United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

Air Division

Technical Support Document

for

EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

for the

California State Implementation Plan

S outh Coast Air Quality Management District’s

Rule 114 6

, Emi ssions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial

Boiler s , Steam Generators and Process Heaters

Prepared by: Idalia Perez

June 20 1 11

S outh Coast Air Quality Management District (S C A QM D)

Submitted Rule

S CAQMD Rule 1146

, Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters :

 Adopted: September 5, 2008

 Submitted: July 20 , 20 10

 Determined complete : August 25, 2010

Previous Rule Submittals

There are no outstanding submittals of Rule 1146

.

SIP

- Approved Rule

 Adopted: November 17, 200 0

 Approved by EPA : April 8, 200 2 ( 6 7 FR 16640 )

Rule Summar y Rule 1146 limits NOx and CO emissions from boilers, steam generators and process heaters with

a total rated heat i nput larger than 5 MMBtu/hour with the exception of:

- boilers used by electric utilities; and

- boilers larger than 40 MMBtu/hour used in refineries ; and

- sulfur plant reaction boilers. As per Section (j) of Rule 2001, the provisions in Rule 1146 applicable to NOx emissions do not apply to facilities subject to SCAQMD’s RECLAIM program

.

Rule Amendments Rule 1146 was amended to strengthen the NOx emission limits. Section (c)(1) has the new

“ S tandard C ompliance ” limits and schedule. Section (c)(2) contains “ E nh anced C ompliance ”

limits and schedule ; these emission limits are lower than the “ S tandard C ompliance ” limits and

the compliance deadlines are later than the “ S tandard C ompliance ” deadlines. Section (c)(7) states that certain units complying with the applic able BACT limit of 12 ppm can defer compliance with new limits until the units ’ burners are replaced.

Section (d) contains provisions related to compliance determination. L anguage was added prohibiting tuning or servicing of units before source tests, exc ept for unscheduled repair s

. Additional tests methods were added to this section. The frequency of required compliance testing was decreased in Section (d)(6) . Section (d)(8) was added to require periodic measurements of NOx and CO with portable analyzers

. Section (d)(10) indicates that emissions that are determined to be in excess of the emission limits during a source test or a portable analyzer test are not to be considered violations if they are corrected within 72 hours.

Other changes were d one to th e Rule language to improve clarity.

Effects on Emissions2

SCAQMD’s staff report estimates that the amendments to Rule 1146 will reduc e NOx emissions by approximately 1.2 tons per day beginning in 2015 (see page 3

- 1) . This reflects a 65%

reduction of NOx em issions from this source category.

Rule Evaluation Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see § 110(a) of the Clean Air Act, hereafter CAA); must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for major sources in certain

ozone nonattainment a reas (see CAA §182(b)(2) and (f) ); must not interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the Act (see CAA § 110(l)); and must modify, in a nonattainment area, any SIP

- approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990 (see § 193). Section 172(c)(1) of the Act also requires implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM) as expeditiously as practicable in nonattainment areas.

Beca use the area regulated by the SCAQMD is designated nonattainment for the fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and designated and classified as extreme nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.305), Rule 114 6 must ensure RACT. Additionally, the RACM requirement in CAA section 172(c)(1) applies to this area.

Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate enforceability , RACT and RACM requirements include the following: Issues Relating to VOC Re gulation, Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations (the "Blue Book"), US EPA, OAQPS (May 25, 1988). Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC and Other Rule Deficiencies , EPA Region IX (August 21, 2001, the “ Little Bluebook ” ). State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble;

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule, (the NOx Supplement) , 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992. Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule , 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007) Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available R etrofit Control Technology for Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters , CARB (July 18, 1991)

. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ractbarc/boilers.pdf

Alternativ e Control Techniques Document

-- NOx Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers

, US EPA 45 3 /R

- 9 4

- 0 22 (March 1994). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/icboiler.pdf

Alternative Control Techniques Document

-- NOx Emissions from Utility Boilers , US

EPA 452/R

- 93

- 008 (March 1994). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/utboiler.pdf
Credible Evidence Revisions; Final Rule , 62 FR 8 314 (February 24, 1997). Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency ; Me morandum from J. Craig Potter, Thomas L. Adams Jr., Francis S. Blake (September 23, 1987). http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/review

- enf

- rpt.pdf3

State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup and Shut down from Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator

fo r Air and Radiation, September 20 , 1999.

Discussion of RACT and RACM Criteria Submitted Rule 1146 is only applic able to sources that are not subject to RECLAIM, as per Table 1 in SCAQMD Rule 2001, which cover all major NOx sources. Thus, Rule 1146 is not required to fulfill RACT requirements. Even if RACT were required, we believe SCAQMD Rule 1146 likely implements RACT for NOx emissions for reasons including:

- Rule 1146 meets or exceed s requirements in analogous NSPS (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts D, Db, Dc) ;

- Emission limits in Rule 1146 are comparable to emission limits in Sacramento Metro

A ir Q uality Management D istric t ( SMAQMD ) Rule 411 and in S an J oaquin V alley

Unified A ir P ollution C ontrol D istrict (SJVUAPCD) Rule 4306

, the other large

California ozone nonattainment agencies . These generally have among the most stringent stationary source requirements nationwide, and we are not aware of other reasonably available technological or operational controls likely to significantly reduce additional emissions from this activity.

- Both 19 9 4 ACT documents mentioned above p rovide technical information including control techniques and achievable controlled NOx emission levels from boilers

. Rule

11 4 6 requirements are comparable to the AC T.

- The submitted rule is as stringent as CARB’s RACT/BARCT guidance.

Since no CTG has been issued recently for this activity, we do not have clea r national guidance defining presumptive RACT. However, we believe the analysis summarized above sufficiently

demonstrates that Rule 11 4 6 implements RACT.

CAA §172(c)(1) requires implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM)

for Oz one and PM 2.5 as expeditiously as practicable in SCAQMD . Because boilers emit NOx

, S C A QM D must implement RACM for these activities if they will advance attainment of the

PM 2.5 or Ozone NAAQS when considered collectively with other measures. Therefore,

addi tional control measures may be required pursuant to CAA §172(c)(1) if both: (1) additional measures are reasonably available; and (2) additional reasonably available measures (considered collectively with other measures) will advance attainment in the area

. As described above, we believe that the NOx emission limits in the submitted rule implement RACT for NOx. We

believe that this demonstration is sufficient to determine that the rule requires all measures that are “reasonably available” within the meaning of RACM under CAA § 172(c)(1). In separate rulemakings, EPA will take action on the State’s RACM demonstration for PM 2.5 and Ozone based on an evaluation of the control measures submitted as a whole and their overall potential to advance the applicable a ttainment dates in the South Coast area

.

Discussion of Enforceability Per §110(a) of the Act, SIP rules must be enforceable. In 1987, EPA laid out enforceability

criteria that SIP rules must meet to be both enforceable as a practical matter and within the4

statutory authority of the promulgating agency (see “Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency,” from J. Craig Potter, Thomas L. Adams Jr., Francis S. Blake)

. Some of t he criteria essential in practically enforceable rules include clear

statements of applicability, specificity of the standard that must be met, explicit statements of compliance time frames, explicit statements of size and periodic event exemptions, and inclusion

of record keeping requirement s. We believe the submitted rule revisions adequately fulfill most of

the relevant criteria identified above . Specifically, the Rule: is generally clear and has clear applicability ;
includes adequate r ecordkeeping and other compliance provisions;

has test ing and compliance timeframes.

Some of the recent Rule 1146 revisions were designed to increase rule compliance after a four year emission testing study revealed a 31% noncompliance rate for units regulated by the r ule (see page 2

- 8 of the Staff Report). The r equirement s for periodic monitoring of NOx and CO with portable analyzers that were added to section (d) increase the frequency of monitoring of units subject to this r ule to monthly, with the required frequency dropping to quarterly if the unit

is f ound to be in compliance for three consecutive emission checks. SCAQMD also added a provision (Section (d)(2)) prohibiting tuning or servicing of units before source testing. Although

the se two additions are designed to increase compliance, we are concerne d with potential impacts to overall rule enforceability

.

Section (d)(8) was added to the Rule to incorporate requirements for periodic monitoring of NOx and CO with portable analyzers. The language in (d)(8)(C) states: An owner or operator shall not be c onsidered in violation of the emissions limits of this rule or in permit conditions if the owner or operator complies with requirements specified in paragraph (d)(10). Any emission check conducted by District staff that finds excess

emissions is a violatio n.

Section (d)(10) states:

A source test specified under paragraph (d)(6) or an emission check conducted under the requirements specified in paragraph (d)(8) that finds emissions in excess of those allowed by this rule or a permit condition shall not cons titute a violation of this rule if the owner or operator corrects the problem and demonstrate (sic) compliance with another source test or emission check within 72 hours from the time the owner or operator knew of excess emissions, or reasonably should hav e known, or shut down the unit by the end of an operating cycle, whichever is sooner.

Th e s e provision s preclude the use of both source test data obtained during compliance testing required by the rule and emission data obtained from portable analyzers from being used to prove a violation of the emission standard. This contradicts t he national credible evidence rule from 1997 which removes what some construed to be a regulatory bar to the admission of non

reference test data to prove a violation of an emissi on standard (62 FR 8314). Revisions include changes to 51.212(c):

... For the purpose of submitting compliance certifications or establishing whether or not a person has violated or is in violation of any standard in this part, the plan must not preclude

the use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or information, relevant to5

whether a source would have been in compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test or procedure had been performed.

and 52.12 (c) :
For purposes of Federal enforcement, the following test procedures and methods shall be used, provided that for the purpose of establishing whether or not a person has violated or is in violation of any provision of the plan, nothing in this part shal l preclude the use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or information, relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test procedures or methods had be en performed.

Prohibitory rules for other nonattainment areas do not include l anguage that exempt s testing results to be used for compliance determinations . For example, SJV UACPD Rule 4320, which covers similar sources and has similar emission limits, req uires a CEM or an APCO approved Alternate Monitoring System that allows for periodic testing of exhaust emission concentrations (Section 5.4.2) . Rule 4320 does not include language excluding either the CEM o r the periodic monitoring from being used to show violations. Additionally, R ule 4320 requires source testing once every twelve months, with the period between source test s able to be extended to 36 months following two consecutive 12

- month sources tests that show that the unit is in compliance.

Consiste n t with EPA guidance, Rule 4320 Section 6.3.1.4 states that

“any source test results that exceed the applicable emission limits in Sections 5.1 or 5.2.3

shall constitute a violation of this rule”.

SCAQMD staff have explained that language in (d)(4):

“Emis sions determined to exceed any limits established by this rule through the use of any of

the above

- referenced test methods shall constitute a violation of this rule.”

and language in (d)(8)(C):

“ Any emission check conducted by District staff that finds exc ess emissions is a violation

. ”

act as a back

- stop, not

- allowing exceedances on portable monitors or source tests to be exempted in every situation. Additionally, they believe the increase in overall testing will encourage higher compliance rates, without h aving to declare sources as being in violation of the Rule. Although

we support the District ’s effort to increase compliance with the emissions limits of the Rule, sections (d)(8) and (d)(10) conflict with CAA section 110(a) and the credible evidence Rule

. SCAQMD should eliminate language in section (d)(10) that restricts use of source test data to verify rule compliance, particularly since annual compliance tests are a common expectation for the type of sources subject to the rule , although SCAQMD may of c ourse exercise discretion in declining to pursue enforcement in specific circumstances

. To the extent that portable analyzer tests required by section (d)( 8 ) are an additional (rather than a replacement) requirement beyond the testing normally appropriate for affected sources, we understand that it may not be appropriate to pursue enforcement for every failed portable analyzer test. However, the rule should also be consistent with national credible evidence policy and should establish reasonable

limits on the number and/or frequency of failed portable analyzer tests. Therefore, SCAQMD should also revise section (d)(10) to clarify the consequences of failed portable analyzer tests. For example, this section could be revised to require that any source that fails a portable analyzer test perform appropriate maintenance and retest within 72 hours, and that failure of 26

monthly tests within 6 months constitutes a violation of the rule. Here too, SCAQMD may also

choose to exercise enforcement discretion.

Discu ssion of Relaxation Criteria

I nclusion of more stringent NOx emission limits make the submitted rule more stringent than the version previously approved into the SIP. We propose to determine that our approval of the submittal would comply with CAA section 193 because the submitted SIP revision is more stringent than the rule previously approved into the SIP and would insure equivalent or greater emission reductions of NOx. We also propose to determine that our approval of the submittal would comply with CAA section 110(l), because the proposed SIP revision would not interfere

with the on

- going process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are met, and the submitted SIP revision is more stringent than the rule previously approved into

the SIP

.

Rule Deficiency Section (d)(8) and Section (d)(10) preclude the use of both source test data and portable analyzers test results from being used to prove a violation of the emission standard. This

contradicts CAA requirements for enforceabil ity and t he national credible evidence rule from 1997 (62 FR 8314).

Suggested Rule Improvements EPA recommends that the SCAQMD make the following improvements in the next revision of Rule 1146, although they are not currently the basis for rule disapprova l.

1. The rule language is confusing and seems to be contradictory at times, e.g. the last sentence of (d)(4) states:

“ Emissions determined to exceed any limits established by this rule through the use of any of the above

- referenced test methods shall consti tute a violation of this rule.”

This seems to contradict section (d)(10)

“ A source test specified under paragraph (d)(6) or an emission check conducted under the requirements specified in paragraph (d)(8) that finds emissions in excess of those allowed by this rule or a permit condition shall not constitute a violation of this

rule ...” The District should ensure that the rule language is clear and consistent throughout the

whole rule.

2. Section (d)(2) states:

“All emission determinations shall be made in the as

- found operating condition, except no compliance determination shall be established during start

- up, shutdown, or under breakdown conditions. Compliance determination as specified in paragraph (d)(6) shall be conducted at least 250 operating hours, or a t least thirty days subsequent to the tuning or servicing of any unit, unless it is an unscheduled repair.”

To improve clarity and enforceability of this provision, we recommend adding a

definition for “ as

- found operating conditions ”, “start

- up”, “shutdown ”, “breakdown conditions” and “unscheduled repair” into the Rule. These definitions should be7

consistent with EPA Excess Emission Guidance (September 20, 1999), where appropriate. Please also consider adding recordkeeping requirements to this provision to demonstrate unscheduled repairs and operating hours

.

Recommendation

EPA staff recommend s a limited approval, limited disapproval of S CAQM D submitted R ule

11 4 6 for incorporation into the California Applicable SIP

.

Attachments

1. Submitted Rule 114 6 (Clean C opy)

, adopted: 9/ 5 / 2008

2. Submitted Rule 114 6 (Strikeout Copy)

3. Final Staff Report , Proposed Amended Rule 1146

– Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boiler Steam Generators, and Process Heaters, by R. Calungcagin, A ugust 2008.

4. SIP

- approved version of Rule 114 6 , adopted 11/17/00, approved by EPA 4/8/02 ( 67 FR

16640 )