## 1 A

- 1 APPEN DI C ES for the Technical Support Document For the Proposed Toxics Rule

Emissions Inventories

APPENDIX A

Inventory Data Files Used for Each Proposed Toxics Rule Air Quality Modeling Case s

- SMOKE Input Inventory Datasets

In any of the following dataset names where the placeholder <mon> has been provided, this is intended to mean 12 separate files with the <mon> placeholder replaced with either jan, feb, mar, apr, may, jun, jul, aug, sep, oct, nov, or dec, each associated with a particular month of the year.

Several inventories are the same in the 2005 base case and all future year cases. These inventories are listed

in the “All Cases” in Table A

- 1.A

- 2 

## Table A

- 1. List of inventory data associated with TR modeling cases.

Case Sector SMOKE Input Files

All Cases avefire arinv_avefire_2002_hap_18nov2008_v0_orl.txt

arinv_avefire_2002ce_21dec2007_v0_ida.txt

other arinv_canada_afdust_xportfrac_cap_2006_03feb2009_v0_orl.txt

arinv_canada_ag_cap_2006_03feb2009_v0_orl.txt
arinv_canada_aircraft_cap_2006_04feb2009_v0_orl.txt
arinv_canada_marine_cap_2006_03feb2009_v0_orl.txt
arinv_canada_oarea_cap_2006_02mar2009_v3_orl.txt
arinv_canada_offroad_cap_2006_04feb2009_v0_orl.txt
arinv_canada_rail_cap_2006_03feb2009_v0_orl.txt
arinv_nonpt_mexico_border1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txt
arinv_nonpt_mexico_interior1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txt

arinv_nonroad_mexico_border1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txt

arinv_nonroad_mexico_interior1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txt

othon mbinv_canada_onroad_cap_2006_04feb2009_v0_orl.txt

mbinv_onroad_mexico_border1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txt

mbinv_onroad_mexico_interior1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txt othpt ptinv_canada_point_2006_orl_09mar2009_v2_orl.txt

ptinv_canada_point_cb5_2006_orl_10mar2009_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_canada_point_uog_2006_orl_02mar2009_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_mexico_border99_03mar2008_v1_ida.txt
ptinv_mexico_interior99_05feb2007_v0_ida.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_offshore_oil_cap2005v2_20nov2008_20nov2008_v0_orl.txt

2005 cases (2005cr_05b,
2005cr_ hg_ 05b) afdust arinv_afdust_2002ad_xportfrac_26sep2007_v0_orl.txt

ag arinv_ag_cap2002nei_06nov2006_v0_orl.txt
alm_no_c3 arinv_lm_no_c3_cap2002v3_20feb2009_v0_orl.txt

arinv_lm_no_c3_hap2002v4_20feb2009_v0_orl.txt

nonpt arinv_nonpt_cap_2005_TCEQ_Oklahoma_OilGas_28may2010_v0_orl.txt

arinv_nonpt_cap_2005_WRAP_OilGas_04feb2009_v0_orl.txt
arinv_nonpt_pf4_cap_nopfc_28may2010_v3_orl.txt
arinv_pfc_2002_caphap_27dec2007_v0_orl.txt

nonroad arinv_nonroad_calif_caphap_2005v2_<mon>_02apr2008_v0_orl.txt

arinv_nonroad_caps_2005v2_<mon>_revised_08sep2008_v0_orl.txt
arinv_nonroad_haps_2005v2_<mon>_revised_05sep2008_v0_orl.txt

on_moves_runp

m mbinv_on_moves_runpm_2005cr_<mon>_06MAY2010_06may2010_v0_orl.txt

on_moves_startp mbinv_on_moves_startpm_2005cr_<mon>_06MAY2010_06may2010_v0_orl.txtA

- 3 

## Case Sector SMOKE Input Files

m

2005 cases on_noadj mbinv_on_noadj_MOVES_2005cr_<mon>_06MAY2010_06may2010_v0_orl.txt
mbinv_on_noadj_nmim_not2moves_2005cr_<mon>_04MAY2010_04may2010_v0_orl.txt
mbinv_onroad_calif_caphap_2005v2_revised_<mon>_29jun2010_v0_orl.txt
seca_c3 ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_baf_vochaps_2005_canada_24jun2010_28jun2010_v0_orl.txt

ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_baf_vochaps_2005_us_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_caps_2005_canada_24jun2010_28jun2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_caps_2005_us_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txt
2005cr_05b ptipm Annual: ptinv_ptipm_cap2005v2_revised12mar2009_15jul2010_v5_orl.txt
Annual: ptinv_ptipm_hap2005v2_allHAPs_revised12mar2009_14jul2010_v1_orl.txt
Daily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_cem_2005cr_05b_<mon>_ida.txt
Daily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_noncem_2005cr_05b_<mon>_ida.txt ptnonipm ptinv_ptnonipm_hap2005v2_revised_08jul2010_v2_orl.txt

ptinv_ptnonipm_xportfrac_cap2005v2_20nov2008_revised_22jul2010_v5_orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_2005hap_v1_from_2005ai_ND_ADM_plant_30jun2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_caphap_ethanol_plant_additions_2005_30jun2010_v3_orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_xportfrac_2005cap_v1_from_2005ai_ND_ADM_plant_30jun2010_v0_orl.txt 2005cr_hg_05b nonpt arinv_nonpt_2005pf4_hap_nopfc_nobafmpesticidesplus_noboilermacthg_23aug2010_v0_orl.txt
other_hg arinv_area_canada_hg_2000_noduplicates_23jul2008_v0_ida.txt othpt_hg ptinv_point_canada_hg_2000_08sep2008_v1_ida.txt ptipm Annual: ptinv_2005_ptipm_natahg_minus_boilermacticr_17aug2010_v0_orl.txt

Daily: ptday_ptipm_hg_cem_2005cr_hg_05b_<mon>_ida.txt
Daily: ptday_ptipm_hg_noncem_2005cr_hg_05b_<mon>_ida.txt ptnonipm ptinv_2005_ICR_BoilerMACT_Hg_ptnonipm_20aug2010_v0_orl.txt

ptinv_2005_ptnonipm_natahg_minus_boilermacticr_17aug2010_v0_orl.txt

2016 cases (2016cr_05b, 2016cr2_hg_05b, 2016cr2_hg_control1_05b 

### ) afdust arinv_afdust_2016cr_24aug2010_v0_orl.tx

ag arinv_ag_2016cr_24aug2010_v0_orl.txt
alm_no_c3 arinv_lm_no_c3_cap2016cr_24aug2010_v0_orl.txt

arinv_lm_no_c3_hap2016cr_24aug2010_v0_orl.txt

nonpt arinv_nonpt_2016cr_cap_2008_TCEQ_Oklahoma_OilGas_23sep2010_v0_orl.txt

arinv_nonpt_2016cr_cap_2018PhaseII_WRAP_OilGas_23sep2010_v0_orl.txt
arinv_nonpt_2016cr_hap_nopfc_nobafmpesticidesplus_noboilermacthg_23sep2010_v0_orl.txt

arinv_nonpt_2016cr_pf4_cap_nopfc_23sep2010_v0_orl.txt
arinv_pfc_caphap2016_13jul2010_v0_orl.txt

nonroad arinv_nonro ad_calif_caphap_2016_revised_<mon> _24jun2010_v0_orl.txt

arinv_nonroad_caphap_2016_<mon> _07jun2010_v0_orl.txtA

- 4 

## Case Sector SMOKE Input Files

on_moves_runp

m mbinv_on_moves_runpm_2016cr_<mon> _10JUN2010_10jun2010_v0_orl.txt

2016 cases on_moves_startp

m m

binv_on_moves_startpm_2016cr_<mon> _10JUN2010_10jun2010_v0_orl.txt on_noadj mbinv_on_noadj_MOVES_2016cr_<mon> _10JUN2010_10jun2010_v0_orl.txt

mb inv_onroad_calif_caphap_2016_<mon> _09jun2010_v0_orl.txt ptnonipm ptinv_ptnonipm_2016cr_hap2005v2_revised_06oct2010_v0_orl.txt

ptinv_ptnonipm_2016cr_xportfrac_cap2005v2_20nov2008_revised_06oct2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_capHG_cementISIS_2016cr_16AUG2010_16aug2010_v0_orl.txt ptinv_ptnonipm_cornproducts17031_hap_cap_2008t_27aug2010_v0_orl.txt ptinv_ptnonipm_2005hap_v1_from_2005ai_ND_ADM_plant_30jun2010_v0_orl.txt ptinv_ptnonipm_caphap_ethanol_plant_additions_2005_30jun2010_v3_orl.txt ptinv_ptnonipm_xportfrac_2005cap_v1_from_2005ai_ND_ADM_plant_30jun2010_v0_orl.txt
seca_c3 ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_baf_vochaps_2016_canada_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txt

ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_baf_vochaps_2016_us_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_caps_2016_canada_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txt ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_caps_2016_us_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txt
2016cr_05b ptipm Annual: ptinv_PTINV_EPA410_BC_15b_summer_2015_w_MH_SCC_edits_emis_reds_22SEP2010_08oct2010_nf_v1_orl.txt
Daily: ptday _ptipm_caphap_cem_2016cr_05b_<mon> _ida.txt
Daily: ptday_pt ipm_caphap_noncem_2016cr_05b_<mon> _ida.txt 2016cr2_hg_05b ptipm Annual: ptinv_PTINV_EPA410MACTAQ_BC_2b_summer_2015_w_MH_SCC_edits_emis_reds_minus_boilermacthg_20oct2010
_v0_orl.txt Daily: ptday _ptipm_caphap_cem_2016cr2_hg_<mon> _ida.txt Daily: ptday_pt ipm_caphap_noncem_2016cr2_hg_<mon> _ida.txt ptnonipm_hg 

### ptinv_2016cr2_ICR_BoilerMACT_Hg_ptnonipm_06oct2010_v0_orl.txt

ptinv_ptnonipm_2016cr2_natahg_minus_boilermacticr_15oct2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_capHG_cementISIS_2016cr_16AUG2010_16aug2010_v0_orl.txt
2016cr2_hg_control1_0

5b ptipm Annual: ptinv_PTINV_EPA410MACTAQ_BC_5d_summer_2015_w_MH_SCC_edits_emis_reds_minus_boilermacthg_09nov201
0_v0_orl.txt

Daily: ptday_ptipm_ca phap_cem_2016cr2_hg_control1_<mon> _ida.txt

Daily: ptday_ptipm_capha p_noncem_2016cr2_hg_control1_<mon> _ida.txt ptnonipm_hg 

### ptinv_2016cr2_ICR_BoilerMACT_Hg_ptnonipm_06oct2010_v0_orl.txt

ptinv_ptnonipm_2016cr2_natahg_minus_boilermacticr_15oct2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_capHG_cementISIS_2016cr_16AUG2010_16aug2010_v0_orl.txt

## B

- 1 APPENDIX B

– List of OECA Consent Decrees

- Whereby Reductions Were Apportioned to Facilities in a Particular Corporation

Table B

- 1. Description of application of OECA Consent Decrees for future

- year projections

Corporation Pollutant Compliance

Date Description of reductions 2005

Emissions (tons/year)

Bunge NO X 

### 31DEC2005 Combined NO X 

### emissions reduced by 278 tons per year. Combined is over select Bunge

facilities. 942

PM 31DEC2005 Combined PM emissions reduced by 258 tons per year. Combined is over select Bunge facilities. 1,266

SO 2 

### 31DEC2005 Combined SO 2 

### emissions reduced by 574 tons per year. Combined is over select Bunge

facilities. 2,926

VOC 31DEC2005 Combined VOC emissions reduced by 1

, 122 tons per year. Combined is over select Bunge

facilities. 2,761

Cargill CO 01SEP2010 Combined CO emissions reduced by 10

, 900 tons per year. Combined over select Cargill facilities. 11,167

NO X 

### 01SEP2007 Combined NO X 

### emissions reduced by 1

, 350 tons per year. Combined over select Cargill facilities. 4,451

SO 2 

### 01SEP2008 Combined SO 2 

### emission reduced by 2

, 250 tons per year. Combined over select Cargill facilities. 10,527

VOC 01SEP2008 Combined VOC emissions reduced by 98% or

10

, 450 tons per year. Combined over select Cargill facilities. 6,617

Conoco Phillips NO X 

### 31DEC2008 Combined NO X 

### emissions reduced by 10

, 000 tons per year. Combined over select Conoco Phillips facilities. 17,409

SO 2 

### 31DEC2008 Combined SO 2 

### emissions reduced by 37

, 100 tons per year. Combined over select Conoco Phillips

facilities 31,003

Dupont SO 2 

### 01MAR2010 Annual SO 2 

### emi ssions cap at 123 tons per year at

James River 0

01MAR2012 Annual SO 2 

### emi ssions cap at 248 tons per year at

Wurtland 2,268

Annual SO 2 

### emi ssions cap at 281 tons per year at

Fort Hill 2,228

01SEP2009 Annual SO 2 

### emissions cap at 1

, 007 tons per year

at Burnside

. 9,517

Hunt NO X 

### 31DEC2010 Must meet heat input capacity of 150 mmBTU/hr or greater such that weighted average is no greater than 0.044 lbs/mmBTU , applied at Lumberton, Sandersville, and Tuscaloosa. 350

SO 2 

### 31DEC2007 No burning of fuel greater than 5 wt% sulfur.

SO 2 

### emissions will not exceed 20ppm or that

wei ghted average H 2 

### S concentrati ons will not exceed 162 ppm H 2 

### S, applied at Lumberton, Sandersville, and Tuscaloosa. 939

MGP Ingredients CO 2009 CO reductions by 90% 31

## B

- 2

Corporation Pollutant Compliance

Date Description of reductions 2005

Emissions (tons/year)

VOC 2009 VOC reductions by 95% 112

Rhodia I nc SO 2 

### 01JUL2007 Annual emission limit of 2.2 lbs/ton. 240

Annual emission limit of 2.5 lbs/ton 396 Must meet SCAQMDR limit (1.7lbs/ton or less) 392

01JUL2009 Annual emission limit of 2.2 lbs/ton. 282

01MAY2012 Baton Rouge #1

- > limit of 1.9 lbs/ton. Baton

Rouge #2

- > limit of 2.2 lbs/ton 7,920

2008 Houston #8

- > limit of 2.5 lbs/ton within 1 year

of Date of Entry. Houston #2

- > limit of 1.8 /lbs/ton within 1 year of Date of Entry 9,686

St. Mary's Cement NO X 

### 30APR2009 Reduce combined NO X 

### emissions by 2

, 700 tons

per year. 1,700

Sunoco NO X 

### 2006 (Marcus Hook, PA) Combined NO X 

### emissions reduced by 4

, 500 tons

per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 746

31DEC2009 (Toledo, OH) Combined NO X 

### emissions reduced by 4

, 500 tons

per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 2,339

31DEC2010 (Philadelphia, PA) Combined NO X 

### emissions reduced by 4

, 500 tons

per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 3,390

PM 2006

(Marcus Hook, PA) Combined PM emissions reduced by 300 tons per

year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 34

31DEC2009 (Toledo, OH) Combined PM emissions reduced by 300 tons per

year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 391

31DEC2010 (Philadelphia , PA) Combined PM emissions reduced by 300 tons per

year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 591

SO 2 

### 2006

(Marcus Hook, PA) Combined SO 2 

### emissions reduced by 19

, 500 tons

per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 3,536

31DEC2009 (Toledo, OH) Combined SO 2 

### emissions reduced by 19

, 500 tons

per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 9,072

31DEC2010 (Philadelphia , PA) Combined SO 2 

### emissions reduced by 19

, 500 tons

per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 3,353

Total

Petrochemicals

USA CO 2007 Annual CO emissions cap at 120 tons per year. 386

NO X 

### 31DEC2009 Annual NO X 

### emissions cap at 180 tons per year. 798

SO 2 

### 2010 Annual SO 2 

### emissions cap at 800 tons per year. 146

## B

- 3

Corporation Pollutant Compliance

Date Description of reductions 2005

Emissions (tons/year)

Valero NO X 

### 2011 Combined NO X 

### emissions reduced by 1870 tons per year. Combined is over facilities: Lima, Memphis, and Port Arthur. 4,165

31DEC2011 Combined NO X 

### emissions reduced by 4

, 000 tons

per year. Combined over Valero facilities in

Ardmore OK, Benicia CA, Martinez CA, Wilmington CA, Denver CO, St. Charles LA, Krotz Spring LA, Paulsboro NJ, Corpus Christi TX (east and west), Houston TX, Sunray TX, Texas City TX, and Three Rivers TX. 13,742

PM 31DEC2011 Combined PM emissions reduced by 526 tons per year. Combined over Valero facilities listed in

other two lists for NOx and SO2. 3,027

SO 2 

### 2011 Combined SO 2 

### emissions reduced by 1

, 810 tons per year. Combined is over facilities: Lima, Memphis, and Port Arthur. 4,105

31DEC2011 Combined SO 2 

### emissions reduced by 16

, 000 tons

per year. Combined over Valero facilities in Ardmore OK, Benicia CA, Martinez CA, Wilmington CA, Denver CO, St. Charles LA, Krotz Spring LA, Paulsboro NJ, Corpus Christi

TX (east and west), Houston TX, Sunray TX, Texas City TX, and Three Rivers TX. 19,618

## C

- 1 

# Appendix C
Gold Mine Mercy Reductions Due to NESHAP:

DATE FOR PROJECTION FACTOR Assume 2014 (rule done end of 2010 and 3 years compliance)

NEI_SITE_ID FIPS pollco

de STATE_FACILITY_

ID Facility Name FACILIT

Y WIDE

mercury emission s (in tons per year)* FACILITY WIDE

PROJECTION FACTOR computed from the 2016 emissions. (base year x
Projection Factor = Future Year) 2016

emissio ns (in tons per year) **

NEI1827 0811

9 199 80860CRPPL275

5S CRIPPLE CREEK &

VICTOR GOLD

MINING CO 0.01715 1 0.01715

NEI2NV41111

6 3202

1 199 89406KNNCT55

MIL KENNECOTT

RAWHIDE MINING

CO 0.02 0.215 0.0043 Facility wide emissions estimate is

based on 2007 emissions test data

NEI2NV444.0

1 3202

3 199 89045SMKYV1S

MOK SMOKY VALLEY

COMMON

OPERATION 0.03 0.388333333 0.01165 Facility wide emissions estimate is

based on 2007 emissions test data

NEI2NVT1824

2 3201

1 199 T$18242 RUBY HILL MINE 0.018 0.166666667 0.003 Facility wide emissions estimate is

based on 2007 emissions test data

NEIAK090997

37PGMNX38 0224

0 74399

76 99737PGMNX38

MIL POGO MINE 0.0005 1 0.0005 NEIAKT$1366

0 0209

0 199 99707FRTKN1FO

RA FORT KNOX MINE 0.000065 1 0.00006

5

NEIAKT$1366

5 0211

0 199 99801KNNCT134

01 KENNECOTT

GREENS CREEK

MINING

COMPANY 0.002715 1 0.00271

5

NEIMT15320 3004

3 199 59759GLDNS453

MO GOLDEN

SUNLIGHT MINES

INC. 0.00085 1 0.00085

NEINV320158

9821CRTZG 3201

5 199 89821CRTZGSTA

RA CORTEZ GOLD

MINES 0.42575 0.234879624 0.1

NEINVT$1249

8 3201

3 199 89414NWMNT3

5MIL NEWMONT

MINING CORP

TWIN CREEKS

MINE 0.296 0.506756757 0.15

## C

- 2 

# Appendix C
Gold Mine Mercy Reductions Due to NESHAP:

DATE FOR PROJECTION FACTOR Assume 2014 (rule done end of 2010 and 3 years compliance)

NEI_SITE_ID FIPS pollco

de STATE_FACILITY_

ID Facility Name FACILIT

Y WIDE

mercury emission s (in tons per year)* FACILITY WIDE

PROJECTION FACTOR computed from the 2016 emissions. (base year x
Projection Factor = Future Year) 2016

emissio ns (in tons per year) **
NEINVT$1249

9 3202

7 199 89418FLRDCEXIT

1 STANDARD

MINING INC 0.08 0.4 0.032 Facility wide emissions estimate is

based on 2008 emissions test data NEINVT$1250

0 3202

7 199 89419CRRCH180

EX COEUR

ROCHESTER INC 0.069 1 0.069 Facility wide emissions estimate is

based on 2007 emissions test data NEINVT$1250

6 3201

3 199 89438GLMSM3

MILE GLAMIS

MARIGOLD MINE 0.1638 0.018315018 0.003

NEINVT$1251

0 3201

3 199 89438NWMNTST

ONE NEWMONT

MINING CORP

LONE TREE MINE 0.311 0.225080386 0.07 Facility wide emissions estimate is

based on 2006 emissions test data

NEINVT$1252

3 3200

7 199 89801JRRTT50MI

L JERRITT CANYON

MINE 0.23 0.217391304 0.05 Facility wide emissions estimate is

for the 2004

- 05 timeframe and is

based on the estimate submitted
to Nevada DEP in response to ICR
survey sent to the company. NEINVT$1252

4 3203

3 199 89803BLDMN70

MIL BALD MOUNTAIN

MINE 0.14 0.214285714 0.03 Facility wide emissions estimate is

based on 2008 emissions test data

NEINVT$1252

5 3200

7 199 89803BRRCK27

MIL BARRICK

GOLDSTRIKE

MINES INC 0.35 0.085714286 0.03 Facility wide emissions estimate is

based on 2007 emissions test data

NEINVT$1252

9 3200

7 199 T$12529 NEWMONT

MINING CORP

RAIN AREA MINE 0.0001 1 0.0001

NEINVT$1253

1 3201

1 199 89822NWMNT6

MAIL NEWMONT

MINING CORP

CARLIN SOUTH

AREA 0.345 0.405797101 0.14

* except for Pogo Mines, the pollutant code used is 199. For Pogo Mines it is 7439976.

** These are projected emissions estimates post

- MACT based on analyses of expected reductions done for the 2010 Proposed MACT rule.

## D

- 1 

# Appendix D

Mercury Emission Reductions,

2005

- 2016 for Particular NonEGU Categories based on data/approaches developed by SPPD 1



### ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES (EAFs): Reduction to an emission level of 5 tpy (a 2.3 tpy Hg reduction) by 2016 is

estimated based on the 2007 MACT rule )(72 FR 74108). The NATA inventory for 2005 shows 7.3 tpy Hg emissions. For the rule, EPA estimated 5 tpy reductions (from 10 tpy). This is considered a conservative assumption at this time; Hg emissions could go to 0 tpy, if mercury switches are removed from the process, or Hg emissions could move toward 0 tpy based on vehicle fleet turnover and the increasing use of mercury

- free switches. Because the source of mercury for EAFs is scrap metal containing mercury switches from an aging vehicle fleet that has been replaced with

mercury

- f ree technology, there is the potential that there will be very low levels of mercury by 2016, via mandatory controls and continuous monitoring as a result of the new MACT rule (an upcoming area source rule that is in the planning stage), and through vehicl e fleet turnover.

We determined a 35.1% reduction was needed from a starting point of 7.3 tons to get to 5 tons. However, our starting point inventory was actually lower than the NATA value of 5 tons because the following sources were not in the starting modeling inventory or had different emissions than the 2005 NATA due to other controls applied that would have contributed to getting to 5 tons in the future


### nata_plant scc nata_emis Starting Emissions in projection

Northwestern Steel & Wire Co (shut down prior to 2005) 30300908 0.337223 0

Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. Charlotte

Stee 30400701 0.0144 Same, but other controls reduce

this source

Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. Charlotte

Stee 30400799 0.0005 Same, but other controls reduce

this source

Texas Industries Inc. 30300908 0.325819 0.059951 (other controls applied)

Because our pre

- MACT emissions were 6.6 tons, to get to a projected value of 5 tons, the percent reduction is 24.4% instead of 35.1%,. Therefore our projection resulted in a 2016 value of 4.53 tons instead of 5 tons for this sector. However, because the actual emissions for this sector could move towards 0 in the future so the error is much smaller than the undcertainty. Note that the reductions for this sector were 2.12 to ns.

HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTORS (HWCs): A 0.2 tpy reduction of Hg by 2016 is estimated from the 2005
MACT rule . The 2005 standards are in effect and all HWCs are required to be in compliance with them. The Hg reductions achieved by the 2005 standards were estimated to be 0.2 tpy. This was due in part to "interim standards" that were put in place in 2002, which reduced Hg emissions by 12.9 tpy.

.Note that identifying which HWCs have reductions may not be possible.

We determine that a 6.25 % reduction would be needed to achieve a 0.2 ton reduction based on a 2005 category

- wide sum of 2.3 tons. However, we inadvertently applied a 31.5% reduction and therefore reduced emissions by 0.94 tons
instead of 0.2 tons. Since the 0.74 extra ton reductions are s pread across more than 250 counties, this is not expected to impact any one area of the country significantly.

1 

### transmitted by Amy Vasu of SPPD on Sept 7 and Sept 8, 2010 (email to Madeleine Strum)

## D

- 2

One other issue is that it appeared that some HWCs are part of the ISIS model and that they should not be addressed both by the ISIS projection and the across

- th

- board HWC reduction.

Upcoming revised rule . Work to revise the rule (to replace the Hg standards, due to the remand) is at the pre

- proposal stage, and there is not an estimate of reductions that those future standards may achieve. It i s not known if the compliance date would be prior to 2016 for the revised rule.

MERCURY CHLORALKALI PLANTS: Estimated emissions for 2009 are 0.3 tpy; this is a 0.8 T/yr reduction from 2005 levels. Mercury emissions could remain at 0.3 tpy or go to 0 tpy by 2013

- 2016 due to facility closure or conversion, but is highly uncertain at this time.

2003 MACT rule . NATA inventory for 2005 shows 1.1 tpy Hg emissions, however, this is inconsistent with the 2005

NATA version we used because which sums to 3 .1 tons. Estimates of mercury emissions under this rule are 0.3 tpy in 2009 through 2012. Four facilities remain in operation (Augusta, GA; Charleston, TN; New Martinsville, WV; and, Ashtabula, OH). It is estimated that emissions could go to 0 tpy as ea rly as 2013

ASHTA (Ashtabula, OH facility; Ashtabula County)

OLIN

- GA (Augusta, GA facility; Richmond County)

OLIN

- TN (Charleston, TN facility; Bradley County)

PPG (New Martinsville, WV facility; Wetzel County)

In order to generate a Mercury Chlor alkali estimate consistent with the above, we had to remove Hg from the sources identified as Mercury chloralkali plants based on their MACT code of 1403. These are shown below; and the sum is

1.4 tons.

In addition, we applied facility specific reduction s to the following 4 facilities ASHTA (Ashtabula, OH facility; Ashtabula County)

OLIN

- GA (Augusta, GA facility; Richmond County)

OLIN

- TN (Charleston, TN facility; Bradley County)

PPG (New Martinsville, WV facility; Wetzel County)

Such that the resultant emissions would match data provided by rule developers. Specifically:

NEIOHT$5933 is for ASHTA (Ashtabula, OH facility; Ashtabula County) 2005 Hg is 0.4065 tons (813 lbs)
FIPS= 39007 , PLANTID= 44004LCPCH3509M , POLL = 7439976 (2 records for thi s facility) Final emissions in Amy’s table (2008) is 62 pounds. Therefore, percent reduction is 

### 92.4% Actual final emissions from projection is 61.788 for ashta NEIGAT$3892 is for OLIN

- GA (Augusta, GA facility; Richmond County) 2005 Hg is 0.412 tons (824 lbs)
FIPS= 13245 PLANTID= 30913LNGST2402L , POLL = 7439976 (2 records for this facility) Final emissions in Amy’s table (2008) is 95 pounds Therefore, percent reduction is 

### 88. 5 % Actual final emissions from projection is 94.76 pounds

NEI10894 is for OLIN

- TN (Charleston, TN facility; Bradley County) 2005 Hg is 0.7675 tons (1535 lbs)
FIPS = 47011 PLANTID = ???? check leading zeroes 14??? POLL = 7439976 (2 records for this facility) Final emissions in Amy’s table ( 2008) is 327 pounds. Therefore % reduction is 

### 78.7 % Actual final emissions from projection is 326.955 pounds

NEI42444 PPG (New Martinsville, WV facility; Wetzel County this is in Marshall county not Wetzel county Boiler
MACT database also has it as Marshall county) 2005 Hg is 0.127 tons (254 lbs)

## D

- 3

FIPS = 54051 PLANTID = 5405100002 check leading zeroes POLL = 199 (2 records for this facility) Final emissions in Amy’s table is 15 0 pounds per the settlement Decree Amy indicated that limits their emissions to

that level. Therefore % reduction is 40.9% 

### Actual final emissions from projection is 150 pounds

Overall reduction for the above plants is 

### 1.396249 tons in addition, 1.4 tons were zeroed out so the total reduction is

2.8 tons.

Plants to shut down

nata_uniq fips plantid scc poll nata_emis
Hg (tons) nei_emis

Hg (tons) emis_diff nata_plant nata_mact

code

NEIAL0330002 1033 2 30100802 199 0.27 0.27 0 Occidental

Chemical
Corporation 1403

NEI26211 10003 1000300030 30100899 7439976 0.002387 0.002387 0 OCCIDENTAL

CHEMICAL

CORPORATION 1403

NEI26211 10003 1000300030 30100899 7439976 5.40E

- 05 5.40E

- 05 0 OCCIDENTAL

CHEMICAL

CORPORATION 1403

NEI26211 10003 1000300030 30100802 7439976 0.1263 0.1263 0 OCCIDENTAL

CHEMICAL

CORPORATION 1403

NEI26211 10003 1000300030 30100899 7439976 0.000254 0.000254 0 OCCIDENTAL

CHEMICAL

CORPORATION 1403

NEI6076 22019 5200004 30100802 7439976 0.0795 0.0795 0 PPG INDUSTRIES INC/LAKE

CHARLES

COMPLEX 1403

NEI6076 22019 5200004 30100802 7439976 0.0005 0.0005 0 , five 1403

NEI6076 22019 5200004 30100802 7439976 0.5225 0.5225 0 PPG INDUSTRIES INC/LAKE

CHARLES

COMPLEX 1403

NEI6076 22019 5200004 30100802 7439976 0.0005 0.0005 0 PPG INDUSTRIES INC/LAKE

CHARLES

COMPLEX 1403

NEI6076 22019 5200004 30100802 7439976 0.0005 0.0005 0 PPG INDUSTRIES INC/LAKE

CHARLES

COMPLEX 1403

NEILAT$10650 22047 70776STFFRRIVER 39999999 7439976 0.36525 0.36525 0 PIONEER

AMERICAS LLC/CHLOR

- ALKALI

PLANT 1403

NEILAT$10650 22047 70776STFFRRIVER 39999999 7439976 0.024 0.024 0 PIONEER

AMERICAS LLC/CHLOR

- ALKALI

PLANT 1403

NEI42973 55141 772010470 30100802 7439976 0.00465 0.00465 0 ERCO

WORLDWIDE (USA) 1403

NEI42973 55141 772010470 30100802 7439976 0.003 0.003 0 ERCO

WORLDWIDE (USA) 1403



### Pulp and Paper: A Hg emission reduction of 0.7 tpy is estimated as a result of replacement of a smelter at G

- P Big

Island (Beford County, VA) with a recovery furnace. This results in 0.4 tpy Hg emissions for Pulp and Paper.
REDUCTION = 0.728172

## D

- 4

Implementation : Zero out Hg emissions from the following unit

nata_uniq fips plantid pointid stackid segment scc poll nata_emis nata_plant nata_mact

NEI42211 51019 0000 3 10 10 3 30700399 199 0.728172 GP Big

Island LLC 1626

- 2



### Upcoming rules, not yet proposed. Possible future Hg controls (should EPA regulations dictate Hg controls

- which remains to be seen) are activated carbon injection or more likely a wet scrubber applied to recovery furnaces. If we assume a 99% Hg reduction associated with these controls , then the recovery furnace Hg emissions from the NEI (totaling 0.177 tpy for DCE + NDCE) would be reduced by 0.175 tpy. Thus, the best

- case Hg reduction estimated for the P&P industry is rounded to 0.18 tpy based on current NEI data (corrected for a shu t

- down smelter) and a 99% reduction of Hg emissions from recovery furnaces. These possible future Hg controls are not currently accounted for in the projections done for nonEGU.

## E

- 1 

# Appendix E

Ptn onipm (Non EGU) Plant Closures Included in the 2016 Base Case and the Resulting Emissions Changes

Due to the Closures (impacts on emissions from these closures are provided in the main document).

fips plantid pointid stackid segment plant effective_date

1073 10730360 U.S. Pipe N. Birmingham , Walter Coke, I 7/31/2010

1073 35207NTDST30003 U. S. PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY LLC.(NO.

B' 12/11/2009

1073 10730350 SLOSSINDUSTRIESCORPORATION

MINERALW 12/11/2009

1073 35207SLSSN35003 SLOSSINDUSTRIESCORPORATION

MINERALW 12/11/2009

1073 10730068 W.J. Bullock 10/31/2009

1073 35224WJBLL1501E W.J. Bullock 10/31/2009

12105 1050059 MOSAICFERTILIZERLLCNEWWALESPLANT 12/31/2008

12105 33860MCFRTHIGHW MOSAICFERTILIZERLLCNEWWALESPLANT 12/31/2008

12105 T$15385 MOSAICFERTILIZERLLCNEWWALESPLANT 12/31/2008

13051 5100008 TronoxPigments(Savannah)Inc 12/31/2006

13051 31404KMRWCEASTP TronoxPigments(Savannah)Inc 12/31/2006

17031 031012ABI CornProductsInternationalInc 6/30/2010

18167 22 INTERNATIONALPAPERCO. 12/31/2007

19111 56

- 02

- 004 INTERNATIONALPAPERCORP

FORTMADISON 8/31/2005

19111 52632THHBNONPR 2 ROQUETTEAMERICA,INC 3/1/2008

19111 56

- 01

- 009 242710 ROQUETTEAMERICA,INC 3/1/2008

19111 56

- 01

- 009 242802 ROQUETTEAMERICA,INC 3/1/2008

19111 56

- 01

- 009 242828 ROQUETTEAMERICA,INC 3/1/2008

22067 1 INTERNATIONALPAPERCO/LOUISIANAMILL 11/30/2008

22067 19200001 INTERNATIONALPAPERCO/LOUISIANAMILL 11/30/2008

22067 7122ONTRNT705CO INTERNATIONALPAPERCO/LOUISIANAMILL 11/30/2008

22079 1 INTERNATIONALPAPERCO/PINEVILLEMILL 5/30/2010

22079 23600001 INTERNATIONALPAPERCO/PINEVILLEMILL 5/30/2010

22079 T$10715 INTERNATIONALPAPERCO/PINEVILLEMILL 5/30/2010

23007 2300700007 WAUSAUPAPEROTISMILL 5/31/2009

23019 1900056 KATAHDINPAPERCO

- WESTMILL 8/31/2008

23019 2301900056 KATAHDINPAPERCO

- WESTMILL 8/31/2008

25003 01238KMBRLGREYL SCHWEITZERMAUDUITINTERNATIONALINC. 5/31/2008

25003 1170016 SCHWEITZERMAUDUITINTERNATIONALINC. 5/31/2008

25003 1170014 MWCUSTOMPAPERS,LLC

- LAURELMILL 7/31/2007

25003 T$14390 MWCUSTOMPAPERS,LLC

- LAURELMILL 7/31/2007

25017 01760NTCKP90NMA NATICKPAPERBOARD 11/30/2005

25017 1190241 NATICKPAPERBOARD 11/30/2005

26121 A4203 SDWARRENMUSKEGONMIOPERATIONS 8/31/2009

## E

- 2

fips plantid pointid stackid segment plant effective_date

26121 T$7810 SDWARRENMUSKEGONMIOPERATIONS 8/31/2009

33007 03570JMSRV650MA FRASERNHLLC 4/30/2008

33007 3300700001 FRASERNHLLC 4/30/2008

36083 4382800006 BENNINGTONPAPERBOARDCO 4/30/2009

37119 583 CaraustarMillGroup,Inc. 3/31/2009

39153 1677010193 B101 GOODYEARTIRE&RUBBERCO. 12/31/2007

39153 1677010193 B102 GOODYEARTIRE& RUBBERCO. 12/31/2007

39153 1677010193 B103 GOODYEARTIRE&RUBBERCO. 12/31/2007

39153 T$6196 1 GOODYEARTIRE&RUBBERCO. 12/31/2007

47063 197 LIBERTYFIBERSCORPORATION 7/31/2010

47063 37778LNZNGTENNE LIBERTYFIBERSCORPORATION 7/31/2010

47063 T$4972 LIBERTYFIBERSCORPORATION 7/31/2010

48141 5 ELPASOPLANT 6/1/2010

48141 1 ELPASOPLANT 6/1/2010

55075 438039360 STORAENSONORTHAMERICANIAGARAMILL 12/31/2008

55075 54151NGRFW1101M STORAENSONORTHAMERICANIAGARAMILL 12/31/2008

55075 T$8508 STORAENSONORTHAMERICANIAGARAMILL 12/31/2008

55141 772010580 DOMTARA.W.CORP.

- PORTEDWARDS 6/30/2008

55141 772010580 DOMTARA.W.CORP.

- PORTEDWARDS 6/30/2008

55141 T$8586 DOMTARA.W.CORP.

- PORTEDWARDS 6/30/2008

## F

- iii 

# APPENDIX F



# Approach to Apply RICE reductions to project 2005 Emissions in the 2005v4.1 modeling Platform: 2004 and 2010 rules

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... v

1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 6

2 Source Coverage

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 8

3 Spark Ignition (SI) Engines

................................ ................................ ................................ . 11

3.1 Four Stroke Rich Burn Engines (4SRB)

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 13

3.2 Two Stroke Lean Burn Engines (2SLB)

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 14

3.3 Four Stroke Lean Burn Engines (4SLB)

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 14



## 4 Compression Ignition (CI) Engines

................................ ................................ ..................... 15

5 Approach For Addressing Already

- Controlled Sources

................................ ...................... 16

6 Percent Reduction Calculations to be applied to NEI

................................ ......................... 16

6.1 SI Engines

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 16

6.2 CI Engines

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 18

## F

- iv 7 Percent Reduction Calculations to be applied to NEI accounting for only the 2004 RICE rule

19

7.1 SI Engines

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 19

7.2 CI Engines

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 20



## 8 Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 20

## F

- v 

# LIST OF TABLES

Table 1

- 1. Summary of Existing Source RICE Reductions Reflected in the Projection Methodology

............ 6

Table 2

- 1. SCCs representing the point source and non

- point source universe of RICE

................................ . 9

Table 3

- 1. Distribution of NOX by engine and HP type for major and area sources

................................ ..... 12

Table 3

- 2. Distribution of CO by engine and HP type for major and area sources

................................ ......... 12

Table 3

- 3. Distribu tion of VOC by engine and HP type for major and area sources

................................ ...... 12

Table 4

- 1. Distribution of CO, PM and VOC emissions from Compression Ignition Engines by Engine and HP type for major and area sources

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 15

Table 6

- 1. Formula for determining the percent r eduction to apply to SI SCCs for Projection Years of 2014 and Beyond

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 16

Table 6

- 2. Formula for determining the percent reduction to apply to Compression Ignition (CI) SCCs for Projection Years of 2014 and later

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 18

Table 7

- 1. Formula for determining the percent reduction to apply to SI SCCs for the 2012 projection

....... 19

Table 8

- 1. Summary of Percent Reductions and Emissions reduced from the 2005 Platform resulting from all 3 RICE rules (Future years 2014 and later)

................................ ................................ ................................ . 21

Table 8

- 2. Summary of Percent Reductions and Emissi ons reduced from the 2005 Platform resulting from

the 2004 RICE NESHAP

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 21

Table 9

- 1. SO2 emissions and reductions resulting from ul tra low sulfur fuel requirement (compliance date May 2013) for CI engines greater or equal to 300 HP.

................................ ................................ .................... 24

## F

- 6



# 1 Introd ucti on

There are three rulemakings for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. These rules reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAPs) from existing and new stationary reciprocating internal c ombustion engines (RICE). In order to meet the standards, existing sources with certain types of engines will need to install controls. In addition to reducing HAPs, these controls also reduce criteria air pollutants (CAPs).

This document presents a m ethodology for incorporating the CAP reductions from the three RICE NESHAP in the future year projection of the 2005 v4.1 modeling platform. The methodology addresses the following future years: 2012, and 2014 and beyond. In 2014 and beyond, all 3 rule s’ compliance dates have passed; thus all 3 rules are included in the emissions projection. In 2012 only the earliest rule’s compliance date has passed so only one rule is

included.

The rules can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rice/ricepg.html and are listed below:

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Final Rule (69 FR 33473) published 06/15/04

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Final Rule (FR 9648 ) published 03/03/10

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Final Rule (75 FR 51570) published 08/20/2010



## The difference among these three rules is that they focus on different types of engines, different facility types (major for HAPs, versus area for HAPs) and different engine sizes based on horsepower (HP)

. In addition, the they have different compliance dates. We project CA Ps from

the 2005 NEI RICE sources , based on the requirements of the rule for existing sources ,. We consider only existing sources, since the inventory includes only existing sources and the current projection approach does not estimate emissions from new sources. As indicated earlier, for the 2012 projections, only the requirements associated with the June 15, 2007 compliance date are incorporated. All of the Error! Not a valid bookmark self

- reference. requirements are incorporated in projections for 2014 and beyond.

Table 1

- 1 summarizes the rule information that was used for the emissions projection. As indicated earlier, for the 2012 projections, only the requirements associated with the June 15, 2007 compliance date are incorporated. All of the Error! Not a valid bookmark self

reference. requirements are incorporated in projections for 2014 and beyond.

Table 1

- 1

. Summary of Existing Source RICE Reductions Reflected in the Projection Methodology

## F

- 7

Engine Type Control and

Pollutant

Reductions Horse Power

Range

Affected (Existing

Sources Only) Publication

Date of the

RICE

NESHAP Compliance

Date Reductions for

Existing Sources, Rule

Documentation (tons) **

Spark Ignition:

Four stroke

rich burn

(SI: 4SRB) Non

selective catalytic

reduction

97% NOX,

49% CO *

76% VOC Non

emergency, Major, HP >

500 06/15/04 June 15,

2007 

## CO: 98,040

NOX: 69,862

VOC:1461***

SI: 4SRB Same as

above Non

emergency, Area, HP

>500 08/20/10 October 19,

2013 

## NOX: 96,479

CO: 109,321

VOC: 30,907 SI : Four

stroke lean

burn (4SLB) Oxidation

Catalyst

94% CO,

71% VOC Non

emergency Major, 100

- 500 HP, Area

> 500 HP 08/20/10 October 19,

2013



## Compression Ignition (CI) Oxidation

Catalyst

70% CO and

VOC

30% PM2.5 Non

emergency Major and
Area, HP

>300 03/03/10 May 3, 2013 

## CO: 14,342 VOC: 27,395 PM: 2,844

*% CO used in 6/2004 rule was 90% **Total Reductions across these rules: NOX (tons)= 166,379; CO (tons) = 221,703; VOC (tons) = 58,402; and PM (tons) = 2,844.

*** VOC reductions weren't estimated for the 2004 rule. Used 2010 approach: estimated the VOC emissions as a function of the HAP

emissions by dividing HAP by 0.1944 to get the VOC emissions.

Based on analyses done in support of the rules, t he RICE NESHAP published 06/15/04 estimated 69,862 tons of NOX would be reduced, and the RICE NESHAP published 0 8 / 20 / 10 estimates 96,479 tons NOX to be reduced. Total NOX to be reduced from existing sources for the two rules is therefore 166,379 tons. The sum of reductions for all rules for CO is 221,703; for VOC is 58,402 and for PM is 2,844.

Our projection approaches generally try to maintain the percent reductions for a category rather

than match the absolute mass of the reductions. This is because the inventories used to estimate reductions from the rules are often inconsistent with the inventories that we use for modeling.

## F

- 8

The rule

- specific inventories generally come from industry survey data, and the NEI comes from

state

- reported data. So, r ather t han attempting to remove the tonnages listed in above, we used a percent reduction approach

.

The percent reduction approach is to determine and apply the appropriate percent reductions to RICE sources in the modeling platform. RICE emissions are identifie d based on the source classification codes (SCCs) in the modeling inventory. As explained earlier, because the modeling inventory was not used as the basis for determining the air impacts of the rule, the tonnage reductions achieved by applying percent r eductions associated with the RICE requirements to the platform are not expected to provide exactly the values cited above.

The percentage reduction to be applied is determined as a function of the efficiency of the control device, and the fraction of emi ssions in the SCC estimated to be impacted by the rule requirements. The remainder of this document presents the data and equations used to estimate the overall percent reductions to apply to each SCC. Section 2 discusses the source coverage as

a functio n of the inventory SCCs. Sections 3 and 4 present the data used to determine the percentage of emissions from these SCCs to apply the control device efficiencies. Section 5 discusses the approach for addressing the already controlled engines, and Sectio n 6 provides the equations for percent reduction, and summarizes the values of the parameters used to compute the percent reduction by pollutant and by engine type for years past 2014; Section 7 provides this information for the 2012 projection year which includes reductions only from the rule published in 2004. Section 8 provides a summary of the results.



# 2 Source Coverage

The engine types affected by the NESHAP are Spark Ignition (SI) and Compression Ignition (CI). Spark Ignition engines can be classifi ed as Four Stroke Rich Burn Engines (4SRB), Two Stroke Lean Burn Engines (2SLB) and Four Stroke Lean Burn Engines (4SLB). Because the requirements of the rules differ between SI engine types, we must be able to distinguish among these types in the invent ory.

The inventory source classification codes (SCCs) that represent SI and CI engines in the NEI are

shown in Table 2

- 1 , along with emissions (50

- state sums) from the 2005 modeling platform (case=2005cr). The SI SCCS are assigned to one of five “reduction” categories depending upon the specificity of the type of SIC engine. These are: 4SRB, 4SLB, 2SLB and “ SI, generic ”, “boiler + engine” and “RICE + turbine.” Note that all of the gasoline engines are considered to be 100% 4SRB. A method and data to apportion the fraction of emissions from the non

- specifi c engine type categories of “SI, generic”, “boiler+engine” and “RICE+turbine” to 4SRB and 4SLB engine types is presented in the next section. The CI SCCs only need to be apportioned

to non

- emergency engines, and not by any specific CI engine type, ther efore the “Category for Application of Reduction” is CI.

There are also SCCs in the inventory for oil and gas operations that include emissions from the use of RICE. We denote these as “oil&gas” in Table 2

- 1 . We do not have any data to apportion the amount of emissions from SI nor CI RICE from these SCCs. Focusing on NOX reductions, we can determine the amount of NOX reductions needed from the oil&gas SCCs in order to

## F

- 9

bring the total NOX to equal the estimates provided in the rule. The total NOX reductions from the non oil&gas SCCs sum to 80,597 tons and the total NOX reductions estimated by the two rules is 166,379 tons. If the remaining NOX from oil&gas SCCs were to make up this difference, 26% of the total oil&gas NOX would need to be reduced. Since this fraction turns out higher than the fraction of reduction to be applied to “SI, generic” SCCs, and it is expected that oil&gas SCCs would have more NOX emitting operations than the “SI,generic” SCCs, we have chosen to apply the “SI, generic” SCC fraction to the oil&gas SCCS. Because it is likely that the vast majority of oil&gas VOC is from operations other than RICE, we will not compute any VOC reduction from oi l&gas SCCs. We will use the same fraction as “SI,generic” for CO.

Table 2

- 1

. SCCs representing the point source and non

- point source universe of RICE

SCC Description Engine Type Category for Application of

Reduction NOX 2005

(tons) CO

2005 (tons) VOC 2005

(tons) PM2.5

200 5 (tons)

20100102 Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Distillate

Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating CI CI
17,662 3,792 1,294 645

20100105 Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Distillate

Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Crankcase Blowby CI CI

87 22 10 9

20100107 Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Distillate

Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust CI CI

221 79 9 10

20100202 Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Natural

Gas;Reciprocating SI SI, generic
7,490 3,675 909 115

20100207 Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Natural

Gas;Reciprocating: Exhaust SI SI, generic

1 0 0 0

20200102 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Distillate Oil

(Diesel);Reciprocating CI CI
11,785 3,323 908 772

20200104 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Distillate Oil

(Diesel);Reciprocating: Cogeneration CI CI

494 128 18 31

20200107 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Distillate Oil

(Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust CI CI

254 74 15 7

20200202 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural

Gas;Reciprocating SI SI, generic
215,888 74,610 16,560 2,339

20200204 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural

Gas;Reciprocating: Cogeneration SI SI, generic

704 413 110 14

20200207 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural

Gas;Reciprocating: Exhaust SI SI, generic

15 50 1 0

20200252 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas;2

- cycle

Lean Burn SI 2SLB
153,857 27,103 9,089 2,216

20200253 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas;4

- cycle

Rich Burn SI 4SRB
66,871 53,724 5,337 512

20200254 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas;4

- cycle

Lean Burn SI 4SLB
47,932 20,287 5,333 385

20200255 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas;2

- cycle

Clean Burn SI 2SLB

591 288 70 22

20200256 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas;4

- cycle

Clean Burn SI 4SLB
1,719 1,924 365 29

20200301 Internal Combustion

Engines;Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating SI 4SRB

660 1,966 110 26

20200307 Internal Combustion

Engines;Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating: Exhaust SI 4SRB

56 54 9 3

20201001 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Liquified Petroleum

Gas (LPG);Propane: Reciprocating SI SI, generic

101 130 52 9

20201002 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Liquified Petroleum

Gas (LPG);Butane: Reciprocating SI SI, generic

13 22 0 0

20201702 Internal Combustion

Engines;Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating Engine SI 4SRB

3 31 9 0

20201707 Internal Combustion

Engines;Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating: Exhaust SI 4SRB

0 4 0 0

20300101 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating CI CI

4,476 1,512 455 330

20300105 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil CI CI

0 0 0 0

## F

- 10

SCC Description Engine Type Category for Application of

Reduction NOX 2005

(tons) CO

2005 (tons) VOC 2005

(tons) PM2.5

200 5 (tons) (Diesel);Reciprocating: Crankcase Blowby

20300107 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust CI CI

9 1 0 6

20300201 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Reciprocating SI SI, generic
17,532 6,165 1,883 113

20300204 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Cogeneration SI generic

170 200 22 4

20300207 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Reciprocating: Exhaust SI SI, generic

17 2 1 0

20300301 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Gasoline;Reciprocating SI 4SRB

348 4,250 245 80

20300307 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Gasoline;Reciprocating:

Exhaust SI 4SRB

4 21 3

- 20301001 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG);Propane: Reciprocating SI SI, generic

61 28 12 2

20301002 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG);Butane: Reciprocating SI SI, generic

0 0 0

- 20400401 Internal Combustion Engines;Engine Testing;Reciprocating

Engine;Gasoline SI 4SRB

647 11,538 738 44

20400402 Internal Combustion Engines;Engine Testing;Reciprocating

Engine;Diesel/Kerosene CI CI
3,935 968 235 163

20400403 Internal Combustion Engines;Engine Testing;Reciprocating

Engine;Distillate Oil CI CI

2 1 0 0

31000203 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production;Natural Gas

Production;Compressors SI SI, generic
29,605 10,849 2,333 272

50100421 Waste Disposal;Solid Waste Disposal

- Government;Landfill

Dump;Waste Gas Recovery: Internal Combustion Device SI SI, generic

914 1,220 103 53

2101004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Electric Utility;Distillate

Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines CI Boiler+engine

258 60 4 1

2101004002 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Electric Utility;Distillate

Oil;All IC Engine Types CI CI
2,218 462 112 9

2101006000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Electric Utility;Natural

Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines SI Boiler+engine
2,413 4,500 1,294 8

2101006002 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Electric Utility;Natural

Gas;All IC Engine Types SI RICE+turbine
6,089 1,347 52 148

2102004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Distillate

Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines CI Boiler+engine
89,906 20,956 3,223 6,494

2102006000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Natural

Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines SI Boiler+engine
150,642 99,171 6,733 775

2102006002 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Natural

Gas;All IC Engine Types SI RICE+turbine
14,845 5,791 1,543 9

2103004000 Stationary Source Fuel

Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines CI Boiler+engine

43,266 10,520 1,340 6,461

2103006000 Stationary Source Fuel

Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines SI Boiler+engine

138,027 95,914 8,684 933

2199004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Total Area Source Fuel

Combustion;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines CI Boiler+engine

199 210 12 15

2199004002 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Total Area Source Fuel

Combustion;Distillate Oil;All IC Engine Types CI RICE+turbine
11,327 5,227 1,158 797

2199006000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Total Area Source Fuel

Combustion;Natural Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines SI Boiler+engine
2,592 600 124 166

2310020600 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Exploration and

Production;Natural Gas;Compressor Engines SI SI, generic
48,393 29,980 5,300

-

2310000000 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13;All

Processes;Total: All Processes oil&gas
14,456 2,654 26,308

- 2310000220 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Exploration and oil&gas 85,302 26,575 5,579 2,945

## F

- 11

SCC Description Engine Type Category for Application of

Reduction NOX 2005

(tons) CO

2005 (tons) VOC 2005

(tons) PM2.5

200 5 (tons) Production;All Processes;Drill Rigs

2310000440 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Exploration and

Production;All Processes;Saltwater Disposal Engines oil&gas

121 17 7

-

2310001000 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13;All

Processes : On

- shore;Total: All Processes oil&gas
193,183 226,478 286,654

-

2310002000 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13;All

Processes : Off

- shore;Total: All Processes oil&gas
1,859

- 310

-

2310020000 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13;Natural

Gas;Total: All Processes oil&gas
7,253 3,114 17,584 101

2310023000 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Exploration and

Production;Natural Gas;Cbm Gas Well

- Dewatering Pump Engines oil&gas

4,104

- - -



# 3 Spark Ignition (SI) Engines

Table 3

- 1

, Table 3

- 2 , and Table 3

- 3 provides the distribution of emissions by source type (major versus area), engine type and HP range for NOX, CO and VOC, respectively. The data are from

the rule analyses and were provided by Melanie King, EPA, Sector Policies and Programs Division. These tables provide the information needed to apportion the emissions from generic reciprocating engine SI SCCs in Table 2

- 1 to the particular engine type requiring controls. For example, the proportion of NOX emissions from major 4SRB Non

- emergency engines from all major reciprocating engines is 91,657/278,460 = 33%. The emissions in these tables are also broken out by HP; thus they also provide the data needed to apportion the emissions to the HP range requiring the controls. Furthermore, we have used them to create a ratio of major to area emissions for SI eng ines. We had previously used the NEI’s SRCTYPE data field which indicates the facility’s status

- major vs area

- with respect to HAPs (based on the major/area definitions in Section 112 of the Clean Air Act). This approach, which used for the
2016cr1_h g_05 case and related source apportionment case (both of these were used for the Boiler MACT Regulatory Impact Assessment, and no other modeling) resulted in major/area splits heavily weighted to major sources: 77%/23%, 81%/19% and 75%/25% for 4SRB for

N OX, CO and VOC, respectively and 91%/9% for both CO and VOC for 4 SLB. However, we have chosen to update this as we have more confidence in the major/area breakout done for the rule analysis than the value reported in the inventory for which we have disc overed errors in the SCRTYPE value or found it missing. Using the data Table 3

- 1

, Table 3

- 2 , and Table 3

- 3 , we determine that 27% of the emissions are from major sources and 73% are from area sources. This is approximately the same for all pollutants, and we also use it for all SI engine types.

The below subjections provide the apportionment factors for both engine type and HP ranges for the SI engines.

## F

- 12

Table 3

- 1

. Distribution of NOX by engine and HP type for major and area sources

Baseline NOX emissions fro m major and ar ea sources (with 20% 4SRB have NSCR), SI engines

HP Range Total NOx

Emissions

- major

sources 2SLB Non

emergency

major sources 4SLB Non

emergency

major sources 4SRB Non

emergency

major

source s Emerg

ency

major

sourc

es Landfill/ Digester Gas

Non

emergency

major

sources Total NOx

Emissions

area

sources 2SLB

area

sources 4SLB

area

sources 4SRB

area

sources Emerge

ncy
area

sources Landfill/

Digester

Gas

- area

sources

25

- 50 41,751 12,806 15,054 13,853 38 0 68,566 21,031 24,722 22,750 63 0

50

- 100 22,363 6,859 8,063 7,420 21 0 58,985 18,092 21,268 19,571 54 0

100

- 175 64,914 19,911 23,405 21,538 60 0 133,065 40,815 47,978 44,150 123 0

175

- 300 24,168 7,413 8,714 8,019 22 0 82,359 25,261 29,695 27,326 76 0

300

- 500 25,106 7,700 9,052 8,330 23 0 99,679 30,574 35,940 33,073 92 0

500

- 600 19,426 5,825 6,847 6,301 18 436 69,094 19,760 23,228 21,375 59 4,671

600

- 750 4,097 1,228 1,444 1,329 4 92 14,438 4,328 5,087 4,682 13 327

>750 76,635 22,971 27,002 24,848 71 1744 227,890 68,313 80,303 73,896 210 5,169

Total 278,460 84,713 99,581 91,637 256 2,272 754,077 228,175 268,222 246,822 690 10,167



## Table 3

- 2

. Distribution of CO by engine and HP type for major and area sources

Baseline CO emissions from major and ar ea sources (with 20% 4SRB have NSCR), SI engines

HP Range Total CO

Emissions

major

sources 2SLB

Non

emergenc

y

- major

sources 4SLB

Non

emergen

cy

major

sources 4SRB

Non

emergenc

y

- major

source s Emer

gency

- majo

r

sourc

es Landfill/ Dige ster
Gas

Non

emergen

cy

major

sources Total

CO

Emissio

ns

- area

sources 2SLB

area

source

s 4SLB

area

source

s 4SRB

area

sources Eme

rgen

cy
area

sour

ces Landfill/ Digester

Gas

- area

sources

25

- 50 28,798 3,247 5,131 20,368 51 46,898 5,333 8,031 33,450 83

50

- 100 15,425 1,739 2,748 10,910 27 40,344 4,588 6,909 28,776 71

100

- 175 44,774 5,049 7,978 31,668 79 91,013 10,350 15,586 64,917 161

175

- 300 16,670 1,880 2,970 11,791 29 56,331 6,406 9,646 40,179 100

300

- 500 17,316 1,953 3,086 12,248 30 68,178 7,753 11,675 48,629 121

500

- 600 13,402 1,477 2,334 9,264 23 303 47,273 5,011 7,546 31,429 78 3,209

600

- 750 2,826 312 492 1,954 5 64 9,876 1,097 1,653 6,884 17 225

>750 52,851 5,825 9,204 36,535 93 1,194 155,890 17,323 26,086 108,654 275 3,551

Total 192,062 21,482 33,944 134,738 337 1,561 515,803 57,862 87,132 362,918 906 6,985



## Table 3

- 3

. Distribution of VOC by engine and HP type for major and area sources

Baseline VOC emissions from major and ar ea sources (with 20% 4SRB have NSCR), SI engines

## F

- 13

HP Range Total

VOC

Emissi

ons

- major

sources 2SLB

Non

emerge

ncy

- major

sources 4SLB

Non

emergenc

y

- major

sources 4SRB

Non

emergen

cy

- major

sources Emerge

ncy

- major

sources Landfill/

Digester

Gas

Non

emergen

cy

- major

sources Total

VOC

Emissio

ns

- area

sources 2SLB

Non

emergenc

y

- area

sources 4SLB

Non

emergenc

y

- area

sources 4SRB

Non

emergenc

y

- area

sources Emerge

ncy

-

area

sources Landfill/

Digester

Gas

Non

emergen

cy

- area

sources

25

- 50 5,696 939 3,513 1,240 3.3 9,354 1,543 5,770 2,036 5.4

50

- 100 3,051 503 1,882 664 1.8 8,047 1,327 4,964 1,751 4.6

100

- 175 8,855 1,460 5,463 1,927 5.1 18,153 2,994 11,198 3,951 10.4

175

- 300 3,297 544 2,034 718 1.9 11,235 1,853 6,931 2,445 6.5

300

- 500 3,425 565 2,113 745 2.0 13,598 2,242 8,388 2,960 7.8

500

- 600 2,650 427 1,598 564 1.5 59 9,415 1,449 5,421 1,913 5.0 627

600

- 750 559 90 337 119 0.3 12 1,969 317 1,187 419 1.1 44

>750 10 ,450 1,685 6,302 2,224 6.0 233 31,076 5,010 18,742 6,613 17.8 693

Total 37,982 6,213 23,241 8,200 22 305 102,846 16,736 62,600 22,088 58.7 1,364 Note that this table accounts for changes to VOC baseline values made on August 16, 2010



# 3.1 Four Stroke Rich Burn Engines (4SRB)

For 4SRB, non

- selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) is expected to be required to meet the formaldehyde limit. In addition to reducing NOX, NSCR reduces CO and VOC. The control device efficiency for NOX, CO and VOC, denoted R poll 

## is based o n the average value in Table 4

of the memo “ CO Removal Efficiency as a Surrogate for HAP Removal Efficiency”. For 4SRB,

R NOX 

## = 97%, R CO 

## = 49%; and R VOC = 

## 76%

As discussed earlier, the point source inventory source classification codes (SCCs) that repre sent or could include these engines in the NEI are shown in Table 2

- 1 . To determine the fraction of 4SRB in the “SI, generic” SCCs, we compute the percent of NOX, CO and VOC emissions from rich burn engines from “baseline estimates” (considering existing contr ols

--- 20% 4SRB have NSCR) of NOX, CO and VOC from 4SRB. We denote this fraction as F 4SRB, poll

. 

## Using the total

NOX emissions from all SI RICE and 4SRB in Table 3

- 1 , the proportion of NOX from 4SRB from major source SI engines is computed as 91,637/278,460 = 33% and the proportion of NOX from 4SRB from area source SI engines is computed as 246,822/754,077 = 33%. Thus,

F 4SRB, NOX 

## = 0.33. Using Table 3

- 2

, F 4SRB, CO 

## = 0.7 (same for both major and area sources) and using Table 3

- 3

, F 4SRB, VOC 

## = 0. 216 (same for both major and area sources). As discussed previously, we use the same F 4SRB 

## for oil&gas SCCs other than for VOC, for which we use

F 4SRB, VOC 

## = 0

To apportion the “engine+boiler” SCCs to 4SRB, we use the inventory estimates of boiler and engine emissions stationary RICE, to apportion to “SI, generic” and then use the factors discussed above to apportion to 4SRB. Using the 2005 emission estimates for SCCs assoc iated with natural gas boilers, natural gas RICE and turbine RICE, we compute that 63% of the NOX are from natural gas RICE, 54% of the CO are from natural gas RICE and 70% of the VOC are from natural gas RICE. Therefore, for engine and boiler SCCs: F 4S RB, NOX 

## = 0.63x0.33 = 0.21,

F 4SRB, CO 

## = 0.54x0.7 = 0.38 and F 4SRB, VOC 

## = 0.70x0.216= 0.15.

## F

- 14

We apportion “RICE+turbine” SCCs using 2005 Platform emissions as well. In this case, F 4SRB,

NOX 

## = 0.78x0.33 = 0.26, F 4SRB, CO 

## = 0.79x0.7= 0.55 and F 4SRB, VOC 

## = 0.89x0.216 = 0.19

The August 2010 regulation requires engines at area sources greater than 500 HP to have NSCR. Major sources that are of that size are subject to limits that require NSCR from the 2004 rule. To

determine the fraction of 4SRB emis sions that are greater than 500 HP, we use the data in Table

3

- 1

, Table 3

- 2 , and Table 3

- 3 . Since the size cutoffs and emissions distributions are different for major and area sources, we denote the fraction as F sizecut,major,poll 

## and F sizecut,area,poll 

## for major and area sources, respectively. The values from the tables are as f ollows,

F sizecut,major, NOX 

## = F sizecut,major, CO 

## = F sizecut,major, VOC 

## = 0. 354 and

F sizecut, area , NOX 

## = F sizecut, area , CO 

## = F sizecut, area , VOC 

## = 0. 405



# 3.2 Two Stroke Lean Burn Engines (2SLB)

For 2SLB, the only engines that would be required to meet limits based on catalysts would be new (meaning constructed 2003 and later) non

- emergency >500 HP at major sources. As a result, we will not apply any reductions to 2SLB in the 2005 NEI.



# 3.3 Four Stroke Lean Burn Engines (4SLB)

These engines will require an oxidation catalyst, which in addition to reducing HAP, reduces CO

and VOC. Per information emailed by Melanie King (7/7/2010): For 4SLB, R CO = 

## 94%; and

R VOC = 

## 71%

To apportion emissions of “SI,generic” SCCs to 4SLB , we use the total CO emissions from all

SI RICE and 4SLB in Table 3

- 1 . The proportion of CO from 4SLB from major source SI engines is computed as 33,944 / 192,062 = 18 % and the proportion of CO from 4S L B from area source SI engines is computed as 87,132 / 515,803 = 17 %. Since these values are close, we chose 17%. ( F 4SL B, CO 

## = 0. 17

. ) Using Table 3

- 2

, F 4SL B, VOC 

## = 0. 61 (roughly the same fraction for both major and area sources). The F 4SL B, CO 

## value also applies to oil&gas SCCs. F 4SL B, VOC 

## from oil&gas SCCs =0.

We also need to determine F 4SL B, CO 

## and F 4SL B, VOC 

## for SCCs with categories of “Boiler+engine” and “RICE+turbine”. We can use the same approach as for 4SRB. In this case, for “Boiler+engine” SCCs, F 4SL B, CO 

## = 0.54x 0.17 = 0.10 and F 4SL B, VOC 

## = 0.70 x 0.61 = 0.43.

For “RICE+turbine” SCCs: F 4SL B, CO 

## = 0.79 x.0.17 = 0.13 and F 4SL B, VOC 

## = 0.89 x0.61 = 0.54.

The August 20, 2010 rule requires existing non

- emergency engines 100

- 500 HP at major sources and existing non

- emergency engines >500 HP at area sources to meet limits based on

oxidati on catalyst. Engines greater than 500 HP at major sources were regulated under the 2004 rule and we didn't put any emission limits on them, and therefore would not need an oxidation catalyst.

To determine the fraction of 4SLB emissions that in those HP ranges, we use the data in Table

3

- 1

, Table 3

- 2 , and Table 3

- 3 . Since these fractions are different for major and area sources, we

## F

- 15

denote the fraction as F sizecut,major,poll 

## and F sizecut,area,poll 

## for major and area sources, respectively. The values from the tables are as follows,

F sizecut,major , CO 

## = F sizecut, major, VOC 

## = 0.41 and F sizecut

, area , CO 

## = F sizecut

, area , VOC 

## = 0. 40



# 4 Compression Ignition (CI) Engines

Compression ignition engines are not distinguished further (by burn type) as a re Spark Ignition. However, the amount of emissions from emergency engines, for which existing engines would not be required to apply oxidation catalyst, is significant relative to non

- emergency engines.

Therefore the fraction of emissions from non

- emerge ncy engines will be applied to all SCCs

identified as CI in Table 2

- 1 in addition to the fraction that will be subject to oxidation catalyst

based on the size. S ince the regulation that promulgated in March would require non

- emergency existing CI engines >300 HP that are located at both major and area sources of HAP to install oxidation catalyst. Since major and area sources have the same requirements, we can use data on the proportion of emissions of the total CI population, presented in Table 4

- 1

. The data are from the rule analyses and were provided by Melanie King, EPA, Secto r Policies and Programs

Division.

Table 4

- 1

. Distribution of CO, PM and VOC emissions from Compression Ignition Engines by Engine and HP type for major and area sources

Per the rule, there would be 70% r eduction of HAP, CO, and VOC and 30% reduction of PM from the catalyst. We also assume that the control achieves the same reduction from PM2.5 as

PM. There are no NOX reductions. Therefore, For CI, R CO = 

## 70%; R VOC = 

## 70% and R PM2.5 = 

## 30%.

## F

- 16

The fraction of emissions for CO and VOC that are both non

- emergency and greater than 300HP are computed from the above Table 4

- 1

F nonE, sizecut,major, CO 

## = 0.14. F
non E, sizecut, major,VOC 

## = F nonE, sizecut,major, PM2.5 

## =0.32

F nonE, sizecut, area , CO 

## = 0.40 F nonE, sizecut, area , VOC 

## = F nonE, sizecut, area , PM2.5 

## = 0. 65

We also need to apportion the fraction of emissions from SCCs with categories of “Boiler+engine” and “RICE+turbine” that are attributed to CI engines. We can use a similar approach as for 4SRB and 4SLB. In this case, we only need to break out CI RICE ( and not a type of CI) so we only need the fraction of “Boiler+engine” emissions that are CI RICE. Using 2005 Platform emissions from diesel SCCs for boilers, RICE and turbine engines, we compute the following fractions to apportion “Boiler+engine” SCCs t o CI RICE:, F CI

, CO 

## = 0.61 and

F CI

, VOC 

## = 0.84 and F CI

, PM2.5 

## = 0.50

For “RICE+turbine” SCCs: F CI

, CO 

## = 0.83 and F CI

, VOC 

## = 0.92 and F CI

, PM2.5 

## = 0.78



# 5 A pproach F or Addressing A lready

- C ontrolled S ources

Although we know that a certain percentage of engines are already controlled (they set the basis of the MACT floor), we will use the existing control information in the inventory (and the capability for the software applying the controls to not apply additional controls to already

controlled source s) rather than account for already

- controlled sources by pro

- rating the percent reduction we apply to all sources. While this approach will overestimate reductions for already

controlled sources that are missing the control information in the inventory, it will be less of an impact than the pro

- rating approach which would underestimate the reductions for the

uncontrolled sources.



# 6 Percent Reduction Calculations to be applied to NEI That
Account for all Three RICE rules

The next sections provide the cal culations and data to determine the percent reductions to apply to the 2005 v4.1 modeling platform for projecting these emissions to2014 and beyond. By 2014 all three of the RICE rules’ compliance dates have passed



# 6.1 SI Engines

Table 6

- 1 shows the reduction to be applied to the SI engine SCCs identified in Table 2

- 1 based on the parameters computed from the baseline emissions in Table 3

- 1

, Table 3

- 2 and Table 3

- 3 and discussed in Section 3. The formula for the percent reduction is provided in the first row:

Table 6

- 1

. Formula fo r det ermining the percent reduction to apply to SI SCCs for Projection Years of 2014 and Beyond

PERCENT REDUCTION SI,poll 

### = PERCENT REDUCTION 4SRB,poll + 

### PERCENT REDUCTION 4SLB,poll

## F

- 17

Where:

PERCENT REDUCTION 4SRB,poll 

### = R poll 

### x F 4SRB 

### x F sizecut,major,poll 

### x F major ,poll 

### + R poll 

### x F 4SRB 

### x F

s izecut,area,poll 

### x F

area ,poll 

### PERCENT REDUCTION 4SLB,poll 

### = R poll 

### x F 4S L B 

### x F sizecut,major,poll 

### x F major ,poll 

### + R poll 

### x F 4S L B 

### x F sizecut,area,poll 

### x F

area ,poll 

### Note that R poll 

### F major 

### F

area 

### F sizecut,major,poll 

### F sizecut,area,poll 

### are all dependent upon the engine (4SRB versus
4SLB) . Values for these and the other parameters are provided below.

Parameter Description Value and How Determined, 4SRB Value and How Determined, 4SLB

R poll T he estimated reduction of

pollutant “poll” (e.g., NOX, VOC, CO) resulting from application of the

control device needed to

meet the standard NSCR: Use same values used in rule. NOX reduction, R NOX is 97% CO reduction, R CO is 49% VOC reduction, R VOC is 76% Oxidation Catalyst: Use same

reductions values used in rule. CO reduction, R CO is 94% VOC reduction, R VOC is 71%

F major ,poll the fraction of emissions

from SI engines that attributable to major

sources As discussed in Section 3, we used Tables

3

- 1 to 3

- 3 to compute the fra ction and used the same for all pollutants and all SI engine types

F major

, NOX =, F major

, CO =, F major

, VOC = 0.27 As discussed in Section 3, we used

Tables 3

- 1 to 3

- 3 to compute the

fraction and used the same for all pollutants and all SI engine types

F major

, CO =, F major

, VOC = 0.27

F

a rea ,poll the fraction of emissions

from rich burn engines

attributable to area sources 1

- F major 1

- F major

F sizecut,major,poll the fraction of emissions

equal or above the size

cutoff for which the

control device will be required for major sources Table 3

- 1

, Table 3

- 2 , and Table 3

- 3

. Cutoff is 500 HP Compute fraction of emissions for 4SRB engines at 5 00 and above HP to total 4SRB; major sources.

F sizecut,major,NOX = F sizecut,major,CO = F sizecut,major,VOC = 0.35 4 Table 3

- 1

, Table 3

- 2 , and Table 3

- 3

. Assume 100

- 500 HP. Compute fraction of emissions for 4SLB engines between 100 and 500HP to total 4SLB; major

sources. F sizecut,major ,CO = F sizecut,major VOC = 0.41

F sizecut,area,poll the fraction of emissions

equal or above the size

cutoff for which SNCR will be required for area

sources Table 3

- 1

, Table 3

- 2 , and Table 3

- 3

. Assume 300 HP (final rule Aug 2010). Compute fraction of emissions for 4SRB engines at 300 and above HP to total 4SRB; area sources.

F sizecut,area,NOX = F sizecut,area,CO = F sizecut,area,VOC =0 .405 Table 3

- 1

, Table 3

- 2 , and Table 3

- 3

.. Assume 500 HP. Compute fraction of emissions for 4SLB engines at 500 and above HP to total 4SLB; area sources.

F sizecut,area,CO = F sizecut,area,VOC = 0.40

F 4SRB, poll F 4S L B, poll Fraction of emissions

w ithin the SCC that are

rich burn and 4 stroke lean burn, respectively Use 100% for 4SRB SCCs.

For “ SI, generic” SCCs, use Table 3

- 1

, Table 3

- 2 , and Table 3

- 3 . Percent of

emissions of 4SRB out of all SI.

F 4SRB, NOX = .33, F 4SRB, CO = .7 0

F 4SRB, VOC = . 216 Note that same values apply to “oil&gas” SCCs except F 4SRB, VOC = 0

For “Boiler+engine” SCCs” :

F 4SRB, NOX = . 21

, F 4SRB, CO = . 38

F 4SRB, VOC = . 151

For ““RICE+turbine” SCCs:

F 4SRB, NOX = . 26

, F 4SRB, CO = . 55

F 4SRB, VOC = . 192 Use 100% for 4SLB SCCs . For “ SI, generic” SCCs, use Table 3

- 1

, Table

3

- 2 , and Table 3

- 3 . Percent of emissions

of 4SLB out of all SI.

F 4S L B, CO = .17

, F 4S L B, VOC = .59 Note that same values apply to “oil&gas” SCCs except for VOC.

For “Boiler+engine” SCCs” :

F 4SL B, CO = .10, F 4SL B, VOC = . 41

For ““RICE+turbine” SCCs:

F 4SL B, CO = . 13, F 4SL B, VOC = . 52

## F

- 18



# 6.2 CI Engines

Table 6

- 1 shows the reduction to be applied to the CI engine SCCs identified in Error!

Reference source not f

ound. based on the parameters computed from the baseline emissions in

Table 4

- 1

.

Table 6

- 2

. Formula for determining the percent reduction to apply to Compression Ignition (CI)

SCCs for Projection Years of 2014 and later

PERCENT REDUCTION CI,poll 

### = R poll 

### x F CI, POLL 

### x F nonE,sizecut,major 

### x F major 

### +

R poll 

### x F CI, POLL 

### x F nonE,sizecut,area 

### x F

area

Parameter Description Value and How Determined, CI

R poll the estimated reduction of pollutant “poll”

(e.g., NOX, VOC, CO) resulting from application of the control device needed to

meet the standard Oxidation Catalyst: Use same values used in rule. (specific to CI) CO reduction, R CO is 70% VOC reduction, R VOC is 70% PM2.5 reduction, R PM2.5 is 30%



### F CI

, POLL The fraction of emissions that are CI RICE.

This value is 1 except for CI engines that are in “Boiler+Engine” or “turbine+RICE”

Use 2005 Platform emissions of RICE, non

RICE engines and boilers to compute

fractions Value is 1 except for CI engines that are characterized in “Boiler+Engine” or “turbine+RICE”

For “Boiler+Engine” SCCs, F CI, CO = 0.61 and F CI, VOC = 0.84

and F CI, PM2.5 = 0.50

For “RICE+turbine” SCCs: F CI, CO = 0.83 and F CI, VOC = 0.92

and F CI, PM2.5 = 0.78

F major the fraction of emissions from CI engines

attributable to major sources Based on an analysis of the 2005 NEI using the “SRCTYPE” field (01 are the major, 02 are area ). Since so much unknown, renormalize

F major

, CO =0.42, F major

, VOC = 0.38, F major

, PM2.5 = 0.44

That fraction will be used f or all pollutants.

F

a rea the fraction of emissions from CI engines

attributable to area sources 1

- F major

F nonE,sizecut,major ,poll The fraction of emissions from major sources

from the CI SCCs that will require oxidation catalyst to meet the standard because they are

non

- Emergency and meet the size cutoff. Table 4

- 1 . The fraction of emissions of non

- emergency engines from major sources equal or above 300 HP

F nonE,sizecut,major,CO = 0.14.

F nonE,sizecut,major,VOC = F nonE,sizecut,major,PM2.5 =0.32

F nonE, sizecut,area,poll The fraction of emissions from area sources

from the CI SCCs that will require oxidation catalyst to meet the standard because they are

non

- Emergency and meet the size cutoff. Table 4

- 1 . The fraction of emissions of non

- emergency engines from major sources equal or above 300 HP

F nonE,sizecut, area ,CO = 0.40.

F nonE,sizecut, area ,VOC = F nonE,sizecut, area ,PM2.5 =0.65

## F

- 19



# 7 Percent Reduction Calculations to be applied to NEI accounting for only the 2004 RICE rule

This section presents the formula and values to use when projecting emissions to 2012; in this situation, only the SI 4SRB engines greater than 500 HP at major sour ces are reduced because the compliance date for the rule that affects these engines in June 2007 which is prior to 2012. The other engines’ reductions are not anticipated until the compliance dates (2013) of the most

recent rules. Because these dates ar e after 2012, they are not incorporated into the emission projection for 2012.



# 7.1 SI Engines

Table 7

- 1 shows the reduction to be applied to the SI engine SCCs identified in Table 2

- 1 based on the parameters computed from the baseline emissions in Table 3

- 1

, Table 3

- 2 and Table 3

- 3 and discussed in Section 3. The formula for the percent reduction is provided in the first row:

Table 7

- 1

. Formula for det ermining the percent reduction to apply to SI SCCs for the 2012 projection

PERCENT REDUCTION SI,poll 

### = PERCENT REDUCTION 4SRB,poll 

### PERCENT REDUCTION 4SRB,poll 

### = R poll 

### x F 4SRB 

### x F sizecut,major,poll 

### x F major ,poll

Parameter Description Value and How Determined, 4SRB

R poll T he estimated reduction of pollutant “poll”

(e.g., NOX, VOC, CO) resulting from application of the control device needed to

meet the standard NSCR: Use same values used in rule. NOX reduction, R NOX is 97% CO reduction, R CO is 49% VOC reduction, R VOC is 76%

F major ,poll the fraction of emissions from SI engines

that attributable to major sources Based on an analysis of the 2005 NEI using the “SRCTYPE” field (01 are the major, 02 are area )

F major

, NOX = 0.77, F major

, CO =0.81, F major

, VOC = 0.75

F sizecut,major,poll the fraction of emissions equal or above the

size cutoff for which the control device will be required for major sources Table 3

- 1

, Table 3

- 2 , and Table 3

- 3

. Assume 300 HP (final rule Aug 2010). Compute fraction of emissions for 4SRB engines at 300 and above HP to total 4SRB; major sources.

F sizecut,major,NOX = F sizecut,major,CO = F sizecut,major,VOC = 0.445

F sizecut,area,poll the fraction of emissions equal or above the

size cutoff for which SNCR will be required

for area sources Table 3

- 1

, Table 3

- 2 , and Table 3

- 3

. Assume 300 HP (final rule Aug 2010). Compute fraction of emissions for 4SRB engines at

300 and above HP to total 4SRB; area sources.

F sizecut,area,NOX = F sizecut,area,CO = F sizecut,area,VOC =0.4 0 5 \

F 4SRB, poll F 4S L B, poll Fraction of emissions w ithin the SCC that

are rich burn and 4 stroke lean burn, respectively Use 100% for 4SRB SCCs.

For “ SI, generic” SCCs, use Table 3

- 1

, Table 3

- 2 , and Table 3

- 3

. Percent of emissions of 4SRB out of all SI.

F 4SRB, NOX = .33, F 4SRB, CO = .7

F 4SRB, VOC = .37 Note that same values apply to “oil&gas” SCCs except F 4SRB,

VOC = 0

For “Boiler+engine” SCCs” :

## F

- 20 F 4SRB, NOX = . 21

, F 4SRB, CO = . 38

F 4SRB, VOC = . 26

For ““RICE+turbine” SCCs:

F 4SRB, NOX = . 26

, F 4SRB, CO = . 55

F 4SRB, VOC = .3 4



# 7.2 CI Engines

For a 2012 projection there are no reductions to apply to existing CI engines since they are impacted only by the 2010 NESHAP.



# 8 Results

A summary of the percent reductions by Engine Type and Reduction Category for the SCCs

shown in Table 2

- 1 resulting from the implementation of the RICE rule as amended in August 2010 is presented in Table 8

- 1 . A summary associated with just the 2004 RICE rule (which is applicable to a 2012 projection) is shown in Table 8

- 2

.

## F

- 21

Table 8

- 1

. Summary of Percent Reductions and Emissions reduced from the 2005 Platform resulting from all 3 RICE rules (Future

years 2014 and later)

engine type
reduction

category NOX

reductio

n CO

reducti

on VOC

reductio

n PM2.5

Reduct

ion NOX

2005cr
emis (tons) NOX_re

duction s (tons) CO

2005cr
emis (tons) CO_reduction

s (tons) VOC

2005cr
emis (tons) VOC_reduct

ions (tons) PM2.5

2005 cr emis (tons) PM25_reducti

ons (tons)

CI Boiler+engine 0.0% 12.4% 30.8% 7.6% 133,629

- 31,746 3,942 4,579 1,412 12,971 982

CI 0.0% 20.4% 36.7% 15.1% 38,941

- 9,903 2,016 2,945 1,081 1,974 299

RICE+turbine 0.0% 16.9% 33.8% 11.8% 13,545

- 5,689 961 1,270 429 806 95

oil&gas 12.5% 19.9% 0.0% 0.0% 306,278 38,367 258,838 51,400 336,442

- 3,046 0

SI 2SLB 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 154,448

- 27,391

- 9,159

- 2,238 0

4SLB 0.0% 37.9% 28.6% 0.0% 49,651

- 22,211 8,408 5,698 1,629 414 0

4SRB 38.0% 19.2% 29.7% 0.0% 68,589 26,036 71,588 13,727 6,451 1,919 665 0

Boiler+engine 8.0% 11.1% 16.7% 0.0% 293,674 23,410 200,185 22,165 16,835 2,812 1,882 0

RICE+turbine 9.9% 15.5% 21.2% 0.0% 20,934 2,066 7,138 1,104 1,595 339 157 0
SI, generic 12.5% 19.9% 23.9% 0.0% 320,904 40,199 127,344 25,288 27,286 6,512 2,921 0

Grand

Total 1,400,593 130,078 762,033 129,011 412,260 16,134 27,074 1,376



## Table 8

- 2

. Summary of Percent Reductions and Emissions reduced from the 2005 Platform resulting from the 2004 RICE NESHAP

engine type reduction

category NOX

reduction CO reduction VOC

reduction NOX

2005cr
emis (tons) NOX_

reductions (tons) CO

2005cr emis (tons) CO_reductions

(tons) VOC

2005cr emis (tons) VOC_

reductions (tons)

CI Boiler+engine 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 133,629 0 31,746 0 4,579 0

CI 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 38,941 0 9,903 0 2,945 0

RICE+turbine 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13,545 0 5,689 0 1,270 0

oil&gas 3.1% 3.3% 0.0% 306,278 9,381 258,838 8,495 336,442 0

SI 2SLB 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 154,448 0 27,391 0 9,159 0

4SLB 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 49,651 0 22,211 0 5,698 0

4SRB 9.3% 4.7% 7.3% 68,589 6,366 71,588 3,357 6,451 469

Boiler+engine 1.9% 1.8% 1.1% 293,674 5,724 200,185 3,567 16,835 185

RICE+turbine 2.4% 2.6% 1.4% 20,934 505 7,138 184 1,595 22
SI, generic 3.1% 3.3% 1.6% 320,904 9,829 127,344 4,180 27,286 429

Grand

Total 1,400,593 31,806 762,033 19,782 412,260 1,105

## F

- 22



# 9 SO2 reductions resulting from the Ultra

- low Sulfur Diesel Requirement for CI engines

This section discusses an approach to project the impact of the Ultra

- low Sulfur diesel requirement for CI engines greater than 300 HP that was part of the requirements published

3/30/2010. These reductions were not accounted for in the rule due to the expectation that engine owners/operators would make the switch anyway because ULSD is what would primarily

be available. On page 9669 of Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4:

We have not quantified the SO X reductions that woul d occur as a result of engines switching to ULSD because we are unable to

estimate the number of engines that already use ULSD and therefore we are unable to estimate the percentage of engines that may switch to ULSD due to this rule. If none of the affect ed engines would use ULSD without this rule, then we estimate the

SO X reductions are 31,000 tpy in the year 2013. If all of the affected engine would use ULSD regardless of the rule then the

additional SO X reduction would be zero.



## We are aware 2 

## of several state rules on the books or in the proposal stage that will limit the sulfur content of home heating oil. However, some do not go into effect until after the RICE ULSD limits. Because of this timing and because we have received comments on the need to account for SO2 reductions resulting from the RICE ULSD limits (MOG), we have chosen, in addition to applying applicable state rule fuel sulfur limits, to estimate the reduction due to RICE and apply the reduction in the future year projection. T he RICE limits apply to CI greater than 300 HP.

Based on a summary of Baseline SO2 Emissions by Engine Size for the RICE NESHAP provided by the project lead, Melanie King 3 

## , it was determined that approximately 50% of SO2 emissions are from engines great er than 300 HP.

We assume that CI use high sulfur fuel (3000 ppm) in 2005 and switch to ULSD by the compliance date for this RICE requirement (May 2013). In that we don’t have the distribution of SO2 emissions from the various size engines as we do othe r pollutants (see Table 4

- 1 ), we assumed 50% of the SO2 comes from 300 HP and larger engines. Note that for other pollutants

the fraction of emissions with size cutof f greater or equal to 300 HP ranges from 14% (F nonE,sizecut, major, co 

## ) to 65% (F nonE,sizecut, major, PM2.5 

## )

A switch from a 3000 ppm sulfur content (home heating oil average) to 15 ppm would result in a 99.5% SO2 reduction. We apply this to all diesel RICE and the portion of SO2 emission from

RICE

- related SCCs that are estimated to be RICE. Using the 2005 point source inventory for industrial, commercial and institutional diesel boilers and internal combustion engines (turbines plus RICE) we computed t hat 81% of the SO2 emissions from internal combustion engines are from RICE and 12% of the SO2 emissions from engines+boilers are from RICE. For Oil and gas production, there is only one SCC with significant SO2 emissions: SCC= 2310000220 ( Industrial

2 

### Email from Jeff Hertzog, OTAQ, USEPA Nov 22, 2010

3 

### Email from Melanie King, OAQPS, USEPA, Nov 23, 2010 (filename: Existing CI RICE NESHAP Impacts 2

- 16

- 10 FINAL 3000 ppm sulfur estimate.xlsx )

## F

- 23

Proc esses;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13; Drill rigs ). Since we have no information to

determine the amount of SO2 from RICE versus other SO2

- emitting processes associated with drill rigs, we assume that all of the SO2 is associated with RICE and that 50% of the emissions are associated with RICE greater than 300 HP. Therefore, the reductions we apply are the following:

CI SCCs: 50%*99.5%=49.75% CI Boiler+Engine SCCs: 50%*99.5%*12%= 5.97%

CI RICE + turbine SCCs: 50%*99.5%*81%= 40.30%
Oil and Gas, SCC= 23100 00220 (drill rigs): 50%*99.5%=49.75%

## F

- 24

Table 9

- 1

. SO2 emissions and reductions resulting from ultra low sulfur fuel requirement (compliance date May 2013) for CI engines greater or equal to 300 HP in the RICE NESHAP ( 75 FR 9648, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rice/ricepg.html ). % reductions Based on: 1) 

### A switch from a 3000 ppm sulfur content (home heating oil average) to 15 ppm would result in a 99.5% SO2 reduction and 2) 50% o f SO2 from RICE are fr om engines greater than 300HP, and 3) Percent of RICE from SCCs that include RICE and/or boilers and other engines as a combine d SCC was estimated based on analysis of detailed RICE, engine and boiler SCCs in 2005 platform.

scc scc_desc 2005 SO2 (tons) type percent
reduction SO2

reduce

d (tons)

2101004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Electric Utility;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC

Engines 358.6 boilers+engines 5.97% 21

2101004002 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Electric Utility;Distillate Oil;All IC Engine Types 84.4 engines 40.30% 34

2102004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC

Engines 125250.5 boilers+engines 5.97% 7,477

2103004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers

and IC Engines 1148 18 .1 boilers+engines 5.97% 6,85 5

2199004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Total Area Source Fuel Combustion;Distillate

Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines 215.8 boilers+engines 5.97% 13

2199004002 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Total Area Source Fuel Combustion;Distillate

Oil;All IC Engine Types 17691.0 engines 40.30% 7,129

2310000000 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13;All Processes;Total: All Processes 0.0 oil and gas

-

2310000220 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13; Drill rigs 8749.8 oil and gas 49.75% 4,353

2310000440 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13; Saltwater disposal engines 0.0 oil and gas 49.75% 0

2310001000 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13;All Processes : On

- shore;Total: All

Processes 0.0 oil and gas

-

2310002000 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13;All Processes : Off

- shore;Total: All

Processes 0.0 oil and gas

- 20100102 Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating 267.6 rice 49.75% 133

20100105 Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating:

Crankcase Blowby 7.0 rice 49.75% 3

20100107 Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating:

Exhaust 9.8 rice 49.75% 5

20200102 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating 807.7 rice 49.75% 402

20200104 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating:

Cogeneration 18.5 rice 49.75% 9

20200107 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust 14.6 rice 49.75% 7

20300101 Internal Combustion Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil

(Diesel);Reciprocating 934.7 rice 49.75% 465

20300105 Internal Combustion Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil

(Diesel);Reciprocating: Crankcase Blowby 0.0 rice 49.75% 0

20300106 Internal Combustion Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil 1.0 rice 49.75%

## F

- 25 (Diesel);Reciprocating: Evaporative Losses (Fuel Storage and Delivery System) 0

20300107 Internal Combustion Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil

(Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust 0.1 rice 49.75% 0

20400402 Internal Combustion Engines;Engine Testing;Reciprocating Engine;Diesel/Kerosene 315.5 rice 49.75% 157

20400403 Internal Combustion Engines;Engine Testing;Reciprocating Engine;Distillate Oil 0.1 rice 49.75% 0

2103004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers

and IC Engines 18.0 boilers+engines 5.97% 1

Total SO2 reduced = 27,06 6 tons

## G

- 1 Appendix G Mercury Speciation Fractions Used to Speciate the Future Year EGU Mercury

Emissions

Category Particulate Divalent

Gaseous Elemental
Bituminous Coal and Pet. Coke, PC Boiler with ESP

- CS 0.0117 0.4656 0.5227
Bituminous Coal, Coal Gasification 0.0051 0.0847 0.9102 Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with Dry Sorbent Injection

and ESP

- CS 0.0016 0.6710 0.3274
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with ESP

- CS 0.0611 0.6820 0.2570

Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with ESP

- CS and Wet FGD 0.0022 0.0778 0.9200
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with ESP

- HS 0.0490 0.5784 0.3726
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with ESP

- HS and Wet FGD 0.0063 0.2068 0.7870 Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with FF Baghouse 0.0398 0.6258 0.3344 Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with FF Baghouse and Wet

FGD 0.0648 0.3300 0.6052
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with PM Scrubber 0.0180 0.1951 0.7869
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with SCR and SDA/FF Baghouse 0.0506 0.4604 0.4890
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with SDA/FF Baghouse 0.0917 0.2886 0.6197
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with SNCR and ESP

- CS 0.2032 0.2712 0.5256 Bituminous Coal, Stoker Boiler with SDA/FF Baghouse 0.1996 0.1794 0.6211 Bituminous Coal/Pet. Coke, Cyclone with ESP

- CS and

Wet FGD 0.0007 0.1130 0.8863 Bituminous Coal/Pet. Coke, PC Boiler with FF Baghouse 0.0220 0.7841 0.1939
Bituminous Coal/Pet.Coke, Fludized Bed Combustor with SNCR and FF Baghouse 0.4244 0.2787 0.2970
Bituminous Waste, Fludized Bed Combustor with FF Baghouse 0.0212 0.3881 0.5907 Lignite Coal, Cyclone Boiler with ESP

- CS 0.0004 0.1699 0.8297 Lignite Coal, Cyclone Boiler with SDA/FF Baghouse 0.0995 0.1707 0.7298 Lignite Coal, Fludized Bed Combustor with ESP

- CS 0.0137 0.1164 0.8700 Lignite Coal, Fludized Bed Combustor with FF Baghouse 0.0042 0.7118 0.2840 Lignite Coal, PC Boiler with ESP

- CS 0.0009 0.0362 0.9629 Lignite Coal, PC Boiler with ESP

- CS and FF Baghouse 0.0019 0.6449 0.3532 Lignite Coal, PC Boiler with ESP

- CS and Wet FGD 0.0082 0.1345 0.8574 Lignite Coal, PC Boiler with PM Scrubber 0.0016 0.0298 0.9686 Lignite Coal, PC Boiler with SDA/FF Baghouse 0.0036 0.1262 0.8702
Subbituminous Coal, Fludized Bed Combustor with SNCR and FF Baghouse 0.0027 0.0342 0.9632

## G

- 2

Category Particulate Divalent

Gaseous Elemental
Subbituminous Coal, PC Boiler with ESP

- CS 0.0016 0.3083 0.6901
Subbituminous Coal, PC Boiler with ESP

- CS and Wet

FGD 0.0043 0.0294 0.9663
Subbituminous Coal, PC Boiler with ESP

- HS 0.0006 0.1252 0.8741
Subbituminous Coal, PC Boiler with ESP

- HS and Wet

FGD 0.0117 0.0446 0.9437 Subbituminous Coal, PC Boiler with FF Baghouse 0.0149 0.8283 0.1568
Subbituminous Coal, PC Boiler with PM Scrubber 0.0145 0.0511 0.9344
Subbituminous Coal, PC Boiler with SDA/ESP 0.0032 0.0382 0.9586 Subbituminous Coal, PC Boiler with SDA/FF Baghouse 0.0099 0.0435 0.9467 Subbituminous Coal/Pet. Coke, Cyclone Boiler with ESP

HS 0.0093 0.0752 0.9155

## H

- 1 

# Appendix H
Details Regarding the PM2.5 Natural Gas Emission Factor error in IPM Post Processing

The error came about by attempting to improve estimates of natural gas emissions based on studies using a new PM test method that directly measures primary PM. Unfortunately, an incorrect value was taken from the study. It should be noted that it was als o discovered that the correction factor from those studies, while intended to be used in the 2005 year, was actually not used. Another error was the value for the Gassified Coal turbines, which was intended to be updated to use newer data (unrelated to th e natural gas combustion study) but was updated with the wrong value.

The Incorrect Emission factors and the SCCs it affected are listed here. The middle two

columns are the emission factors that are consistent with the emission factors that were used

for the base year (2005 inventory), as documented in ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2002finalnei/documentation/point/egu2002doc.pdf . The

last two columns are the emission factors that would incorporate the improved estimates discussed above, and correctly use the newer data on Gasified Coal /Turbine s.

SCC Description ERRONE

OUS PM 10 

### Primary

EF Used in

IPM Post Processing

lb/MMBtu ERRONEO

US PM 2.5 

### Primary EF

Used in

IPM Post Processing

lb/MMBtu PM10

primary

EF

consiste

nt with

2005

lb/MMB

tu1 PM25 primary

EF

consiste

nt with

2005

lb/MMB

tu Corrected

PM10 Primary EF

lb/MMBtu (using 1000 btu/scf) Correct e

d PM25 Primary

EF

lb/MMB tu (using

1000 btu/scf)

10100601 Ext Comb

/Electric Gen

/Natural Gas

/Boilers : 100

Million Btu/hr

except Tangential 0.068 0.057 7.51E

- 03 7.51E

- 03 5.20E

- 04 4.30E

- 04

10100604 Ext Comb

/Electric Gen

/Natural Gas

/Boilers < 100

Million Btu/hr

except Tangential 0.068 0.057 7.51E

- 03 7.51E

- 03 5.20E

- 04 4.30E

- 04

10100701 Ext Comb

/Electric Gen

/Process Gas

/Boilers : 100

Million Btu/hr 0.06 0.058 5.74E

- 03 5.74E

- 03 5.20E

- 04 4.30E

- 04

## H

- 2 SCC Description ERRONE

OUS PM 10 

### Primary

EF Used in

IPM Post Processing

lb/MMBtu ERRONEO

US PM 2.5 

### Primary EF

Used in

IPM Post Processing

lb/MMBtu PM10

primary

EF

consiste

nt with

2005

lb/MMB

tu1 PM25 primary

EF

consiste

nt with

2005

lb/MMB

tu Corrected

PM10 Primary EF

lb/MMBtu (using 1000 btu/scf) Correct e

d PM25 Primary

EF

lb/MMB tu (using

1000 btu/scf)

20100201 Int Comb

/Electric Gen

/Natural Gas

/Turbine 0.046 0.028 6.55E

- 03 6.55E

- 03 3.10E

- 04 1.90E

- 04

20100301 b 

### Int Comb

/Electric Gen

/Gasified Coal

/Turbine 0.11 0.11 1.57E

- 02 1.57E

- 02 1.10E

- 02 1.10E

- 02

a. . note that it was determined that the 2005 PM emissions used in the 2005v4 andv4.1 platforms were

not corrected to use updated information posted at
ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2002finalnei/documentation/point/pm_adjustment_2002_nei.pdf.

The updates were based on testing using a dilution method that is similar to conditional test method
(CTM) 39 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/ctm.html) that measures PM10

- PRI and PM2.5

- PRI directly.

The data come from limited testing sponsored by the New York State Energy Research and

Development Authority (NYSERDA). See
ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2002finalnei/documentation/point/pm_adjustment_2002_nei.pdf for

more documentation and see
ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2002finalnei/documentation/point/augmentation_point/ratios_to_adj

ust_pmvalues_in_nei_for_naturalgas_combustion082005.xls for the SCCs impacted by the adjustment.

The updated factors have been reco mmended by Ron Myers but have not been put into AP

- 42 (for

natural gas, it was last updated in 1998)

b. The corrected value comes from : The EPA Tutorial provided by Gary J. Stiegel, Gasification

Technologies Product Manager National Energy Technology Laboratory Nov 5, 2001 (power point
presentation), reports 0.002 lbs of PM10/MMBtu for a state

- of

- the

- art IGCC unit; for Polk Power
(ORISPL=7242, BLRID=1), they report <0.015 lbs of PM10/MMBtu; for Wabash River, they report <0.012

lbs of PM10/MMBtu; and G eorge Lynch has suggested 0.011 lbs of PM102.MMBtu. It was also

recommend to Recommend to set PM2.5=PM10