EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0337

From: King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov

-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/15/2010 09:33PM -----

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Crockett, Steven" <Steven.Crockett@nrc.gov> 

Date: 02/12/2010 05:32PM 

cc: "Imboden, Andy" <Andy.Imboden@nrc.gov>, "Wolfgang, Robert" 

<Robert.Wolfgang@nrc.gov>, "Lombard, Mark" <Mark.Lombard@nrc.gov> 

Subject: RE: latest draft of RICE package 

Cortney and Melanie, 

I have a comment on the addition -- on pages 43, 167, and 169 -- to the 

language about postponement of maintenance in cases where having the diesel 

unavailable would pose an unacceptable risk. The material added in this latest 

draft would have the source report (to whom?) that maintenance had been 

postponed, and report "the federal, state or local law that *defined* the 

unacceptable risk." I would ask you instead to consider the following 

substitute for the words I just quoted: "the federal, state or local law under 

which the risk was deemed unacceptable." 

I would prefer the latter formulation because I'm not sure that our 

maintenance regulation (10 CFR 50.65) or the guidance and inspection documents 

I sent you would exactly be said to "define" unacceptable risk. The regulatory 

program is more case-specific than that. See, for example, section C on page 3 

of the first attachment, and page 2 of the 2d attachment, both of which I sent 

you on 7th. Nonetheless, the risk could rightly be said to have been deemed 

unacceptable under a regulatory program rooted in rule and implemented through 

guidance and close inspection. 

 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:29 AM 

To: Bromberg, Kevin L.; Zwicke, Greg - Portland, OR; Elizabeth Kohl; Grahame, 

Thomas; Crockett, Steven 

Cc: Lee, Amanda I.; Beck, Nancy; Schwab, Margo; Mancini, Dominic J. 

Subject: FW: latest draft of RICE package 

Hi all, 

Attached is the latest draft of the RICE preamble. The RIA will be sent 

separately. Please let me know if have any questions or comments on the 

revised draft by COB today. 

Regards, 

Cortney 

-----Original Message----- 

From: King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:23 AM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov; horowitz.michael@epamail.epa.gov; 

Talcott.Fred@epamail.epa.gov; Sorrels.Larry@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: latest draft of RICE package 

Page 1
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0337

Cortney, 

Attached is the revised preamble and regulation text and revised RIA for the 

RICE NESHAP. Also attached is the revised RIA. You will notice a few changes 

to the package. 

1) We were still referencing some recordkeeping and reporting requirements ior 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) in the Part 63 General Provisions 

that didn't make sense anymore in light of the recent Court decision on the 

SSM exemption. Therefore what we have done is instead of referencing those 

sections, we have included the appropriate text from the General Provisions 

directly in subpart ZZZZ itself, and removed the text that wasn't applicable 

anymore. You will see those changes in 63.6650(c)(4), 63.6655(a)(2), and 

Table 7. In Table 7 we have removed the requirement for an immediate SSM 

report and limited line 1.c. to malfunction only. We are not adding new 

requirements, just eliminating ones that didn't make sense to include anymore. 

 OGC also made a few edits to the SSM discussion in the preamble. 

2) OGC preferred that we not the references to subpart E into subpart ZZZZ. 

 They said that it was a freestanding subpart and there was no need to 

reference it here. We do still mention it in the preamble. 

Larry is going to send you the RIA separately. 

In response to the issues that are still outstanding with SBA, we reiterate 

that we have focused the requirements for emission controls on a the subset of 

the population of stationary CI engines that has the greatest impact on 

people. The total estimated population of existing stationary CI engines is 

936,000. The estimated number of engines that have emission standards based 

on the use of oxidation catalyst control is 44,000, which is 5 percent of the 

total population. While these engines are only 5 percent of the population, 

they emit an estimated 44 percent of the total HAP emissions from existing 

stationary CI engines. 

We cover the remaining HAP emissions through work or management practice 

standards on the remaining population of stationary CI engines (except the 

100-300 HP engines at major sources which have emission limits that are based 

on data from engines without oxidation catalyst control). 

We have made several changes since the proposed rule that further reduce the 

burden of the rule on affected sources. These changes include: 

1) The final rule has no numerical emission limits for emergency engines and 

for engines <100 HP at major sources 

2) Residential/institutional/commercial emergency engines at area sources are 

not subject to the final rule 

3) We revised the management practice frequencies and added the option to use 

an oil analysis program 

We performed economic impact analysis which showed that the rule would not 

result in significant economic impacts for a substantial number of 

small entities. There have been no facts provided by SBA to support 

the claim that there are tens of thousands of agricultural engines that will 

be heavily impacted by this rulemaking. The rule imposes management practice 

standards for engines at area sources that are less than 300 HP. The 

information that we received from comment letters indicated that engines used 

by the agricultural sector were predominately smaller than 300 HP. See for 

example the comment from the American Farm Bureau Federation (-0174) which 

states "In most instances, the engines are of the compression ignition type 

rated at 300 hp or less." The comment letter from Southern Gardens Citrus 

Holding Corporation (-0189) stated that they operate 74 stationary RICE, of 

Page 2
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0337

which one is greater than 300 HP. That means 1.4 percent of their engines are 

>300 HP. Other commenters provided similar information. 

EPA does not believe that a limited use subcategory is warranted or justified. 

 For engines smaller than 300 HP, if we created a limited use subcategory, the 

requirements would not be different than for other non-emergency engines, 

since we are already requiring the MACT floor emission limits for major 

sources and management practices for area sources of that size. For engines 

greater than 300 HP, we believe that the costs of control are acceptable given 

the reductions that would be achieved from these engines. 

We believe a broad national rule that provides equal environmental protection 

to populations in both urban and rural areas is appropriate for stationary CI 

engines. The emission controls that are the basis of the rule are equally 

available in urban and rural areas, and the cost of 

control is not significantly higher in rural areas. EPA does not have 

precise information on the location of these engines such that we could do air 

quality modeling on the emissions and impact on specific populations. 

 However, even if the engines are located in rural areas, many of them would 

be upwind of more highly populated areas. SBA has proposed that rural engines 

be excluded from retrofits if no person resides within 300 meters. We do not 

find that it is appropriate to incorporate this provision in the rule because 

we do not believe that the emissions from these engines only travel 300 meters 

or less. 

Attached is a document that discusses this issue in much more detail. 

(See attached file: OMB Draft RICE NESHAP FRM Preamble and Reg Text 2-12-

10.doc)(See attached file: OMB Draft RICE NESHAP FRM Preamble and Reg Text 2-

12-10 redline from 2-9 version.doc)(See attached file: 

Response on urban-rural issue.doc) 

Thanks, 

Melanie King 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Mail Code D243-01 

RTP, NC 27711 

Phone: (919) 541-2469 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

king.melanie@epa.gov

Page 3