitations are: 17 ppmvd for
2SLB stationary RICE; 14 ppmvd for 4SLB stationary RICE; 350 ppbvd for
4SRB stationary RICE; and 580 ppbvd for CI stationary RICE, all
corrected to 15 percent oxygen.
G. How Did We Select the Initial Compliance Requirements?
The tests which formed the basis of the proposed emission
limitations were conducted following EPA or CARB test methods. The
proposed rule requires the use of EPA or CARB test methods to determine
compliance. This ensures that the same analytical methods that were
followed to collect the emission data upon which the emission
limitations are based will be followed for compliance testing. By using
the same methods, we eliminate the possibility of measurement bias
influencing determinations of compliance.
In an effort to identify the most feasible testing and compliance
requirements for stationary RICE, we considered the applicability of
several compliance and monitoring options. The results of these
considerations lead us to propose different compliance and monitoring
requirements for stationary RICE with manufacturer's nameplate ratings
less than 5000 brake horsepower, and stationary RICE with
manufacturer's nameplate ratings greater than or equal to 5000 brake
horsepower.
We selected less burdensome compliance requirements for smaller
size stationary RICE considering the ratio of total control and
monitoring costs to the equipment cost. For smaller size stationary
RICE, we considered the ratio excessive.
For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with
manufacturer's nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower
complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an
oxidation catalyst, we decided to require an initial performance test
for CO. The purpose of the initial performance test is to demonstrate
initial compliance with the CO percent reduction emission limitation;
to establish the initial pressure drop across the catalyst, which will
serve as the reference point for continuous monitoring of the pressure
drop across the catalyst; and also to demonstrate that the catalyst
inlet temperature is within the specified operating limitations.
For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with
manufacturer's nameplate ratings greater than or equal to 5000 brake
horsepower complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using
an oxidation catalyst, an initial performance evaluation is required to
validate the performance of the CEMS for continuous monitoring of CO
emissions. Initial compliance with the CO emission limitation must then
be demonstrated by using CO emission measurements from the first 4-hour
period following a successful performance evaluation of the CO CEMS.
For all 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to
reduce formaldehyde emissions by 75 percent using NSCR, an initial
performance test is required. The purpose of the initial performance
test is to demonstrate compliance with the formaldehyde percent
reduction emission limitation and to establish the initial values of
the operating parameters that will be continuously monitored (i.e.,
pressure drop across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and
the initial temperature rise across the catalyst).
For all stationary RICE complying with the requirement to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, an
initial performance test is required. The purpose of the initial
performance test is to demonstrate initial compliance with the
formaldehyde concentration limit and also to establish the values of
the operating limitations (i.e., either operating load or fuel flow
rate and any other parameters which are approved by the Administrator
as operating limitations), which will be continuously monitored.
H. How Did We Select the Continuous Compliance Requirements?
Continuous compliance is required at all times except during
startup, shutdown, and malfunction of your stationary RICE.
As mentioned above, we considered the applicability of several
compliance and monitoring options for stationary RICE. The results of
these considerations lead us to propose different compliance and
monitoring requirements for stationary RICE with manufacturer's
nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower and stationary RICE
with manufacturer's nameplate ratings greater than or equal to 5000
brake horsepower.
For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI RICE with manufacturer's
nameplate ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower complying with the
requirement to reduce CO emissions using an oxidation catalyst, we
considered several options: (1) A CEMS for CO; (2) semiannual stack
testing for CO using Method 10A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and
continuous parametric monitoring of the pressure drop across the
catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature; (3) quarterly stack
testing with a portable CO monitor using American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) D6522-00, and continuous parametric monitoring of
the pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet
temperature; and (4) initial stack testing for CO with a portable CO
monitor using ASTM D6522-00 and continuous parametric monitoring of the
pressure drop across the catalyst and the catalyst inlet temperature.
We consider the control and monitoring costs for the first two
options excessive, but consider the control and monitoring costs
associated with the third option reasonable. As a result, 2SLB and 4SLB
stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate
ratings less than 5000 brake horsepower complying with the CO percent
reduction emission limitation must perform quarterly stack testing for
CO using a portable CO monitor. The quarterly testing will ensure, on
an ongoing basis, that the source is meeting the CO percent reduction
requirement.
In addition to quarterly stack testing for CO, the stationary RICE
are required to continuously monitor pressure drop across the catalyst
and catalyst inlet temperature. The parameters serve as surrogates of
the oxidation catalyst performance.
The pressure drop across the catalyst can indicate if the oxidation
catalyst is damaged or fouled, in which case, catalyst performance
would decrease. If the pressure drop across the catalyst deviates by
more than two inches of water from the pressure drop across the
catalyst measured during the initial performance test, the oxidation
catalyst might be damaged or fouled. If you
[[Page 77843]]
change the oxidation catalyst (i.e., replace catalyst elements), you
must reestablish the pressure drop across the catalyst.
The catalyst inlet temperature is a requirement for proper
performance of the oxidation catalyst. In general, the oxidation
catalyst performance will decrease as the catalyst inlet temperature
decreases. In addition, if the catalyst inlet temperature is too high
(above 1,250 degrees Fahrenheit), it might be an indication of ignition
misfiring, poisoning, or fouling, which would decrease oxidation
catalyst performance. In addition, the oxidation catalyst requires
inlet temperatures to be greater than or equal to 500 degrees
Fahrenheit for the reduction of HAP emissions.
For 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI RICE with a manufacturer's
nameplate rating greater than or equal to 5000 brake horsepower
complying with the requirement to reduce CO emissions using an
oxidation catalyst, we considered the same four monitoring options. For
these larger size stationary RICE, however, we consider the control and
monitoring costs for a CO CEMS reasonable.
We consider the use of CEMS to be the best means of ensuring
continuous compliance with emission limitations. Consequently, the
large 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE are required
to use a CO CEMS. An annual RATA and daily and periodic data quality
checks in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, procedure 1, are
also required to ensure that performance of the CEMS does not
deteriorate over time. There are no operating limitations for the
larger size stationary RICE in the subcategories since the CEMS
continuously measures CO and will indicate any deviation from the
emission limitations.
For 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to reduce
formaldehyde emissions using NSCR, we also considered three monitoring
options: (1) A CEMS for formaldehyde; (2) stack testing for
formaldehyde using Test Method 320 or 323 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A, CARB Method 430, or EPA SW-846 Method 0011 with an initial frequency
of semiannually which, following two consecutive stack tests
demonstrating compliance, could decrease to annual stack testing and
continuous parametric monitoring; and (3) initial stack testing for
formaldehyde using Test Method 320 or 323 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A, CARB Method 430, or EPA SW-846 Method 0011 and continuous parametric
monitoring.
We consider the control and monitoring costs associated with the
first option excessive for all 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the
requirement to reduce formaldehyde emissions using NSCR. For 4SRB
stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate rating of more than
5000 brake horsepower, we consider the control and monitoring costs of
the second option reasonable. Consequently, we chose that option for
the larger size 4SRB stationary RICE.
For 4SRB stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate ratings
less than 5000 brake horsepower, we also consider the control and
monitoring costs of the second option excessive. We consider the
control and monitoring costs of the third option reasonable, and we
chose that option for the smaller 4SRB stationary RICE.
For all 4SRB stationary RICE complying with the requirement to
reduce formaldehyde emissions using NSCR, monitoring the pressure drop
across the catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and the temperature
rise across the catalyst with a CPMS is also required. The operating
parameters serve as surrogates of the NSCR system performance.
As with oxidation catalyst systems for lean burn and CI stationary
RICE, the pressure drop across an NSCR system is an indication of
catalyst performance on 4SRB stationary RICE. The operating limitations
are also the same--maintain the pressure drop across the catalyst
within two inches of water from the pressure drop measured during the
initial performance test. If you change your NSCR (i.e., replace
catalyst elements), you must reestablish your pressure drop across the
catalyst, the catalyst inlet temperature and the temperature rise
across the catalyst.
As for oxidation catalyst control devices, the performance of NSCR
is also dependent on catalyst inlet temperature. Catalyst inlet
temperature should be maintained between 750 degrees Fahrenheit and
1250 degrees Fahrenheit for proper activation of the catalyst.
Temperatures lower than that fail to activate the catalyst to its full
potential, while temperatures higher than that can sinter and damage
the active sites of the catalyst.
In addition, the temperature rise across the catalyst is also an
indication of NSCR performance. If the temperature rise across the
catalyst is more than 5 percent different from the temperature rise
across the catalyst measured during the initial performance test, that
might be an indication that the NSCR is being damaged or fouled. In
that case, catalyst performance would decrease, lowering HAP
reductions.
For stationary RICE complying with the requirement to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde in the exhaust of the stationary RICE, we
also considered requiring a CEMS. However, we consider the costs of a
formaldehyde CEMS to be excessive. A reasonable alternative to a
formaldehyde CEMS, however, is a CPMS (supplemented by periodic
compliance tests).
Hazardous air pollutant emissions from stationary RICE correlate
with operating load; HAP emissions increase as load decreases. As a
result, if a stationary RICE operates at loads greater than that at
which compliance has been demonstrated through a performance test,
there is a reasonable assurance that the stationary RICE remains in
compliance. An alternative to monitoring operating load is monitoring
the stationary RICE's fuel flow rate. Fuel flow rate is an indicator of
operating load. As a result, we propose that stationary RICE which
comply with the concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE
exhaust monitor continuously operating load or fuel flow rate as
operating limitations.
The intention is to measure formaldehyde at the lowest load at
which the stationary RICE will be operated to establish compliance at
that load level. By monitoring operating load or fuel flow rate,
sources can ensure that they do not operate at load or fuel flow rate
conditions (within 5 percent) below which compliance has not been
demonstrated.
In addition, sources complying with the requirement to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust are
required to conduct semiannual performance tests. Semiannual
performance testing will ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the source
is meeting the formaldehyde concentration limit.
To reduce the cost burden of performance testing, sources that show
compliance for two successive performance tests may reduce performance
testing frequency. We believe that a reduction to one performance test
per year will provide sufficient assurance of stationary RICE
performance while reducing the performance testing costs for the
affected source. However, if a subsequent annual performance test
indicates a deviation from the formaldehyde concentration limit, the
source must resume semiannual performance testing. The source must
include a notification to the Administrator in their semiannual
compliance report stating that they will be reducing the frequency of
performance testing.
[[Page 77844]]
I. What Monitoring and Testing Methods are Available to Measure These
Low Concentrations of CO and Formaldehyde?
We believe CEMS are available which can measure CO emissions at the
low concentrations found in the exhaust from a stationary RICE
following an oxidation catalyst control system. Our PS 4 and 4A for CO
CEMS of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, however, have not been updated
recently and do not reflect the performance capabilities of such
systems at these low CO concentration levels.
As a result, we solicit comments on the performance capabilities of
state-of-the-art CO CEMS and their ability to accurately measure the
low concentrations of CO experienced in the exhaust of a stationary
RICE following an oxidation catalyst control system. We also solicit
comments with specific recommendations on the changes we should make to
our PS 4 and 4A for CO CEMS of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, to ensure
the installation and use of CEMS which can be used to determine
compliance with the proposed emission limitation for CO emissions. In
addition, we solicit comments on the availability of instruments
capable of meeting the changes they recommend to our performance
specifications for CO CEMS.
The proposed rule specifies the use of Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, as the reference method to certify the performance of the
CO CEMS. We also believe Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is
capable of measuring CO concentrations as low as those experienced in
the exhaust of a stationary RICE following an oxidation catalyst
control system. However, the performance criteria in addenda A of
Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, have not been revised recently
and are not suitable for certifying the performance of a CO CEMS at the
low CO concentrations. Specifically, we believe the range and minimum
detectable sensitivity should be changed to reflect target
concentrations as low as 5 ppm CO in some cases. We also expect that
dual range instruments will be necessary to measure CO concentrations
at the inlet and at the outlet of an oxidation catalyst emission
control device.
As a result, we solicit comments with specific recommendations on
the changes we should make to Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
and the performance criteria in addenda A. We also solicit comments on
the availability of instruments capable of meeting the changes they
recommend to Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and the
performance criteria in addenda A, while also meeting the remaining
addenda A performance criteria.
With regard to formaldehyde, we believe systems meeting the
requirements of Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, a self-
validating FTIR method, can be used to attain detection limits for
formaldehyde concentrations below 350 ppbvd. Method 320 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A, also includes formaldehyde spike recovery criteria
which require spike recoveries of 70 to 130 percent.
While we believe FTIR systems can meet Method 320 of 40 CFR part
63, appendix A, and measure formaldehyde concentrations at the low
levels, we have limited experience with their use. As a result, we
solicit comments on the ability and use of FTIR systems to meet the
validation and quality assurance requirements of Method 320 of 40 CFR
part 63, appendix A, for the purpose of determining compliance with the
emission limitation for formaldehyde emissions.
We also believe EPA Method 323 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A and
CARB Method 430 are capable of measuring formaldehyde concentrations at
the low levels from 4SRB engines. Accordingly, we solicit comments on
the use of EPA Method 323, CARB 430, and EPA SW-846 Method 0011 to
determine compliance with the emission limitations for formaldehyde for
4SRB engines.
Based on the comments we receive on CO CEMS, we anticipate revising
Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and our PS 4 and 4A of 40 CFR
part 60, appendix B, for CO CEMS to ensure the installation and use of
CEMS suitable for determining compliance with the emission limitation
for CO emissions. Similarly, based on the comments we receive on FTIR
systems and Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, we may develop
additional or revised criteria for the use of FTIR systems and/or
Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, to determine compliance with
the emission limitation for formaldehyde.
On the other hand, if the comments we receive lead us to conclude
that CO CEMS are not capable of being used to determine compliance with
the emission limitation for CO emissions, there are several
alternatives we may consider. One alternative would be to delete the
proposed percent reduction emission limitation for CO and require
compliance with a comparable formaldehyde percent reduction limitation.
That alternative would require periodic stack emission testing before
and after the control device and would also require owners and
operators to petition the Administrator for additional operating
limitations as proposed for those choosing to comply with the emission
limitation for formaldehyde. Another alternative would be to delete the
proposed emission limitation for CO emissions and require compliance
with the proposed emission limitation for formaldehyde. That
alternative could also require more frequent emission testing and could
also require owners and operators to petition the Administrator for
additional operating limitations.
Another alternative would be to require the use of Method 320 of 40
CFR part 60, appendix A, (i.e., FTIR systems) to determine compliance
with the emission limitation for CO emissions. That alternative could
also require more frequent emission testing and require owners and
operators to petition the Administrator for additional operating
limitations, as proposed for those choosing to comply with the emission
limitation for formaldehyde.
Yet another alternative would be to delete the emission limitations
for both CO emissions and formaldehyde emissions and adopt an emission
limitation consisting of an equipment and work practice requirement.
That alternative would require the use of oxidation catalyst control
systems for 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI stationary RICE, and
NSCR systems for 4SRB stationary RICE which meet specific and narrow
design and operating criteria.
We believe the emission limitations we are proposing for CO
emissions and formaldehyde emissions are superior to these alternatives
for a number of reasons. However, we solicit comments on the
alternatives should we conclude that the proposed emission limitations
for CO emissions and formaldehyde emissions are inappropriate because
of difficulties in monitoring or measuring CO emissions or formaldehyde
emissions to determine compliance. We also solicit suggestions and
recommendations for other alternatives should we conclude the proposed
emission limitations are inappropriate because of monitoring or
measurement difficulties.
J. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements?
The proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements are based on the NESHAP General Provisions of 40 CFR part
63.
[[Page 77845]]
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
The proposed rule will reduce total HAP emissions from stationary
RICE by an estimated 5,000 tons/year in the 5th year after the
standards are implemented. We believe approximately 1,800 existing 4SRB
stationary RICE will be affected by the proposed rule. In addition, we
believe that approximately 1,600 new 2SLB, 4SLB and 4SRB stationary
RICE, and CI stationary RICE will be affected by the proposed rule each
year for the next 5 years. At the end of the 5th year, it is estimated
that 8,100 new stationary RICE will be subject to the proposed rule.
To estimate air impacts, HAP emissions from stationary RICE were
estimated using average emission factors from the emissions database.
It was also assumed that each stationary RICE is operated for 6,500
hours annually. The total national HAP emissions reductions are the sum
of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and methanol emissions
reductions.
In addition to HAP emissions reductions, the proposed rule will
reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including CO, VOC, NOX,
and particulate matter (PM). The application of NSCR controls to 4SRB
engines (the technology on which MACT for 4SRB engines is based) will
also reduce NOX emissions by 90 percent. It is possible that
oxidation catalyst controls could be used to meet the 4SRB emission
standards, but it is expected that the costs of controls will be
similar for both systems. Assuming that 60 percent of the 4SRB (new and
existing) engines that are covered by the emission standards will use
NSCR, the cumulative emissions reductions of NOX by the end
of the 5th year after promulgation are calculated to be about 167,900
tons per year. We are specifically soliciting comments on the
percentage of 4SRB engines that would choose to install NSCR HAP
controls rather than other HAP controls.
B. What Are the Cost Impacts?
A list of 26 model stationary RICE was developed to represent the
range of existing stationary RICE. Information was obtained from
catalyst vendors on equipment costs for oxidation catalyst and NSCR.
This information was then used to estimate the costs of the proposed
rule for each model stationary RICE following methodologies from the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Control Cost
Manual. These cost estimates for model stationary RICE were
extrapolated to the national population of stationary RICE in the
United States, and national impacts were determined.
The total national capital cost for the proposed rule for existing
stationary RICE is estimated to be approximately $68 million, with a
total national annual cost of $38 million in the 5th year. The total
national capital cost for the proposed rule for new stationary RICE by
the 5th year is estimated to be approximately $372 million, with a
total national annual cost of $216 million in the 5th year.
C. What Are the Economic Impacts?
We prepared an economic impact analysis to evaluate the primary and
secondary impacts the proposed rule would have on the producers and
consumers of RICE, and society as a whole. The affected engines operate
in over 30 different manufacturing markets, but a large portion are
located in the oil and gas exploration industry, the oil and gas
pipeline (transmission) industry, the mining and quarrying of non-
metallic minerals industry, the chemicals and allied products industry,
and the electricity and gas services industry. Taken together, these
industries can have an influence on the price and demand for fuels used
in the energy market (i.e., petroleum, natural gas, electricity, and
coal). Therefore, our analysis evaluates the impacts on each of the 30
different manufacturing markets affected by the proposed rule, as well
as the combined effect on the market for energy. The total annualized
social cost (in 1998 dollars) of the proposed rule is $254 million but
this cost is spread across all 30 markets and the fuel markets.
Overall, our analysis indicates a minimal change in prices and quantity
produced in most of the fuel markets. The distribution of impacts on
the fuel markets and the specific manufacturing market segments
evaluated are summarized in Table 1 of this preamble.
Table 1.--Economic Impact of Proposed RICE Rule on Affected Market Sectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total social
Change in Change in cost
Market sector price (%) market output (millions of
(%) 1998$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Markets: \a\
Petroleum................................................... 0.005 -0.001 -6.0
Natural Gas................................................. 0.101 -0.014 -35.2
Electricity................................................. 0.022 0.001 3.2
Coal........................................................ 0.001 0.001 0.3
-----------------
Subtotal................................................ .............. .............. -38.3
Sectors of Energy Consumption: \b\
Commercial Sector........................................... .............. .............. -68.4
Residential Sector.......................................... .............. .............. -40.0
Transportation Sector....................................... .............. .............. -16.2
Mining and Quarrying............................................ 0.020 -0.006 -21.0
Food Products................................................... 0.001 -0.001 -5.9
Paper Products.................................................. 0.001 -0.001 -5.2
Chemical Products............................................... 0.001 -0.002 -17.8
Primary Metals.................................................. 0.001 -0.001 -6.7
Fabricated Metal Products....................................... 0.001 -0.000 -1.8
Nonmetallic Mineral Products.................................... 0.002 -0.002 -3.5
Construction Sector............................................. 0.001 -0.001 -11.1
[[Page 77846]]
Other Manufacturing Markets..................................... 0.000 0.0-0.001 -17.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Only changes in producer surplus (i.e., producer's share of regulatory costs) are reported for the Fuel
Markets which represent the producers of energy. Sectors of energy consumption--commercial, residential, and
transportation--have reported changes in consumer surplus only, and thus do not have reported changes in price
and output. A combination of these costs will represent total social costs for the energy market in the
economy.
Because the engines affected by the proposed rule are those that
use natural gas as a fuel source, it is not surprising to see the
natural gas fuel market with the largest portion of the social costs.
Although the natural gas market has a greater share of the regulatory
burden, the overall impact on prices is about one-tenth of 1 percent,
which is considered to be a minor economic impact on this industry. The
change in the price of natural gas is not expected to influence the
purchase decisions for new engines. Our analysis indicates that at
most, less than 5 fewer engines out of over 20,000 engines will be
purchased as a result of economic impacts associated with the proposed
rule. The electricity and coal markets may experience a slight gain in
revenues due to some fuel switching from natural gas to coal or
electricity.
The total social welfare loss for the manufacturing industries
affected by the proposed rule is estimated to be approximately $39.9
million for consumers and $44.7 million for producers in the aggregate.
In comparison to the energy expenditures of these industries (estimated
to be $101.2 billion), the cost of the proposed rule to producers as a
percentage of their fuel expenditures is 0.04 percent. For consumers,
the total value of shipments for the affected industries is $3.95
trillion in 1998, so the cost to consumers as a percentage of spending
on the outputs from these industries is nearly zero, or 0.001 percent.
The cost to residential consumers at $40.0 million is larger than
for any individual manufacturing market, and about equivalent to the
aggregate consumer surplus losses in the manufacturing industries. In
comparison, the social cost burden to residential consumers of fuel is
0.03 percent of residential energy expenditures ($40.0 million/$131.06
billion). The commercial sector of energy users also experiences a
moderate portion of total social costs at an estimated $29.3 million
and represents an aggregate across all commercial North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes. As a percentage of fuel
expenditures by this sector of fuel consumers, the regulatory burden is
0.03 percent ($29.3 million/$96.86 billion). The cost to transportation
consumers is estimated to be $16.2 million. This cost represents 0.008
percent ($16.2 million/$188.13 billion) of energy expenditures for the
transportation sector.
Therefore, giving consideration to the minimal changes in prices
and output in nearly all markets, and the fact that the regulatory
costs that are shared by commercial, residential, and transportation
users of fuel energy are a small fraction of typical energy
expenditures in these sectors each year, we conclude that the economic
impacts of the proposed rule will not be significant to any one sector
of the economy.
D. What Are the Non-Air Health, Environmental and Energy Impacts?
We do not expect any significant wastewater, solid waste, or energy
impacts resulting from the proposed rule. Energy impacts associated
with the proposed rule would be due to additional energy consumption
that the proposed rule would require by installing and operating
control equipment. The only energy requirement for the operation of the
control technologies is a very small increase in fuel consumption
resulting from back pressure caused by the emission control system.
V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
A. General
We are requesting comments on all aspects of the proposed rule,
such as the proposed emission limitations and operating limitations,
recordkeeping and monitoring requirements, as well as aspects you may
feel have not been addressed.
Specifically, we request comments on the performance capabilities
of state-of-the-art CO CEMS and their ability to measure the low
concentrations of CO in the exhaust of a stationary RICE following an
oxidation catalyst control system. We also request comments with
recommendations on changes we should make to our PS 4 and 4A for CO
CEMS of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and to Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, and the performance criteria in addenda A to Method 10. In
addition, we request comments on the availability of instruments
capable of meeting the changes they recommend to our performance
specifications for CO CEMS, Method 10 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
and addenda A to Method 10.
As also mentioned earlier, we request comments on the ability and
use of FTIR systems to meet the validation and quality assurance
requirements of Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, for the
purpose of determining compliance with the emission limitations for
formaldehyde emissions. In addition, we request comments on the use of
CARB 430 to determine compliance with the emission limitations for
formaldehyde.
In addition, we request any HAP emissions test data available from
stationary RICE; however, if you submit HAP emissions test data, please
submit the full and complete emission test report with these data.
Without a complete emission test report, which includes sections
describing the stationary RICE and its operation during the test as
well as identifying the stationary RICE for purposes of verification,
discussion of the test methods employed and the quality assurance/
quality control procedures followed, the raw data sheets, all the
calculations, etc., which such reports contain, submittal of HAP
emission data by itself is of little use.
B. Can We Achieve the Goals of the Rule in a Less Costly Manner?
We have made every effort in developing the proposal to minimize
the cost to the regulated community and allow maximum flexibility in
compliance options consistent with our statutory obligations. We
recognize, however, that the proposal may still require some facilities
to take costly steps to further control emissions even though those
emissions may not result
[[Page 77847]]
in exposures which could pose an excess individual lifetime cancer risk
greater than one in one million or which exceed thresholds determined
to provide an ample margin of safety for protecting public health and
the environment from the effects of hazardous air pollutants. We are,
therefore, specifically soliciting comment on whether there are further
ways to structure the proposed rule to focus on the facilities which
pose significant risks and avoid the imposition of high costs on
facilities that pose little risk to public health and the environment.
Representatives of the plywood and composite wood products industry
provided EPA with descriptions of three mechanisms that they believed
could be used to implement more cost-effective reductions in risk. The
docket for the proposed rule contains white papers prepared by industry
that outline their proposed approaches (see docket number OAR-2002-
0059). These approaches could be effective in focusing regulatory
controls on facilities that pose significant risks and avoiding the
imposition of high costs on facilities that pose little risk to public
health or the environment, and we are seeking public comment on the
utility of each of these approaches with respect to the proposed rule.
One of the approaches, an applicability cutoff for threshold
pollutants, would be implemented under the authority of CAA section
112(d)(4); the second approach, subcategorization and delisting, would
be implemented under the authority of CAA sections 112(c)(1) and
112(c)(9); and, the third approach would involve the use of a
concentration-based applicability threshold. We are seeking comment on
whether these approaches are legally justified and, if so, we ask for
information that could be used to support such approaches.
The MACT program outlined in CAA section 112(d) is intended to
reduce emissions of HAP through the application of MACT to major
sources of toxic air pollutants. Section 112(c)(9) of the CAA is
intended to allow EPA to avoid setting MACT standards for categories or
subcategories of sources that pose less than a specified level of risk
to public health and the environment. The EPA requests comment on
whether the proposals described here appropriately rely on these
provisions of CAA section 112. While both approaches focus on assessing
the inhalation exposures of HAP emitted by a source, EPA specifically
requests comment on the appropriateness and necessity of extending
these approaches to account for non-inhalation exposures or to account
for adverse environmental impacts. In addition to the specific requests
for comment noted in this section, we are also interested in any
information or comment concerning technical limitations, environmental
and cost impacts, compliance assurance, legal rationale, and
implementation relevant to the identified approaches. We also request
comment on appropriate practicable and verifiable methods to ensure
that sources' emissions remain below levels that protect public health
and the environment. We will evaluate all comments before determining
whether either of the three approaches will be included in the final
rule.
1. Industry Emissions and Potential Health Effects
For the RICE source category, four HAP make up the majority of the
total HAP. Those four HAP are methanol, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and
acrolein. In accordance with section 112(k) of the CAA, EPA developed a
list of 33 HAP which represent the greatest threat to public health in
the largest number of urban areas. Three of the four HAP, acetaldehyde,
acrolein, and formaldehyde, are included in the HAP listed for the
EPA's Urban Air Toxics Program.
In November 1998, EPA published ``A Multimedia Strategy for
Priority, Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Pollutants''.
The HAP emitted by RICE facilities do not appear on the published list
of PBT compounds referenced in the EPA strategy.
Two of the HAP, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, are considered to be
nonthreshold carcinogens, and cancer potency values are reported for
them in Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Acrolein and
methanol are not carcinogens, but are considered to be threshold
pollutants, and inhalation reference concentrations are reported for
them in IRIS and by the California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA), respectively.
To estimate the potential baseline risks posed by the RICE source
category, EPA performed a crude risk analysis of the RICE source
category that focused only on cancer risks. The results of the analysis
are based on approaches for estimating cancer incidence that carry
significant assumptions, uncertainties, and limitations. Based on the
assessment, if the proposed rule is implemented at all affected RICE
facilities, annual cancer incidence is estimated to be reduced on the
order of ten cases/year. Due to the uncertainties associated with the
analysis, annual cancer incidence could be higher or lower than these
estimates. (Details of this assessment are available in the docket.)
2. Applicability Cutoffs for Threshold Pollutants Under Section
112(d)(4) of the CAA
The first approach is an applicability cutoff for threshold
pollutants that is based on EPA's authority under CAA section 112(d)(4)
to establish standards for HAP which are threshold pollutants. A
``threshold pollutant'' is one for which there is a concentration or
dose below which adverse effects are not expected to occur over a
lifetime of exposure. For such pollutants, CAA section 112(d)(4) allows
EPA to consider the threshold level, with an ample margin of safety,
when establishing emission standards. Specifically, CAA section
112(d)(4) allows EPA to establish emission standards that are not based
upon the MACT specified under CAA section 112(d)(2) for pollutants for
which a health threshold has been established. Such standards may be
less stringent than MACT. Historically, EPA has interpreted CAA section
112(d)(4) to allow categories of sources that emit only threshold
pollutants to avoid further regulation if those emissions result in
ambient levels that do not exceed the threshold, with an ample margin
of safety.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 63 FR 18765-66 (April 15, 1998) (Pulp and Paper
Combustion Sources Proposed NESHAP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A different interpretation would allow us to exempt individual
facilities within a source category that meet the CAA section 112(d)(4)
requirements. There are three potential scenarios under this
interpretation of the CAA section 112(d)(4) provision. One scenario
would allow an exemption for individual facilities that emit only
threshold pollutants and can demonstrate that their emissions of
threshold pollutants would not result in air concentrations above the
threshold levels, with an ample margin of safety, even if the category
is otherwise subject to MACT. A second scenario would allow the CAA
section 112(d)(4) provision to be applied to both threshold and non-
threshold pollutants, using the one in a million cancer risk level for
decision making for nonthreshold pollutants. A third scenario would
allow a CAA section 112(d)(4) exemption at a facility that emits both
threshold and nonthreshold pollutants. For those emission points where
only threshold pollutants are emitted and where emissions of the
threshold pollutants would not result in air concentrations above the
threshold
[[Page 77848]]
levels, with an ample margin of safety, those emission points could be
exempt from the MACT standards. The MACT standards would still apply to
nonthreshold emissions from other emission points at the source. For
this third scenario, emission points that emit a combination of
threshold and nonthreshold pollutants that are co-controlled by MACT
would still be subject to the MACT level of control. However, any
threshold HAP eligible for exemption under CAA section 112(d)(4) that
are controlled by control devices different from those controlling
nonthreshold HAP would be able to use the exemption, and the facility
would still be subject to the parts of the standards that control
nonthreshold pollutants or that control both threshold and non-
threshold pollutants.
a. Estimation of Hazard Quotients and Hazard Indices
Under the CAA section 112(d)(4) approach, EPA would have to
determine that emissions of each of the threshold pollutants emitted by
RICE sources at the facility do not result in exposures which exceed
the threshold levels, with an ample margin of safety. The common
approach for evaluating the potential hazard of a threshold air
pollutant is to calculate a hazard quotient by dividing the pollutant's
inhalation exposure concentration (often assumed to be equivalent to
its estimated concentration in air at a location where people could be
exposed) by the pollutant's inhalation Reference Concentration (RfC).
An RfC is defined as an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an
order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure that, over a
lifetime, likely would not result in the occurrence of adverse health
effects in humans, including sensitive individuals. The EPA typically
establishes an RfC by applying uncertainty factors to the critical
toxic effect derived from the lowest-or no-observed-adverse-effect
level of a pollutant.\2\ A hazard quotient less than one means that the
exposure concentration of the pollutant is less than the RfC, and,
therefore, presumed to be without appreciable risk of adverse health
effects. A hazard quotient greater than one means that the exposure
concentration of the pollutant is greater than the RfC. Further, EPA
guidance for assessing exposures to mixtures of threshold pollutants
recommends calculating a hazard index by summing the individual hazard
quotients for those pollutants in the mixture that affect the same
target organ or system by the same mechanism.\3\ Hazard index (HI)
values would be interpreted similarly to hazard quotients; values below
one would generally be considered to be without appreciable risk of
adverse health effects, and values above one would generally be cause
for concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference
Concentrations and Applications of Inhalation Dosimetry.'' EPA-600/
8-90-066F, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, October 1994.
\3\ ``Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum Technical
Panel,'' EPA/630/R-00/002. USEPA, August 2000. http://www.epa.gov/nceaww1/pdfs/chem mix/chem mix 08 2001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the determinations discussed herein, EPA would generally plan
to use RfC values contained in EPA's toxicology database, the IRIS.
When a pollutant does not have an approved RfC in IRIS, or when a
pollutant is a carcinogen, EPA would have to determine whether a
threshold exists based upon the availability of specific data on the
pollutant's mode or mechanism of action, potentially using a health
threshold value from an alternative source, such as the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) or the CalEPA. Table 2 of
this preamble provides the RfC, as well as unit risk estimates, for the
HAP emitted by facilities in the RICE source category. A unit risk
estimate is defined as the upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk
estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent at a
concentration of 1 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m3) in
air.
Table 2.--Dose-Response Assessment Values for HAP Reported Emitted by the RICE Source Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference concentration \a\ Unit risk estimate \b\ (1/
Chemical name CAS No. (mg/m\3\) ([mu]g/m\3\))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde............................. 75-07-0 9.0E-03 (IRIS).............. 2.2E-06 (IRIS)
Acrolein................................. 107-02-8 2.0E-05 (IRIS).............. ............................
Formaldehyde............................. 50-00-0 9.8E-03 (ATSDR)............. 1.3E-05 (IRIS)
Methanol................................. 67-56-1 4.0E+00 (CAL)............... ............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Reference Concentration: An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups which include children, asthmatics
and the elderly) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. It
can be derived from various types of human or animal data, with uncertainty factors generally applied to
reflect limitations of the data used.
b Unit Risk Estimate: The upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure
to an agent at a concentration of 1 [mu]g/m3 in air. The interpretation of the Unit Risk Estimate would be as
follows: if the Unit Risk Estimate = 1.5 x 10-6 per [mu]g/m3, 1.5 excess tumors are expected to develop per
1,000,000 people if exposed daily for a lifetime to 1 microgram ([mu]g) of the chemical in 1 cubic meter of
air. Unit Risk Estimates are considered upper bound estimates, meaning they represent a plausible upper limit
to the true value. (Note that this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit.) The true risk is
likely to be less, but could be greater.
Sources: IRIS = EPA Integrated Risk Information System (http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/index.html)
ATSDR = U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html)
CAL = California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/index.html)
HEAST = EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (PB (=97-921199), July 1997)
To establish an applicability cutoff under CAA section 112(d)(4),
EPA would need to define ambient air exposure concentration limits for
any threshold pollutants involved. There are several factors to
consider when establishing such concentrations. First, we would need to
ensure that the concentrations that would be established would protect
public health with an ample margin of safety. As discussed above, the
approach EPA commonly uses when evaluating the potential hazard of a
threshold air pollutant is to calculate the pollutant's hazard
quotient, which is the exposure concentration divided by the RfC.
The EPA's ``Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures'' suggests that the noncancer health
effects associated with a mixture of pollutants ideally are assessed by
considering the pollutants' common mechanisms of toxicity \3\. The
guidance also suggests, however, that when exposures to mixtures of
pollutants are being evaluated, the risk assessor may calculate a HI.
The recommended method is to calculate multiple hazard indices for each
[[Page 77849]]
exposure route of interest, and for a single specific toxic effect or
toxicity to a single target organ. The default approach recommended by
the guidance is to sum the hazard quotients for those pollutants that
induce the same toxic effect or affect the same target organ. A mixture
is then assessed by several HI, each representing one toxic effect or
target organ. The guidance notes that the pollutants included in the HI
calculation are any pollutants that show the effect being assessed,
regardless of the critical effect upon which the RfC is based. The
guidance cautions that if the target organ or toxic effect for which
the HI is calculated is different from the RfC's critical effect, then
the RfC for that chemical will be an overestimate, that is, the
resultant HI potentially may be overprotective. Conversely, since the
calculation of an HI does not account for the fact that the potency of
a mixture of HAP can be more potent than the sum of the individual HAP
potencies, an HI may potentially be underprotective.
b. Options for Establishing a Hazard Index Limit
One consideration in establishing a hazard index limit is whether
the analysis considers the total ambient air concentrations of all the
emitted HAP to which the public is exposed \4\. There are at least
several options for establishing a hazard index limit for the CAA
section 112(d)(4) analysis that reflect, to varying degrees, public
exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Senate Debate on Conference Report (October 27, 1990),
reprinted in ``A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990,'' Comm. Print S. Prt. 103-38 (1993) (``Legis. Hist.'') at
868.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One option is to allow the HI posed by all threshold HAP emitted
from RICE sources at the facility to be no greater than one. This
approach is protective if no additional threshold HAP exposures would
be anticipated from other sources in the vicinity of the facility or
through other routes of exposure (e.g., through ingestion).
A second option is to adopt a default percentage approach, whereby
the hazard index limit of the HAP emitted by the facility is set at
some percentage of one (e.g., 20 percent or 0.2). This approach
recognizes the fact that the facility in question is only one of many
sources of threshold HAP to which people are typically exposed every
day. Because noncancer risk assessment is predicated on total exposure
or dose, and because risk assessments focus only on an individual
source, establishing a hazard index limit of 0.2 would account for an
assumption that 20 percent of an individual's total exposure is from
that individual source. For the purposes of this discussion, we will
call all sources of HAP, other than the facility in question,
background sources. If the facility is allowed to emit HAP such that
its own impacts could result in HI values of one, total exposures to
threshold HAP in the vicinity of the facility could be substantially
greater than one due to background sources, and this would not be
protective of public health, since only HI values below one are
considered to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects.
Thus, setting the hazard index limit for the facility at some default
percentage of one will provide a buffer which would help to ensure that
total exposures to threshold HAP near the facility (i.e., in
combination with exposures due to background sources) will generally
not exceed one, and can generally be considered to be without
appreciable risk of adverse health effects.
The EPA requests comment on using the default percentage approach
and on setting the default hazard index limit at 0.2. The EPA is also
requesting comment on whether an alternative HI limit, in some multiple
of 1 would be a more appropriate applicability cutoff.
A third option is to use available data (from scientific literature
or EPA studies, for example) to determine background concentrations of
HAP, possibly on a national or regional basis. These data would be used
to estimate the exposures to HAP from non-RICE sources in the vicinity
of an individual facility. For example, the EPA's National-Scale Air
Toxics Assessment (NATA) \5\ and ATSDR's Toxicological Profiles \6\
contain information about background concentrations of some HAP in the
atmosphere and other media. The combined exposures from RICE sources
and from other sources (as determined from the literature or studies)
would then not be allowed to exceed a hazard index limit of 1. The EPA
requests comment on the appropriateness of setting the hazard index
limit at 1 for such an analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata.
\6\ See http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A fourth option is to allow facilities to estimate or measure their
own facility-specific background HAP concentrations for use in their
analysis. With regard to the third and fourth options, the EPA requests
comment on how these analyses could be structured. Specifically, EPA
requests comment on how the analyses should take into account
background exposure levels from air, water, food and soil encountered
by the individuals exposed to RICE emissions. In addition, we request
comment on how such analyses should account for potential increases in
exposures due to the use of a new or the increased use of a previously
emitted HAP, or the effect of other nearby sources that release HAP.
The EPA requests comment on the feasibility and scientific validity
of each of these or other approaches. Finally, EPA requests comment on
how we should implement the CAA section 112(d)(4) applicability
cutoffs, including appropriate mechanisms for applying cutoffs to
individual facilities. For example, would the title V permit process
provide an appropriate mechanism?
c. Tiered Analytical Approach for Predicting Exposure
Establishing that a facility meets the cutoffs established under
CAA section 112(d)(4) will necessarily involve combining estimates of
pollutant emissions with air dispersion modeling to predict exposures.
The EPA envisions that we would promote a tiered analytical approach
for these determinations. A tiered analysis involves making successive
refinements in modeling methodologies and input data to derive
successively less conservative, more realistic estimates of pollutant
concentrations in air and estimates of risk.
As a first tier of analysis, EPA could develop a series of simple
look-up tables based on the results of air dispersion modeling
conducted using conservative input assumptions. By specifying a limited
number of input parameters, such as stack height, distance to property
line, and emission rate, a facility could use these look-up tables to
determine easily whether the emissions from their sources might cause a
hazard index limit to be exceeded.
A facility that does not pass this initial conservative screening
analysis could implement increasingly more site-specific but more
resource-intensive tiers of analysis using EPA-approved modeling
procedures, in an attempt to demonstrate that exposure to emissions
from the facility does not exceed the hazard index limit. The EPA's
guidance could provide the basis for conducting such a tiered
analysis.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``A Tiered Modeling Approach for Assessing the Risks due to
Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.'' EPA-450/4-92-001. David E.
Guinnup, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA, March
1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA requests comment on methods for constructing and
implementing a tiered analytical approach for determining applicability
of the CAA section 112(d)(4) criterion to specific RICE sources. It is
also possible
[[Page 77850]]
that ambient monitoring data could be used to supplement or supplant
the tiered modeling approach described above. It is envisioned that the
appropriate monitoring to support such a determination could be
extensive. The EPA requests comment on the appropriate use of
monitoring in the determinations described above.
d. Accounting for Dose-Response Relationships
In the past, EPA routinely treated carcinogens as nonthreshold
pollutants. The EPA recognizes that advances in risk assessment science
and policy may affect the way EPA differentiates between threshold and
nonthreshold HAP. The EPA's draft Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment \8\ suggest that carcinogens be assigned non-linear dose-
response relationships where data warrant. Moreover, it is possible
that dose-response curves for some pollutants may reach zero risk at a
dose greater than zero, creating a threshold for carcinogenic effects.
It is possible that future evaluations of the carcinogens emitted by
this source category would determine that one or more of the
carcinogens in the category is a threshold carcinogen or is a
carcinogen that exhibits a non-linear dose-response relationship but
does not have a threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\``Draft Revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.''
NCEA-F-0644. USEPA, Risk Assessment Forum, July 1999. pp 3-9ff.
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/pdfs/cancer_gls.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dose-response assessments for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are
currently undergoing revision by the EPA. As part of this revision
effort, EPA is evaluating formaldehyde and acetaldehyde as potential
non-linear carcinogens. The revised dose-response assessments will be
subject to review by the EPA Science Advisory Board, followed by full
consensus review, before adoption into the EPA Integrated Risk
Information System. At this time, EPA estimates that the consensus
review will be completed by the end of 2003. The revision of the dose-
response assessments could affect the potency factors of these HAP, as
well as their status as threshold or nonthreshold pollutants. At this
time, the outcome is not known. In addition to the current reassessment
by EPA, there have been several reassessments of the toxicity and
carcinogenicity of formaldehyde in recent years, including work by the
World Health Organization and the Canadian Ministry of Health.
The EPA requests comment on how we should consider the state of the
science as it relates to the treatment of threshold pollutants when
making determinations under section 112(d)(4). In addition, EPA
requests comment on whether there is a level of emissions of a
nonthreshold carcinogenic HAP (e.g., benzene, methylene chloride) at
which it would be appropriate to allow a facility to use the approaches
discussed in this section.
If the CAA section 112(d)(4) approach were adopted, the proposed
rulemaking would likely indicate that the requirements of the rule do
not apply to any source that demonstrates, based on a tiered approach
that includes EPA-approved modeling of the affected source's emissions,
that the anticipated HAP exposures do not exceed the specified hazard
index limit.
3. Subcategory Delisting Under Section 112(c)(9)(B) of the CAA
The EPA is authorized to establish categories and subcategories of
sources, as appropriate, pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(1), in order to
facilitate the development of MACT standards consistent with section
112 of the CAA. Further, section 112(c)(9)(B) allows EPA to delete a
category (or subcategory) from the list of major sources for which MACT
standards are to be developed when the following can be demonstrated:
(1) In the case of carcinogenic pollutants, that ``no source in the
category * * * emits (carcinogenic) air pollutants in quantities which
may cause a lifetime risk of cancer greater than 1 in 1 million to the
individual in the population who is most exposed to emissions of such
pollutants from the source''; (2) in the case of pollutants that cause
adverse noncancer health effects, that ``emissions from no source in
the category or subcategory * * * exceed a level which is adequate to
protect public health with an ample margin of safety''; and (3) in the
case of pollutants that cause adverse environmental effects, that ``no
adverse environmental effect will result from emissions from any
source.''
Given these authorities and the suggestions from the white paper
prepared by industry representatives (see docket number OAR-2002-0059),
EPA is considering whether it would be possible to establish a
subcategory of facilities within the larger RICE category that would
meet the risk-based criteria for delisting. Such criteria would likely
include the same requirements as described previously for the second
scenario under the section 112(d)(4) approach, whereby a facility would
be in the low-risk subcategory if its emissions of threshold pollutants
do not result in exposures which exceed the HI limits and if its
emissions of nonthreshold pollutants do not result in exposures which
exceed a cancer risk level of 10-6. The EPA requests comment
on what an appropriate HI limit would be for a determination that a
facility be included in the low-risk subcategory.
Since each facility in such a subcategory would be a low-risk
facility (i.e., if each met these criteria), the subcategory could be
delisted in accordance with CAA section 112(c)(9), thereby limiting the
costs and impacts of the proposed rule to only those facilities that do
not qualify for subcategorization and delisting. The EPA estimates that
the maximum potential effect of this approach would be the same as that
of applying the CAA section 112(d)(4) approach that allows exemption of
facilities emitting threshold and non-threshold pollutants if exemption
criteria are met.
Facilities seeking to be included in the delisted subcategory would
be responsible for providing all data required to determine whether
they are eligible for inclusion. Facilities that could not demonstrate
that they are eligible to be included in the low-risk subcategory would
be subject to MACT and possible future residual risk standards. The EPA
solicits comment on implementing a risk-based approach for establishing
subcategories of RICE facilities.
Establishing that a facility qualifies for the low-risk subcategory
under CAA section 112(c)(9) will necessarily involve combining
estimates of pollutant emissions with air dispersion modeling to
predict exposures. The EPA envisions that we would employ the same
tiered analytical approach described earlier in the CAA section
112(d)(4) discussion for these determinations.
One concern that EPA has with respect to the CAA section 112(c)(9)
approach is the effect that it could have on the MACT floors. If many
of the facilities in the low-risk subcategory are well-controlled, that
could make the MACT floor less stringent for the remaining facilities.
One approach that has been suggested to mitigate this effect would be
to establish the MACT floor now based on controls in place for the
entire category and to allow facilities to become part of the low-risk
subcategory in the future, after the MACT standards are established.
This would allow low risk facilities to use the CAA section 112(c)(9)
exemption without affecting the MACT floor calculation. The EPA
requests comment on this suggested approach.
[[Page 77851]]
Another approach under CAA section 112(c)(9) would be to define a
subcategory of facilities within the RICE source category based upon
technological differences, such as differences in production rate,
emission vent flow rates, overall facility size, emissions
characteristics, processes, or air pollution control device viability.
The EPA requests comment on how we might establish RICE subcategories
based on these, or other, source characteristics. If it could then be
determined that each source in this technologically-defined subcategory
presents a low risk to the surrounding community, the subcategory could
then be delisted in accordance with CAA section 112(c)(9). The EPA
requests comment on the concept of identifying technologically-based
subcategories that may include only low-risk facilities within the RICE
source category.
If the CAA section 112(c)(9) approach were adopted, the proposed
rulemaking would likely indicate that the rule does not apply to any
source that demonstrates that it belongs in a subcategory which has
been delisted under CAA section 112(c)(9).
C. Limited Use Subcategory
We are soliciting comments on creating a subcategory of limited use
engines with capacity utilization of 10 percent or less (876 or fewer
hours of annual operation). Units in this subcategory would include
engines used for electric power peak shaving that are called upon to
operate fewer than 876 hours per year. These units operate only during
peak energy use periods, typically in the summer months. We believe
that these infrequently operated units typically operate 10 percent of
the year or less. While these are potential sources of emissions, and
it is appropriate for EPA to address them in the proposed rule, the
Agency believes that their use and operation are different compared to
typical RICE. We believe that it may be appropriate for such limited
use units to have their own subcategory. Therefore, we are soliciting
comment on subcategorizing RICE having a capacity utilization of less
than 10 percent.
We have performed a preliminary MACT floor analysis on engines with
under 10 percent capacity utilization that are in EPA's RICE database.
This analysis indicates that existing units would have a floor of no
emissions reductions and new units would have a floor equal to the
performance of an oxidation catalyst system.
We are interested in comments on creating a subcategory for limited
use peak shaving (less than 10 percent capacity utilization) engines.
We are interested in comments on the validity and appropriateness under
the CAA for a subcategory for limited use peak shaving engines, data on
the levels of control currently achieved by such engines, and any
technical limitations that might make it impossible to achieve control
of emissions from limited use peak shaving engines.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must
determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, we have determined
that the proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' because
it could have an annual effect on the economy of over $100 million.
Consequently, this action was submitted to OMB for review under
Executive Order 12866. Any written comments from OMB and written EPA
responses are available in the docket.
As stipulated in Executive Order 12866, in deciding how or whether
to regulate, EPA is required to assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not
regulating. To this end, EPA prepared a detailed benefit-cost analysis
in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines NESHAP,'' which is contained in the docket.
The following is a summary of the benefit-cost analysis.
It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the proposed
rule, HAP will be reduced by 5,000 tons per year due to reductions in
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, and several other HAP
from some existing and all new internal combustion engines.
Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde have been classified as ``probable human
carcinogens'' based on scientific studies conducted over the past 20
years. These studies have determined a relationship between exposure to
these HAP and the onset of cancer; however, there are some questions
remaining on how cancers that may result from exposure to these HAP can
be quantified in terms of dollars. Acrolein, methanol and the other HAP
emitted from RICE sources are not considered carcinogenic but have been
reported to cause several noncarcinogenic effects.
The control technology to reduce the level of HAP emitted from RICE
are also expected to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, primarily
CO, NOX, and PM, however, VOC are also reduced to a minor
extent. It is estimated that CO emissions reductions totals
approximately 234,400 tons/year, NOX emissions reductions
totals approximately 167,900 tons/year, and PM emissions reductions
totals approximately 3,700 tons per year. These reductions occur from
new and existing engines in operation 5 years after the implementation
of the rule as proposed and are expected to continue throughout the
life of the engines and continue to grow as new engines (that otherwise
would not be controlled) are purchased for operation. Human health
effects associated with exposure to CO include cardiovascular system
and CNS effects, which are directly related to reduced oxygen content
of blood and which can result in modification of visual perception,
hearing, motor and sensorimotor performance, vigilance, and cognitive
ability. Emissions of NOX can transform into PM in the
atmosphere, which produces a variety of health and welfare effects.
Human health effects associated with NOX include respiratory
problems, such as chronic bronchitis, asthma, or even death from
complications. Welfare effects from direct NOX exposure
include agricultural and forestry damage and acidification of estuaries
through rain deposition of nitrogen; while fine PM particles created
from NOX can reduce visibility in national parks and other
natural and urban areas.
At the present time, the Agency cannot provide a monetary estimate
for the benefits associated with the reductions in CO. For
NOX and PM, the Agency has conducted several analyses
recently that estimate the monetized
[[Page 77852]]
benefits of these pollutant reductions, including: the Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) of the PM/Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (1997), the NOX State Implementation Plan Call
(1998), the section 126 RIA (1999), a study conducted for section
812(b) of the Clean Air Act Amendments (1990), the Tier 2/Gasoline
Sulfur Standards (1999), and the Heavy Duty Engine/Diesel Fuel
Standards (2000).
On September 26, 2002, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
released a report on its review of the Agency's methodology for
analyzing the health benefits of measures taken to reduce air
pollution. The report focused on EPA's approach for estimating the
health benefits of regulations designed to reduce concentrations of
airborne particulate matter (PM).
In its report, the NAS said that EPA has generally used a
reasonable framework for analyzing the health benefits of PM-control
measures. It recommended, however, that the Agency take a number of
steps to improve its benefits analysis. In particular, the NAS stated
that the Agency should:
(1) Include benefits estimates for a range of regulatory options;
(2) Estimate benefits for intervals, such as every 5 years, rather
than a single year;
(3) Clearly state the project baseline statistics used in
estimating health benefits, including those for air emissions, air
quality, and health outcomes;
(4) Examine whether implementation of proposed regulations might
cause unintended impacts on human health or the environment;
(5) When appropriate, use data from non-U.S. studies to broaden age
ranges to which current estimates apply and to include more types of
relevant health outcomes;
(6) Begin to move the assessment of uncertainties from its
ancillary analyses into its primary analyses by conducting
probabilistic, multiple-source uncertainty analyses. This assessment
should be based on available data and expert judgment.
Although the NAS made a number of recommendations for improvement
in EPA's approach, it found that the studies selected by EPA for use in
its benefits analysis were generally reasonable choices. In particular,
the NAS agreed with EPA's decision to use cohort studies to derive
benefits estimates. It also concluded that the Agency's selection of
the American Cancer Society (ACS) study for the evaluation of PM-
related premature mortality was reasonable, although it noted the
publication of new cohort studies that should be evaluated by the
Agency. Several of the NAS recommendations addressed the issue of
uncertainty and how the Agency can better analyze and communicate the
uncertainties associated with its benefits assessments. In particular,
the Committee expressed concern about the Agency's reliance on a single
value from its analysis and suggested that EPA develop a probabilistic
approach for analyzing the health benefits of proposed regulatory
actions. The Agency agrees with this suggestion and is working to
develop such an approach for use in future rulemakings.
In the RIA for the proposed rule, the Agency has used an interim
approach that shows the impact of several important alternative
assumptions about the estimation and valuation of reductions in
premature mortality and chronic bronchitis. This approach, which was
developed in the context of the Agency's Clear Skies analysis, provides
an alternative estimate of health benefits using the time series
studies in place of cohort studies, as well as alternative valuation
methods for mortality and chronic bronchitis risk reductions.
For today's action, we conducted an air quality assessment to
determine the change in concentrations of PM that results from
reductions of NOX and direct emissions of PM at all sources
of RICE. Because we are unable to identify the location of all affected
existing and new sources of RICE, our analysis is conducted in two
phases. In the first phase, we conduct air quality analysis assuming a
50 percent reduction of 1996-levels of NOX emissions and a
100 percent reduction of PM10 emissions for all RICE sources
throughout the country. The results of this analysis serve as a
reasonable approximation of air quality changes to transfer to the
proposed rule's emissions reductions at affected sources. The results
of the air quality assessment served as input to a model that estimates
the benefits related to the health effects listed above. In the second
phase of our analysis, the value of the benefits per ton of
NOX and PM reduced (e.g., $ benefit/ton reduced) associated
with the air quality scenarios are then applied to the tons of
NOX and PM emissions expected to be reduced by the proposed
rule. We also used the benefit transfer method to value improvements in
ozone based on the transfer of benefit values from an analysis of the
1998 NOX SIP call. In addition, although the benefits of the
welfare effects of NOX are monetized in other Agency
analyses, we chose not to do an analysis of the improvements in welfare
effects that will result from the proposed rule. Alternatively, we
could transfer the estimates of welfare benefits from these other
studies to this analysis, but chose not to do so because these studies
with estimated welfare benefits differ in the source and location of
emissions and associated impacted populations.
Every benefit-cost analysis examining the potential effects of a
change in environmental protection requirements is limited to some
extent by data gaps, limitations in model capabilities (such as
geographic coverage), and uncertainties in the underlying scientific
and economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models.
Deficiencies in the scientific literature often result in the inability
to estimate changes in health and environmental effects, such as
potential increases in premature mortality associated with increased
exposure to carbon monoxide. Deficiencies in the economics literature
often result in the inability to assign economic values even to those
health and environmental outcomes which can be quantified. While these
general uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economics
literatures are discussed in detail in the RIA and its supporting
documents and references, the key uncertainties which have a bearing on
the results of the benefit-cost analysis of today's action are the
following:
(1) The exclusion of potentially significant benefit categories
(e.g., health and ecological benefits of reduction in hazardous air
pollutants emissions);
(2) Errors in measurement and projection for variables such as
population growth;
(3) Uncertainties in the estimation of future year emissions
inventories and air quality;
(4) Uncertainties associated with the extrapolation of air quality
monitoring data to some unmonitored areas required to better capture
the effects of the standards on the affected population;
(5) Variability in the estimated relationships of health and
welfare effects to changes in pollutant concentrations; and
(6) Uncertainties associated with the benefit transfer approach.
Despite these uncertainties, we believe the benefit-cost analysis
provides a reasonable indication of the expected economic benefits of
the RICE NESHAP under two different sets of assumptions.
We have used two approaches (Base and Alternative Estimates) to
provide benefits in health effects and in
[[Page 77853]]
monetary terms. They differ in the method used to estimate and value
reduced incidences of mortality and chronic bronchitis, which is
explained in detail in the RIA. While there is a substantial difference
in the specific estimates, both approaches show that the RICE MACT may
provide benefits to public health, whether expressed as health
improvements or as economic benefits. These include prolonging lives,
reducing cases of chronic bronchitis and hospital admissions, and
reducing thousands of cases in other indicators of adverse health
effects, such as work loss days, restricted activity days, and days
with asthma attacks. In addition, there are a number of health and
environmental effects which we were unable to quantify or monetize.
These effects, denoted by ``B'' are additive to both the Base and
Alternative estimates of benefits. Results also reflect the use of two
different discount rates for the valuation of reduced incidences of
mortality; a 3 percent rate which is recommended by EPA's Guidelines
for Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2000a), and 7 percent which
is recommended by OMB Circular A-94 (OMB, 1992).
More specifically, the Base Estimate of benefits reflects the use
of peer-reviewed methodologies developed for earlier risk and benefit-
cost assessments related to the Clean Air Act, such as the regulatory
assessments of the Heavy Duty Diesel and Tier II rules and the section
812 Report to Congress. The Alternative Estimate explores important
aspects of the key elements underlying estimates of the benefits of
reducing NOX emissions, specifically focusing on estimation
and valuation of mortality risk reduction and valuation of chronic
bronchitis. The Alternative Estimate of mortality reduction relies on
recent scientific studies finding an association between increased
mortality and short-term exposure to particulate matter over days to
weeks, while the Base Estimate relies on a recent reanalysis of earlier
studies that associate long-term exposure to fine particles with
increased mortality. The Alternative Estimate differs in the following
ways: It explicitly omits any impact of long-term exposure on premature
mortality, it uses different data on valuation and makes adjustments
relating to the health status and potential longevity of the
populations most likely affected by PM, it also uses a cost-of-illness
method to value reductions in cases of chronic bronchitis while the
Base Estimate is based on individual's willingness to pay (WTP) to
avoid a case of chronic bronchitis. In addition, one key area of
uncertainty is the value of a statistical life (VSL) for risk
reductions in mortality, which is also the category of benefits that
accounts for a large portion of the total benefit estimate. The
adoption of a value for the projected reduction in the risk of
premature mortality is the subject of continuing discussion within the
economic and public policy analysis community. There is general
agreement that the value to an individual of a reduction in mortality
risk can vary based on several factors, including the age of the
individual, the type of risk, the level of control the individual has
over the risk, the individual's attitude toward risk, and the health
status of the individual.
The Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) of the EPA
Science Advisory Board (SAB) recently issued an advisory report which
states that ``the theoretically appropriate method is to calculate WTP
for individuals whose ages correspond to those of the affected
population, and that it is preferable to base these calculations on
empirical estimates of WTP by age'' (EPA-SAB-EEAC-00-013). In
developing our Base Estimate of the benefits of premature mortality
reductions, we have appropriately discounted over the lag period
between exposure and premature mortality. However, the empirical basis
for adjusting the current $6 million VSL for other factors does not yet
justify including these in our Base Estimate. A discussion of these
factors is contained in the RIA and supporting documents. The EPA
recognizes the need for additional research by the scientific community
to develop additional empirical support for adjustments to VSL for the
factors mentioned above. Furthermore, EPA prefers not to draw
distinctions in the monetary value assigned to the lives saved even if
they differ in age, health status, socioeconomic status, gender or
other characteristic of the adult population. However, adjustments to
VSL for age and life expectancy are explored in the Alternative
Estimate.
Given its basis in methods approved by the SAB, we employed the
approach used for the benefit analysis of the Heavy Duty Engine/Diesel
Fuel standards conducted in 2000 to the RICE NESHAP discussed in this
preamble. A full discussion of considerations made in our presentation
of benefits is summarized in the preamble of the Final Heavy Duty
Engine/Diesel Fuel standards issued in December 2000, and in all
supporting documentation and analyses of the Heavy Duty Diesel Program,
and in the RIA for the proposed rule.
In addition to the presentation of quantified health benefits, our
estimate also includes a ``B'' to represent those additional health and
environmental benefits which could not be expressed in quantitative
incidence and/or economic value terms. A full appreciation of the
overall economic consequences of the RICE NESHAP requires consideration
of all benefits and costs expected to result from the new standards,
not just those benefits and costs which could be expressed here in
dollar terms. A full listing of the benefit categories that could not
be quantified or monetized in our estimate are provided in Table 3 of
this preamble.
[[Page 77854]]
Table 3.--Unquantified Benefit Categories from RICE Emissions Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unquantified benefit Unquantified benefit Unquantified benefit
categories associated categories associated categories associated
with HAP with ozone with PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Categories................... Carcinogenicity Airway responsiveness. Changes in pulmonary
mortality. Pulmonary inflammation. function.
Genotoxicity mortality. Increased Morphological changes.
Non-Cancer lethality. susceptibility to Altered host defense
Pulmonary function respiratory infection. mechanisms.
decrement. Acute inflammation and Cancer.
Dermal irritation. respiratory cell Other chronic
Eye irritation. damage. respiratory disease.
Neurotoxicity. Chronic respiratory Emergency room visits
Immunotoxicity. damage/Premature aging for asthma.
Pulmonary function of lungs. Lower and upper
decrement. Emergency room visits respiratory symptoms.
Liver damage. for asthma. Acute bronchitis.
Gastrointestinal Shortness of breath.
toxicity.
Kidney damage.
Cardiovascular
impairment.
Hematopoietic (Blood
disorders).
Reproductive/
Developmental toxicity.
Welfare Categories.................. Corrosion/deterioration. Ecosystem and Materials damage.
Unpleasant odors. vegetation effects in Damage to ecosystems
Transportation safety Class I areas (e.g., (e.g., acid sulfate
concerns. national parks). deposition).
Yield reductions/Foliar Damage to urban Nitrates in drinking
injury. ornamentals (e.g., water.
Biomass decrease. grass, flowers,
Species richness shrubs, and trees in
decline. urban areas).
Species diversity Commercial field crops.
decline. Fruit and vegetable
Community size decrease. crops
Organism lifespan Reduced yields of tree
decrease. seedlings, commercial
Trophic web shortening. and non-commercial
forests.
Damage to ecosystems.
Materials damage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Base Estimate of benefits totals approximately $280 million
when using a 3 percent interest rate (or approximately $265 million
when using a 7 percent interest rate). The Alternative Estimate totals
approximately $40 million when using a 3 percent interest rate (or
approximately $45 million when using a 7 percent interest rate).
Benefit-cost comparison (or net benefits) is another tool used to
evaluate the reallocation of society's resources needed to address the
pollution externality created by the operation of RICE units. The
additional costs of internalizing the pollution produced at major
sources of emissions from RICE units is compared to the improvement in
society's well-being from a cleaner and healthier environment.
Comparing benefits of the proposed rule to the costs imposed by
alternative ways to control emissions optimally identifies a strategy
that results in the highest net benefit to society. In the case of the
proposed RICE NESHAP, we are proposing only one option, the minimal
level of control mandated by the Clean Air Act, or the MACT floor.
Table 4 of this preamble presents a summary of the costs, emission
reductions, and quantifiable benefits by engine type. Table 5 of this
preamble presents a summary of net benefits. Based on estimated
compliance costs associated with the proposed rule and the predicted
change in prices and production in the affected industries, the
estimated social costs of the proposed rule are $254 million (1998$) as
are discussed previously in this preamble.
Unfortunately, the air benefits characterized in this analysis are
limited by the data available on the numerous health and welfare
categories for the affected pollutants and by the lack of approved
methods for quantifying effects.
Using the Base Estimate of benefits, the portion of total benefits
associated with NOX and PM reductions exceed the estimated
total costs of the proposed rule by $25 million + B when using a 3
percent discount rate (or approximately $10 million + B when using a 7
percent discount rate). However, using the more conservative
Alternative Estimate of benefits, net benefits are negative. Under the
Alternative Estimate, net benefits total -$215 million + B under a 3
percent discount rate (or approximately -$210 million + B when using a
7 percent discount rate). Approximately 90 percent of the total
benefits ($255 million under the Base Estimate, and $35 million under
the Alternative Estimate) are associated with NOX reductions
from the 4SRB subcategory for new and existing engines. Approximately
10 percent of the total benefits ($25 million under the Base Estimate,
and $5 million under the Alternative Estimate) are associated with the
PM reductions from the compression ignition engine subcategory at new
sources.
In both cases, net benefits would be greater if all the benefits of
the HAP and other pollutant reductions could be quantified. Notable
omissions to the net benefits include all benefits of HAP and CO
reductions, including reduced cancer incidences, toxic morbidity
effects, and cardiovascular and CNS effects. It is also important to
note that not all benefits of NOX reductions have been
monetized. Categories which have contributed significantly to monetized
benefits in past analyses (see the RIA for the Heavy Duty Engine/Diesel
standards) include commercial agriculture and forestry, recreational
and residential visibility improvements, and estuarine improvements.
[[Page 77855]]
Table 4.--Summary of Costs, Emission Reductions, and Quantifiable Benefits by Engine Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total annualized Emission reductions \A\ (tons/yr in Quantifiable annual monetized benefits \B,C\ (million
cost (million $/ the 5th year after promulgation) $/yr in the 2005)
Type of engine yr in the 5th -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
year after
promulgation) HAP CO NOX PM Base estimate Alternative estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2SLB-New.............................. 3 250 2,025 0 0 B 1 B 2
4SLB-New.............................. 66 4,035 36,240 0 0 B 3 B 4
4SRB-Existing......................... 38 230 98,040 69,900 0 $105 + B 5 $15 + B 7
$100 + B 6 $15 + B 8
4SRB-New.............................. 48 215 91,820 98,000 0 $150 + B 9 $20 + B 11
$140 + B 10 $25 + B 12
CI-New................................ 99 305 6,320 0 3,700 $25 + B 13 $5 + B 14
Total............................. 254 5,035 234,445 167,900 3,700 $280 + B $40 + B
$265 + B $45 + B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\A\ For the calculation of PM-related benefits, total NOX reductions are multiplied by the appropriate benefit per ton value presented in Table 8-7 of
the RIA. For the calculation of ozone-related benefits, NOX reductions are multiplied by \5/12\ to account for ozone season months and 0.74 to account
for Eastern States in the ozone analysis. The resulting ozone-related NOX reductions are multiplied by $28 per ton. Ozone-related benefits are summed
together with PM-related benefits to derive total benefits of NOX reductions. All benefits values are rounded to the nearest $5 million.
\B\ Benefits of HAP and CO emissions reductions are not quantified in this analysis and, therefore, are not presented in this table. The quantifiable
benefits are from emissions reductions of NOX and PM only. For notational purposes, unquantified benefits are indicated with a ``B'' to represent
monetary benefits. A detailed listing of unquantified NOX, PM, and HAP related health effects is provided in Table 8-13 of the RIA.
\C\ Results reflect the use of two different discount rates; a 3 percent rate which is recommended by EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses
(U.S. EPA, 2000a), and 7 percent which is recommended by OMB Circular A-94 (OMB, 1992).
Table 5.--Annual Net Benefits of the RICE NESHAP in 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million 1998$ A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Costs B.......................... $255
Social Benefits B, C, D:
HAP-related benefits................ Not monetized
CO-related benefits................. Not monetized
Ozone- and PM-related welfare Not monetized
benefits.
Ozone- and PM-related health
benefits:
Base Estimate
--Using 3% Discount Rate.... $280 + B
--Using 7% Discount Rate.... $265 + B
Alternative Estimate
--Using 3% Discount Rate.... $40 + B
--Using 7% Discount Rate.... $45 + B
Net Benefits (Benefits--Costs) C, D:
Base Estimate
--Using 3% Discount Rate.... $25 + B
--Using 7% Discount Rate.... $10 + B
Alternative Estimate
--Using 3% Discount Rate.... --$215 + B
--Using 7% Discount Rate.... --$210 + B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A All costs and benefits are rounded to the nearest $5 million. Thus,
figures presented in this chapter may not exactly equal benefit and
cost numbers presented in earlier sections of the chapter.
B Note that costs are the total costs of reducing all pollutants,
including HAP and CO, as well as NOx and PM 10. Benefits in this table
are associated only with PM and NOx reductions.
C Not all possible benefits or disbenefits are quantified and monetized
in this analysis. Potential benefit categories that have not been
quantified and monetized are listed in Table 8-13. B is the sum of all
unquantified benefits and disbenefits.
D Monetized benefits are presented using two different discount rates.
Results calculated using 3 percent discount rate are recommended by
EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA, 2000a).
Results calculated using 7 percent discount rate are recommended by
OMB Circular A-94 (OMB, 1992).
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires us
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
The proposed 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.
We are required by section 112 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7412, to
establish the standards in the proposed rule. The proposed rule
primarily affects private industry and does not impose significant
economic costs on State or local governments. The proposed rule does
not include an express provision preempting State or local regulations.
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of
[[Page 77856]]
the Executive Order do not apply to the proposed rule.
Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the
proposed rule, we consulted with representatives of State and local
governments to enable them to provide meaningful and timely input into
the development of the proposed rule. This consultation took place
during the ICCR FACA committee meetings where members representing
State and local governments participated in developing recommendations
for EPA's combustion-related rulemakings, including the proposed rule.
The concerns raised by representatives of State and local governments
were considered during the development of the proposed rule.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, we specifically solicit comment on the proposed rule from
State and local officials.
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
The proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No
known stationary RICE are located within the jurisdiction of any tribal
government. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed
rule.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the proposed rule on children, and explain why the proposed
rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered.
The Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health
or safety risks associated with the emissions addressed by the proposed
rule present a disproportionate risk to children. The public is invited
to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of which the
Agency may not be aware, that assess the results of early life exposure
to the pollutants addressed by the proposed rule and suggest a
disproportionate impact.
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires EPA to
prepare and submit to the Administrator of the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of
Energy Effects for certain actions identified as significant energy
actions. Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13211 defines significant
energy actions as any action by an agency (normally published in the
Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the
promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of
inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of
proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) that is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or
use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy
action.
While the proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, EPA has determined that the proposed rule is not
a significant energy action because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy based on the Statement of Energy Effects for this action
provided below.
The RIA estimates changes in prices and production levels for all
energy markets (i.e., petroleum, natural gas, electricity, and coal).
We also estimate how changes in the energy markets will impact other
users of energy, such as manufacturing markets and residential,
industrial and commercial consumers of energy. The results of the
economic impact analysis for the proposed rule are shown for 2005, for
that is the year in which full implementation of the rule is expected
to occur. These results show that there will be minimal changes in
price, if any, for most energy products affected by implementation of
the proposed rule. Only a slight price increase (about 0.001 percent to
0.02 percent) may occur in three of the energy sectors: petroleum,
electricity, and coal products nationwide, and approximately a one-
tenth of one percent (i.e., 0.10 percent) change in natural gas prices.
The change in energy costs associated with the proposed rule, however,
represents only 0.03 percent of expected annual energy expenditures by
residential consumers in 2005, a 0.008 percent change for
transportation consumers of energy, and about 0.03 percent of energy
expenditures in the commercial sector. In addition, no discernable
impact on exports or imports of energy products is expected. Therefore,
the impacts on energy markets and users will be relatively small
nationwide as a result of implementation of the proposed reciprocating
internal combustion engines NESHAP.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the proposed rule. The provisions of section
205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if
the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish
[[Page 77857]]
any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, including tribal governments, we must develop a
small government agency plan under section 203 of the UMRA. The plan
must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
We have determined that the proposed 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, we have prepared a written statement
under section 202 of the UMRA which is summarized below. The written
statement is in the docket.
1. Statutory Authority
As discussed previously in this preamble, the statutory authority
for the proposed rulemaking is section 112 of the CAA. Section 112(b)
lists the 189 chemicals, compounds, or groups of chemicals deemed by
Congress to be HAP. These toxic air pollutants are to be regulated by
NESHAP.
Section 112(d) of the CAA directs us to develop NESHAP based on
MACT which require existing and new major sources to control emissions
of HAP. These NESHAP apply to all stationary RICE located at major
sources of HAP emissions, however, only certain existing and new or
reconstructed stationary RICE have substantive regulatory requirements.
In compliance with section 205(a), we identified and considered a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. The regulatory
alternative upon which the proposed rule is based represents the MACT
floor for stationary RICE and, as a result, it is the least costly and
least burdensome alternative.
2. Social Costs and Benefits
The RIA prepared for the proposed rule, including the Agency's
assessment of costs and benefits, is detailed in the ``Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the Proposed RICE NESHAP'' in the docket. Based on
estimated compliance costs on all sources associated with the proposed
rule and the predicted change in prices and production in the affected
industries, the estimated social costs of the proposed rule are $254
million (1998$).
It is estimated that 5 years after implementation of the proposed
rule, HAP will be reduced by 5,000 tons per year due to reductions in
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol and other HAP from
existing and new stationary RICE. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde have
been classified as ``probable human carcinogens.'' Acrolein, methanol
and the other HAP are not considered carcinogenic, but produce several
other toxic effects. The proposed rule will also achieve reductions in
234,400 tons of CO, approximately 167,900 tons of NOX per
year, and approximately 3,700 tons of PM per year. Exposure to CO can
effect the cardiovascular system and the central nervous system.
Emissions of NOX can transform into PM, which can result in
fatalities and many respiratory problems (such as asthma or
bronchitis); and NOX can also transform into ozone causing
several respiratory problems to affected populations.
At the present time, the Agency cannot provide a monetary estimate
for the benefits associated with the reductions in HAP and CO. For
NOX and PM, we estimated the benefits associated with health
effects of PM but were unable to quantify all categories of benefits of
NOX (particularly those associated with ecosystem and
environmental effects). Unquantified benefits are noted with ``B'' in
the estimates presented below. Total monetized benefits are
approximately $280 million + B (1998$) under our Base Estimate when
using a 3 percent discount rate (or approximately $265 million + B when
using a 7 percent discount rate). Under the Alternative Estimate, total
benefits are approximately $40 million + B when using a 3 percent
discount rate (or approximately $45 million + B when using a 7 percent
discount rate). The approach to value benefits is discussed in more
detail in this preamble under the Executive Order 12866. These
monetized benefits should be considered along with the many categories
of benefits that we are unable to place a dollar value on to consider
the total benefits of the proposed rule.
3. Future and Disproportionate Costs
The UMRA requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is
reasonably feasible, future compliance costs imposed by the proposed
rule and any disproportionate budgetary effects. Our estimates of the
future compliance costs of the proposed rule are discussed previously
in this preamble.
We do not believe that there will be any disproportionate budgetary
effects of the proposed rule on any particular areas of the country,
State or local governments, types of communities (e.g., urban, rural),
or particular industry segments.
4. Effects on the National Economy
The UMRA requires that we estimate the effect of the proposed 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 proposed rule is presented in
the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for RICE NESHAP'' in the docket. This
analysis provides estimates of the effect of the proposed rule on most
of the categories mentioned above. The results of the economic impact
analysis are summarized previously in this preamble.
5. Consultation With Government Officials
The UMRA requires that we describe the extent of our prior
consultation with affected State, local, and tribal officials,
summarize the officials' comments or concerns, and summarize our
response to those comments or concerns. In addition, section 203 of
UMRA requires that we develop a plan for informing and advising small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by a
proposal. Although the proposed rule does not affect any State, local,
or tribal governments, we have consulted with State and local air
pollution control officials. We also have held meetings on the proposed
rule with many of the stakeholders from numerous individual companies,
environmental groups, consultants and vendors, labor unions, and other
interested parties. We have added materials to the docket to document
these meetings.
In addition, we have determined that the proposed rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to
the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements
[[Page 77858]]
under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the
agency certifies that the proposed 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 today's proposed rule on
small entities, ``small entity'' is defined as: (1) A small business
whose parent company has fewer than 500 employees (for most affected
industries); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
or a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field. It should be noted that the proposed
rule covers more than 25 different industries. For each industry, we
applied the definition of a small business provided by the Small
Business Administration at 13 CFR part 121, and classified by the
NAICS. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small businesses
in most industries affected by the proposed rule as those with fewer
than 500 employees. However, SBA has defined ``small business''
differently for a limited number of industries, either through
reference to another employment cap or through the substitution of
total yearly revenues in place of an employment limit. For more
information on the size standards for particular industries, please
refer to the regulatory impact analysis in the docket.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In support
of this certification, EPA examined the percentage of annual revenues
that compliance costs may consume if small entities must absorb all of
the compliance costs associated with the proposed rule. Since many
firms will be able to pass along some or all compliance costs to
customers, actual impacts will frequently be lower than those analyzed
here.
As is mentioned in previous sections of this preamble, the proposed
rule will set standards for only a limited set of existing units,
specifically 4SRB units. For all other types of engines, the proposed
rule would impose requirements only on new engines. The EPA identified
a total of 26,832 engines located at commercial, industrial, and
government facilities. From this initial population of 26,832 engines,
10,118 engines were excluded because the proposed regulation will not
cover engines smaller than 500 horsepower or engines used to supply
emergency/backup power. Of the 16,714 units remaining, 2,645 units had
sufficient information to assign to model unit numbers developed during
the cost analysis. These 2,645 units were linked to 834 existing
facilities, owned by 153 parent companies. A total of 47 companies were
identified as small entities, and only 13 of them own 4SRB engines.
These small entities own a total of 39 4SRB units at 21 facilities.
Further, assuming only 40 percent of the all RICE sources are located
at major sources and, thus, affected by the regulation, about 16 of the
39 4SRB units identified at facilities owned by small businesses would
be located at major sources.
Under this scenario, there are no small firms that have compliance
costs above 3 percent of firm revenues and only two small firms owning
4SRB engines that have impacts between 1 and 3 percent of revenues. In
addition to 12 small firms with 4SRB engines, there is one small
government in the Inventory Database affected by the proposed rule. The
costs to this city are approximately $3 per capita annually assuming
their engine is affected by the proposed rule, less than 0.01 percent
of median household income.
Based on this subset of the existing engines population, the
regulation will affect no small entities owning RICE at a cost to sales
ratio (CSR) greater than 3 percent, while approximately 4 percent (2/
47) of small entities owning RICE greater than 500 horsepower will have
compliance costs between 1 and 3 percent of sales under an upper bound
cost scenario. In comparison, the total existing population of engines
with greater than 500 horsepower that are not backup units is estimated
to be 22,018.
Assuming the same breakdown of large and small company ownership of
engines in the total population of existing engines as in the subset
with parent company information identified, the Agency expects that
approximately 17 small entities in the existing population of RICE
owners would have CSR between 1 and 3 percent under an upper bound cost
scenario where we assume all RICE owned by small entities are located
at major sources.
In addition, because many small entities owning RICE will not be
affected because of the exclusion of engines with less than 500
horsepower, the percentage of all small companies owning RICE that are
affected by the proposed rule is even smaller. Based on the proportion
of engines in the Inventory Database that are greater than 500
horsepower and are not backup units (16,714/26,832, or 62.3 percent)
and assuming that small companies own the same proportion of small
engines (less than 500 horsepower) as they do of engines greater than
500 horsepower, the Agency estimates that 628 small companies own RICE.
Of all small companies owning RICE, 2.7 percent (17/628) are expected
to have CSR between 1 and 3 percent under an upper bound cost scenario.
If the percentage of RICE owned by small companies that are located at
major sources is the same as the engine population overall (40
percent), only about 1.1 percent of small companies owning RICE would
be expected to have CSR greater than 1 percent.
The average profit margin for the industries in our analysis is
approximately 5 percent. Therefore, based on this median profit margin
data, it seems reasonable to review the number of small firms with CSR
above 3 percent in screening for significant impacts. In addition,
based on the low number of affected small firms, the fact that no small
firms have CSR between 3 and 5 percent, and the fact that industry
profit margins average 5 percent, this analysis concludes that the
proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of existing small entities.
For new sources, it can be reasonably assumed that the investment
decision to purchase a new engine may be slightly altered as a result
of the proposed rule. In fact, for the entire population of affected
engines (approximately 20,000 new engines over a 5-year period), 2
fewer engines (0.01 percent) may be purchased due to changes in costs
of the engines and market responses to the proposed rule. It is not
possible, however, to determine future investment decisions by the
small entities in the affected industries, so we cannot link these 2
engines to any one firm (small or large). Overall, it is very unlikely
that a substantial number of small firms who may consider purchasing a
new engine will be significantly impacted, because the decision to
purchase new engines is not altered to a large extent.
In addition to this consideration of costs on some firms
attributable to the proposed rule, EPA notes the proposed rule is
likely to increase revenues for many small firms, including those not
regulated by the proposed rule, due to a predictable increase in prices
of natural gas in the industry. Although the proposed rule will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities,
EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of the proposed rule on
small
[[Page 77859]]
entities. In the proposed rule, we are applying the minimum level of
control allowed by the CAA (i.e., the MACT floor), and the minimum
level of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting by affected sources.
In addition, as mentioned earlier in the preamble, new RICE units with
capacities under 500 horsepower and those that operate as emergency/
limited use units are not covered by the proposed rule, provisions that
should greatly reduce the level of small-entity impacts. We continue to
be interested in reducing any remaining impacts of the proposed rule on
small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in the proposed rule will
be submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document
has been prepared (ICR No. 1975.01) and a copy may be obtained from
Susan Auby by mail at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Collection Strategies Division (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 200, by e-mail at [email protected], or by calling
(202) 566-1672. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at
http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are not effective
until OMB approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The proposed rule would require maintenance inspections of the
control devices but would not require any notifications or reports
beyond those required by the General Provisions. The recordkeeping
requirements require only the specific information needed to determine
compliance.
The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of
the standards) is estimated to be 142,436 labor hours per year at a
total annual cost of $15,998,347. The estimate includes a one-time
performance test and report (with repeat tests where needed); one-time
purchase and installation of bag leak detection systems; one-time
submission of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual
reports for any event when the procedures in the plan were not
followed; semiannual excess emission reports; maintenance inspections;
notifications; and recordkeeping. Total capital/startup costs
associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of
the ICR are estimated at $5,436,882, with operation and maintenance
costs of $1,208,206/yr.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. That includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
Comments are requested on our need for the information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the U.S.
EPA, Director, Collection Strategies Division (2822), 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20500; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.''
Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to
make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after
December 19, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it by January 21, 2003. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in the proposed rule.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide
Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
The proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. We propose in
the rule to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 3A, 3B, 4, 10 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A; Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A; PS 3, PS 4A of 40
CFR part 60, appendix B; EPA SW-8 Method 0011, and ARB Method 430,
California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, 2020 L
Street, Sacramento, CA 95812. Consistent with the NTTAA, we conducted
searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these
EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were
identified for EPA Methods 1A, 3B, PS 3, PS 4 of CFR part 60, and ARB
Method 430, California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources
Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95812. The search and review
results have been documented and are placed in the docket for the
proposed rule.
One voluntary consensus standard was identified as applicable, and
we propose to use that standard in the proposed rule. The voluntary
consensus standard, ASTM D6522-00 (2000)--Standard Test Method for
Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen
Concentrations in Emissions From Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating
Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using
Portable Analyzers, is an acceptable alternative procedure for use in
determining carbon monoxide and oxygen concentrations the exhaust gases
of reciprocating internal combustion engines.
In addition to the voluntary consensus standard we propose to use
in the rule, this search for emission
[[Page 77860]]
measurement procedures identified ten other voluntary consensus
standards. We determined that six of these ten standards were
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the
proposed rulemaking. Therefore, we do not propose to adopt these
standards today. The reasons for this determination for the six methods
are discussed below.
Two of the six voluntary consensus standards are impractical
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed
rulemaking because they are too general, too broad, or not sufficiently
detailed to assure compliance with EPA regulatory requirements: ASTM
E337-84 (Reapproved 1996), ``Standard Test Method for Measuring
Humidity with a Psychrometer (the Measurement of Wet- and Dry-Bulb
Temperatures),'' for EPA Method 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; and
CAN/CSA Z223.2-M86(1986), ``Method for the Continuous Measurement of
Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Sulphur Dioxide, and Oxides of
Nitrogen in Enclosed Combustion Flue Gas Streams,'' for EPA Method 3A
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
Four of the six voluntary consensus standards are impractical
alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed
rulemaking because they lacked sufficient quality assurance and quality
control requirements necessary for EPA compliance assurance
requirements: ASTM D3154-91, ``Standard Method for Average Velocity in
a Duct (Pitot Tube Method),'' for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2C, 3, 3B, and 4 of
40 CFR part 60, appendix A; ASTM D5835-95, ``Standard Practice for
Sampling Stationary Source Emissions for Automated Determination of Gas
Concentration,'' for EPA Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; ISO
10396:1993, ``Stationary Source Emissions: Sampling for the Automated
Determination of Gas Concentrations,'' for EPA Method 3A of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A; ISO 9096:1992, ``Determination of Concentration and
Mass Flow Rate of Particulate Matter in Gas Carrying Ducts--Manual
Gravimetric Method,'' for EPA Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
The following four of the ten voluntary consensus standards
identified in this search were not available at the time the review was
conducted for the purposes of the proposed rulemaking because they are
under development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M,
``Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 1 (and
possibly 2) of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; ISO/DIS 12039, ``Stationary
Source Emissions--Determination of Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, and
Oxygen--Automated Methods,'' for EPA Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A; ASTM D6348-98, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,''
for EPA Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A; and Gas Research
Institute, ``Measurement of Formaldehyde Emissions Using the
Acetylacetone Colorimetric Method'' for EPA Method 320 of 40 CFR part
60, appendix A. While we are not proposing to include these four
voluntary consensus standards in today's proposal, we will consider the
standards when final.
The consensus standard, GRI, ``Measurement of Formaldehyde
Emissions Using the Acetylacetone Colorimetric Method,'' is currently
under our review as an alternative method for sampling formaldehyde
emissions in the exhaust of natural gas-fired combustion sources. This
standard is based on the ``Chilled Impinger Train Method for Methanol,
Acetone, Acetaldehyde, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, and Formaldehyde'' and is
described by the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement in its
Technical Bulletin No. 684, dated December 1994. After EPA's review, if
this GRI standard is determined to be technically appropriate for
identifying formaldehyde emissions, it could be incorporated by
reference for our regulatory applicability at a later date.
For the voluntary consensus standard, ASTM D6348-98,
``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' we have submitted comments to
ASTM regarding EPA's technical evaluation of ASTM D6348-98. Currently,
the ASTM Subcommittee D22-03 is undertaking a revision of the ASTM
standard in part to address EPA's comments. Upon successful ASTM
balloting and demonstration of technical equivalency with EPA's FTIR
methods, the revised ASTM standard could be incorporated by reference
for EPA regulatory applicability.
We are taking comment on the compliance demonstration requirements
in the proposed rulemaking and specifically invite the public to
identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Commentors should also explain why the proposed regulation should adopt
these voluntary consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's
standards. Emission test methods and performance specifications
submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the
recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used
to validate the candidate method (if a method other than Method 301, of
40 CFR part 63, appendix A, was used).
Tables 4, 5, and 6 of proposed subpart ZZZZ list the EPA testing
methods and performance standards included in the proposed rule. Under
40 CFR 63.8 of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply
to EPA for permission to use alternative monitoring in place of any of
the EPA testing methods.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 26, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart ZZZZ to read as follows:
Subpart ZZZZ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
Sec.
What This Subpart Covers
63.6580 What is the purpose of subpart ZZZZ?
63.6585 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.6590 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.6595 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
Emission and Operating Limitations
63.6600 What emission limitations and operating limitations must I
meet?
General Compliance Requirements
63.6605 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
63.6610 By what date must I conduct the initial performance tests or
other initial compliance demonstrations?
63.6615 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.6620 What performance tests and other procedures must I use?
[[Page 77861]]
63.6625 What are my monitor installation, operation, and maintenance
requirements?
63.6630 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission
limitations and operating limitations?
Continuous Compliance Requirements
63.6635 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous
compliance?
63.6640 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission
limitations and operating limitations?
Notification, Reports, and Records
63.6645 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.6650 What reports must I submit and when?
63.6655 What records must I keep?
63.6660 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
Other Requirements and Information
63.6665 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.6670 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.6675 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63
Table 1a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Emission Limitations for
Existing, New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary
RICE
Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Operating Limitations for
Existing, New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary
RICE
Table 2a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Emission Limitations for New
and Reconstructed Lean Burn and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE
Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Operating Limitations for New
and Reconstructed Lean Burn and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE
Table 3 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Subsequent Performance Tests
Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Requirements for Performance
Tests
Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Initial Compliance with Emission
Limitations and Operating Limitations
Table 6 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Continuous Compliance with
Emission Limitations and Operating Limitations
Table 7 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Requirements for Reports
Table 8 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63, Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart ZZZZ
What This Subpart Covers
Sec. 63.6580 What is the purpose of subpart ZZZZ?
Subpart ZZZZ establishes national emission limitations and
operating limitations for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from
stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) located at
major sources of HAP emissions. This subpart also establishes
requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the
emission limitations and operating limitations.
Sec. 63.6585 Am I subject to this subpart?
You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a stationary
RICE at a major source of HAP emissions, except if the stationary RICE
is being tested at a stationary RICE test cell/stand.
(a) A stationary RICE is any internal combustion engine which uses
reciprocating motion to convert heat energy into mechanical work and
which is not mobile. Stationary RICE differ from mobile RICE in that
stationary RICE are not self-propelled, are not intended to be
propelled while performing their function, or are not portable or
transportable as that term is identified in the definition of non-road
engine at 40 CFR 89.2.
(b) A major source of HAP emissions is a plant site that emits or
has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons (9.07
megagrams) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25
tons (22.68 megagrams) or more per year, except that for oil and gas
production facilities, a major source of HAP emissions is determined
for each surface site.
Sec. 63.6590 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
This subpart applies to each affected source.
(a) Affected source. An affected source is any existing, new, or
reconstructed stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP
emissions, excluding stationary RICE being tested at a stationary RICE
test cell/stand.
(1) Existing stationary RICE. A stationary RICE is existing if you
commenced construction or reconstruction of the stationary RICE before
December 19, 2002. A change in ownership of an existing stationary RICE
does not make that stationary RICE a new or reconstructed stationary
RICE.
(2) New stationary RICE. A stationary RICE is new if you commenced
construction of the stationary RICE after December 19, 2002.
(3) Reconstructed stationary RICE. A stationary RICE is
reconstructed if you meet the definition of reconstruction in Sec.
63.2 and reconstruction is commenced after December 19, 2002.
(b) Exceptions. (1) A stationary RICE which meets either of the
criteria in paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section does not have
to meet the requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of this part
except for the initial notification requirements of Sec. 63.6645(d).
(i) The stationary RICE is an emergency power/limited use unit; or
(ii) The stationary RICE combusts digester gas or landfill gas as
the primary fuel.
(2) A stationary RICE which meets any of the criteria in paragraph
(b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section does not have to meet the
requirements of this subpart and of subpart A of this part.
(i) The stationary RICE is an existing spark ignition 2 stroke lean
burn (2SLB), an existing spark ignition 4 stroke lean burn (4SLB), or a
compression ignition (CI) stationary RICE; or
(ii) The stationary RICE has a manufacturer's nameplate rating of
less than or equal to 500 brake horsepower.
Sec. 63.6595 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) Affected sources. (1) If you have an existing stationary RICE,
you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and operating
limitations no later than [3 years after the date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register].
(2) If you start up your new or reconstructed stationary RICE
before [date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register],
you must comply with the applicable emission limitations and operating
limitations in this subpart no later than [date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register].
(3) If you start up your new or reconstructed stationary RICE after
[date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you
must comply with the applicable emission limitations and operating
limitations in this subpart upon startup of your affected source.
(b) Area sources that become major sources. If you have an area
source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that
it becomes a major source of HAP, any existing, new, or reconstructed
stationary RICE must be in compliance with this subpart when the area
source becomes a major source.
(c) If you own or operate an affected RICE, you must meet the
applicable notification requirements in Sec. 63.6645 and in 40 CFR
part 63, subpart A.
Emission and Operating Limitations
Sec. 63.6600 What emission limitations and operating limitations must
I meet?
(a) If you own or operate an existing, new, or reconstructed spark
ignition 4 stroke rich burn (4SRB) stationary RICE located at a major
source of HAP emissions, you must comply with the emission limitations
in Table 1(a) of this subpart and the operating limitations in Table
1(b) of this subpart which apply to you.
(b) If you own or operate a new or reconstructed 2SLB or 4SLB
stationary RICE or a new or reconstructed CI
[[Page 77862]]
stationary RICE located at a major source of HAP emissions, you must
comply with the emission limitations in Table 2(a) of this subpart and
the operating limitations in Table 2(b) of this subpart which apply to
you.
(c) If you own or operate: an existing 2SLB stationary RICE, 4SLB
stationary RICE, or a CI stationary RICE; a stationary RICE that
combusts digester gas or landfill gas as the primary fuel; an emergency
power/limited use stationary RICE; a stationary RICE with a
manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less; or a
stationary RICE which is being tested at a stationary RICE test cell/
stand, you do not need to comply with the emission limitations in
Tables 1(a) and 2(a) of this subpart or operating limitations in Tables
1(b) and 2(b) of this subpart.
General Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.6605 What are my general requirements for complying with this
subpart?
(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations and
operating limitations in this subpart that apply to you at all times,
except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(b) If you must comply with emission limitations and operating
limitations, you must operate and maintain your stationary RICE,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions at all times, including during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.6610 By what date must I conduct the initial performance
tests or other initial compliance demonstrations?
You must conduct the initial performance test or other initial
compliance demonstrations in Table 4 of this subpart that apply to you
within 180 calendar 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).
Sec. 63.6615 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
If you must comply with the emission limitations and operating
limitations, you must conduct subsequent performance tests as specified
in Table 3 of this subpart.
Sec. 63.6620 What performance tests and other procedures must I use?
(a) You must conduct each performance test in Tables 3 and 4 of
this subpart that applies to you.
(b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and under the specific conditions that
this subpart specifies in Table 4.
(c) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
(d) You must conduct three separate test runs for each performance
test required in this section, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3). Each
test run must last at least 1 hour.
(e)(1) You must use Equation 1 of this section to determine
compliance with the percent reduction requirement:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19DE02.000
Where:
Ci = concentration of CO or formaldehyde at the control
device inlet,
Co = concentration of CO or formaldehyde at the control
device outlet, and
R = percent reduction of CO or formaldehyde emissions.
(2) You must normalize the carbon monoxide (CO) or formaldehyde
concentrations at the inlet and outlet of the oxidation catalyst or
non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) (whichever applies to you) to
a dry basis and to 15 percent oxygen, or an equivalent percent carbon
dioxide (CO2) if you are using a continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS).
(f) If you comply with the emission limitation to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust, you must
petition the Administrator for additional operating limitations to be
established during the initial performance test and continuously
monitored thereafter; or for approval of no additional operating
limitations. You must not conduct the initial performance test until
after the petition has been approved by the Administrator.
(g) If you comply with the emission limitation to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you
petition the Administrator for approval of additional operating
limitations, your petition must include the information described in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Identification of the specific parameters you propose to use as
additional operating limitations;
(2) A discussion of the relationship between these parameters and
HAP emissions, identifying how HAP emissions change with changes in
these parameters, and how limitations on these parameters will serve to
limit HAP emissions;
(3) A discussion of how you will establish the upper and/or lower
values for these parameters which will establish the limits on these
parameters in the operating limitations;
(4) A discussion identifying the methods you will use to measure
and the instruments you will use to monitor these parameters, as well
as the relative accuracy and precision of these methods and
instruments; and
(5) A discussion identifying the frequency and methods for
recalibrating the instruments you will use for monitoring these
parameters.
(h) If you comply with the emission limitation to limit the
concentration of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE exhaust and you
petition the Administrator for approval of no additional operating
limitations, your petition must include the information described in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Identification of the parameters associated with operation of
the stationary RICE and any emission control device which could change
intentionally (e.g., operator adjustment, automatic controller
adjustment, etc.) or unintentionally (e.g., wear and tear, error, etc.)
on a routine basis or over time;
(2) A discussion of the relationship, if any, between changes in
the parameters and changes in HAP emissions;
(3) For the parameters which could change in such a way as to
increase HAP emissions, a discussion of whether establishing
limitations on the parameters would serve to limit HAP emissions;
(4) For the parameters which could change in such a way as to
increase HAP emissions, a discussion of how you could establish upper
and/or lower values for the parameters which would establish limits on
the parameters in operating limitations;
(5) For the parameters, a discussion identifying the methods you
could use to measure them and the instruments you could use to monitor
them, as well as the relative accuracy and precision of the methods and
instruments;
(6) For the parameters, a discussion identifying the frequency and
methods for recalibrating the instruments you could use to monitor
them; and
(7) A discussion of why, from your point of view, it is infeasible
or unreasonable to adopt the parameters as operating limitations.
[[Page 77863]]
Sec. 63.6625 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
(a) If you are required to install a CEMS as specified in Table 5
of this subpart, you must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS to
monitor CO and either oxygen or CO2 at both the inlet and
the outlet of the oxidation catalyst according to the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Each CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according
to the applicable performance specifications of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B.
(2) You must conduct an initial performance evaluation and an
annual relative accuracy test audit (RATA) of each CEMS according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.8 and according to the applicable
performance specifications of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B as well as
daily and periodic data quality checks in accordance with 40 CFR part
60, appendix F, procedure 1.
(3) As specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(ii), each CEMS must complete a
minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and data
recording) for each successive 15-minute period. You must have at least
two data points, with each representing a different 15-minute period,
to have a valid hour of data.
(4) The CEMS data must be reduced as specified in Sec. 63.8(g)(2)
and recorded in parts per million or parts per billion (as appropriate
for the applicable limitation) at 15 percent oxygen or the equivalent
CO2 concentration.
(b) If you are required to install a continuous parameter
monitoring system (CPMS) as specified in Table 5 of this subpart, you
must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.8.
Sec. 63.6630 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the
emission limitations and operating limitations?
(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission and
operating limitation that applies to you according to Table 5 of this
subpart.
(b) During the initial performance test, you must establish each
operating limitation in Tables 1(b) and 2(b) of this subpart that
applies to you.
(c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.6645.
Continuous Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.6635 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
(a) If you must comply with emission and operating limitations, you
must monitor and collect data according to this section.
(b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments),
you must monitor continuously at all times that the stationary RICE is
operating.
(c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or
operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling the minimum
data availability requirement. You must, however, use all the valid
data collected during all other periods.
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 1(a) and 1(b) and Tables
2(a) and 2(b) of this subpart that apply to you according to methods
specified in Table 6 of this subpart.
(b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each
emission limitation or operating limitation in Tables 1(a) and 1(b) and
Tables 2(a) and 2(b) of this subpart that apply to you. These instances
are deviations from the emission and operating limitations in this
subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the
requirements in Sec. 63.6650. If you change your catalyst (i.e.,
replace catalyst elements), 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 CO or formaldehyde percent reduction applicable to your
stationary RICE.
(c) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must
operate in accordance with your startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan.
(d) Consistent with Sec. Sec. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations
from the emission or operating limitations that occur during a period
of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations.
(e) If you are complying with the requirement to limit the
formaldehyde concentration, you must conduct performance tests as shown
in Table 4 of this subpart. Following the initial performance test,
subsequent performance tests must be conducted at the lowest load. You
must also conduct a performance test and reestablish the minimum load
or minimum fuel flow rate if you want to operate the stationary RICE at
a load or fuel flow rate lower than that established during the initial
performance test.
(f) You must also report each instance in which you did not meet
the requirements in Table 8 of this subpart that apply to you. If you
own or operate an existing 2SLB stationary RICE, existing 4SLB
stationary RICE, or a CI stationary RICE, or a stationary RICE with a
manufacturer's nameplate rating of 500 brake horsepower or less, you do
not need to comply with the requirements in Table 8 of this subpart. If
you own or operate a stationary RICE that combusts digester gas or
landfill gas as the primary fuel or an emergency power/limited use
stationary RICE, you do not need to comply with the requirements in
Table 8 of this subpart, except for the initial notification
requirements.
Notifications, Reports, and Records
Sec. 63.6645 What notifications must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec. 63.7(b)
and (c), 63.8(e), (f)(4) and (f)(6), 63.9(b) through (e), and (g) and
(h) that apply to you by the dates specified.
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you must comply with the
emission and operating limitations, and you start up your stationary
RICE before [the effective date of this subpart], you must submit an
Initial Notification not later than [120 days after date of publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register].
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new or
reconstructed stationary RICE on or after the [date of publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit an Initial
Notification not later than 120 days after you become subject to this
subpart.
(d) If you are required to submit an Initial Notification but are
otherwise not affected by the requirements of this subpart, in
accordance with Sec. 63.6590(b), your notification should include the
information in Sec. 63.9(b)(2)(i) through (v), and a statement that
your stationary RICE has no additional requirements and explain the
basis of the exclusion (for example, that it operates exclusively as an
emergency/limited use stationary RICE).
[[Page 77864]]
(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must
submit a Notification of Intent to conduct a performance test at least
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
(f) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other
initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 5 to this
subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according
to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii).
(1) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 5
of this subpart that does not include a performance test, you must
submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the close of
business on the 30th calendar day following the completion of the
initial compliance demonstration.
(2) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 5
of this subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to
the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the
Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test
results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day
following the completion of the performance test according to Sec.
63.10(d)(2).
Sec. 63.6650 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit each report in Table 7 of this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for
submission of reports under Sec. 63.10(a), you must submit each report
by the date in Table 7 of this subpart and according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) The first Compliance report must cover the period beginning on
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.
63.6595 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the first calendar half after the
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec. 63.6595.
(2) The first Compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the
first calendar half after the compliance date that is specified for
your affected source in Sec. 63.6595.
(3) Each subsequent Compliance report must cover the semiannual
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
(4) Each subsequent Compliance report must be postmarked or
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
(5) For each stationary RICE that is subject to permitting
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you
may submit the first and subsequent Compliance reports according to the
dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to
the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
(c) The Compliance report must contain the information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Company name and address.
(2) Statement by a responsible official, with that official's name,
title, and signature, certifying the accuracy of the content of the
report.
(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting
period.
(4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the
reporting period, the compliance report must include the information in
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
(5) If there are no deviations from any emission or operating
limitations that apply to you, a statement that there were no
deviations from the emission or operating limitations during the
reporting period.
(6) If there were no periods during which the continuous monitoring
system (CMS), including CEMS and CPMS, was out-of-control, as specified
in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods during
which the CMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.
(d) For each deviation from an emission or operating limitation
that occurs for a stationary RICE where you are not using a CMS to
comply with the emission or operating limitations in this subpart, the
Compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (4) of this section and the information in paragraphs (d)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(1) The total operating time of the stationary RICE at which the
deviation occurred during the reporting period.
(2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the
corrective action taken.
(e) For each deviation from an emission or operating limitation
occurring for a stationary RICE where you are using a CMS to comply
with the emission and operating limitations in this subpart, you must
include information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (e)(1) through
(12) of this section.
(1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
(2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative,
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
(3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-of-control,
including the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
(4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and
whether each deviation occurred during a period of malfunction or
during another period.
(5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the
reporting period, and the total duration as a percent of the total
source operating time during that reporting period.
(6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the
reporting period into those that are due to control equipment problems,
process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes.
(7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the
reporting period, and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent
of the total operating time of the stationary RICE at which the CMS
downtime occurred during that reporting period.
(8) An identification of each parameter and pollutant (CO or
formaldehyde) that was monitored at the stationary RICE.
(9) A brief description of the stationary RICE.
(10) A brief description of the CMS.
(11) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
(12) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls
since the last reporting period.
(f) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 must report all deviations as
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected
source submits a Compliance report pursuant to Table 7 of this subpart
along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the
Compliance report includes all required information concerning
deviations from any emission or operating limitation in this subpart,
submission of the Compliance report shall be deemed to satisfy any
obligation to report the same deviations
[[Page 77865]]
in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a
Compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation the
affected source may have to report deviations from permit requirements
to the permit authority.
Sec. 63.6655 What records must I keep?
(a) If you must comply with the emission and operating limitations,
you must keep the records described in paragraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(3), (b)(1) through (b)(3) and (c) of this section.
(1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you
submitted, according to the requirement in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
(2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
(3) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as
required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
(b) For each CEMS or CPMS, you must keep the records listed in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
(2) Previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance
evaluation plan as required in Sec. 63.8(d)(3).
(3) Requests for alternatives to the relative accuracy test for
CEMS or CPMS as required in Sec. 63.8(f)(6)(i), if applicable.
(c) You must keep the records required in Table 6 of this subpart
to show continuous compliance with each emission or operating
limitation that applies to you.
Sec. 63.6660 In what form and how long must I keep my records?
(a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available
for expeditious review according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement,
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
(c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective
action, report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.
Other Requirements and Information
Sec. 63.6665 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
Table 8 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions
in Sec. Sec. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. If you own or operate an
existing 2SLB, an existing 4SLB stationary RICE, an existing CI
stationary RICE, or a stationary RICE with a manufacturer's nameplate
rating of 500 brake horsepower or less, you do not need to comply with
any of the requirements of the General Provisions. If you own or
operate a stationary RICE that combusts digester gas or landfill gas as
the primary fuel or is an emergency power/limited use stationary RICE,
you do not need to comply with the requirements in the General
Provisions except for the initial notification requirements.
Sec. 63.6670 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart is implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA, or a
delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the
U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or
tribal agency, then that agency (as well as the U.S. EPA) has the
authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact
your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out whether this subpart is
delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section
are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are:
(1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emission
limitations and operating limitations in Sec. 63.6600 under Sec.
63.6(g).
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
Sec. 63.6675 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA);
in 40 CFR 63.2, the General Provisions of this part; and in this
section as follows:
Area source means any stationary source of HAP that is not a major
source as defined in part 63.
Associated equipment as used in this subpart and as referred to in
section 112(n)(4) of the CAA, means equipment associated with an oil or
natural gas exploration or production well, and includes all equipment
from the well bore to the point of custody transfer, except glycol
dehydration units, storage vessels with potential for flash emissions,
combustion turbines, and stationary RICE.
CAA means the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., as amended by
Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399).
Compression ignition engine means any stationary RICE in which a
high boiling point liquid fuel injected into the combustion chamber
ignites when the air charge has been compressed to a temperature
sufficiently high for auto-ignition, including diesel engines and dual-
fuel engines.
Custody transfer means the transfer of hydrocarbon liquids or
natural gas: after processing and/or treatment in the producing
operations, or from storage vessels or automatic transfer facilities or
other such equipment, including product loading racks, to pipelines or
any other forms of transportation. For the purposes of this subpart,
the point at which such liquids or natural gas enters a natural gas
processing plant is a point of custody transfer.
Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation or
operating limitation;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation or operating limitation
in this subpart during malfunction, regardless or whether or not such
failure is permitted by this subpart.
Diesel engine means any stationary RICE in which a high boiling
point liquid fuel injected into the combustion chamber ignites when the
air charge has been compressed to a temperature sufficiently high for
auto-ignition. This process is also known as compression ignition.
Diesel fuel means any liquid obtained from the distillation of
petroleum with a boiling point of approximately 150 to 360 degrees
Celsius. One commonly used form is fuel oil number 2.
Digester gas means any gaseous by-product of wastewater treatment
formed through the anaerobic decomposition of organic waste materials
and composed principally of methane and CO2.
[[Page 77866]]
Dual-fuel engine means any stationary RICE in which a liquid fuel
(typically diesel fuel) is used for compression ignition and gaseous
fuel (typically natural gas) is used as the primary fuel.
Emergency power/limited use stationary RICE means any stationary
RICE that operates as a mechanical or electrical power source when the
primary power source for a facility has been rendered inoperable by an
emergency situation. Examples include stationary RICE used when
electric power from the local utility is interrupted, stationary RICE
used to pump water in the case of fire or flood, etc. Emergency power/
limited use units also include units that operate less than 50 hours
per year in non-emergency situations, including certain peaking units
at electric facilities and stationary RICE at industrial facilities.
Four-stroke engine means any type of engine which completes the
power cycle in two crankshaft revolutions, with intake and compression
strokes in the first revolution and power and exhaust strokes in the
second revolution.
Gaseous fuel means a material used for combustion which is normally
a gas with a heating value at standard temperature and pressure.
Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) means any air pollutants listed in
or pursuant to section 112(b) of the CAA.
ISO standard day conditions means 288 degrees Kelvin (15 degrees
Celsius), 60 percent relative humidity and 101.3 kilopascals pressure.
Landfill gas means a gaseous by-product of the land application of
municipal refuse formed through the anaerobic decomposition of waste
materials and composed principally of methane and CO2.
Lean burn engine means any two-stroke or four-stroke engine where
the manufacturer's recommended operating air/fuel ratio divided by the
stoichiometric air/fuel ratio is greater than 1.1.
Liquefied petroleum gas means any liquefied hydrocarbon gas
obtained as a by-product in petroleum refining of natural gas
production.
Liquid fuel means any fuel in liquid form at standard temperature
and pressure, including but not limited to diesel, residual/crude oil,
kerosene/naphtha (jet fuel), and gasoline.
Major Source, as used in this subpart, shall have the same meaning
as in Sec. 63.2, except that:
(1) Emissions from any oil or gas exploration or production well
(with its associated equipment (as defined in this section)) and
emissions from any pipeline compressor station or pump station shall
not be aggregated with emissions from other similar units, to determine
whether such emission points or stations are major sources, even when
emission points are in a contiguous area or under common control except
when they are on the same surface site;
(2) For oil and gas production facilities, emissions from
processes, operations, or equipment that are not part of the same oil
and gas production facility, as defined in this section, shall not be
aggregated; and
(3) For production field facilities, only HAP emissions from glycol
dehydration units, storage tanks with flash emissions potential,
combustion turbines and reciprocating internal combustion engines shall
be aggregated for a major source determination.
Malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably
preventable failure of air pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.
Failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless
operation are not malfunctions.
Natural gas means a naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbon and
non-hydrocarbon gases found in geologic formations beneath the Earth's
surface, of which the principal constituent is methane. May be field or
pipeline quality.
Non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) means an add-on catalytic
nitrogen oxides (NOX) control device for rich burn engines
that, in a two-step reaction, promotes the conversion of excess oxygen,
NOX, CO, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) into
CO2, nitrogen, and water.
Oil and gas production facility as used in this subpart means any
grouping of equipment where hydrocarbon liquids are processed, upgraded
(i.e., remove impurities or other constituents to meet contract
specifications), or stored prior to the point of custody transfer; or
where natural gas is processed, upgraded, or stored prior to entering
the natural gas transmission and storage source category. For purposes
of a major source determination, facility (including a building,
structure, or installation) means oil and natural gas production and
processing equipment that is located within the boundaries of an
individual surface site as defined in this section. Equipment that is
part of a facility will typically be located within close proximity to
other equipment located at the same facility. Pieces of production
equipment or groupings of equipment located on different oil and gas
leases, mineral fee tracts, lease tracts, subsurface or surface unit
areas, surface fee tracts, surface lease tracts, or separate surface
sites, whether or not connected by a road, waterway, power line or
pipeline, shall not be considered part of the same facility. Examples
of facilities in the oil and natural gas production source category
include, but are not limited to, well sites, satellite tank batteries,
central tank batteries, a compressor station that transports natural
gas to a natural gas processing plant, and natural gas processing
plants.
Oxidation catalyst means an add-on catalytic control device for
lean burn engines that controls CO and VOC by oxidation.
Peaking unit or engine means any standby engine intended for use
during periods of high demand that are not emergencies.
Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a stationary source
to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any
physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the stationary
source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment
and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of
material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as part of
its design if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions
is federally enforceable.
Production field facility means those oil and gas production
facilities located prior to the point of custody transfer.
Propane means a colorless gas derived from petroleum and natural
gas, with the molecular structure C3H8, suitable
for use in spark-ignited internal combustion engines.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2.
Rich burn engine means any four-stroke spark ignited engine where
the manufacturer's recommended operating air/fuel ratio divided by the
stoichiometric air/fuel ratio is less than or equal to 1.1.
Spark ignition engine means a type of engine in which a compressed
air/fuel mixture is ignited by a timed electric spark generated by a
spark plug.
Stationary reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) means
any reciprocating internal combustion engine which uses reciprocating
motion to convert heat energy into mechanical work and which is not
mobile. Stationary RICE differ from mobile RICE in that stationary RICE
are not self propelled, are not intended to be propelled while
performing their function, or are not portable or transportable as that
term is identified
[[Page 77867]]
in the definition of non-road engine at 40 CFR 89.2.
Stationary RICE test cell/stand means an engine test cell/stand, as
defined in subpart PPPPP of this part, that tests stationary RICE.
Stoichiometric means the theoretical air-to-fuel ratio required for
complete combustion.
Subpart means 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ.
Surface site means any combination of one or more graded pad sites,
gravel pad sites, foundations, platforms, or the immediate physical
location upon which equipment is physically affixed.
Two-stroke engine means a type of engine which completes the power
cycle in single crankshaft revolution by combining the intake and
compression operations into one stroke and the power and exhaust
operations into a second stroke. This system requires auxiliary
scavenging and inherently runs lean of stoichiometric.
Tables to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63
Table 1a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Emission Limitations for Existing,
New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary RICE
[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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet one of the
For each . . . following emission limitations
. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 4SRB stationary RICE................ a. Reduce formaldehyde
emissions by 75 percent or
more, if you use NSCR; or
b. Limit the concentration of
formaldehyde in the stationary
RICE exhaust to 350 ppbvd or
less at 15 percent O2, if you
use means other than NSCR to
reduce HAP emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Operating Limitations for
Existing, New, and Reconstructed Spark Ignition, 4SRB Stationary RICE
[As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.6600, 63.6630 and 63.6640, you must comply
with the following operating emission limitations for existing, new and
reconstructed 4SRB stationary RICE]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following
For each . . . operating limitation . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 4SRB stationary RICE complying with a. Maintain your catalyst so
the requirement to reduce formaldehyde that the pressure drop across
emissions by 75 percent or more using the catalyst does not change
NSCR. by more than two inches of
water from the pressure drop
across the catalyst measured
during the initial performance
test; and
b. Maintain your catalyst so
that the temperature rise
across the catalyst is no more
than 5 percent different from
the temperature rise across
the catalyst measured during
the initial performance test;
and
c. Maintain the temperature of
your stationary RICE exhaust
so that the catalyst inlet
temperature is greater than or
equal to 750[deg]F and less
than or equal to 1250[deg]F.
2. 4SRB stationary RICE complying with a. Maintain an operating load
the requirement to limit the equal to or greater than 95
concentration of formaldehyde in the percent of the operating load
stationary RICE exhaust to 350 ppbvd established during the initial
or less at 15 percent O2 using means performance test; or
other than NSCR to reduce emissions. b. Maintain a fuel flow rate
equal to or greater than 95
percent of the fuel flow rate
established during the initial
performance test; and
c. You must comply with any
additional operating
limitations approved by the
Administrator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2a to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Emission Limitations for New and
Reconstructed Lean Burn and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE
[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
compression ignition stationary RICE]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must meet the following
For each . . . emission limitation . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB stationary RICE................ a. Reduce CO emissions by 60
percent or more, if you use an
oxidation catalyst; or
b. Limit concentration of
formaldehyde in the stationary
RICE exhaust to 17 ppmvd or
less at 15 percent O2, if you
use some means other than an
oxidation catalyst to reduce
emissions.
2. 4SLB stationary RICE................ a. Reduce CO emissions by 93
percent or more, if you use an
oxidation catalyst; or
b. Limit concentration of
formaldehyde in the stationary
RICE exhaust to 14 ppmvd or
less at 15 percent O2, if you
use some means other than an
oxidation catalyst to reduce
emissions.
3. CI stationary RICE.................. a. Reduce CO emissions by 70
percent or more, if you use an
oxidation catalyst; or
[[Page 77868]]
b. Limit concentration of
formaldehyde in the stationary
RICE exhaust to 580 ppbvd or
less at 15 percent O2, if you
use some means other than an
oxidation catalyst to reduce
emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2b to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Operating Limitations for New and
Reconstructed Lean Burn and Compression Ignition Stationary RICE
[As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.6600, 63.6630, and 63.6640, you must
comply with the following operating limitations for new and
reconstructed lean burn and 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 with a brake that the pressure drop across
horsepower <5000 complying with the the catalyst does not change
requirement to reduce CO emissions by more than two inches of
using an oxidation catalyst. water from the pressure drop
across the catalyst that was
measured during the initial
performance test; and
b. Maintain the temperature of
your stationary RICE exhaust
so that the catalyst inlet
temperature is greater than or
equal to 500[deg]F and less
than or equal to 1250[deg]F.
2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE and CI a. Maintain an operating load
stationary RICE complying with the equal to or greater than 95
requirement to limit the concentration percent of the operating load
of formaldehyde in the stationary RICE established during the initial
exhaust. performance test; or
b. Maintain a fuel flow rate
equal to or greater than 95
percent of the fuel flow rate
established during the initial
performance test; and
c. You must comply with any
additional operating
limitations approved by the
Administrator.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 RICE Reduce CO Conduct subsequent
and CI stationary RICE with a emissions if performance tests
brake horsepower <5000. using an quarterly.
oxidation
catalyst.
2. 4SRB stationary RICE with a Reduce Conduct subsequent
brake horsepower =5000. emissions 75 semiannually \a\.
percent or more
using NSCR.
3. Stationary RICE (all Limit the Conduct subsequent
stationary RICE subcategories concentration of performance tests
and all brake horsepower formaldehyde in semiannually \a\.
ratings). the stationary
RICE exhaust, if
using means other
than an oxidation
catalyst or NSCR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
formaldehyde emission limitation, or you deviate from any of your
operating limitations, you must resume semiannual performance tests.
Table 4 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
[As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.6610, 63.6620, and 63.6640, you must comply with the following requirements for
performance tests]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complying with the According to the
For each . . . requirement to . . You must . . . Using . . . following
. requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE a. Reduce CO i. Measure the O2 (1) Portable CO (a) Using ASTM
and CI stationary RICE with a emissions if at the inlet and and O2 analyzer. D6522-00 \b\.
brake horsepower <5000. using an outlet of the Measurements to
oxidation oxidation determine O2 must
catalyst. catalyst. be made at the
and............... same time as the
measurements for
CO concentration.
ii. Measure the CO (1) Portable CO (a) Using ASTM
at the inlet and and O2 analyzer. D6522-00 \b\. The
the outlet of the CO concentration
oxidation must be at 15
catalyst. 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 by 75 location and the 60, appendix A at the inlet and
percent or more number of Sec. outlet of the
using NSCR. traverse points. 63.7(d)(1)(i). NSCR.
and...............
[[Page 77869]]
ii. Measure O2 at (1) Method 3A and (a) Measurements
the inlet and 3B of 40 CFR part to determine O2
outlet of the 60, appendix A. concentration
control device. must be made at
and............... the same time as
the measurements
for formaldehyde
concentration.
iii. Measure (1) Method 4 of 40 (a) Measurements
moisture content CFR part 60, to determine
at the inlet and appendix A. moisture content
outlet of the must be made at
NSCR. the same time and
and............... location as the
measurements for
formaldehyde
concentration.
iv. Measure (1) Method 320 or (a) Formaldehyde
formaldehyde at 323 of 40 CFR concentration
the inlet and the part 63, appendix must be at 15
outlet of the A, EPA SW-846 percent O2, dry
NSCR. Method 0011 or basis. Results of
Method CARB 430 this test consist
\a\. of the average of
the three 1-hour
or longer runs.
3. Stationary RICE.............. a. Limit the i. Select the (1) Method 1 or 1A (a) If using a
concentration of sampling port of 40 CFR part control device,
formaldehyde in location and the 60, appendix A the sampling site
the stationary number of Sec. must be located
RICE exhaust. traverse points. 63.7(d)(1)(i). at the outlet of
and............... the control
device.
ii. Determine the (1) Method 3A or (a) Measurements
O2 concentration 3B of 40 CFR part to determine O2
of the stationary 60, appendix A. concentration
RICE exhaust at must be made at
the sampling port the same time and
location. location as the
and............... 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. moisture content
RICE exhaust at must be made at
the sampling port the same time and
location. location as the
and............... measurements for
formaldehyde
concentration.
iv. Measure (1) Method 320 or (a) The stationary
formaldehyde at 323 of 40 CFR RICE must be
the exhaust of part 63, appendix operating at the
the stationary A; or Method CARB lowest operating
RICE. 430 a (spark load at which you
ignition 4SRB will operate the
stationary RICE stationary RICE;
only); or EPA SW- and Formaldehyde
846 Method 0011. concentration
must be at 15
percent O2, dry
basis. Results of
this test consist
of the average of
the three 1-hour
or longer runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ You may obtain a copy of ARB Method 430 from the California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources
Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95812, or you may download a copy of ARB Method 430 from ARB's web site
(http://www.arb.ca.gov/testmeth/vol3/vol3.htm).
\b\ You may also use Methods 3A and 10 as options to ASTM-D6522-00. You may obtain a copy of ASTM-D6522-00 from
at least one of the following addresses: American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,
West Conshohochen, PA 19428-2959, or University Microfilms International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI
48106.
[[Page 77870]]
Table 5 to Subpart ZZZZ of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission
Limitations and Operating Limitations
[As stated in Sec. Sec. 63.6625 and 63.6630, you must initially
comply with the emission and operating limitations as required by the
following]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have
Complying with the demonstrated
For each . . . requirement to . . initial compliance
. if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE a. Reduce CO i. The average
and CI stationary RICE with a emissions if reduction of
brake horsepower <5000. using an emissions of CO
oxidation determined from
catalyst. the initial
performance test
achieves the
required CO
percent
reduction; and
ii. You have
installed a CPMS
to continuously
monitor catalyst
pressure drop and
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 RICE a. Reduce CO i. You have
and CI stationary RICE with a emissions if installed a CEMS
brake horsepower =5000. oxidation monitor CO and
catalyst. either O2 or CO2
at both the inlet
and outlet of the
oxidation
catalyst
according to the
requirements in
Sec.
63.6625(a); and
ii. You have
conducted a
performance
evaluation of
your CEMS using
PS 3 and 4A of 40
CFR part 60,
appendix B; and
iii. The average
reduction of CO
calculated using
Sec. 63.6620
equals or exceeds
the required
percent
reduction. The
initial test
comprises the
first 4-hour
period after
successful
validation of the
CEMS. Compliance
is based on the
average percent
reduction
achieved during
the 4-hour
period.
3. 4SRB stationary RICE......... a. Reduce i. The average
formaldehyde reduction of
emissions if 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 catalyst
pressure drop and
catalyst
temperature rise
according to the
requirements in
Sec.
63.6625(b); and
iii. You have
recorded the
catalyst pressure
drop, catalyst
inlet temperature
and catalyst
temperature rise
during the
initial
performance test.
4. Stationary RICE.............. a. Limit the i. The average
concentration of formaldehyde
formaldehyde in concentration,
the stationary corrected to 15
RICE exhaust. percent O2, dry
basis, from the
three test runs
is less than or
equal to the
formaldehyde
emission
limitation; and
ii. You have
installed a CPMS
to continuously
monitor
stationary RICE
operating load or
fuel flow rate
according to the
requirements in
Sec.
63.6625(b); and
iii. You have
recorded the
average
stationary RICE
operating load or
fuel flow rate
during the
initial
performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Complying with the demonstrate
For each . . . requirement to . . continuous
. compliance by . .
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE a. Reduce CO i. Conducting
and CI stationary RICE with a emissions if quarterly
brake horsepower <5000. using an performance tests
ozidation for CO to
catalyst. demonstrate that
the required CO
percent reduction
is achieved; and
ii. Collecting the
catalyst pressure
drop and 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 pressure drop
across the
catalyst and the
catalyst inlet
temperature
established
during the
initial
performance test.
2. 2SLB and 4SLB stationary RICE a. Reduce CO i. Collecting the
and CI stationary RICE with a emissions if monitoring data
brake horsepower =5000. oxidation 63.6625(a),
catalyst. reducing the
measurements to 1-
hour averages,
calculating the
percent reduction
of CO emissions
according to Sec.
63.6620; and
ii. Demonstrating
that the
oxidation
catalyst achieves
the required
percent reduction
of CO emissions
over the 4-hour
averaging period;
and
[[Page 77871]]
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.
3. Spark ignition, 4SRB a. Reduce i. Collecting the
stationary RICE. formaldehyde pressure drop
emissions if across the
using NSCR. catalyst, the
catalyst inlet
temperature and
the temperature
rise across the
catalyst 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
pressure drop
across the
catalyst, the
catalyst inlet
temperature and
temperature rise
across the
catalyst
established
during the
performance test.
4. 4SRB stationary RICE with a Reduce Conducting
brake horsepower =5000. emissions if performance tests
using NSCR. for formaldehyde
to demonstrate
that the required
formaldehyde
percent reduction
horsepower is
achieved a
5. Stationary RICE.............. a. Limit the i. Conducting
concentration of semiannual
formaldehyde in performance tests
the stationary for formaldehyde
RICE exhaust. to demonstrate
that your
emissions remain
at or below the
formaldehyde
concentration
limit a; and
ii. Collecting the
operating load or
fuel flow data;
and
iii. Reducing
operating load or
fuel flow data to
4-hour rolling
averages; and
iv. Maintaining
the 4-hour
rolling averages
equal to or
greater than 95
percent of the
operating
limitations
established
during the
initial
performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 formaldehyde emission
limitation, or you deviate from any of your operating limitations, you
must resume semiannual performance tests.
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
You must submit a (n) contain . . . the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report............ a. If there are no i. Semiannually
deviations from according to the
any emission requirements in
limitations or Sec.
operating 63.6650(b).
limitations that
apply to you, a
statement that
there were no
deviations from
the emission
limitations or
operating
limitations
during the
reporting period.
If there were no
periods during
which the CMS,
including CEMS
and CPMS, was out-
of-control, as
specified in Sec.
63.8(c)(7), a
statement that
there were not
periods during
which the CMS was
out-of-control
during the
reporting period.
or................
b. If you had a i. Semiannually
deviation from according to the
any emission requirements in
limitation or Sec.
operating 63.6650(b).
limitation during
the reporting
period, the
information in
Sec.
63.6650(d). If
there were
periods during
which the CMS,
including CEMS
and CPMS, was out-
of-control, as
specified in Sec.
63.8(c)(7), the
information in
Sec. 63.6650(e).
or................
c. If you had a i. Semiannually
startup, shutdown according to the
or malfunction requirements in
during the Sec.
reporting period, 63.6650(b).
the information
in Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(i).
2. An immediate startup, a. Actions taken i. by fax or
shutdown, and malfunction for the event. telephone within
report if you had a startup, and............... 2 working days
shutdown, or malfunction during after starting
the reporting period. actions
inconsistent with
the plan.
b. The information i. By letter
in Sec. within 7 working
63.10(d)(5)(ii). days after the
end of the event
unless you have
made alternative
arrangements with
the permitting
authorities.
(Sec.
63.10(d)(5)(ii)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 77872]]
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sec. 63.1....................... General applicability Yes....................
of the General
Provisions.
2. Sec. 63.2....................... Definitions............ Yes.................... Additional terms
defined in Sec.
63.6675.
3. Sec. 63.3....................... Units and abbreviations Yes....................
4. Sec. 63.4....................... Prohibited activities Yes....................
and circumvention.
5. Sec. 63.5....................... Construction and Yes....................
reconstruction.
6. Sec. 63.6(a).................... Applicability.......... Yes....................
7. Sec. 63.6(b)(1)-(4)............. Compliance dates for Yes....................
new and reconstructed
sources.
8. Sec. 63.6(b)(5)................. Notification........... Yes....................
9. Sec. 63.6(b)(6)................. [Reserved]............. Yes....................
10. Sec. 63.6(b)(7)................ Compliance dates for Yes....................
new and reconstructed
area sources that
become major sources.
11. Sec. 63.6(c)(1)-(2)............ Compliance dates for Yes....................
existing sources.
12. Sec. 63.6(c)(3)-(4)............ [Reserved]............. Yes....................
13. Sec. 63.6(c)(5)................ Compliance dates for Yes....................
existing area sources
that become major
sources.
14. Sec. 63.6(d)................... [Reserved]............. Yes....................
15. Sec. 63.6(e)(1)-(2)............ Operation and Yes....................
maintenance.
16. Sec. 63.6(e)(3)................ Startup, shutdown, and No..................... No requirement for a
malfunction plan. startup, shutdown and
malfunction plan.
17. Sec. 63.6(f)(1)................ Applicability of Yes....................
standards except
during startup
shutdown malfunction
(SSM).
18. Sec. 63.6(f)(2)................ Methods for determining Yes....................
compliance.
19. Sec. 63.6(f)(3)................ Finding of compliance.. Yes....................
20. Sec. 63.6(g)(1)-(3)............ Use of alternate Yes....................
standard.
21. Sec. 63.6(h)................... Opacity and visible No..................... Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR
emission standards. part 63, does not
contain opacity or
visible emission
standards.
22. Sec. 63.6(i)................... Compliance extension Yes....................
procedures and
criteria.
23. Sec. 63.6(j)................... Presidential compliance Yes....................
exemption.
24. Sec. 63.7(a)(1)-(2)............ Performance test dates. Yes....................
25. Sec. 63.7(a)(3)................ Section 114 authority.. Yes....................
26. Sec. 63.7(b)(1)................ Notification of Yes....................
performance test.
27. Sec. 63.7(b)(2)................ Notification of Yes....................
rescheduling.
28. Sec. 63.7(c)................... Quality assurance/test Yes....................
plan.
29. Sec. 63.7(d)................... Testing facilities..... Yes....................
30. Sec. 63.7(e)(1)................ Conditions for Yes.................... Except that testing is
conducting performance required under lowest
tests. load conditions for
some regulatory
alternatives.
31. Sec. 63.7(e)(2)................ Conditions for Yes....................
conducting performance
tests.
32. Sec. 63.7(e)(3)................ Test run duration...... Yes....................
33. Sec. 63.7(e)(4)................ Administrator may Yes....................
require other testing
under section 114 of
the CAA.
34. Sec. 63.7(f)................... Alternative test method Yes....................
provisions.
35. Sec. 63.7(g)................... Performance test data Yes....................
analysis,
recordkeeping, and
reporting.
36. Sec. 63.7(h)................... Waiver of tests........ Yes....................
37. Sec. 63.8(a)(1)................ Applicability of Yes.................... Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR
monitoring part 63, contains
requirements. specific requirements
for monitoring at Sec.
63.6625.
38. Sec. 63.8(a)(2)................ Performance Yes....................
specifications.
39. Sec. 63.8(a)(3)................ [Reserved].............
40. Sec. 63.8(a)(4)................ Monitoring with flares. No.....................
41. Sec. 63.8(b)(1)................ Monitoring............. Yes....................
42. Sec. 63.8(b)(2)-(3)............ Multiple effluents and Yes....................
multiple monitoring
systems.
43. Sec. 63.8(c)(1)................ Monitoring system Yes....................
operation and
maintenance.
44. Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)............. Routine and predictable Yes....................
SSM.
[[Page 77873]]
45. Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)............ SSM not in Startup Yes....................
Shutdown Malfunction
Plan.
46. Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)........... Compliance with Yes....................
operation and
maintenance
requirements.
47. Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)............ Monitoring system Yes....................
installation.
48. Sec. 63.8(c)(4)................ Continuous monitoring Yes.................... Except that Subpart
system (CMS) ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63,
requirements. does not require
Continuous Opacity
Monitoring System
(COMS).
49. Sec. 63.8(c)(5)................ COMS minimum procedures No..................... Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR
part 63, does not
require COMS.
50. Sec. 63.8(c)(6)-(8)............ CMS requirements....... Yes.................... Except that Subpart
ZZZZ, 40 CFR part 63,
does not require COMS.
51. Sec. 63.8(d)................... CMS quality control.... Yes....................
52. Sec. 63.8(e)................... CMS performance Yes.................... Except for Sec.
evaluation. 63.8(e)(5)(ii), which
applies to COMS.
53. Sec. 63.8(f)(1)-(5)............ Alternative monitoring Yes....................
method.
54. Sec. 63.8(f)(6)................ Alternative to relative Yes....................
accuracy test.
55. 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.
56. Sec. 63.9(a)................... Applicability and State Yes....................
delegation of
notification
requirements.
57. Sec. 63.9(b)(1)-(5)............ Initial notifications.. Yes....................
58. Sec. 63.9(c)................... Request for compliance Yes....................
extension.
59. Sec. 63.9(d)................... Notification of special Yes....................
compliance
requirements for new
sources.
60. Sec. 63.9(e)................... Notification of Yes....................
performance test.
61. Sec. 63.9(f)................... Notification of visible No.....................
emission (VE)/opacity
test.
62. Sec. 63.9(g)(1)................ Notification of Yes....................
performance evaluation.
63. Sec. 63.9(g)(2)................ Notification of use of No..................... Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR
COMS data. part 63, does not
contain opacity or VE
standards.
64. Sec. 63.9(g)(3)................ Notification that Yes.................... If alternative is in
criterion for use.
alternative to RATA is
exceeded.
65. Sec. 63.9(h)(1)-(6)............ Notification of Yes.................... Except that
compliance status. notifications for
sources using a CEMS
are due 30 days after
completion of
performance
evaluations.
66. Sec. 63.9(i)................... Adjustment of submittal Yes....................
deadlines.
67. Sec. 63.9(j)................... Change in previous Yes....................
information.
68. Sec. 63.10(a).................. Administrative Yes....................
provisions for record
keeping/reporting.
69. Sec. 63.10(b)(1)............... Record retention....... Yes....................
70. Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v)........ Records related to SSM. Yes....................
71. Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xi)...... Records................ Yes....................
72. Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xii).......... Record when under Yes....................
waiver.
73. Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)......... Records when using Yes.................... For CO standard if
alternative to RATA. using RATA
alternative.
74. Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).......... Records of supporting Yes....................
documentation.
75. Sec. 63.10(b)(3)............... Records of Yes....................
applicability
determination.
76. Sec. 63.10(c).................. Additional records for Yes....................
sources using CEMS.
77. Sec. 63.10(d)(1)............... General reporting Yes....................
requirements.
78. Sec. 63.10(d)(2)............... Report of performance Yes....................
test results.
79. Sec. 63.10(d)(3)............... Reporting opacity or VE No..................... Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR
observations. part 63, does not
contain opacity or VE
standards.
80. Sec. 63.10(d)(4)............... Progress reports....... Yes....................
81. Sec. 63.10(d)(5)............... Startup, shutdown, and Yes....................
malfunction reports.
82. Sec. 63.10(e)(1) and (2)(i).... Additional CMS reports. Yes....................
[[Page 77874]]
83. Sec. 63.10(e)(2)(ii)........... COMS-related report.... No..................... Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR
part 63, does not
require COMS.
84. Sec. 63.10(e)(3)............... Excess emission and Yes....................
parameter exceedances
reports.
85. Sec. 63.10(e)(4)............... Reporting COMS data.... No..................... Subpart ZZZZ, 40 CFR
part 63, does not
require COMS.
86. Sec. 63.10(f).................. Waiver for Yes....................
recordkeeping/
reporting.
87. Sec. 63.11..................... Flares................. No.....................
88. Sec. 63.12..................... State authority and Yes....................
delegations.
89. Sec. 63.13..................... Addresses.............. Yes....................
90. Sec. 63.14..................... Incorporation by Yes....................
reference.
91. Sec. 63.15..................... Availability of Yes....................
information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 02-31232 Filed 12-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P