P. 1



# OAR Box 1865
Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



## Document

Number: 

# 196 ) F R6-19-198 6

Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 12/3/20083:22:25PM

Sheet 196 of 198P. 2



# I A ~<? 

# 3 ~ A 1

Thursda y * P 

## * /V 

## > Jun e 19 , 198 6



# Par t I I 

# Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc

y
4 0 CF R Par

t 6 0 Ai r Pollution ; Standard s o f Performanc e fo r NewStationar y Sources , Industrial Commercial-Institutiona l Stea m Generatin g Unit sP.3

_

2238 4 Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday, Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s
ENVIRONMENTAL PTOTECTtO M AGENC Y 4 0 CFR Par

t 6 0 [AD-FRL-2987-6

] Ai rPollution ; Standard s oi Performanc e forNer

o Stationar

y Sources ; Industrial-Commercial

Instftutiorta l Steam

. Generatin g Unit s AGENCY : Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA)

. ACTION : Propose drul e an dnotic e o f publi c hearing

. SUMMARY

: Thi s proposa l woul damen d Subpar t D b o f 4 0 CFRPar t

6 0 t o ad d standard s limitin g emission s o f sulfu r dioxid e (SO2 } an dparticulat e matte r (PM ) fro mnew , modifie do r reconstructe dindustrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g units

. Th e propose dstandard s woul dappl y t o new , modified , an dreconstructe dindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s capabl e o f combustin g mor e tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t input

. Subpar t Db , whic h include s emissio n standard s fo r

nitroge n oxide s (NO, ) an d PM , wa s propose do n Jun e 19,198 4 (4 9 F R25102 ) fo r

industrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g units

. A t tha t time , standard s fo r

SO 2 emission s an dfo r PM emission s fro moil-fire d industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s wer e stil l unde r development

. Electri c utilit y stea mgeneratin g unit s large r tha n 7 3 M W (25 0 millio n Btu / hour ) hea t

inpu t capacit y woul dno t

b e covere db y th e propose dstandards

. The y woul dcontinu e t o b e subjec t t o separat e standard s unde r 4 0 CFRPar t 60 , Subpar t

Da

. Th e propose dstandard s implemen t Sectio n 11 1 o f

th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t and

. ar e base do n th e determinatio n tha t emission s fro mindustrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s cause , o r contribut e significantl y to , ai r pollutio n whic h ma y reasonabl y b e anticipate dt o endange r publi c healt h o r welfare

. Th e inten t

i s t o requir e new , modified , an dreconstructe dindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s t o contro l emission s t o th e leve l achievabl e b y th e bes t demonstrate dtechnologica l syste mo f continuou s emissio n reduction , considerin g costs , nonai r qualit y health , an denvironmenta l an denerg y impacts

. DATES ; Comments. Comment s mus t b e receive do n o r

befor e Septembe r

2,1986

. Public Hearing. I

f anyon e request s t o spea k a t apubli c hearin g b y Jul y 10 , 1986 , apubli c hearin g wil l b e hel do n Augus t 4,198 6 beginnin g a t

10:0 0 a.m
. Person s intereste di n attendin g th e hearin g shoul dcal l Ms

. Shelb y Journiga n a t (919 ) 541-557 8 t o verif

y tha t ahearin g wil l b e held

. Request to Speak

at Hearing. Person s wishin g t o presen t

ora l testimon y mus t reques t t o spea k a t th e publi c hearin g b y Jul y 10,1986

. Incorporation by Reference. Th e incorporatio n b y referenc e o f certai n publication s i n thes e standard s wil l b e approve db y th e Directo r o f th e Federa l Registe r a s of th e dat e of

publicatio n o f th e fina l rule

. ADDRESSES : Comments. Comment s shoul db e submitte d(i n duplicat e if possible ) to : Centra l Docke t Sectio n (LE-131) , Attentio n Docke t Numbe r A

83-27 , U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , 40 1 M Stree t

SW , Washington , D C 20460

. Public Hearing. I

f anyon e request s a publi c hearing , i t

wil l b e hel da t

EPA' s Offic e o f Administratio n Auditorium , Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolina

. Person s intereste di n attendin g th e hearin g o r

wishin g t o presen t

ora l testimon y shoul dnotif

y Ms

. Shelb y Journigan , Standard s Developmen t Branc h (MD-13) , U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a27711 , telephon e numbe r (919 ) 541-5578

. Background

Information Documents. Th e backgroun dinformatio n document s (BID's ) fo r

th e propose dstandard s consis t o f nin e documents

. Se e SUPPLEMENTAR

Y INFORMATIO N fo ra listin g o f thes e documents

. Anyon e wishin g t o revie w th e BID' s shoul d contac t thei r respectiv e trad e association

. Docket. Docke t

Numbe r A-83-27 , containin g supportin g informatio n use d i n developin g th e propose dstandards , i s availabl e fo r

publi c inspectio n an d copyin g betwee n 8:00 a.m
. an d4:0 0 p.m. , Monda y throug h Friday , a t EPA' s Centra l Docke t

Section , Wes t

Towe r Lobby , Galler y 1 , Watersid e Mall , 40 1 M Stree t SW , Washington , D C 20460

. A reasonabl e fe e ma y b e charge dfo r copying

. FQ RFURTHE RINFORMATIO N CONTACT : Mr

. Fre dPorte r

o r Ms

. Diann e Byrne , Standard s Developmen t Branch , Emissio n Standard s an dEngineerin g Divisio n (MD-13) , U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a27711 , telephon e numbe r (919 ) 541-5578

. SUPPLEMENTAR

Y INFORMATION : Backgroun dInformatio n Document s Th e backgroun dinformatio n document s (BID's ) fo r

th e propose d standard s consis t of nin e document s a s follows : 1

. Fossi l Fue l Fire dIndustria l Boilers—Backgroun dInformation , Volume s 1 an d2 (EPA-450/3-82-006 a an db , Marc h 1982)

. 2

. Nonfossi l Fue l Fire dIndustria l Boilers—Backgroun dInformatio n (EPA

450/3-82-007 , Marc h 1982)

. 3

. Industria l Boile r

SO 2 Technolog y Updat e Repor t

(EPA-450/3-85-009 , Jul y 1984)

. 4

. Fluidize dBe dCombustion : Effectivenes s a s a n SO 2 Contro l Technolog y fo r

Industria l Boiler s (EPA

450/3-85-010 , Septembe r 1984)

. 5

. Industria l Boile r

SO 2 Cos t

Repor t (EPA-450/3-85-011 , Novembe r 1984)

. 6

. Projecte dImpact s o f Alternativ e Sulfu r Dioxid e Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s fo r

Industria l Fossi l Fuel

Fire dBoiler s (EPA-45013-86-007 , Marc h 1985)

. 7

. A n Analysi s o f

th e Cost s an dCos t Effectivenes s o f

SO 2 Contro l fo r

Mixe d Fuel-Fire dStea mGeneratin g Unit s (EPA-450/3-86-001 , Januar y 1986)

. 8

. A n Analysi s o f

th e Cost s an dCos t Effectivenes s of

Allowin g SO 2 Emissio n Credit s fo r

Cogeneratio n System s (EPA

450/3-85-030 , Decembe r 1985)

. 9

. Summar y o f

Regulator y Analysis : Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s fo r Industrial-Commercial-Institutiona l Stea mGeneratin g Unit s o f Greate r tha n 10 0 Millio n Btu/hou r

Hea t Inpu t Capacit y (EPA-450/3-86-005 , Jun e 1986)

. Thes e report s ar e bein g provide dt o industr y trad e associations

. Becaus e o f th e numbe r

of volume s involve dan dth e associate dprintin g an ddistributio n costs , onl y alimite dnumbe r o f set s wa s printed

. Th e trad e association s have , therefore , agree dt o allo w membe r group s acces s t o thei r

documen t

sets

. Anyon e wishin g t o revie w th e BID' s shoul dcontac t

thei r representativ e trad e association

. I

f th e trad e associatio n doe s no t hav e acces s t o th e BID's

. ase t wil l b e provide dt o th e associatio n fo r th e us e o f thei r membership

. A limite dnumbe r

o f volume s of document s 1 an d2 abov e ar e availabl e throug h th e Nationa l Technica l Informatio n Service , U.S

. Departmen t o f Commerce , Springfield, ' Virgini a22161 , telephon e numbe r

(703 ) 487-4650

. Th e pric e o f th e three-volum e se t

i s $28.00

. Preambl e Outlin e I

. Introductio n A

. New Sourc e Performanc e Standards — General B

. NSPS Decisio n Scheme C

. Overvie w o

f Thi s Preambl e II

. Summar

y o f th e Standard s A

. Sourc e Categor

y T o B e Regulate d B

. Pollutant s T o B e Regulate d C

. Bes t Demonstrate dTechnolog yP. 4

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s 2238 5

D

. Forma t fo r th e Standard s E

. Actual Standard s F

. Performanc e Testin g an dMonitorin g Requirement s G

. Reportin g an dRecordkeepin g III

. Impact s o

f th e Standard s A

. Air B

. Wate r an dSoli dWast e C

. Energy D

. Contro l Cost s E

. Economi c Effects IV

. Solicitatio n o

f Publi c Commen

t A

. Energy Pric e Scenario s B

. Exemption s FromPercent Reductio n Requirement s V

. Rational e A

. Selectio n o

f Sourc e Categor

y B

. Selectio n o

f Pollutants , Fuels , an d Affecte dFacilitie s C

. Selectio n o

f Bes t Systemo f Continuou s Sulfu r Dioxide Emissio n Reductio n D

. Selectio n o

f Bes t Systemo f Particulat e Matter Emissio n Reductio n E

. Modificatio n an dReconstructio n Provision s F

. Performanc e Tes t

Method s an d Monitorin g Requirement s G

. Reportin g an dRecordkeepin g Requirement s VI

. Administrativ e Requirement s A

. Publi c Hearin g B

. Docke t C

. Clean Air

Act Procedural Requirement s D

. Office o

f Management

an dBudge

t Review s E

. Regulator

y Flexibilit

y Act Complianc e I

. Introductio n A. New Source Performance Standards

— General Ne w sourc e performanc e standard s (NSP S o r standards ) implemen t

Sectio n 11 1 of th e Clea n Ai r

Act

. Th e NSP S ar e issue dfo r

categorie s of

source s whic h cause , o r contribut e significantl y to , ai r pollutio n whic h ma y reasonabl y b e anticipate dt o endange r publi c healt h o r welfare

. The y appl y t o ne w stationar y source s o f

emissions ; i.e. , source s whos e construction , reconstruction , o r modificatio n begin s afte r astandar dfo r the mi s proposed

. A n NSP S require s thes e source s t o contro l emission s t o th e leve l achievabl e b y th e bes t

syste mo f

continuou s emissio n reduction , considerin g costs

. B. NSPS Decision Scheme A n NSP S i s th e produc t o f aserie s of decision s relate dt o certai n ke y element s fo r

th e sourc e categor y bein g considere dfo r

regulation

. Th e element s identifie di n thi s "decisio n scheme " ar e generall y th e following : 1

. Sourc e categor y t o b e regulated — usuall y a n entir e industr y bu t ca n b e a proces s o r

grou p of processe s withi n a n industry

. 2

. Pollutant(s ) t o b e regulated—th e particula r

substance(s ) emitte db y th e sourc e tha t

th e standar dwil l control

. 3

. Bes t syste mo f

continuou s emissio n reduction—th e technolog y o n whic h th e standard s wil l b e based ; i.e. ,

. . . applicatio n o

f th e bes t technological syste mo f continuou s emissio n reductio n whic h (takin g into consideratio n th e cos t o f achievin g suc h emissio n reduction , an dan y nonai r qualit y health an denvironmental impact s an denerg y requirements ) th e Administrato r

determine s ha s bee n adequatel y demonstrated , [sectio n 111(a)(1)]

. 4

. Affecte dfacility—th e piece s o r group s of

equipmen t

tha t compris e th e source s t o whic h th e standard s wil l apply

. 5

. Emissio n point s t o b e regulated — withi n th e affecte dfacility , th e specifi c physica l locatio n emittin g pollutant s (e.g. , vents , stacks , an dequipmen t leaks)

. 6

. Forma t fo r th e standards—th e for m i n whic h th e standard s ar e expressed ; i.e. , a s apercen t

reductio n i n emissions , a s pollutan t

concentrations , o r

a s equipmen t

standards

. • 7

. Actua l standards—base do n wha t th e bes t demonstrate dtechnolog y ca n achieve , th e maximu mpermissibl e emissions-

. Note.—I n general , standard s d o no t require that aspecifi c technolog y b e use dt o achiev e them

. Th e sourc e owner/operato r ma y selec t th e metho dfo

r achievin g th e pollutio n contro l required

. 8

. Othe r possibl e considerations—I n addition , NSP S ofte n include : standard s fo r visibl e emissions , modification / reconstructio n considerations , monitorin g requirements , performanc e tes t methods , an dreportin g an d recordkeepin g requirements

. C. Overview of

This Preamble Thi s preambl e will : 1

. Summariz e th e importan t feature s o f thi s NSP S b y discussin g th e conclusion s reache dwit h respec t t o eac h o f th e element s i n th e decisio n scheme

. 2

. Describ e th e environmental , energy , an deconomi c impact s of thi s NSPS

. 3

. Presen t

arational e fo r

eac h o f th e decision s i n th e decisio n scheme

. 4

. Presen t

aregulator y impac t analysis

. 5

. Discus s administrativ e requirement s relevan t

t o thi s action

. II

. Summar y o f

th e Standard s A. Source Category To Be Regulated Th e propose dstandard s fo r SO 2 woul dappl y t o industrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) combustin g coal , oil , o r

mixture s o f

thes e fuel s wit h an y othe r

fuels

. Th e propose dstandard s fo r P M woul dappl y t o industrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) combustin g oi l o r mixture s o f

oi l wit h an y othe r

fuels

. B. Pollutants To Be Regulated Emission s of

SO 2 an dP M woul db e regulate dunde r

th e propose dstandards

. C. Best Demonstrated

Technology Th e propose dstandard s ar e base do n th e preliminar y conclusio n tha t flu e ga s desulfurizatio n (FGD ) represent s th e bes t demonstrate dtechnolog y fo r reducin g emission s o f

SO. fro mcoal

fire dindustrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s an dtha t FG D represent s th e bes t

demonstrate d technolog y fo r

reducin g emission s o f SO 2 an dP M fro moil-fire dunits

. Flu e ga s desulfurizatio n system s ca n b e define da s processe s i n whic h th e flu e gase s containin g SO aar e contacte db y alkalin e reagent s tha t

reac t wit h an d absor b th e SO 2 gases
. Th e determinatio n o f

bes t demonstrate dtechnolog y reflect s th e Agency' s consideratio n o f awid e variet y o f

factors

. Thes e factor s includ e th e feasibilit y an davailabilit y of a technology , the cost s o f control , an d energ y an denvironmenta l effects

. Befor e promulgatin g afina l rule , th e Agenc y wil l revie w it s preliminar y findin g tha t

FG D represent s bes t demonstrate dtechnolog y i n ligh t o f th e publi c comment s receive dan dth e Agency' s ow n additiona l analyses

. D. Format

for the Standards Th e propose dstandard s fo r SO s includ e bot h apercen t

reductio n requiremen t

an da n emissio n limi t

fo r SO2

. Emission s woul db e calculate da s nanogram s of

pollutan t

pe r joul e o f hea t inpu t (ng/J ) o r

pound s o f

pollutan t

pe r millio n Bt

u o f hea t inpu t (lb/millio n Btu ) supplie db y th e fuel

. Th e propose d standard s fo r

P M establis h a n emissio n limi t whic h i s als o calculate do n ang/ J o r lb/millio n Btu hea t

inpu t basis

. E. Actual Standards 1

. Sulfu r Dioxid e Th e propose dregulatio n woul d requir e al l coal-fire dindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s equippe dwit h conventiona l we t

FG D system s o r

lim e spra y dryin g system s an dal l coal-fire d fluidize dbe dcombustio n (FBC ) system s t o achiev e a9 0 percen t

reductio n i n SO 2 emission s an dmee t

a n emissio n limi t

of 51 6 n g SO2/J (1. 2 l b SOs/millio n Btu } hea t input

. Coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s usin g a n emergin g technolog y fo r SO 2 contro l woul db e require dt oP. 5

223S ® Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s
achiev e a5 0 percen t

reductio n i n SO

2 emission s an dmee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 25 8 ng SO2/

J (0. 6 l b S02/millio n Btu) hea t input

. Steamgeneratin g unit s firing mixture s o

f coa l with an y othe r

fue l (excep t oi l or natura l gas ) an dhavin g a n annua l fossi l fue

l utilizatio n facto r

fo r coa l o f 3 0 percen t

(0.30 ) or les s woul db e require dt o mee t

a n SO z emissio n limi t o f 51 6 ng/ J (1. 2 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t input

. Th e propose dstandard s woul d requir e al l oil-fire dindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s equippe dwith conventiona l we t

FG D system s or

lime spra y dryin g system s an dal l oil-fire d FB C system s t o achiev e a8 0 percen t reductio n i n SO

2 emission s an dmee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 34 4 n g SO2/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t

input

. Oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s usin g a n emergin g technolog y t o contro l SO 2 emission s woul db e require dt o achiev e a5 0 percen t

reductio n i n SCh emission s an dmee t a n emissio n limi t

o f 17 2 ng SOa/ J (0. 4 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t input

. Steamgeneratin g unit s firing oi l an d meetin g a n SO

aemissio n limi t

o f 8 6 ng/ J (0. 2 l b SOa/millio n Btu) or les s woul d no t b e require dt o achiev e afurther percen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions

. Th e emissio n limi t

fo r stea m generatin g unit s firing amixtur e o f coal an doi l woul db e determine db y proration. 2

. Particulat e Matte r Th e propose dregulatio n woul d establis h aP

M emissio n limi t

o f 4 3 ng/ J (0. 1 lb/millio n Btu) hea t

inpu t fo r industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s firing oil , eithe r alon e or i n combinatio n with othe r fuels

. F. Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements Th e propose dregulatio n woul d requir e continuou s monitorin g o f SO a emissions

. Complianc e wit h th e percen t reductio n requirement s an demissio n limit s woul db e determine do n a continuou s 30-da

y rollin g averag e basi s b y calculatin g th e averag e percen t reductio n an dS0 2 emission s fo r 3 0 consecutiv e stea mgeneratin g uni t operatin g days , a s measure db y th e continuou s emissio n monitorin g syste m (CEMS)

. Thes e calculation s would'b e mad e i n accordanc e with Referenc e Metho d1 9 or

19A

. Th e performanc e testin g an d monitorin g requirement s fo r P M woul d b e th e sam e a s thos e propose d previousl y for

coal- , wood- , an dsoli d waste-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s (4 9 F R25102 , Jun e 19,1984)

. G. Reporting and Recordkeeping • Th e propose dregulatio n woul d requir e stea mgeneratin g uni t owner s or operator s to submi t

anotificatio n o

f th e intent to initiat e operatio n o

f anew , modified , or

reconstructe dstea m generatin g unit , a s wel l a s th e result s o f th e initia l performanc e tes t an d performanc e evaluatio n o f th e CEMS , i

f applicable

. In addition , i

f a n owne r or operato r install s a n emergin g technolog y t o contro l SO

aemissions , acomplet e descriptio n o

f th e technolog y woul db e submitted

. . Quarterl y report s o

f SO aemission s woul dals o b e require dunde r th e propose dregulation

. Eac h report woul d includ e al l 30-da

y rollin g averag e percen t reductio n an demissio n value s calculate ddurin g th e calenda r quarter

. Record s o f al l dat acollecte dwoul db e maintaine dfo

r aperio do

f 2 years
. III

. Impact s o

f th e Standard s A. Air Compare dt o astea mgeneratin g uni t a s presentl y controlle db y atypica l Stat e implementatio n pla n (SIP) , th e propose dstandard s coul dreduc e emission s o

f SO 2 fro matypica l industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g uni t

b y betwee n 46 5 Mg/yea r (51 0 tons/year ) an d2,42

0 Mg/ yea r (2,67 0 tons/year) , dependin g o n stea mgeneratin g uni t

siz e an dth e typ e o f fue l fired

. Th e propose dstandard s coul dreduc e emission s o

f P M fro matypica l oil-fire d industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g uni t

b y abou t 4 9 Mg / year (54 tons/year)

. I n th e fift h yea r after thi s NSP S become s applicable , nationwid e emission s o

f SO 2 woul db e decrease db y abou t 290,00 0 Mg/yea r

(320,00 0 tons / year ) compare dwith projecte demissio n level s unde r

th e regulatory baseline

. Nationwid e emission s o

f P M woul db e decrease db y abou t

12,00 0 Mg/yea r (13,00 0 tons/year ) compare dwith projecte demission s unde r th e regulatory baseline

. B. Water and Solid Waste In th e fift h year after th e propose d standard s becom e applicable , nationa l soli dan dliqui dwast e productio n associate dwith industrial

- commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s coul dnearl y doubl e compare dt o th e regulatory baseline

. Thi s increase , however , woul drepresen t onl y asmal l portio n o f th e tota l wast e productio n a t mos t manufacturin g plant s employin g stea mgeneratin g units

. In addition , th e waste s produce db y SO

acontro l processe s ar e nonhazardou s an d nontoxi c an dca n b e dispose do f alon g with th e othe r manufacturin g plan t waste s usin g traditiona l treatmen t an d disposa l techniques

. Therefore , n o advers e wate r

o r soli dwast e impact s ar e anticipate da s aresul t o f th e propose dstandards

. C. Energy Th e propose dstandard s wil l no t resul t i n significant

impact s o n nationa l fue l us e markets

. Fue l switchin g fro m coal an doi l to natura l ga s i s projecte d to occur , bu t

th e impac t

o f thi s fue l switchin g o n coal , oil , an dnatura l ga s market s woul db e small

. D. Control

Costs 1

. Typical SteamGeneratin g Uni t Cost s Unde r th e propose dstandards , th e capita l cos t

o f atypica l industrial

commercral-institutiona l stea m generatin g uni t

coul dincreas e b y betwee n 4 an d2

5 percen t over th e cost s a t th e regulatory baseline

. Th e magnitud e o

f th e increas e woul ddepen d o n severa l factors , includin g stea m generatin g uni t

size , capacit y factor , regiona l location , th e typ e o f contro l devic e installed , an dth e typ e o f fue l fired

. Similarly , annualize dcost s fo r a
. typica l stea mgeneratin g uni t coul d increas e b y betwee n 6 an d2 2 percen t over th e cost s a t

th e regulatory baseline , dependin g o n th e factor s mentione d above

. 2

. Nationwid e Cost s Durin g th e fift

h yea r o f applicability o

f th e propose dstandards , th e nationwid e annualize dcost s fo

r industrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s woul db e abou t $3.9 3 billion , compare dwit

h abou t $3.7 7 billio n unde r

th e regulatory baseline

. Thi s represent s a n increas e i n annualize dcost s o

f abou t $165 million , o r apotentia l nationa l annualize dcos t increas e o

f abou t 4 percen t a s aresul t

o f th e propose dstandards

. E. Economic Effects Th e industry-specifi c economi c effect s o f th e propose dstandard s wer e assesse dfo

r si x industrie s whic h wer e considere dlikel y t o experienc e th e mos t sever e impacts

. For

thes e si x industries , produc t price s wer e projecte dto increas e b y les s tha n 0.0 1 t o 1. 5 percen t i n th e fift h year followin g promulgatio n o f th e propose dstandards , assumin g "ful l cos t pass-through " o

f increase d stea mcosts

. Valu e adde dwa s projecte d to increas e b y abou t

0.0 1 t o 5 percent , agai n assumin g "ful

l cos t pass-through. " Assumin g "full cos t

absorption " o

f increase dstea mcosts , retur n o n asset s wa s projecte dt o decreas e b y 0.0 3 to 2. 8 percentag e points

. Again , this " analysi sP. 6

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRules

. 223B 7

wa s base do n th e "wors e case " scenari o fo r th e mos t severel y affecte dindustry groups
. IV. Solicitation

of Public Comment Th e standard s bein g propose dtoday reflec t th e Agency' s directiv e [sectio n lll(a)(l)(A)(ii ) o

f th e Clea n Air Act ] t o establis h percen t

reductio n standard s fo r fossi l fuel-fire dsource s provide dth e impact s o f suc h requirement s ar e reasonable

. Accordingly , today' s propose dstandard s als o reflec t th e Agency' s judgment

o f wha t represent s reasonabl e impacts

. T o determin e whethe r impact s ar e reasonable , th e Agenc y consider s suc h factor s a s costs , emissio n reductions , nonai r environmenta l impacts , an dth e cos t effectivenes s o

f th e standard s compare d to les s stringen t

regulatory options

. Eac h o f thes e impact s i s discusse di n thi s preamble

. A. Energy

Price Scenarios Th e Agenc y recognize s tha t th e cos t impact s associate dwit

h today' s standard s ar e directl y affecte db y th e fue l price s tha t

wer e projecte da t

th e time tha t th e impac t

analyse s wer e conducte dan dtha t

th e energ y scenari o on whic h th e nationa l impact s analysi s i s based , doe s no t

reflec t curren t expectation s o

f futur e energ y prices.

- It i s anticipate dtha t

a n energ y scenari o prepare da t

th e curren t

time woul dreflec t

generall y lowe r

bil price s an dahigher

degre e o f uncertaint y i n natura l ga s price s tha n th e scenari o use di n th e curren t

analysis

. Thi s woul d likel y resul t

i n eve n lowe r

coal penetratio n i n th e stea mgeneratin g uni t marke t than th e curren t

analysi s indicate s du e t o lowe r

oil price s an d woul dlikel y resul t

i n awide r

rang e o f projecte demissio n reduction s an dcos t effectivenes s value s resultin g fro mth e contro l o f oil combustio n du e t o uncertainty i n relativ e oil an dga s prices

. Th e Agenc y intend s t o updat e it s energ y pric e scenario s betwee n proposa l an dpromulgatio n o f thes e standard s t o determin e whethe r th e costs , emissio n reduction s and , i n particular , th e cos t

effectivenes s o

f thi s rul e wil l b e altere dsignificantly

. Whe n th e Agenc y complete s it s analysis , thi s informatio n wil l b e adde dt o th e docket

. B. Exemptions

from Percent Reduction Requirements. Th e Agenc y solicit s comment s o n whethe r to expan dth e exemptio n fro m percen t reductio n requirement s fo r some stea mgeneratin g unit s base dupo n thei r siz e or capacity utilizatio n rates

. Specifically , comment s ar e solicite don whethe r percen t reductio n standard s shoul dappl y onl y to coal- , oil- , an d mixe dfuel-firedstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 7 3 M W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) (o r some othe r siz e category ) o

r to stea m generatin g unit s with annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n rate s o

f more tha n 4 5 percen t (o r 3 0 or o 1 5 percent)

. Standard s fo

r steamgeneratin g unit s exempte dfro

mpercentag e reductio n requirement s woul db e 51 6 n g SO2/ J (1. 2 lb SOa/millio n Btu) fo

r coal-fire dstea m generatin g units , 34

4 ng SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu) fo

r oil-fire dstea m generatin g units , an d51 6 ng SO2/ J (1. 2 lb SOa/millio n Btu) fo

r mixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g units

. EP A als o solicit s comment s o n othe r

alternativ e standard s fo

r stea mgeneratin g unit s tha t ar e smal l or

tha t hav e lo w capacity utilizatio n rates

. A ke y facto r

influencin g th e cos t effectivenes s o

f thi s propose drul e i s th e projecte dability o

f firm s t o switc h fro

m oil t o natura l ga s fo

r stea mgeneratin g unit s o f smalle r siz e an dstea m generatin g unit s tha t

hav e lo w capacit y utilizatio n rates

. Give n th e dramati c change s i n oi l an dnatura l ga s price s tha t hav e transpire dsinc e th e Agenc y undertoo k it s energ y scenarios , th e cos t effectivenes s o

f requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO

2 emission s fo

r thes e categorie s o

f stea mgeneratin g unit s coul dchange

. Th e Agenc y intend s t o analyz e th e impac t

o f revise denerg y pric e forecast s upo n th e cos t effectivenes s o

f SO 2 contro l fo

r smalle r stea mgeneratin g unit s an dstea m generatin g unit s with lo w capacit y utilizatio n rate s after

proposa l an dad d thi s analysi s t o th e docket

. A s discusse dabove , classe s o f stea m generatin g unit s woul db e exemp t fro m percen t reductio n requirement s o n th e basi s tha t th e impact s o

f apercen t reductio n requiremen t

woul db e deeme d unreasonable , an dthu s tha t th e technologie s necessar y t o achiev e suc h percen t reduction s coul dno t

b e sai dt o b e "adequatel y demonstrated " withi n th e meanin g o

f sectio n 11 1 o

f th e Act

. Given th e magnitude s o

f th e cost s an d emissio n reduction s associate dwith th e control s o f thes e stea mgeneratin g units , th e Agenc y i s intereste di n receivin g informatio n fro

mcommenter s o n wha t shoul db e th e basi s fo

r determinin g whe n th e impact s o

f apercen t reductio n requiremen t

ar e unreasonable

. Th e Agenc y als o specificall y solicit s comment s o n whethe r

th e percentag e reductio n requiremen t

i n sectio n lll(a)(l)(A)(ii ) o

f th e Ac t applie s t o thi s standard

. Comment s ar e invite don whethe r establishin g standard s base d o n th e applicatio n o

f emissio n contro l technolog y (e.g. , flue ga s desulfurization ) unde r th e projectio n tha t

mos t source s wil l fue l switc h an dthereb y avoi dth e cost s associate dwit h th e emissio n contro l technolog y i s an appropriat e interpretatio n o

f thi s sectio n o

f th e Act

. I n addition , comment s ar e invite do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r fuel s a s th e basi s o

f NSPS , an dth e percen t

reductio n associate dwit

h th e pretreatmen t

o f ver y lo w sulfu r oils

. V

. Rational e A. Selection

of Source Category O n Augus t

21,1979 , apriority lis t

fo r developmen t

o f additiona l NSP S wa s publishe di n accordanc e wit h section s 111(b)(1)(A

) an d111(f)(1 ) o

f th e Clean Air Act

. Thi s lis t

identifie d5 9 majo r stationar y sourc e categorie s tha t wer e judge dt o contribut e significantl y to ai r pollutio n that

coul dreasonabl y b e expecte dt o endange r

publi c health or welfare

. Fossi l fuel-firedindustria l stea mgeneratin g unit s ranke deleventh o n thi s priority lis t

o f source s fo

r whic h NSP S woul db e establishe di n th e future

. O f th e 1 0 source s ranke dabov e fossi l fuel-fire dindustria l stea mgeneratin g unit s o n th e priority list , nin e wer e major source s o

f volatil e organi c compoun d(VOC) emissions

. Becaus e ther e ar e man y area s whic h hav e no t attaine dth e nationa l ambien t ai r quality standar dfo

r (NAAQS ) ozone , major source s o f VO C emission s wer e accorde davery high priority

. Th e remainin g sourc e category ranke dabov e fossi l fuel-fire dindustria l stea m generatin g unit s wa s stationar y interna l combustio n engines , amajo r sourc e o f NO , emissions

. Fossi l fuel-fire d industria l stea mgeneratin g unit s wer e th e highes t

ranke dsourc e o

f P M an d SO aemissions , an dth e secon dhighes t ranke dsourc e o

f NO „ emission s whe n th e priority lis t

o f sourc e categorie s no t previousl y regulate db y NSP S wa s published

. Woo dan dsoli dwast e ar e widel y use da s fue

l i n industria l stea m generatin g units

. A s aresult , industrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s firing the.s e fuel s coul d als o b e significant

contributor s t o futur

e ai r pollution

. In addition , larg e commercial an dinstitutiona l steam generatin g unit s hav e essentiall y th e sam e design , fue

l capability , an d emission s potential a s industria l stea m generatin g units

. Consequently , o n Jun e 19,1984 , a n amendmen t

t o th e priority lis t wa s propose dtha t

woul dexpan dth e sourc e category o

f industria l fossi l fuel

fire dsteamgeneratin g unit s t o cove r al l stea mgeneratin g units , includin g bot h fossi l fuel-firedan dnonfossi l fuel-fire d steamgeneratin g units , a s wel l a o stea m generatin g unit s use din commercial an d institutiona l applications (4 9 F R25156 ,P. 7

2238 8 Federa l Registe r/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s
June 19,1984)

. Consisten t

with thi s propose damendmen t

o f th e priority list , th e sourc e category fo

r th e propose d standard s include s both fossi l an d nonfossi l fuel-fire dindustrial , commercial an dinstitutiona l stea m generatin g units

. Fossi l an dnonfossi l fuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s ar e significant source s o f emission s o

f thre e majo r

pollutants : PM , SOa , an dNO,

. Th e expecte d constructio n o

f ne w coal- , oil- , an d fossil/nonfossi l fuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s a s aresul t o f plan t expansion s an dreplacement s o f existin g stea mgeneratin g unit s i s expecte dto resul t i n agrowth i n emission s fro mthi s sourc e category

. A numbe r o f thes e ne w facilitie s wil l fir

e coal an dhigh sulfu

r oil

. Combustio n o

f woo dan dsoli d wast e i n combinatio n with coal or oi l i s als o projecte dt o increas e du e t o th e ' lowe r cos t o f thes e nonfossi l fuels

. Thes e development s coul dresul t i n significant increase s i n SO

aemission s i

f standard s o

f performanc e ar e no t establishe dfo

r ne w industrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m ' generatin g units

. Nationa l ambien t

ai r quality standard s hav e bee n establishe dfo r SO a becaus e o f it s know n advers e effect s o n publi c healt h an dwelfare

. Impact s o f thi s pollutan t

hav e bee n documente di n acriteri adocumen t

prepare dunde r Sectio n 10 8 o

f th e Clean Air

Act

. Thes e effect s ar e amajor

basi s fo r concludin g tha t emission s fro

mindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s constitut e apotentia l dange r t o publi c health an dwelfare

. Als o significant

i s th e fac t

tha t man y ne w industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s wil l b e locate di n urba n area s wher e alarg e populatio n wil l b e expose dt o th e emissions

. B. Selection

of Pollutants, Fuels, and Affected Facilities Emission s o

f P M fro mth e combustio n o f oil an dSO

aemission s fro

mth e combustio n o

f oil , coal an dmixe dfuel s (i.e. , combustio n o

f mixture s o

f fossi l fuel s or
. fossi l an dnonfossi l fuels ) woul d b e th e pollutant s regulate dunde r th e propose dstandards

. Th e NSP S hav e alread y bee n propose dtha t woul dlimi t P M emission s fro

mindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s firing coal , wood , o r soli dwast e an dNO x emission s fro m• stea mgeneratin g unit s firing mixture s o f fossi l fuel s or

fossi l an dnonfossi l fuel s (4 9 F R25102 , Jun e 19.1984)

. Th e potentia l impact s associate dwith thi s "phased " approac h t o rulemakin g wer e considere dprio r

t o proposin g standard s fo

r P M an dNO„

. Th e standard s bein g propose dtoda y ar e no t retroactiv e an daffec t onl y ne w stea m generatin g unit s buil t

after thi s date

. No potentia l problem s hav e bee n identifie d tha t might resul t fro mthi s phase d approac h t o rulemakin g an dn o unreasonabl e impact s ar e anticipate dt o occur
. Th e propose dstandard s woul dlimi t emission s o

f SO afro mstea mgeneratin g unit s firing oil , coal , an dfue l mixture s containin g an y o

f thes e fuel s an d emission s o

f P M fro moil-fire dstea m generatin g units

. Th e propose d standard s woul dcove r

industrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour)

. Analyse s o f th e projecte dne w stea mgeneratin g uni t populatio n indicat e tha t

nearl y al l ne w stea mgeneratin g unit s larger tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t

inpu t capacit y wil l b e industria l stea m generatin g units , with onl y afew commercial an dinstitutiona l stea m generatin g unit s i n thi s siz e range
. Th e stea mgeneratin g uni t

siz e limi t o f 29 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t

inpu t capacity would , therefore , includ e onl y th e larges t

commercial an dinstitutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s an dwoul d concentrat e th e scop e o

f th e propose d standard s o n industria l stea m generatin g units

. Utilit

y stea m generatin g unit s large r

tha n 7 3 M

W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t

inpu t capacit y remai n subjec t

t o Subpart

Da

. Developmen t

o f NSP S limitin g emission s o

f sulfu r oxides , NO* , an dP

M fro mstea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s o

f 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) or

les s i s currentl y underway

. Th e typ e o

f uni t used , th e physica l desig n characteristic s o

f thes e units , th e cos t impact s o

f emissio n contro l system s o n stea mproductio n costs , an dth e applicatio n o

f stea mar e often different fo r smalle r stea mgeneratin g unit s tha n fo r large r stea mgeneratin g units

. Becaus e thes e factor s hav e bee n foun d t o b e materiall y different , separat e stud y o f smalle r stea mgeneratin g unit s i s appropriate

. Thi s wil l assur e tha t a n adequat e evaluatio n i s conducte do f th e technica l an deconomi c factor s associate dwith applyin g emissio n control s t o smalle r

stea mgeneratin g units

. C. Selection

of Best System of Continuous

Sulfur Dioxide Emission Reduction Th e regulatory analyse s discusse d belo w ar e summarize dan ddiscusse di n greate r detai l i n th e se t

o f nin e BI D document s liste di n th e introductio n t o thi s preamble

. I

n particular , th e documen t entitle d"Summar

y o f Regulator y Analysis : Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s fo r Industrial

Commercial-Institutiona l Steam Generatin g Unit s o

f Greate r Tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) Heat

Inpu t Capacity " present s a n overvie w o f th e analyse s an dregulatory alternative s considere di n developin g th e propose d standards

. Thi s documen t i s reference d extensivel y i n th e discussio n below , an d i s referre dt o a s "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " fo

r th e sak e o

f brevity

. Th e 1977 amendment s t o sectio n 11 1 o f th e Clean Ai r

Ac t requir e standard s o f performanc e fo

r ne w fossi l fuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s t o includ e both a n emissio n limi t

an darequiremen t

tha t emission s b e reduce db y aspecifie d percentage

. Sectio n 11 1 als o require s tha t th e emissio n limi t

an dth e percentag e reductio n requiremen t reflec t th e performanc e o

f th e bes t technological syste mo

f continuou s emissio n reductio n whic h ha s bee n adequatel y demonstrated , takin g int o consideratio n th e costs , energ y requirements , an denvironmenta l impact s o f achievin g suc h emissio n reductio n (i.e. , bes t

demonstrate d technology)

. I

n determinin g th e degre e o f emissio n reductio n that

ha s bee n demonstrated , sectio n 11 1 allow s standard s o

f performanc e t o distinguis h amon g variou s classes , types , an dsize s o f stea mgeneratin g unit s in orde r t o reflec t bes t demonstrate dtechnology

. I n ligh t o f thes e Clean Air

Ac t requirements , th e analyse s o f alternativ e standard s o

f performanc e examine d variou s classes , types , an dsize s o f industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s t o determin e i f a percen t reductio n requiremen t

woul d hav e unreasonabl e cost , energy , o r environmenta l impacts

. I

n addition , th e analyse s examine dth e incrementa l cost , energy , an denvironmenta l impact s o f a percen t reductio n requiremen t

ove r th e impact s o f astandar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r fuels

. Thus , th e requirement s se t

fort h i n sectio n 11 1 o

f th e Clean Ai r

Ac t hav e largel y determine dboth th e typ e an dth e scop e o f th e analyse s tha t

hav e bee n performe di n support

o f thi s rulemaking

. Anothe r poin t tha t shoul db e note di s tha t th e analyse s ar e influenced , i n particular , b y th e energ y scenario s tha t hav e bee n use dt o boun dth e regulatory analysis

. A s describe di n "Summary o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Nationa l Impacts, " tw o distinc t

crud e oil pric e scenario s wer e considere di n performin g th e nationa l impac t

analysis

. On e o

f thes e pric e scenario s assume da198 5 bas e pric e o f $25 pe r barre l with onl y moderat e futur

e increase s i n crud e oil

### P. 8

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s 2238 9

es , resultin g i n arelativel y hig h i of oi l i n th e ne w industrial

con , istitutiona l stea m generatin g uni t

energ y market

. Unde r u l penetratio n scenario , ih e mode l use dt o calculat e nationa l ta , th e Industria l Fue l Choic e Analysi s Mode l (IFCAM)

. predicte dtha t unde r th e regulator y baselin e residua l oi l an dnatura l ga s woul dcompet e th e ne w stea mgeneratin g uni t energ y land , wit h residua l oi l capturin g i t 6 5 percent , an dnatura l ga s abou t 3 0 percent , of

th e 199 0 energ y demand

.

- scenari o reflecte da"bes t guess " a s t o futur e fuel us e i n ne w industrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g units

. In respons e t o concern s tha t thi s scenari o migh t

significantl y underestimat e coa l use
. th e othe r pric e scenari o assume drelativel y shar p increase s i n futur e crud e oi l pri o resultin g i n arelativel y hig h penetratio n o f coa l i n th e ne w industrial

corn I stitutiona l stea m atin g uni t

energ y market

. Unde r thi s hig h coa l penetratio n scena ; IFCA M predicte dtha t

unde r th e regulator y baselin e coa l an dnatura l ga s woul dcompet e fo r

th e ne w stea m generatin g uni t

energ y demand , wit h capturin g abou t

6 0 percent , an d natura l ga s abou t

4 0 percent , o f

th e 199 0 energ y demand

. Anothe r poin t tha t shoul db e noted , an dwhic h ha s significantl y shape dth e framewor k

withi n whic h th e basi s o f standard s o f

performanc e fo r

industrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s hav e bee n selected , i s th e relativ e insensitivit y o f cos t impact s t o th e specifi c leve l o f

apercen t reductio n requirement

. Thi s relativ e ins * permit s th e selectio n o f th e propose dstandard s t o b e divide dint o a two-ste p process
. Th e decisio n concernin g th e basi s o f th e standard s (i.e.

. requir e apercen t

reductio n i n SO

ssion s o r permi t th e us e of

lo w sulfu r fuels ) ca n b e separate dfro mth e decisio n regardin g th e specifi c irement s t o includ e i n th e standard s (i.e.

. 50

. 70 , 90

. etc. , percen t reductio n percen t reductio n i s selecte da s th e basi s o f th e standards ; o r

1.7.1.2 , etc.

. l b SOa/millio n Btu for

coal-fire dstea m generatin g units ; o r

1.6

. 0.8

. 0.3

. etc.

. l b SOv/millio n Btu for

oil-fire dstea m generatin g units , i

f us e of lo w sulfu r fuel s i s selecte da s th e basi s for standards)

. A s discusse di n "Summar y of Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Nationa l Imp; : ther e i s littl e differenc e i n nationa l cos t impact s amon g alternativ e contro l level s in g variou s percen t

reduction s i n SO 2 emissions

. Fo r example , unde r

th e hig h oi l penetratio n scenario , nationa l lpact s rang e fro m$3,47 4 million / yea r t o $3,48 2 million/yea r

fo r th e variou s alternative s considere dwhic h woul drequir e apercen t reductio n i n emissions

. Similarly , unde r th e hig h coa l penetratio n scenario , nationa l cos t impact s rang e fro m$3,75 4 million/yea r t o $3,75 8 million/yea r

for th e variou s percen t reductio n alternative s considered

. Difference s of suc h smal l relativ e magnitud e woul dno t resul t i n substantiall y differen t

cos t impact s o n a nationa l basis

. Consequently , i t i s no t necessar y t o conside r

numerou s percen t reductio n level s i n determinin g whethe r astandar drequirin g apercen t reductio n i n emission s woul dhav e unreasonabl e impact s compare dt o astandar dbase d o n th e us e of

lo w sulfu r

fuels

. Rather , i n considerin g whethe r

th e standard s shoul drequir e apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emission s o r

b e base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r

fuels , asingl e percen t reductio n leve l ca n b e use da s representativ e ofth e impact s associate d wit h standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemissions

. Fo r purpose s o f

di e analysi s focusin g o n whethe r

th e basi s o f

th e standard s shoul db e percen t

reductio n requirement s o r

th e us e o f

lo w sulfu r fuels , a9 0 percen t

reductio n requiremen t wa s selecte dt o represen t th e rang e o f percen t reductio n requirement s tha t coul db e include di n standard s of performance

. Thi s percen t reductio n leve l wa s selecte dfo r

thi s purpos e fo r severa l reasons
. It

represent s th e leve l of performanc e whic h ha s bee n demonstrate db y variou s FG D syste m technologies , a s discusse di n "Summar y of Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Performanc e o f

Demonstrate dEmissio n Contro l Technologies. " an di t i s consisten t

wit h th e inten t

o f Sectio n 11 1 of th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t tha t standard s o f performanc e reflec t

th e performanc e o f bes t demonstrate demissio n contro l technologies

. I n addition , a s discusse d i n "Summar y o f

Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Demonstrate d Emissio n Contro l Technolog y Costs. " a 9 0 percen t

reductio n requiremen t i s mor e cos t

effectiv e tha n lowe r

pe ' reductio n requirements , suc h a s 5 0 o r 7 0 percent

. A s als o discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Nationa l Impacts, " ther e ar e relativel y greate r difference s i n annualize dcost s amon g alternativ e contro l level s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r fuels

. Thi s i s particularl y tru e unde r th e hig h oi l penetratio n scenari o wher e annualize dcost s fo r th e mor e stringen t contro l leve l (i.e.

. Contro l Leve l II ) ar e abou t $5 0 million/yea r

greate r tha n th e cost s associate dwit h th e les s stringen t contro l leve l (i.e. , Contro l Leve l I)

. Consequently , i n th e cas e o f lo w sulfur fuel-base dstandard s f p stea mgeneratin g units , tw o alternative s wer e use di n th e analysi s t o r standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oil : a n emissio n leve l of 34 4 n g SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) an da n emissio n leve l o f 68 8 n g SOs/ J (1. 6 l b SOj/milllo n Btu ) hea t input

. Unde r th e hig h coa l penet M scenario , however , th e differenc e i n annualize dcost s amon g alternativ e lo w sulfur fue l standard s i s less , amountin g t o unde r $1 0 million/year

. Consequently , i n evaluatin g th e impact s o f standard s base do n th e us e o f

lo w sulfu r

coal , a singl e alternativ e wa s use dt o represen t standard s base do n th e us e of lo w sulfu r coal : A n emissio n leve l o f 51 8 n g SOj/ J (1. 2 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t input

. I n summary , severa l point s shoul db e kep t i n min di n reviewin g th e discussio n presente dbelo w summarizin g selectio n o f th e propose dstandards

. First , th e analysi s ha s focuse do n th e incrementa l environmental , cost , an denerg y impact s associate dwit h standard s tha t includ e a percen t reductio n requiremen t

o v thos e associate dwit h standard s base d o n th e us e of

lo w sulfu r

fuels

. I n evaluatin g thes e impacts , th e analysi s ha s distinguishe damon g variou s classes , types , an dsize s o f stea m generatin g units

. Second , impact s o f

variou s standard s hav e bee n estimate dfor tw o widel y differen t scenario s o f

futur e fue l us e i n industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g units

. Fo r th e reason s mentione dabove , thes e scenario s canno t b e use dt o asses s quantitativel y th e impac t

of variou s standard s o n marke t interaction s betwee n coa l an d oil

. Finally , an dperhap s mos t significantly , th e relativ e insensitivit y o f cos t impact s t o th e specifi c leve l of a percen t reductio n requiremen t permit s th e selectio n o f

standard s o f performanc e t o b e subdivide dint o a two-ste p process
. First , th e basi s o f standard s ca n b e considere dan d selecte dusin g asingl e percen t reductio n requiremen t

t o represen t

th e ful l rang e o f percen t reductio n requirement s tha t coul db e include di n standard s of performance

. AIBO

. i n th e cas e o f coal , a singl e emissio n limit , an di n th e cas e o f oil

. tw o emissio n limits , ca n b e U M represen t th e rang e o f

emissio n limit s tha t coul db e include di n standard s o f performanc e base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfur fuels

. Second , afte r

selectin g th e basi s of th e propose dstandards , th e specifi c percen t

reductio n requirement s2239 0 Federa l Registe r/ Vol

. 51
. No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19

. 198 6 / Propose dRule s P. 9

o r th e specifi c emissio n limit s reflectin g th e us e o f

lo w sulfu r

fuel s whic h shoul d b e include di n th e propose dstandard s ca n b e considere dan dselected

. 1

. Basi s o f

Standar dfo r

Coal-Fire d Stea mGeneratin g Unit s I n additio n t o th e point s outline dan d discusse dabove , i t

shoul dals o b e note d tha t th e regulator y analysi s examine d th e potentia l impact s o f NSP S fro mthre e differen t perspectives : Th e perspectiv e o f overal l nationa l impacts ; th e perspectiv e o f

specifi c industrie s subjec t t o th e standards ; an dth e perspectiv e o f individua l stea mgeneratin g unit s subjec t t o th e standards

. A t

th e nationa l level , th e regulator y analysi s examine d th e cos t an demissio n impact s associate dwit h bot h standard s requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO 2 emission s an dstandard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r

coal

. A t th e specifi c industr y level , th e analysi s focuse d

. mor e narrowl y o n selecte dindustrie s considere dmos t

likel y t o experienc e advers e economi c impact s associate d wit h standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n emissions

. Finally , a t th e individua l stea mgeneratin g uni t level , th e cos t an demissio n impact s associate dwit h standard s requirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO 2 emission s an d standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coa l wer e examine dfro mth e perspectiv e o f

variou s sizes , types , an d geographi c location s o f stea mgeneratin g units

. National Impacts. A s note dabov e an ddiscusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Nationa l Impacts, " th e nationa l impact s associate dwit h NSP S fo r fossi l fuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wer e analyze dthroug h th e us e o f

acompute r

mode l know n a s , IFCAM

. A s als o note dabove , th e hig h coa l penetratio n scenari o wa s use dt o asses s th e potentia l impact s o f ase t o f regulator y alternative s limitin g S0 2 emission s fro mcoal-fire dstea m generatin g units

. Th e regulator y alternative s wer e structure dt o examin e impact s a s afunctio n o f stea m generatin g uni t

siz e (hea t

inpu t capacity)

. Th e regulator y alternative s becom e progressivel y mor e stringen t b y firs t requirin g onl y stea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t

inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 7 3 M W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emissions , bu t the n requirin g stea mgeneratin g unit s wit h progressivel y lowe r hea t inpu t capacitie s t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emission s a s well

. Th e mos t stringen t

regulator y alternativ e require s al l coal-fire dindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s p f

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emissions

. Th e leas t stringen t regulator y alternativ e i s base d o n th e us e o f

lo w sulfu r

coa l fo r al l coal

fire dindustrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s o f

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour)

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Nationa l Impacts " an dshow n i n Tabl e 8-7 , assumin g a hig h coa l penetratio n i n ne w fossi l fuel

fire dstea mgeneratin g units , standard s base do n th e us e o f

lo w sulfu r

coa l fo r al l ne w coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t

inpu t capacitie s o f

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) resul t i n aprojecte dreductio n i n nationa l SO 2 emission s o f 192,00 0 Mg / yea r (212,00 0 tons/year ) ove r th e regulator y baselin e i n th e fifth yea r followin g proposa l o f

standard s (i.e. , 1990)

. I n comparison , standard s requirin g al l ne w coal-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s o f

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n emission s resul t i n projecte dnationa l SO 2 emissio n reduction s o f

281,00 0 Mg/yea r

(310,00 0 tons/year ) ove r

th e regulator y baselin e i n 1990

. O f th e differenc e i n projecte d reduction s i n nationa l SO 2 emission s betwee n thes e tw o alternative s (abou t 89,00 0 Mg/year) , somewha t les s tha n hal f (abou t 44,00 0 Mg/year ) result s fro m standard s requirin g al l ne w coal-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 7 3 M W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emissions

. Additiona l nationa l SO 2 emissio n reduction s o f 15,00 0 Mg/yea r

(17,00 0 tons/year) , 21,00 0 Mg/yea r

(23,00 0 tons/year) , an d 9,00 0 Mg/yea r

(10,00 0 tons/year ) resul t fro mrequirin g al l ne w coal-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s o f

greate r tha n 5 8 M W (20 0 millio n Btu/hour) , 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour) , an d2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu / hour) , respectively , t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emissions

. Thi s analysis , therefore , project s tha t standard s requirin g al l ne w coal-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s t o achiev e a percen t reductio n i n SO 2 emission s resul t i n greate r

reduction s i n nationa l SO 2 emission s tha n standard s base do n th e us e o f

lo w sulfu r

coal

. Moreover , th e analysi s als o project s tha t standard s requirin g al l ne w coal-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s resul t i n significantl y greate r

nationa l SO a emissio n reduction s tha n standard s requirin g onl y relativel y large r coal-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s t o achiev e a percen t reductio n i n emissions

. A s i s als o show n i n Tabl e 8-7 , assumin g ahig h coa l penetratio n i n ne w fossi l fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g units , NSP S base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coa l fo r al l ne w coal-fire dstea m' generatin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s o f

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) resul t i n aprojecte d nationa l annualize dcos t increas e o f

$1 8 million/yea r

ove r th e regulator y baselin e i n 1990

. Thi s represent s a n increas e o f

les s tha n 1 percen t

i n th e tota l nationa l annualize dcost s associate dwit h operatio n o f al l ne w fossi l fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s projecte dt o b e constructe dbetwee n 198 6 an d1990

. I n comparison , standard s requirin g al l ne w coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t

inpu t capacitie s o f

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t

reductio n i n emission s resul t i n projecte dnationa l annualize d cos t increase s o f

abou t $3 2 million/yea r ove r th e regulator y baselin e i n 1990

. Thi s represent s a n increas e i n tota l nationa l annualize dcost s o f abou t 1 percent

. O f th e differenc e i n projecte d increase s i n tota l nationa l annualize d cost s betwee n thes e tw o alternative s (abou t $1 4 million/year) , nearl y al l ($1 1 million/year ) result s fro mstandard s requirin g al l ne w coal-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emissions

. A s show n i n Tabl e 8-7 , th e analysi s indicate s tha t regulator y alternative s requirin g onl y relativel y large r

coal-fire dstea m generatin g unit s (i.e. , thos e wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s of

greate r tha n 7 3 MW ) t o achiev e apercen t

reductio n i n SO 2 emission s resul t

i n marginall y greate r tota l nationa l annualize dcost s tha n alternative s requirin g al l ne w coal-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n emissions

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Nationa l Impacts, " thi s apparen t

anomal y i s explaine db y th e large r

numbe r of natura l gas-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s tha t ar e projecte di n respons e t o increasingl y stringen t regulator y alternatives

. I n respons e t o standard s tha t requir e coal

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h lowe r an dlowe r

hea t inpu t capacitie s t o

### P.1 0

Federa l Register

/ Vol

. 51

. No

. 11 8 /

Thursday

. June 19

. 198 6 / Propose dRule s 2239 1

B percen t

reductio n i n emissions , a n increasin g numbe r of tiiese stea mgeneratin g unit s ar e projecte dt o fir e natura l ga s instea dof coa l t o avoi dth e cost s associate dwit h lin g an doperatin g FG D syst i A s discusse di n "Summar y of 'ator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n of

Nationa l Impacts. " IFCA M select s th e leas t cos t alterna t labl e t o compl y wit h eac h ;tory alternativ e examined

. Thi s include s th e optio n o f

firing a n alternativ e fuel , suc h a s natura l gas
. a s wel l a s installatio n of

a n FG D system

. leas t cos t alternativ e i s selecte do n th e basi s of

th e after-ta x ne t

presen t valu e associate dwit h eac h optio n availabl e t o compl y wit h th e regu ! alternativ e i n question

. Th e IFCA M project s tota l nationa l annualize di
eac h regulator y alternativ e examined , however , usin g th e annualize dcosts—no t

th e after-ta x ne t presen t value

—associate dwit h r
projecte dne w stea mgeneratin g unit

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Demonstrate d Emissio n Contro l Technolog y Costs " an dshow n i n Tabl e 6-19 , whil e firin g natura l ga s instea do f

coa l ma y resul t

i n s mincreas e i n after-ta x ne t presen t te , i t ca n als o resul t

i n adecreas e i n annualize dcosts

. Thus , i t i s possibl e for tota l projecte dnationa l annualize dcost s ••eas e i n respons e t o increasingl y stringen t regulator y alternatives

. Unde r th e assumptio n o f

hig h coa l penetratio n i n ne w fossi l fuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g units , therefore , thi s analysi s indicate s tha t

th e in c nationa l annualize dcost s associate dwit h standard s requirin g al l ne w coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s t o achiev e apercen t

reductio n i

n SO.

. emission s i s smal l compare dt o th e increas e i n tota l nationa l annualize d cost s associate dwit h standard s b a o n th e us e o f

lo w sulfur

a Base do n th e projecte dnationa l emissio n reduction s an dannualize dcos t increase s describe dabove , th e nationa l ag e cos t effectivenes s o f

NSP S base do n th e us e o f

lo w sulfu r

coa l for al l ne w coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s o f

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) i s abou t $92/M g ($85/ton ) of

SO. , removed

. In comparison , standard s requirin g al l ne w coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s of

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t

reductio n i n emis s resul t i n anationa l averag e i effectivenes s of

$110/M g ($100/ton ) o

f SO

- removed

. Th e nationa l incrementa l cos t •nes s o f astandar dreq u ne w coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s o f

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t

reductio n i n emission s ove r astandar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coa l i s abou t

$150/M g ($140/ton ) o f SO J removed

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f

Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Nationa l Impacts " an dshow n i n Tabl e 8-7

. thi s i s considerabl y les s tha n th e nationa l incrementa l cos t

effectivenes s (abou t $635/M g o f

SO 2 removed ) of

astandar d requirin g onl y ne w coal-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s o f

greate r tha n 7 3 M W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emission s ove r a standar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coa l fo r al l ne w coal-fire dstea m generatin g units

. Th e nationa l incrementa l cos t

effectivenes s o f

a standar drequirin g al l ne w coal-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s t o achiev e a percen t reductio n i n SO aemission s ove r th e nex t mos t stringen t

regulator y alternative , requirin g onl y ne w coal

firedstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s of

greate r tha n 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e a percen t reductio n i n SO 2 emissions , i s als o less , abou t

$330/M g ($300/ton ) o f SO aremoved

. Thi s apparen t

anomal y o f

decreasin g nationa l incrementa l cos t effectivenes s wit h increasingl y stringen t regulator y alternative s result s fro mth e large r numbe r o f natura l gas-fire dstea m generatin g unit s tha t

ar e projecte dunde r increasingl y stringen t

standards

. A s mentione dabov e an ddiscusse di n "Summar y o f

Regulator y An a unde r "Consideratio n o f

Nationa l Impacts, " increase dfirin g o f natura l ga s instea do f

coa l ca n lea dt o decrease d nationa l annualize dcosts

. In addition , increase dfiring o f

natura l ga s result s i n larg e reduction s i n SO

j emissions

. A s a result , th e nationa l incrementa l cos t effectivenes s o f

increasingl y stringen t standard s ca n decreas e and

. a s show n i n Tabl e 8-7 , ca n eve n becom e nega i i n som e cases
. Unde r th e assumptio n o f

hig h coa l penetratio n i n ne w fossi l fuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g units , therefore , thi s analysi s indicate s tha t

th e nationa l averag e cos t

effectivenes s o f

standard s requirin g ne w coal-fire dstea m generatin g unit s t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s i s no t substantiall y highe r

tha n th e nationa l averag e cos t

effectivenes s o f

standard s base do n th e us e o f

lo w sulfur

coal

. In addition , thi s analysi s indicate s tha t th e nationa l incrementa l cos t effectiven i o f standard s requirin g coal-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s of

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o ach i en t reductio n i n emission s ove r stan d; base do n th e us e o f

lo w sulfi n abou t $165/M g ($150/ton ) o f

SO J removed

. A s als o discusse di n "Summar y of Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Nationa l Impa

. an dshow n i n Tabl e 8-7 , assumin g a hig h coa l penetratio n i n ne w fossi l fuel fire dstea mgeneratin g units , NSP S base do n th e us e o f

lo w sulfur

coa l for al l ne w coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s o f

gre. v tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) resul t i n aprojecte dreductio n i n nationa l coa l consumptio n o f 4 0 mil GJ/yea r (3 6 trillio n Btu/year ) i n 199 0 compare dt o th e regulator y baselin e Thi s declin e i n nationa l coa l us e i s projecte dt o b e offse t

b y a n equivalen t increas e i n natura l ga s use
. Stan d requirin g al l ne w coal-fire dst

. generatin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s o f

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e ape n reductio n i n SO 2 emission s resul t i n a projecte dreductio n i n nationa l coa l consumptio n o f

14 0 millio n GJ/yea r

(I trillio n Btu/year ) i n 199 0 co n ; th e regulator y baseline

. Thi s declin e i n coa l us e i s als o projecte dt o b e offse ' a n equivalen t

increas e i n natura l ga s use
. Th e differenc e betwee n thes e tw o alternative s i n projecte dreduction s i n nationa l coa l us e (abou t 10 0 trillio n Btu / year ) i n 199 0 i s distribute drelativel y uniforml y amon g th e intermediat e regulator y alternative s examined

. A s increasingl y smalle r

coal-fire dstea m generatin g unit s ar e require dt o apercen t reductio n i n emissions , a n increasingl y greate r

numbe r o f thes e unit s ar e projecte dt o fir e natura l ga s instea do f

coal

. Th e impac t

o f thi s choic e o n nationa l coa l an dnatura l ga s market s woul db e negligible , however

. A s show n i n Tabl e 8- 9 o f "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis, " adeclin e i n coa l consumptio n o f

14 0 millio n GJ/ y trillio n Btu/year ) i n 199 n reductio n i n projecte dindus ; consumptio n of

les s tha n 3 p an d areductio n i n projecte dtota l nat i coa l consumptio n of

les s tha n 1 ; A s als o show n i n Tabl e 8-9

. disproportionat e impact s o n Midwester n coa l market s wer e projected

. Similarly

. ow n i n Tabl e 8-8

. projecte d nationa l natura l ga s consumpti c industria l secto r

woul dincreas e i n 191X ) b y amaximu mof

abou t 2 percen t

unde r standard s requirin g al l ne w c stea mgeneratin g unit s wit h h i capacitie s o f

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e a reductio n i n SO i emiss iP.1 1

2239 2 Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /'Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s
Assumin g ahig h coa l penetratio n i n ne w fossi l fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g units , therefore , thi s analysi s indicate s tha t th e potentia l impac t

o f standard s requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO

2 emission s fo

r al l ne w coal-fire dstea m generatin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s o

f greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) o n projecte dnationa l coa l an dnatura l ga s consumptio n b y th e industria l secto r

i n 1990 i s small

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Secondary Environmenta l Impacts, " potentia l secondar y environmenta l impact s associate dwith standard s o f performanc e tha t

includ e apercen t reductio n requiremen t

hav e als o bee n analyzed

. Thes e potentia l secondar y environmenta l impact s includ e liqui d an dsoli dwast e impacts

. A s show n i n Tabl e 8-7 , assumin g a hig h coa l penetratio n i n ne w fossi l fuel

fire dstea mgeneratin g units , th e amoun t o f liqui dwast e generate dincreases , an d th e amoun t

o f soli dwast e generate d decreases , a s smalle r

an dsmalle r

unit s ar e require dt o achiev e apercen t

. reductio n i n SO

2 emissions

. A s discusse di n "Summar

y o f Regulator

y Analysis " unde r

"Consideratio n o

f Demonstrate dEmissio n Contro l Technolog y Costs, " sodiu mscrubbin g i s frequentl y th e leas t

costl y FG

D syste m fo r U3 e o n industrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g units

. A s aresult , thes e impact s generall y reflec t th e us e o f sodiu mscrubbin g a s th e contro l syste muse dt o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO

2 emissions

. A s als o discusse di n "Summar

y o f Regulatory Analysis " unde r

"Consideratio n o

f Secondary Environmenta l Impacts, " sodiu mscrubbin g produce s th e greates t quantit y o f liqui dwaste s o

f al l th e FG

D system s examined

. Therefore , t o th e exten t tha t othe r FG D technologie s (sucha s lime spray drying ) ar e selecte d t o compl y wit h astandar drequirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO

2 emissions , th e amoun t o f liqui dwast e woul ddecreas e an dth e amoun t

of soli dwast e woul d increase

. Mos t industrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s ar e par t o f amanufacturin g plan t

whic h normall y generate s substantia l amount s o f liqui dan dsoli dwast e fro mth e manufacturin g proces s itself

. Th e amoun t o f wast e generate db y th e contro l o f SO 2 emission s fro

mthes e stea mgeneratin g units , therefore , woul d represen t onl y asmal l portio n o

f th e tota l waste s generate db y th e plan t i n mos t cases
. In addition , th e constituent s o f th e FG D wast e byproduct s ar e no t classifie da s toxi c or

hazardou s unde r th e Resourc e Conservatio n an d

Recover y Ac t (RCRA)

. A s aresult , the y ca n b e easil y dispose dof

, alon g with th e othe r plan t wastes , b y conventiona l method s withou t

leadin g t o significan t secondar y environmenta l impacts

. In summary , therefore , standard s requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO

2 emission s woul dresul t

i n a n increas e i n th e amount s o

f liqui dan dsoli dwast e generate db y industrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g units

. However , th e quantitie s woul db e smal l compare dt o th e tota l existin g amount s o f liqui dan dsoli dwaste s generate db y industria l plant s a t

whic h thes e stea m generatin g unit s ar e located

. In addition , th e nontoxi c an dnonhazardou s natur e o f th e FG D waste s permit s thei r

disposa l usin g conventiona l technique s suc h a s ponding , landfilling , sewerage , or direc t discharge

. Industry-Specific Economic Impacts. Th e analysi s discusse dabov e o f potentia l nationa l impact s associate d with standard s o

f performanc e fo

r ne w coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s represent s a n assessmen t o f th e aggregat e nationwid e impac t o f standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emissions

. Becaus e o

f th e aggregate natur e o

f thi s analysi s o

f nationa l impacts , i t

wa s unabl e to asses s th e potentia l impac t o f standard s requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO

2 emission s o n specifi c individua l sector s withi n th e nationa l economy
. Accordingly , a s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator

y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Industry-Specifi c Economi c Impacts, " th e regulatory analysi s als o examine dth e potentia l economi c impact s of

astandar d requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO

2 emission s o n major

industria l stea m users
. Befor e discussin g th e analysi s o f industry-specifi c economi c impacts , i t shoul db e note dtha t

th e analysi s represent s a"wors e case " analysi s o f potentia l economi c impacts

. For example , th e assessmen t

o f potentia l increase s i n nationa l produc t price s (i.e. , inflationary impact ) an dproduc t price s a t th e manufacturin g plan t

leve l assume s ful

l cos t pass-throug h o

f al l increase dcost s t o increase dproduc t prices

. Similarly , th e assessmen t o f potential decrease s i n industry profitability (i.e. , decrease dreturn-on

assets ) assume s ful

l cos t absorptio n o

f al l increase dcosts

. In practice , aportio n o f th e increase dcost s associate dwith standard s o

f performanc e limitin g SO

2 emission s fro

mal l ne w fossi l fuel-fire d industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s wil l b e "passe d through " t o produc t

price s an dth e remainde r "absorbed. " Thus , th e assessmen t

o f potentia l impact s resultin g fro

mth e assumption s o

f ful l cos t pass-throug h or

ful l cos t absorptio n shoul db e viewe da s "wors e case " assessments

. In addition , th e analysi s o f potentia l industry-specifi c economi c impact s als o overlook s th e possibility o f fuel switching

. Th e analysi s assume s al l ne w fossi l fuel-fire dstrea mgeneratin g unit s installe dwithi n th e variou s industrie s examine dwil l fir

e coa l regardles s o

f th e relativ e economic s o

f alternativ e fuels , suc h a s natura l gas
. A s discusse dabove , however , th e nationa l impac t analysi s indicate s tha t

firing natura l ga s instea d o f coa l i n respons e t o standard s requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO

2 emission s i s frequentl y les s expensiv e tha n installatio n an doperatio n o f a n FG D system

. Consequently , sinc e th e analysi s o f potentia l industry-specifi c economi c impact s assume s al l ne w fossi l fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wil l fir e coal and , i n respons e t o standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n in SO 2 emissions , thes e unit s wil l instal l an doperat e FG

D systems , thes e impact s ar e overstate dan dals o represen t a "wors e case " assessmen t

o f potentia l economi c impacts

. Finally , a s mentione dbelo w an d discusse di n "Summar

y o f Regulatory Analysis " unde r

"Consideratio n o

f Industry-Specifi c Economi c Impacts, " thos e industrie s with high steam-to

produc t cos t ratio s or lo w annua l capacit y utilization , suc h a s seasona l industries , wer e selecte dfo r analysi s o

f potentia l economi c impact s a t th e manufacturin g plan t

level

. Th e potentia l economi c impact s associate dwith standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emission s wil l b e greate r fo r thes e industrie s tha n othe r industries

. Consequently , thi s aspec t o f th e analysi s als o make s i t

a"wors e case " analysi s i n th e sens e tha t

i t examine dimpact s onl y in thos e industrie s anticipate dt o experienc e th e mos t

sever e economi c impacts

. T o asses s th e potentia l impac t o n produc t price s a t th e nationa l leve l (i.e. , nationa l inflationary impacts ) associate dwith standard s requirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions , th e industry-specifi c economi c analysi s examine dpotentia l impact s o n produc t pric e fo r eight steam-intensiv e industria l categorie s whic h togethe r consum e abou t 7 0 percen t

o f al l industria l stea m production

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator

y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Industry-Specifi c Economi c Impacts, " th e produc t pric e impact s o n thes e eight

majo r industria l categorie s range dfro

m0.0 1 t o 0.0 3

### P.1 2

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday

. Jun e 19

. 198 6 / Propose dRule s 2239. 3
percent , indicatin g tha t th e potentia l impac t o n produc t

price s a t

th e nationa l of standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO z emission s i s negligible

. T o asses s th e potentia l economi c impact s o f

standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n S0 3 emission s o n specifi c industrie s a t

th e indivii ! Factorin g plan t

level , severa l ind i ire selecte dfo r analysis

. A s mentioned , industrie s wit h eithe r hig h ;n-to-produc t

cos t ratio s o r

1 annua l capacit y utilizatio n rate s wer e e dt o provid e a"wors e i view p Th e i

f thi s analysi s ar e summarize di

n Tabl e 9- 1 o f

"Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis. " A s shown , assumin g ful l cos t

pass-throug h t o produc t prices , th e potentia l increas e i n produc t price s a s aresul t

o f standard s requirin g al l ne w coal-fire dsi t generatin g unit s t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emission s coul drang e fro mles s tha n 0. 1 percen t t o 1. 5 percent

. Similarly , assumin g full cos t absorption , potentia l increase s i

n produc t

valu e adde drang e fromles s tha n 0. 1 percen t t o 5. 0 percent , an dpotentia l decrease s i n manufacturin g plan t

profitabilit y o r retur n o n asset s rang e fro mles s tha n 0. 1 t o 2. 8 percent

. Non e o f

thes e projecte d impact s ar e considere dunreasonable

.

, . tacts on Individual

Steam rating Units. Th e analysi s o f industry-specifi c impact s discusse d abov e examine dth e potentia l impact s of standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s withi n specifi c industrie s a t

th e manufacturin g plan t level

. Thi s analysis , however , wa s bl e t o asses s potentia l impact s a t th e individua l stea mgeneratin g uni t level

. Consequently , th e regulator y analysi s als o examine dth e cos t

an demissio n impact s associate dwit h standard s thin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO a emission s an dstandard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r

coa l i n term s of individua l stea mgeneratin g units

. In thi s analysis , potentia l impact s wer e examine dfo r

individua l stea m generatin g unit s a s afunctio n o f stea m itin g uni t location , size , an d capacit y factor

. A s i n th e industry

specifi c economi c impac t analysi s discusse dabove , thi s analysi s als o overlook s th e possibilit y o f fue l switchin g i n respons e t o astandar d requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO a emissions

. Thus , for

th e sam e reason s mentione dabove , thi s analysi s shoul d als o b e viewe da s a"wors e case " analysi s i n term s o f

potentia l impacts

. T o determin e whethe r

ther e wer e an y significan t

difference s associate dwit h standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coa l o r standard s requirin g apercen t ictio n i n SO : emission s o n individua l stea mgeneratin g unit s wit h difference s i n geographi c location , impact s wer e ine dfor stea mgeneratin g u : locate di n EP A Region s V an dVIII

. Thes e region s wer e selecte dt o represen t i easter n an dwester n geographi c locations , respectively

. Coal-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t s o f 29

. 44

. 73

. an d11 7 M W (100.150

. 250 , an d40 0 millio n Btu/hour ) operatin g a t

a n annua l capacit y utilizatio n facto r

o f 0. 6 wer e selecte dt o represen t typica l coal-fire dindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g units

. Th e annua l capacit y utilizatio n facto r

i s define da s th e actua l annua l hea t

inpu t t o th e stea m generatin g uni t

divide db y th e maximu m annua l hea t

inpu t t o th e uni t

i f i t wer e operate da t

desig n capacit y fo r

2 4 hour s pe r day , 36 5 day s pe r

yea r (8.76 0 hour s pe r y r Th e emissio n reduction s achieve db y alternativ e contro l level s o r standard s base do n eithe r

th e us e o f

lo w sulfu r coa l o r o n apercen t

reductio n i n SO * emission s wer e calculate dfor eac h siz e o f representativ e stea mgeneratin g uni t an dar e show n i n Table s 6-1 1 an d6-1 2 of "Summar y o f

Regulator y Analysis " fo r atypica l 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu / hour ) unit

. I n Regio n V

. a n alternativ e contro l leve l o r

standar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r

coa l achieve s SO a emissio n reduction s o f

41 0 Mg/yea r

(46 0 tons/year ) ove r

th e regulator y baseline

. A n alternativ e contro l leve l o r standar d requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO * emission s result s i n emissio n reduction s o f 60 0 Mg/yea r

(66 0 tons/year ) ove r

th e regulator y baseline

. I n Regio n VIII

. a n alternativ e contro l leve l o r standar d base do n th e us e of

lo w sulfu r

coa l achieve s SO * emissio n reduction s of 41 0 Mg/yea r (46 0 tons/year ) ove r

th e regulator y baseline

. A n alternativ e contro l leve l o r

standar drequirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO s emission s result s i n emissio n reduction s of 80 0 Mg/yea r (88 0 tons/year ) ove r

th e regulator y baseline

. Thus , th e incrementa l annua l emissio n reduction s resultin g fro mstandard s requirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO aemission s ove r standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coa l fo r atypica l 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t

inpu t capacit y stea m generatin g uni t

woul db e 25 0 Mg/yea r (27 5 tons/year ) i n Regio n V an d39 0 Mg / yea r (43 0 tons/year ) i n Regio n VIII

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Demonstrate d Emissio n Contro l Technolog y Costs " an dshow n i n Table s 6-1 3 an d6-14

. th e cos t impact s associate dwit h alternativ e contro l level s o r

standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r

coal , a s wel l a s alternativ e contro l level s o r standard s •rin g apercen t reductio n i n s emissions , wer e calculate dfor representativ e size s of

indivi i generatin g units

. Th ' i n th e annualize dcost s o f nev\ stea mgeneratin g unit s ove r th e regulator y baselin e a s aresul t of complianc e wit h a n alternativ e c o leve l o r stand. ; o n th e uff l lo w sulfu r

coa l i s abou t

3 pe r Regio n V an dabou t

2 percen t

i n R i V1I 1 fo r al l stea mgeneratin g uni t B I examined

. Th e potenti.; 1 i n annualize dcost s a s aresul t o f complianc e wit h a n alternativ e contro l leve l o r standar drequirin g a reductio n i n SO * emission s ove r th e regulator y baselin e range s from6 t o 8 percen t i n Regio n V an dfro mH i percen t i n Regio n VIII

. dependin g o n stea mgeneratin g uni t

s : incrementa l increas e i n annualiz e resultin g fro mstandard s requirin g a percen t reductio n i n emission s 0 standard s base do n th e us e of lo w coa l wotd db e abou t

3 t o 5 percen l i n Regio n V an dabou t

9 t o 1 0 p < Regio n VIII , dependin g o n stea m generatin g uni t

size

. O n th e basi s o f

th e emissio n reduction s an dpotentia l annualiz t increase s note dabove , th e averag e cos t effectivenes s o f

standard s base do n th e us e of lo w sulfu r

coa l i n Regio n v betwee n $430/M g ($390/ton ) an d$470 / M g ($430/ton ) o f

SO aremoved

. Fo r standard s requirin g apercen t radui i n SO aemissions , th e averag e cos t effectivenes s i n Regio n V range dfro m $560/M g ($510/ton ) o f

SO « remove dfor atypica l 11 7 M W (40 0 millio n Btu/hour ) capacit y uni t

t o $930/M g ($840/ton ) o f SO aremove dfo r

atypica l 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) capacit y unit

. In Regio n VIII , th e averag e cos t effectivenes s o f

standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r

coa l i s abou t

$250/M g ($220/ton ) o f

SO aremove dfor

al l stea m generatin g uni t

sizes

. Fo r

standard s requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO a emissions , th e averag e cos t effectivenes s i n Regio n VII I range dfro m $670/M g ($610/ton ) of

SO aremove dfor atypica l 11 7 M W (40 0 millio n Btu/hour ) capacit y uni t

t o $930/M g ($840/ton ) o f SO aremove dfo r

atypica l 2 9 M W (NX

) millio n Btu/hour ) capacit y unit

. I n Regio n V

. th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s o f

astandar drequirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO aemission s ove r astandar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coa l range s fro m$1,910/M g ($1.730/ton ) of

SO aremove dfo r

a2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y stea mgeneratin g uni t t o $770 / Mg ($700/ton ) o f

SO aremove dfo r

a11 7 M W (40 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y stea mgeneratin g unit

.P.1 3

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s Similarly , i n Regio n VII

I th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s range s fro

m$1,820 / M g t o $1,210/M g ($l,650/to n t o $1,100 / ton ) o f SO aremove dover

th e rang e o

f stea mgeneratin g uni t

size s examined

. Thes e result s indicat e tha t standard s requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO

2 emission s a t

typica l coal-fire dstea m generatin g unit s (i.e. , capacit y utilizatio n factor s i n th e rang e o

f 0.6 ) achiev e a significant reductio n i n emission s a t a reasonabl e incrementa l cos t compare d t o standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coa l fo r al l size s o

f stea m generatin g unit s examined

. A s mentione dabove , th e potentia l impact s o f standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO

2 emission s an d standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coal wer e als o examine da s afunctio n o f stea mgeneratin g uni t

capacit y utilizatio n factor

. I n particular , impact s wer e examine dfo

r ane w 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t

inpu t capacit y coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t operate da

f a n annua l capacit y utilizatio n facto r

o f 0. 3 an dals o a t

a n annua l capacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0.15

. Th e emissio n reduction s achieve db y alternativ e contro l level s or standard s base do n eithe r

th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coal or o n apercen t

reductio n i n SO

2

. emission s wer e calculate dfo r a4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) uni t locate di n Regio n V an doperatin g a t acapacity utilizatio n facto r

o f 0.3 0 an da t

a capacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0.15

. At a capacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0.3 , a n alternativ e contro l leve l o r standar d base do n th e us e o

f lo w sulfu r coa l achieves SO

2 emissio n reduction s o

f 20 5 Mg/yea r (23 0 tons/year ) over

th e regulatory baseline

. A n alternativ e contro l leve l or

standar drequirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO

2 emission s result s i n emissio n reduction s o f 30 0 Mg/yea r (33 0 tons/year ) ove r

th e regulatory baseline

. At

acapacit y utilizatio n facto r

o f 0.15 , a n alternativ e contro l leve l or

standar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coa l achieves SO

2 emissio n reduction s o

f 10 0 Mg/yea r

(11 0 tons/year ) ove r

th e regulatory baseline

. An alternativ e contro l leve l or standar d requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO

2 emission s result s i n emissio n reduction s o f 15 0 Mg/yea r

(165 tons/year ) over

th e regulatory baseline

. Th e SO 2 emissio n reduction s associate dwith astandar d requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO

a emission s ar e greater , therefore , tha n thos e associate dwith astandar dbase d o n th e us e o

f lo w sulfu r coal

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulatory Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Demonstrate d Emission , Contro l Technolog y Costs " an dshow n i n Table s 6-1 5 an d6-18 , th e potentia l increas e over

th e regulatory baselin e i n annualize dcost s o f ane w 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) coal-fire d stea mgeneratin g uni t

associate dwith standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coa l fo r stea mgeneratin g unit s operate d a t lo w capacit y utilizatio n factor s i s abou t 2 percen t or les s i n Regio n V an d abou t 1 percen t i n Regio n VIII

. Th e potentia l increas e i n annualize dcost s over th e regulatory baselin e associate d with standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n emission s i s abou t 9 percen t i n Regio n V an dabou t

1 1 percen t or les s i n Regio n VIII

. Thus , th e incrementa l increas e i n annualize dcost s a s aresul t o f standard s requirin g a percen t reductio n i n emission s ove r standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coal fo r stea mgeneratin g unit s operatin g a t lo w capacit y utilizatio n factor s i s abou t 7 t o 8 percen t

i n Regio n V an d abou t 9 t o 1 0 percen t

i n Regio n VIII

. Th e averag e cos t

effectivenes s o

f standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coal remain s essentiall y constan t with respec t t o stea mgeneratin g uni t capacit y utilizatio n factor

. Fo r a4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit , th e averag e cos t

effectivenes s o

f standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coa l i s abou t

$440/M g ($400/ton ) o

f SO a remove di n Regio n V an dabou t $280 / M g ($250/ton ) o

f SO 2 remove di n Regio n VIII

. Th e averag e cos t

effectivenes s o

f standard s base do n apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emission s increase s with decreasin g stea mgeneratin g uni t capacit y utilizatio n factor

. Fo r a44 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t locate di n Regio n V , th e averag e cos t effectivenes s increase s fro m$1,270 / M g ($l,150/ton ) o

f SO aremove da t

a capacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0. 3 t o $2,130/M g ($l,930/ton ) o

f SO 2 remove d a t acapacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0.15

. Th e incrementa l cos t

effectivenes s o

f astandar drequirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emission s compare dt o a standar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coa l range s fro

mabou t $3,080/M g ($2,790/ton ) o

f SO aremove dfo

r ane w 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t operatin g a t

acapacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0.3 0 t o abou t

$5,ll6/M g ($4,640/ton ) o

f SO aremove dfo

r thi s sam e siz e stea mgeneratin g uni t operatin g a t

acapacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0.1 5 i n Regio n V

. Similarly , th e incrementa l cos t

effectivenes s range s fro mabou t $2,420/M g ($2,20O/ton) t o abou t $3,950/M g ($3,580/ton ) o f SO a remove di n Regio n VIII

. Thes e result s indicat e tha t th e annua l emissio n reduction s achieve dunde r a standar drequirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s compare dt o a standar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coal decreas e a s stea mgeneratin g uni t capacit y utilizatio n facto r decreases

. Th e incrementa l annualize dcos t impact s increas e an dth e incrementa l ' cos t effectivenes s increase s significantl y a s capacit y utilizatio n facto r decreases

. A s discusse dabov e an di n "Summar y o f Regulatory Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Nationa l Impacts, " man y stea mgeneratin g unit s fir e natura l ga s instea do

f coa l i n respons e t o a standar drequirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemissions

. Thi s fue

l switchin g occur s predominantl y i n smal l stea m generatin g unit s an di n stea mgeneratin g unit s operatin g a t

lo w capacit y utilizatio n factors

. An examinatio n o f projecte dfue

l selectio n a s afunctio n o f stea mgeneratin g uni t

capacit y utilizatio n facto r

indicate s tha t

eve n unde r th e regulatory baselin e n o coal

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s ar e expecte dt o operat e a t

capacit y utilizatio n factor s o

f les s tha n 3 0 percent

. A t

suc h lo w capacit y utilizatio n factors , oi l or

natura l ga s ar e th e fuel s o f choic e eve n i n th e absenc e o f standard s o f performance

. Th e nationa l impact s analysis , therefore , project s tha t little , if any , coa l wil l b e fire di n ne w fossi l fuel

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s operatin g a t lo w capacit y utilizatio n factor s eve n assumin g ahig h coa l penetration

. In addition , thos e lo w capacit y utilizatio n facto r

stea mgeneratin g unit s tha t might selec t coa l woul db e mos t likel y t o fir

e natura l ga s instea do

f coa l i n respons e t o standard s requirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO

2 emissions

. A s discusse di n "Summar

y o f Regulatory Analysis " unde r

"Consideratio n o

f Demonstrate dEmissio n Contro l Technolog y Costs " an da s illustrate db y Tabl e 6-19 , th e cost s an dcos t effectivenes s o

f th e emissio n reduction s resultin g fro

mfuel switchin g ar e quit e reasonable

. Consequently , th e analysi s discusse dabov e o

f th e potentia l impact s o f standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO

2 emission s o n lo w capacit y utilizatio n facto r stea m generatin g unit s i s considere d misleading

. A s aresult , th e potentia l impact s o f standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemission s fro

mcoal

fired'stea mgeneratin g units , eve n thos e operatin g a t

lo w capacit y utilizatio n factors , ar e considere dreasonable

. Th e analyse s o

f nationa l impacts , impact s o n specifi c industries , an d impact s o n individua l stea mgeneratin g unit s hav e show n tha t

th e impact s o

f a standar drequirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s ar e reasonabl e whe n compare dt o standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coa l an dwhe n compare d to th e regulatory baseline

. N o sizes ,

### P. M

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday

. Jun e 19

. 198 6 / Propose dRule s 22-39 5
types , o r othe r categorie s o f

coal-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s wer e distinguishe dfo r

whic h astandar do f performanc e includin g apercen t reductio n requiremen t

woul dresul t

i n unreasonabl e impacts

. Therefore , th e basi s o f th e standar dfo r

coal-fire d industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s o f

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) i s apercen t reductio n i n SO aemissions

. 2

. Selectio n of

Standar dfo r

Coal-Fire d Stea mGeneratin g Unit s A variet y o f

technologie s hav e bee n identifie dtha t

ar e capabl e o f continuousl y achievin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s fromcoal

fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r

"Selectio n o f Demonstrate dEmissio n Contro l Technologies, " thes e technologie s includ e bot h combustio n modificatio n an dpost-combustio n control

. Combustio n modificatio n technique s fo r SO acontro l includ e coal/limeston e pellet s (CLP) , limeston e injectio n multistage dburner s (LIMB) , an d fluidize dbe dcombustio n (FBC)

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis, " CL P an dLIM B ar e currentl y considere dt o b e emergin g rathe r tha n demonstrate dtechnologies

. Th e FB C system , however , i s considere dt o b e a demonstrate dSO s contro l technolog y fo r purpose s of

developin g NSPS

. Post-combustio n contro l technologie s ca n b e furthe r

divide dint o tw o groups : We t an ddr y FGD

. We t

FG D processe s includ e lime , limestone , dua l alkali , an d sodiu mwe t

scrubbing

. Al l we t

FG D system s ar e considere ddemonstrate d SO acontro l technologie s fo r purpose s of developin g NSPS

. Dr y FG D processe s i e electro n bea mirradiation , dr y alkal i injection , an dlim e spra y drying

. O f these , onl y lim e spra y dryin g i s currentl y considere dt o b e a demonstrate dSO acontro l technology

. Bot h short-ter man dlong-ter mSO a emissio n tes t

dat awer e gathere dt o asses s th e performanc e o f thes e demonstrate dcontro l technologie s i n reducin g SO aemission s fro mcoal-fire d stea mgeneratin g units

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f

Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Performanc e o f

Demonstrate d Emissio n Contro l Technologies. " analysi s o f

th e dat agathere do n th e performanc e o f

lime , limestone , dua l alkali , an dsodiu mFG D system s
•-ate s tha t

thes e technologie s ar e pabl e o f continuousl y achievin g a9 0 cen t reductio n i n SO aemission s fro m coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s o n a 30-da y rollin g averag e basis

. Therefore

. a9 0 percen t

reductio n i n SO aemission s fro mcoal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s o n a30-da y rollin g averag e basi s throug h th e us e o f

we t FG D technologie s i s considere ddemonstrated

. Analysi s o f

performanc e dat a gathere dt o asses s th e performanc e o f FB C an dlim e spra y dryin g technologie s indicate s tha t

thes e technologie s hav e th e potentia l t o achiev e a9 0 percen t reductio n i n SO aemissions

. Recentl y gathere dlong-ter mdat afro ma t leas t thre e FB C unit s presentl y operatin g indicat e tha t

FB C technologie s ar e capabl e o f

continuousl y achievin g a9 0 percen t reductio n i n SO aemission s fro m coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s o n a 30-da y rollin g averag e basis

. Therefore , a9 0 percen t

reductio n i n SO aemission s fro mcoal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s o n a30-da y rollin g averag e basi s throug h th e us e o f

FB C o r lim e spra y dryin g technologie s i s considere d demonstrated

. Th e cos t impact s associate dwit h percen t reductio n requirement s rangin g fro ma s lo w a s 5 0 percen t reductio n t o a s hig h a s 9 0 percen t

reductio n wer e analyze dfo r

coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s a t bot h th e nationa l leve l an da t th e individua l stea mgeneratin g uni t level

. Thes e analyse s ar e discusse di n "Summar y o f

Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Nationa l Impacts " an d"Consideratio n o f Demonstrate dEmissio n Contro l Technolog y Costs. " A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n of

Nationa l Impacts. " nationa l annualize dcos t impact s wer e foun dt o b e relativel y insensitiv e t o variation s i n th e specifi c leve l o f th e percen t reductio n requirement

. Fo r example , th e nationa l averag e cos t effectivenes s associate dwit h astandar d requirin g a5 0 percen t

reductio n i n SO a emission s i s $110/M g ($100/ton ) o f SO a remove dfor

al l ne w coal-fire dstea m generatin g unit s o f

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacity , compare dt o $120/M g ($110 / ton ) o f SO aremove dfo r

standard s requirin g a9 0 percen t

reductio n i n SO a emissions

. However , SO aemission s unde r a9 0 percen t

reductio n requiremen t

ar e reduce db y a n additiona l 13.00 0 Mg/yea r (14.00 0 tons / year ) belo w th e emissio n level s achieve dunde r

a5 0 percen t

reductio n requirement

. Th e cos t impact s associate dwit h a rang e o f percen t reductio n requirement s wer e als o examine dfor atypica l coal

fire dindustrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g uni t

wit h ahea t

inpu t capacit y of

4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu / hour)

. A s show n i n Tabl e 6-1 7 of "Summar y of

Regulator y Analysis, " th e annualize dcos t

difference s o f

operatin g a n FG D syste mt o achiev e a9 1

reductio n i n SO aemission s versu s a5 0 percen t reductio n i n SO aemission s rang e fro mabou t

$30.000/yea r

fo r sulfu r coa l t o abou t

$210,000 / hig h sulfu r

coal

. Th e correspondin g incrementa l emissio n reduction * achieve dunde r

a9 0 per t requiremen t

rang e fro m12 7 Mg/yea r (14 0 tons/year ) fo r

lo w sulf' 75 5 Mg/yea r (83 0 tons/year ) fo r

hig h sulfu r coal

. Th e averag e cos t

effectivenes s of operatin g a n FG D syste ma t 9 1 reductio n i s $51 0 t o $1.560/M g ($46 0 t o $1.420/ton ) of

SO J r e »re d t o $66 0 t o $2.480/M g ($60 0 t o $2.250/! < • of SO aremove dfo r

a n FG D syst t operate da t

5 0 percen t

r e Bot h analyses , therefore , lea dt o sam e conclusion : a9 0 percen t reductio n requiremen t

i s mor e lowe r percen t reductio n requirements

A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " u n "Consideratio n o f

Demonstrate d Emissio n Contro l Technolog y Costs, " thi s resul t

emerge s becaus e th e onl y increase dcost s associate dwit h operatin g a n FG D syste mt o achiev e a relativel y hig h percen t

re du .O a emission s ar e th e increase dcost s resultin g fro mincreas e it s an d utilitie s consumptio n an dincrease d wast e disposa l costs

. Thes e mere , cost s ar e incrementa l i n natur e an d relativel y small

. However , th e increase d reductio n i n SO aemission s resultin g fro moperatio n a t

ahig h percen t reductio n leve l i s quit e significant

. I n addition , i n th e nationa l analysis , th e cos t

e l ao f

a9 0 percen t reductio n t o th e cos t

effectivenes s o f

aIov \ percen t reductio n requiremen t influence db y fuel switching

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f R i > Analysis " unde r

"Con

. o f Nationa l Impacts. ' Fue l switchin g fro mcoa l t o natura l ga s i n respons e t o percen t

reductio n requirement s tend s t o >•• • h e resultin g cos t

effectivenes s o f

SO a control

. Whil e th e increase dDO S associate dwit h operatin g a n F < syste ma t

ahig h percen t

i ar e relativel y small , i n som e case s thes e increase dcost s ar e suff ; tus e som e additiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s t o fir e natura l ga s i

t Thi s tend s t o decreas e furthe r th e cos t effectivenes s o f

SO acontro l associa ! wit h th e 9 0 percen t

I requirement

. Consequently , i n bot h th e n impac t an dindividua l stea mg r uni t impac t analyses , a9 0 pe r reductio n requiremen t

emerge s a s mor ePAS

2239 6 Federa l Registe r/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s

cos t effectiv e tha n lowe r

percen t reductio n requirements

. A s discusse dabove , th e ability o f we t FG D technologies , lime spray dryin g systems , an dFB C system s t o achiev e SO 2 emissio n reduction s o

f 9 0 percen t o n a30-da

y rollin g averag e basi s i s considere ddemonstrated

. Thus , a9 0 percen t reductio n standar dha s bee n selecte dfo

r ne w coal-fire dstea m generatin g unit s o

f greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t

inpu t capacit y (excep t

fo r unit s usin g emergin g technologies , a s discusse d below)

. On e o f th e objective s o

f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o

f 1977 wa s t o encourag e th e us e o

f locall y availabl e high sulfu r coals

. Thi s objectiv e wa s take n int o consideratio n i n selectin g th e SO 2 emissio n limi t

associate dwith th e percen t reductio n requirements

. An analysi s o

f U.S

. coa l reserv e dat a indicate s tha t

onl y abou t

8 0 percen t

o f U.S

. ra w coa l reserve s coul db e use dt o compl y with astandar drequirin g a9 0 percen t reductio n i n SO

2 emission s an d a n emissio n limi t

o f 25 8 n g SO2/

J (0. 6 l b SOi/millio n Btu) hea t

input

. However , abou t 9 8 percen t

o f U.S

. ra w coa l reserve s coul db e use dt o compl y with a standar drequirin g a9 0 percen t reductio n i n SO

2 emission s an da n emissio n limi t

o f 51 6 n g SO2/

J (1-2 l b SO 2 /millio n Btu) hea t

input

. Therefore , a n emissio n limit

o f 51 6 ng SO2/

J (1. 2 l b SQj/millio n Btu) hea t

inpu t ha s bee n selecte da s th e emissio n limi t include d with th e 9 0 percen t

reductio n requiremen t

fo r coal-fire dindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g units

. Thes e standard s reflec t

th e us e o f th e bes t technological syste mo

f continuou s SO 2 emissio n reductio n fo

r coal-fire d stea mgeneratin g units

. It

i s questionable , however , whethe r thes e standard s ar e achievabl e b y man y emergin g technologie s a t

thei r curren t stat e o f development

. Th e ver y natur e o f emergin g technologie s prevent s an y quantitativ e assessmen t

o f thei r performanc e o r

costs

. A s aresult , th e regulatory analysi s coul dno t conside r th e potentia l impact s o

f alternativ e standard s o n th e continue ddevelopmen t of emergin g technologies

. Som e emergin g SO

2 contro l technologies , however , sho w promis e o f achievin g greate r emissio n control , or

equivalen t level s o f contro l a t

substantiall y lowe r costs , tha n demonstrate dtechnologies

. Therefore , i t

i s desirabl e tha t

standard s o f performanc e accommodat e an dfoste r th e continue ddevelopmen t o f emergin g technologies

. I t i s quit e likel y tha t

arequiremen t tha t al l coal-fire dindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) achiev e aminimum9 0 percen t reductio n i n SO

2 emission s woul ddiscourag e th e continue d developmen t

o f mos t emergin g technologies

. Owner s an doperator s o f ne w coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s woul dlikel y vie w th e risk s o f usin g a n SO 2 contro l technolog y tha t

ha s not ' bee n full y demonstrate dt o consistentl y achiev e a9 0 percen t

reductio n i n emission s a s to o great , an dwould , therefore , emplo y conventiona l demonstrate dcontro l technologies

. If , o n th e othe r

hand , standard s o

f performanc e wer e establishe dtha t woul dallo w emergin g technologie s t o achiev e lowe r

percen t reductions , thes e risk s woul db e substantiall y reduced

. Establishin g les s stringen t percen t reductio n requirement s fo r emergin g technologie s substantiall y increase s th e likelihoo dtha t

owner s an doperator s o

f ne w coal-fire dindustrial

- commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s wil l instal l an doperat e emergin g technologies

. Th e experienc e gaine di n utilizin g emergin g technologie s will , i n turn , foster

thei r continue ddevelopmen t whil e simultaneousl y reducin g th e perceive drisk s associate dwith thei r use
. Thre e alternativ e approache s wer e considere dfo

r accommodatin g th e developmen t

an dus e o

f emergin g SO

2 contro l technologies

. Th e firs t alternativ e involve dprovision s fo r grantin g permit s fo

r les s stringen t percen t reductio n requirement s t o emergin g technologie s o n acase-by-cas e basis

. Unde r

thi s alternative , owner s o r operator s o

f ne w coal-fire dsteam

. generatin g unit s wishin g t o us e a n emergin g SO s contro l technolog y coul d appl y fo r apermi t t o operat e th e technolog y a t

apercen t reductio n les s tha n tha t specifie di n th e standards

. Emerging technolog y permit s woul d hav e th e advantag e o

f enablin g level s o

f performanc e t o b e specifie dtha t reflec t th e bes t leve l o f performanc e achievabl e b y eac h technolog y fo

r whic h apermi t

i s issued

. Such a n approac h woul drequir e operatio n o

f conventiona l demonstrate d technologie s a t

high performanc e levels , bu t woul dpermi t

emergin g technologie s t o operat e a t

lowe r performanc e levels

. Th e majo r disadvantag e associate dwith thi s alternativ e woul db e th e substantia l administrativ e burden s o

f preparin g an d reviewin g applications fo r permits

. A separat e applicatio n woul dnee dt o b e submitte dfo

r eac h installatio n o

f a n emergin g technolog y an dindividua l determination s woul dnee dt o b e mad e a s t o th e mos t

appropriat e standar dt o appl y i n eac h case
. Th e uncertaintie s inheren t i n case-by-cas e evaluation s an dth e time require dt o appl y fo r an d receiv e apermi t

coul deffectively discourag e th e developmen t an dus e o

f emergin g technologies

. Anothe r approac h fo

r accommodatin g emergin g technologie s woul db e th e establishmen t

o f a"slidin g scale " percen t reductio n requiremen t

fo r al l SO 2 contro l technologies , suc h a s tha t include di n th e NSP S fo

r electri c utility stea mgeneratin g unit s (40 CF RPart 60 , Subpart Da)

. Unde r

aslidin g scal e percen t reductio n requirement , a n owne r o r operato r coul dcompl y with eithe r a standar dincludin g arelativel y more stringen t percen t reductio n requiremen t an dales s stringen t

emissio n limit , or with astandar dincludin g arelativel y les s stringen t

percen t reductio n requiremen t

an damore stringen t emissio n limit

. Suc h a n approac h woul d allo w a n owne r

or operato r t o fir e coal s with lowe r

sulfu r content s an dcomply with arelativel y les s stringen t percen t reductio n requirement

. Thus , emergin g technologie s coul db e operate da t lowe r performanc e level s i

f lo w sulfu r coa l wer e fired

. Withou t

restrictin g aslidin g scal e percen t

reductio n requiremen t

t o emergin g technologies , however , thi s approac h woul dals o permi t conventiona l demonstrate dSO 2 contro l technologie s t o b e operate da t considerabl y les s tha n th e contro l level s tha t thes e technologie s hav e clearl y demonstrated

. Th e thir dalternativ e considere d woul dallo w emergin g technologie s t o achiev e aminimum'designate dpercen t reductio n i n SO

2 emission s tha t

i s lowe r tha n tha t fo r demonstrate dtechnologies

. Conventiona l demonstrate d technologies , however , woul dalway s b e require dt o operat e a t

th e 9 0 percen t reductio n performanc e leve l discusse d above

. Designatin g les s stringen t percen t reductio n requirement s fo r emergin g SO

2 contro l technologie s woul deliminat e th e nee dfo r acase-by-cas e permittin g proces s an dth e accompanyin g administrativ e burdens

. Thi s les s burdensom e approac h woul db e mor e likel y t o encourag e th e developmen t an d us e o f emergin g SO

j contro l technologie s withou t

allowin g conventiona l demonstrate dtechnologie s t o b e operate da t

performanc e level s les s tha n thos e tha t

hav e bee n demonstrated

. After considerin g eac h o

f th e abov e alternative s fo

r accommodatin g emergin g technologies , designatin g lowe r percen t reductio n requirement s fo r emerging.technologie s wa s selecte d a s th e regulatory approac h bes t suite dt oP.1 6

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s encouragin g developmen t an dus e o

f emergin g technologies

. A s discusse dabove , CLP , LIMB , electro n bea mirradiation , an ddry alkal i injectio n ar e considere dexample s of emergin g technologies

. Thi s "list " i s b y n o mean s complete , however , an dman y othe r technologie s fo

r SO acontro l ar e unde r developmen t

or ma y b e develope d in th e future

. T o encourag e th e continue d developmen t

o f emergin g technologies , a percen t reductio n requiremen t

shoul db e se t lo w enoug h t o b e reasonabl y attainable , bu t

high enoug h t o ensur e tha t aminimumleve l o

f SO 2 emission s contro l i s achieved

. Althoug h thi s i s a matte r o f judgment , aminimu mpercen t reductio n requiremen t

o f 5 0 percen t

i s considere dappropriat e fo r thi s purpose
. Therefore , th e propose dstandard s woul drequir e al l new , modified , o r reconstructe dcoal-fire dindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s o

f greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) employin g emergin g SO 2 contro l technologie s t o achiev e a minimumo

f 5 0 percen t

reductio n i n SO

2 emission s o n a30-da

y rollin g averag e basis

. Thi s percen t

reductio n requiremen t

i s considerabl y les s stringen t tha n th e 9 0 percen t reductio n requiremen t

base do n conventiona l demonstrate dSO 2 emission.contro l technologies

. Whil e it i s considere ddesirabl e t o encourag e an dfoster continue ddevelopmen t

o f emergin g SO

2 emissio n contro l technologies , th e us e o

f suc h technologie s shoul db e limite dt o combustio n o

f lo w sulfu r coals

. Thi s wil l minimiz e an y increas e i n SO 2 emission s a t acoal-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t a s a resul t o f th e us e o f a n emergin g technology

. Therefore , a n emissio n limi t o f 25 8 n g SO2/ J (0. 6 lb SOa/millio n Btu) ha s bee n selecte da s th e emissio n limi t associate dwit

h th e percen t

reductio n requiremen t

fo r emergin g technologies

. Selectio n o

f thi s SO 2 emissio n limit restrict s th e us e of

emergin g technologie s achievin g th e minimum percen t reductio n i n SO

2 emission s t o stea mgeneratin g unit s firin g coa l with a sulfu r conten t o f 51 6 n g SO2/ J (1. 2 l b S0 2 /millio n Btu) hea t

inpu t or less

. However , t o th e exten t

tha t a n emergin g technolog y coul dachiev e SO 2 emissio n reduction s o

f greate r tha n 5 0 percent , coal s with highe r

sulfu r content s coul d b e fire dwithou t

exceedin g thi s emissio n lirr.it

. Becaus e highe r

sulfu r coal s ar e generall y les s expensiv e tha n lo w sulfu r coals , thi s wil l ac t

a s a n incentiv e t o achiev e percen t

reduction s o

f greate r tha n 5 0 percent

. Th e propose dstandard , therefore , provide s alimite d"window " fo r us e o f emergin g technologies

. Thi s windo w wil l b e reviewe dregularl y durin g th e cours e o f th e revie w proces s associate dwith al l NSPS

. A s appropriate , th e percen t reductio n requirement s wil l b e revise d upward s i n light

o f additiona l performanc e dat aavailabl e a t tha t time fo r variou s emergin g technologies

. A s a resul t o f thes e reviews , emergin g contro l technologie s tha t

d o no t demonstrat e improvement s i n performanc e capabilities , or

sho w n o promis e o

f achievin g emissio n reduction s greate r tha n 5 0 percent , wil l n o longer b e considere demergin g technologie s an d al l subsequen t

installation s woul db e subjecte dt o th e sam e requirement s a s thos e include di n th e standard s fo r conventiona l demonstrate dcontro l technologies

. 3

. Basi s o f Standar dfo

r Oil-Fire dSteam Generatin g Unit s Th e regulatory analysi s fo r oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s wa s conducte di n th e sam e manne r

a s tha t describe d abov e fo r coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. Th e potentia l impact s o f NSP S o n oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wer e examine dfro

mth e perspective s o

f overal l nationa l impacts , impact s o n specifi c industrie s subjec t t o th e standards , an dimpact s o n individua l stea mgeneratin g unit s subjec t t o th e standards

. Eac h o

f thes e perspective s i s discusse dbelow

. National Impacts. A s mentione d abov e an ddiscusse di n "Summar y o f Regulatory Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Nationa l Impacts, " th e nationa l impact s associate dwith NSP S fo r fossi l fuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wer e analyze dthroug h th e us e o f th e compute r

model , IFCAM

. A s als o note dabove , th e high oi l penetratio n scenari o wa s use dt o asses s th e potentia l impact s o

f standard s limitin g SO

2 emission s fro

moil-fire d stea mgeneratin g units

. Simila r t o th e analysi s for

coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g units , ase t

o f regulatory alternative s o r alternativ e standard s wa s structuredf o examin e impact s a s afunctio n o f stea m generatin g uni t

siz e (heat

inpu t capacity)

. The-regulator

y alternative s becom e progressivel y mor e stringen t b y firs t requirin g onl y stea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s abov e 7 3 M

W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e a percen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions , bu t the n requirin g stea mgeneratin g unit s with progressivel y lowe r

hea t inpu t capacitie s t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO

2 emission s a s well

. Th e mos t stringen t regulatory alternativ e require s al l oil-fire dindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s o f greate r tha n 2 9 M W (1C 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions

. Th e leas t stringen t regulatory alternative s ar e base do n th e us e o

f lo w sulfu r oil t o mee t emissio n limit s o

f 68 8 an d34

4 n g SO2/ J (1. 6 an d0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t input , respectively , fo

r al l oil-fire d industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s o

f greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/houi 1 )

. A summary o

f th e nationa l impact s associate dwith eac h regulatory alternativ e i s show n i n Tabl e 8- 7 o f "Summar y o f Regulator

y Analysis. " A

a discusse di n "Summar

y o f Regulator

y Analysis " unde r

"Consideratio n o

f Nationa l Impacts " an dassumin g ahigh oi l penetratio n i n ne w fossi l fuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g units , standard s base d o n th e us e o

f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

an emissio n limi t

o f 68 8 n g SOa/ J (1. 6 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t

inpu t fo r al l ne w oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) resul t

in a projecte dreductio n i n SO aemission s o

f 67,00 0 Mg/yea r

(74,00 0 tons/year ) ove r th e regulatory baselin e i n th e fift h yea r followin g proposa l o

f standard s (i.e. , 1990)

. Standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 34 4 ng SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t fo r al l ne w oil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wit

h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) woul dresul t i n projecte dSO

aemissio n reduction s o

f 157,00 0 Mg/yea r

(173,00 0 tons/year ) ove r th e regulatory baselin e i n 1990

. In comparison , standard s requirin g al l ne w oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev o a percen t reductio n i n emission s resul t in projecte dSO

2 emissio n reduction s o

f 239,00 0 Mg/yea r

(263,00 0 tons/year ) over th e regulatory baselin e i n 19S0

. Th e differenc e i n projecte dnationa l SO aemissio n reduction s betwee n standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 34 4 ng SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t an dstandard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n emission s i s abou t 82,00 0 Mg/yea r (90,00 0 tons/year)

. Abou t

one
thir do f thi s differenc e (30,00

0 Mg/year ) result s fro mstandard s requirin g al l ne w oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 7 3 M W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e a percen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions

. Additiona l nationa l SO

aemissio n reduction s o

f 10,00 0 Mg/yea r

(11,00 0 tons/year) , 19,00

0 Mg/yea r

(21,00 0 tons / year) , an d22,00

0 Mg/yea r

(24,00 0 tons / year ) i n 1990 resul t

fro mrequirin g al lP.1 7

2239 8 Federa l Registe r/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s

ne w oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 5 8 M W (20 0 millio n Btu/hour) , 4

4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour) , an d29 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour) , respectively , t o achiev e apercen t

reductio n i n SO

a emissions

. Thi s analysis , therefore , project s tha t standard s requirin g al l ne w oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s t o achiev e a percen t reductio n i n SO

aemission s achiev e greate r

reduction s i n nationa l SO aemission s tha n standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oil

. Moreover , • standard s tha t

requir e al l ne w oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO

2 emission s resul t

i n significantl y greate r

nationa l SO

2 emissio n reduction s tha n standard s requirin g onl y relativel y large r oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s to achiev e a percen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions

. A s i s als o show n i n Tabl e 8- 7 o f "Summar y o f Regulator

y Analysis, " assumin g ahig h oi l penetratio n i n ne w fossi l fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g units , NSP S base do n th e us e o

f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t a n emissio n limi t

o f 68 8 ng SO2/

J (1. 6 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t fo r ne w oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) resul t

i n projecte dnationa l annualize dcos t increase s o

f $ 8 million/year

over th e regulatory baselin e i n 1990

. Standard s base do n th e us e o

f lo w sulfu r oil t o mee t an emissio n limit

o f 34 4 ng SO2/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t fo r al l ne w oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) resul t i n projecte dannualize dcos t increase s o

f $5 7 million/year

ove r th e regulatory baselin e i n 1990

. Thes e represen t increase s o

f abou t 0. 2 an d1. 7 percent , respectively , i n th e tota l nationa l annualize dcost s associate dwith operatio n o

f al l ne w fossi l fuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s projecte dt o b e constructe dbetwee n 198 6 an d1990

. In comparison , standard s requirin g al l ne w oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemission s resul t i n projecte dnationa l annualize d cos t increase s o

f abou t $13 3 million/ yea r ove r th e regulatory baselin e i n 1990

. Thi s represent s a n increas e i n tota l nationa l annualize dcost s o f abou t 4 percent

. Th e differenc e i n projecte dincrease s i n tota l nationa l annualize dcost s betwee n standard s base do n th e us e of lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t o f 34 4 ng SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu) an dstandard s requirin g al l ne w oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n emission s i s abou t $7 6 million/year

i n 1990

. Thi s represent s a differenc e i n tota l nationa l annualize d cost s o f abou t 2 percent

. O

f this , abou t hal f ($3 9 million/year ) result s fro m standard s requirin g al l ne w oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 7 3 M

W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions

. Additiona l annualize dcost s o

f $ 5 million/year , $1 4 million/year , an d$1 8 million/yea r resul t fro mstandard s requirin g ne w oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 5 8 M

W (20 0 millio n Btu/hour) , 4

4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour) , an d2

9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/ hour) , respectively , t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions

. Unde r th e assumptio n o

f high oi l penetratio n i n ne w fossi l fuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g units , therefore , thi s analysi s indicate s tha t

th e increas e i n tota l nationa l annualize dcost s associate dwith standard s requirin g al l ne w oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s t o achiev e apercen t

reductio n i n SO

a emission s i s smal l compare dt o th e nationa l annualize dcost s associate d with standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oil

. Base do n th e projecte dnationa l emissio n reduction s an dannualize dcos t increase s describe dabove , th e nationa l averag e cos t

effectivenes s o

f NSP S base do n th e us e o

f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t a n emissio n limi t

o f 68 8 n g SO2/

J (1. 6 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t fo r ne w oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) i s abou t $120/M g ($110/ton ) of

SO aremoved

. Th e averag e cos t

effectivenes s o

f standard s base do n th e us e o

f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t a n emissio n limi t

o f 34 4 ng SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t fo r al l ne w oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) i s abou t $360/M g ($330/ton ) o

f SO aremoved

. I n comparison , th e nationa l averag e cos t effectivenes s o

f standard s requirin g al l ne w oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemission s i s abou t $560/M g ($510

/ ton ) o f SO a removed

. Th e nationa l incrementa l cos t effectivenes s o

f astandar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t o f 34 4 ng SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t fo r al l ne w oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) over

astandar dbase d o n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oil t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 68 8 ng SOa/

J (1. 6 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t

inpu t fo r ne w oil

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) i s abou t $550/M g ($500/ton ) o

f SO aremoved

. Th e nationa l incrementa l cos t effectivenes s o

f astandar drequirin g al l ne w oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s to achiev e apercen t

reductio n i n SO

a emission s ove r

astandar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t o f 34 4 n g SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t i s abou t $920/M g ($840

/ ton ) o f SO aremoved

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulatory Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Nationa l Impacts " an dshow n i n Tabl e 8-7 , thi s i s considerabl y les s tha n th e nationa l incrementa l cos t

effectivenes s (abou t $1,270/M g o

f SO aremoved ) o

f a standar drequirin g onl y ne w oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 7 3 M

W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n emission s over astandar d base do n th e us e o

f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t a n emissio n limi t

o f 34 4 ng SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t fo r al l ne w oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. Th e nationa l incrementa l cos t effectivenes s o

f astandar drequirin g al l ne w oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemission s ove r th e nex t mos t stringen t regulatory alternative , requirin g onl y ne w oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 44 M

W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions , i s $820/M g ($750/ton ) o

f SO aremoved

. A s discusse dabov e fo

r coal-fire d steam-generatin g units , thi s apparen t anomal y o

f decreasin g nationa l incrementa l cos t

effectivenes s with increasingl y stringen t

regulatory alternative s result s fro m th e large r numbe r o f natura l gas-fire dstea m generatin g unit s tha t

ar e projecte dunde r increasingl y stringen t

standards

. Althoug h unde r

th e hig h oi l penetratio n scenari o nationa l annualize dcost s generall y increas e i n respons e t o increasingl y stringen t

standards , firin g natura l ga s instea do

f oi l result s i n proportionall y large r

reduction s i n SO

a emissions

. A s aresult , th e nationa l incrementa l cos t

effectivenes s o

f increasingl y stringen t

standard s ca n decrease

. Unde r th e assumptio n o

f high oi l penetratio n i n ne w fossi l fuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g units , therefore , thi s analysi s indicate s tha t

th e nationa l averag e cos t

effectivenes s o

f standard s

### P.1 8

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 51

. No

. 11 8 /

Thursday

. Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s 2239 9
requirin g ne w oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SOj emission s i s no t

substantiall y highe r tha n th e nationa l averag e cos t effectivenes s o f

standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r

oil

. I n addition , thi s analysi s als o indicate s tha t standard s requirin g al l ne w oil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s o f

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO s emission s ar e a s cos t effectiv e a s alternativ e standard s requirin g onl y relativel y large r unit s t o achiev e apercen t

reductio n i n SO s emissions

. A s als o discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Nationa l Impacts " an dshow n i n Tabl e 8-7 , assumin g a hig h oi l penetratio n i n ne w fossi l fuel

fire dstea mgeneratin g units , th e regulator y alternativ e base do n th e us e of lo w sulfu r

oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t o f 34 4 n g SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t fo r al l ne w oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s o f

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) result s i n aprojecte d reductio n i n nationa l oi l us e o f abou t 7 0 millio n GJ/yea r

(6 6 trillio n Btu/year ) i n 199 0 compare dt o th e regulator y baseline

. Unde r

th e regulator y alternativ e requirin g al l ne w oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s o f

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO aemissions , nationa l oi l us e i s projecte dt o declin e b y abou t 15 5 millio n GJ/yea r

(14 5 trillio n Btu/year ) i n 199 0 compare dt o th e regulator y baseline

. Thi s declin e i n oi l us e i s projecte dt o b e offse t

b y anearl y equivalen t

increas e i n natura l ga s use
. O f th e differenc e betwee n thes e tw o alternative s i n projecte dreduction s i n nationa l oi l us e (abou t

7 9 trillio n Btu / year) , abou t

one-hal f (4 0 trillio n Btu / year ) result s fro mstandard s requirin g oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 7 3 M W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e a percen t reductio n i n emissions

. Similarly , mos t

of th e remainin g differenc e i n projecte dreduction s i n nationa l oi l us e (abou t

2 6 trillio n Btu / year ) result s fro mstandard s requirin g al l oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e a percen t reductio n i n SO J emissions

. A s discusse dpreviousl y fo r coal-fire dunits , however , thes e reduction s i n oi l use , an d th e correspondin g increase s i n natura l ga s use
. represen t

ver y smal l percentage s o f

existin g consumptio n o f oi l an dnatura l ga s i n th e industria l sector

. Assumin g ahig h oi l penetratio n i n ne w fossi l fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g units , therefore , thi s analysi s indicate s tha t th e potentia l impac t

o f standard s requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO a emission s fo r

al l ne w oil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s of

greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) o n projecte dnationa l oi l an dnatura l ga s consumptio n b y th e industria l secto r

i n 199 0 i s small

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Secondar y Environmenta l Impacts, " potentia l secondar y environmenta l impact s associate dwit h standard s o f performanc e tha t

includ e apercen t reductio n requiremen t

hav e als o bee n analyzed

. Thes e potentia l secondar y environmenta l impact s includ e liqui d an dsoli dwast e impacts

. Th e impact s o f

variou s regulator y alternative s o n th e generatio n an d disposa l o f

soli dan dliqui dwaste s wer e examine da t

th e nationa l level

. A s show n i n Tabl e 8- 7 o f

"Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis, " assumin g ahig h oi l penetratio n i n ne w fossi l fuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g units , regulator y alternative s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO * emission s resul t i n somewha t

greate r quantitie s o f

liqui d wast e compare dt o regulator y alternative s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r fuels

. Th e tabl e als o indicate s tha t th e soli dwast e impact s ar e relativel y smal l an dd o no t

diffe r significantl y amon g th e regulator y alternatives

. A s discusse dpreviousl y fo r coal-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s an di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Secondar y Environmenta l Impacts. " industrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s ar e generall y par t o f a manufacturin g plan t

whic h generate s substantia l amount s o f

liqui dan dsoli d wast e fro mth e manufacturin g proces s itself

. Therefore , th e amoun t of wast e generate db y th e contro l o f SO a emission s fro mthes e stea mgeneratin g unit s woul drepresen t

onl y asmal l portio n o f

th e tota l waste s generate db y th e plan t i n mos t cases
. A s discusse d previousl y fo r

coal-fire dstea m generatin g units , th e projecte dliqui d an dsoli dwast e impact s reflec t th e IFCA M assumptio n tha t sodiu m scrubbin g woul dgenerall y b e th e SO a contro l syste muse dt o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO aemissions

. T o th e exten t tha t othe r FG D technologie s (suc h a s dua l alkali ) ar e selecte dt o compl y wit h astandar drequirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO aemissions , th e amoun t o f liqui dwast e woul ddecreas e an dth e amoun t of soli dwast e woul d increase

. Th e constituent s o f

th e FC D wast e byproduct s ar e no t

classifie da s toxi c o r hazardou s unde r

RCRA an dca n ' easil y dispose dof

, alon g wit h th e 1 plan t wastes , b y conventiona l methods

. Th e nontoxi c an dnonhazardou s natur e o f th e FG D waste s permit s thei r di»p< usin g conventiona l technique s suc h a s ponding , landfilling , sewerage , o r dir : discharge

. Therefore , th e us e of F t system s t o achiev e W i n SO 3 emission s woul dno t resul t i n unreasonabl e advers e environmenta l impacts

. Industry-Specific Economic Inifh Th e analysi s discusse dabov e o f potentia l nationa l impact s assoc i wit h standards

- ianc e for ne w oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s represent s a n assessmen t o f th e aggregat e nationwid e impac t of standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemissions

. Becaus e of aggregat e natur e o f

thi s analysi s o f nationa l impacts , i t

wa s unabl e t o asses s th e potentia l impact s o f standard s requirin g apercen t reduct ' i n SO * emission s o n spe ( sector s withi n th e nationa l economy
. Accordingly

. Ui

e potentia l econo i impact s o f

astandar drequirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO * emission s o n majo r industria l stea muser s wer e als o considered

. A s show n i n Table s 6-1 7 an d6-2 9 i n "Summar y o f

Regulator y Analysis"

. 1 annualize dcost s associate dwit h achievin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO i emission s fro macoal-fire dstea m generatin g uni t

ar e greate r

t annualize dcost s associate dwit h achievin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO a emission s fro ma n oil-fire dstea m generatin g unit

. Th e increa s annualize dcos t

fo r acoal-fire dstea m generatin g unit , for

example , i s abou t $500.000/yea r

for auni t firin g lo w sulfu r coa l an dabou t

$900.000/yea r

fo r auni t firing hig h sulfu r

coal

. Fo r

a n oi l ' stea mgeneratin g unit , th e c cost s rang e fro mabou t

$380.000/yeii ' abou t $575,000/year

. Consequently , t l industry-specifi c economi c impact s associate dwit h alternativ e standard s fo r oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s woul db e smalle r

tha n thos e as- : wit h alternativ e standard s > stea mgeneratin g units

. A s discusse dabov e fo r coa l fi ' stea mgeneratin g units , th e "woi : analysi s o f

potentia l industry-spc i economi c impact s o f

stand

. apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s indicate s tha t

th e resultin g increase : produc t price s coul drang e fro mI tha n 0. 1 percen t

t o 1. 5 percent

. Bimi lP.1 9

2240 0 Federa l Registe r/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s
assumin g ful

l cos t absorption , potentia l increase s i n produc t

valu e adde drang e fro mles s tha n 0. 1 percen t

t o 5. 0 percent , an dpotentia l decrease s i n manufacturin g plan t

profitability o r retur n o n asset s rang e fromles 9 tha n 0. 1 t o 2. 8 percentag e points

. A s mentione dabove , non e o f thes e industry-specifi c impact s associate d with astandar drequirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemission s fro

mcoal

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s i s considere dunreasonable

. Th e annualize dcost s associate dwith achievin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO

a emission s fro

moil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s ar e smalle r tha n th e annualize dcost s associate dwith achievin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO

a emission s fro

mcoal-fire dstea m generatin g units

. A s aresult , non e o f th e industry-specifi c impact s associate d with standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO

2 emission s fro

moil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s ar e considere d unreasonable

. Impacts on Individual

Steam Generating Units. Finally , th e regulatory analysi s examine dth e cos t an d emissio n impact s associate dwith standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SOa

. emission s an dstandard s base d o n th e us e o

f lo w sulfu r oi l i n term s o

f individua l stea mgeneratin g units

. I n thi s analysis , potential impact s wer e examine dfo

r individua l stea m generatin g unit s a s afunctio n o f stea m generatin g uni t

siz e an dcapacity factor

. Impact s a s afunctio n o

f geographi c locatio n wer e no t

examine dbecaus e th e pric e differential amon g oil s with varyin g sulfu

r content s wa s generall y assume dt o b e relativel y unifor m regardles s o

f location

. A s i n th e analysi s discusse dabov e fo r coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g units , th e analysi s o f impact s o n individua l stea m generatin g unit s overlook s th e possibility o

f fue l switchin g i n respons e t o astandar drequirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO

2 emissions

. Thus , thi s analysi s shoul db e viewe da s a"wors e case " analysi s i n term s o

f potentia l impacts

. Oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s o

f 29 , 44 , 73 , an d 11 7 M W (100,150 , 250 , an d40

0 millio n Btu/hour ) operatin g a t

acapacit y utilizatio n facto r

of 0.5 5 wer e selecte dt o represen t typica l oil-fire dindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g units

. Th e emissio n reduction s achieve db y alternativ e contro l level s or standard s base do n eithe r

th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l o r o n apercen t

reductio n i n SO

a emission s wer e calculate dfo r eac h siz e o f representativ e stea mgeneratin g uni t an dar e show n i n Tabl e 6-2 6 o f "Summar

y o f Regulator

y Analysis " fo

r a typica l 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y unit

. A s show n i n thi s table , a n alternativ e contro l leve l base do n th e us e o

f very lo w sulfu

r oi l (i.e. , 0. 3 l b SOa/millio n Bt

u hea t input ) ha s essentiall y th e sam e impac t a s a n alternativ e contro l leve l requirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions

. It

i s les s costl y o n a n annua l basi s t o instal l an doperat e a n FG

D syste man dburn high sulfu r oil tha n i t

i s t o bu y very lo w sulfu r oil

. Thus , fo

r typica l oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g units , th e impact s associate dwith astandar dbase do n th e us e o f very lo w sulfu

r oi l ar e essentiall y th e sam e a s th e impact s associate dwit h astandar drequirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemissions

. A s show n i n Tabl e 6-26 , a n alternativ e contro l leve l o r standar d base do n th e us e o

f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t a n emissio n limi t

o f 68 8 n g SOa/

J (1. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t achieves a n SO

aemissio n reductio n o

f 45 0 Mg/yea r

(50 0 tons/year ) over

th e regulatory baselin e fo

r atypica l 4

4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y stea mgeneratin g unit

. An alternativ e contro l leve l or standar d base do n th e us e o

f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t a n emissio n limi t

of 34 4 n g SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t achieve s a n SO

aemissio n reductio n o

f 72 0 Mg/yea r

(79 0 tons/year ) ove r

th e regulatory baseline

. A n alternativ e contro l leve l or

standar drequirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO

aemission s (whic h i s equivalen t

t o a n alternativ e contro l leve l or

standar dbase do n th e us e o f very lo w sulfu

r oil ) result s i n a n emissio n reductio n o

f 890 Mg/yea r

(95 0 tons/year ) ove r

th e regulatory baseline

. Th e incrementa l annua l emissio n reduction s resultin g fro

mstandard s requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO

a emission s o r

standard s base do n th e us e o f very lo w sulfu

r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 12 9 n g SOa/ J (0. 3 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t

inpu t ove r standard s base do n th e us e of lo w sulfu r oil t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 34 4 ng SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t fo r atypica l 4

4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/ hour ) hea t

inpu t capacit y stea m generatin g uni t

woul db e 17 0 Mg/yea r (19 0 tons/year)

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Demonstrate d Emissio n Contro l Technolog y Costs " an dshow n i n Tabl e 6-27 * th e cos t impact s associate dwith alternativ e contro l level s or

standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l a s wel l a s with alternativ e contro l level s o r standard s requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO

a emission s wer e calculate dfo r representativ e size s o

f individua l stea m generatin g units

. Th e potentia l increas e

i n th e annualize dcost s o

f ne w oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s over th e regulatory baselin e a s aresul t o f complianc e with a n alternativ e contro l leve l o r standar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oil t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t o f 68 8 ng SOa/

J (1. 6 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t i s abou t 5 percen t fo r al l stea mgeneratin g uni t

size s examined

. Th e potentia l increas e i n th e annualize d cost s o f ne w oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s ove r th e regulatory baselin e a s a resul t o f complianc e with a n alternativ e contro l leve l o r

standar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t o f 34 4 n g SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t i s betwee n 9 an d1 1 percent

. Th e potentia l increas e i n annualize dcost s a s aresul t o f complianc e wit h a n alternativ e contro l leve l o r standar dbase do n th e us e o f very lo w sulfu

r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t o f 129 ng SOa/

J (0. 3 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t input , o r a n alternativ e contro l leve l o r standar drequirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions , over

th e regulatory baselin e range s fro mabou t 1 0 t o 1 2 percent , dependin g o n stea m generatin g uni t

size

. Th e incrementa l increas e i n annualize dcost s resultin g fro m standard s base do n th e us e o f very lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 129 n g SOa/

J (0. 3 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t or standard s requirin g a percen t reductio n i n emission s over standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 34 4 n g SOa/ J (0. 8 SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t woul db e abou t

6 t o 7 percent , dependin g o n stea mgeneratin g uni t size

. O n th e basi s o

f th e emissio n reduction s an dpotentia l annualize dcos t increase s note dabove , th e averag e cos t effectivenes s o

f standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oil t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t o f 68 8 n g SOa/

J (1. 6 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t i s betwee n $460/M g ($420/ton ) an d $480/M g ($440/ton ) o f SO aremoved

. Th e averag e cos t effectivenes s o

f standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t o f 34 4 n g SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t i s betwee n $550/M g ($500/ton ) an d$690/M g ($630/ton ) o f SO aremoved

. Fo r

standard s base do n th e us e o f very lo w sulfu

r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 12 9 ng SOa/ J (0. 3 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t

inpu t or standard s requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO

a emissions , th e averag e cos t effectivenes s range dfro

m$500/M g ($450/ton ) o

f SO aremove dfo

r atypica l 11 7 M W (40 0 millio n Btu/hour ) capacit y uni t t o $730/M g ($660/ton ) o

f SO a remove dfo

r atypica l 2

9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) capacit y unit

.

### P.2 0

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday

. Jun e 19

. 198 6 / Propose dRule s 2240 1

Th e incrementa l cos t

effectivenes s of standard s base do n th e us e of ver y lo w sulfur oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 12 9 n g SOa/J (0. 3 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t o r standard s requirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO aemission s ove r standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 34 4 n g SOa/J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t range s fro m$910/M g ($830/ton ) o f SO a remove dfo r

a2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu / hour ) hea t

inpu t capacit y stea m generatin g uni t

t o S240/M g ($220/ton ) o f SO aremove dfo r

a11 7 M W (40 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t

inpu t capacit y stea m generatin g unit

. Tn e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s o f

a n alternativ e contro l leve l o r standar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfur

oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t of 344 n g SOj/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t ove r a n alternativ e contro l leve l o r standar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r

oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t o f 68 8 n g SOa/ J (1. 6 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t range s fro m$1.070/M g t o $680/M g ($970/to n t o $620/ton ) o f SO a remove dove r

th e rang e o f

stea m generatin g uni t

size s examined

. Thes e result s indicat e tha t standard s base do n th e us e o f

ver y lo w sulfur

oi l t o mee t a n emissio n limi t

o f 12 9 n g SOa/ J (0. 3 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t o r standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s a t

typica l oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s (i.e.

. capacit y utilizatio n factor s i n th e rang e o f 0.55 ) achiev e asignifican t

reductio n i n emission s a t

areasonabl e incrementa l cos t compare dt o standard s base do n th e us e o f

lo w sulfu r

oi l fo r al l size s o f stea mgeneratin g unit s examined

. A s mentione dabove , th e potentia l impact s o f

standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s an d standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfur oi l wer e als o examine da s afunctio n o f stea mgeneratin g uni t

capacit y utilizatio n factor

. I n particular , impact s wer e examine dfo r

ane w 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t

inpu t capacit y oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t operate d a t a n annua l capacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0. 3 an da t

a n annua l capacit y utilizatio n facto r

o f 0.15

. A s discusse d previously , i t

i s generall y les s costl y fo r atypica l oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t t o achiev e a9 0 percen t

reductio n i n SO a emission s o n ahig h sulfu r oi l tha n i t

i s t o fir e aver y lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 12 9 n g SOa/ J (0. 3 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t

input , du e t o th e hig h premiu mpric e o f

ver y lo w sulfu r oil

. However , fo r

oil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s operatin g a t lo w capacit y utilizatio n factors , i t i s generall y les s costl y t o fir e aver y lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 12 9 n g SOa/ J (0. 3 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t input

. Thus , fo r

lo w capacit y utilizatio n facto r

oil-fire dstea m generatin g units , thre e alternativ e contro l level s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l wer e examine dfo r

atypica l 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y stea mgeneratin g unit—688 , 344 , an d12 9 n g SOa/ J (1.6 , 0.8

. an d0. 3 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t

input

. A n alternativ e contro l leve l requirin g a9 0 percen t reductio n i n SO aemission s wa s als o examined

. A t acapacit y utilizatio n facto r of 0.3

. alternativ e contro l level s o r standard s base do n th e us e o f

lo w sulfu r

oi l t o mee t emissio n limit s o f

68 8 n g SOa/ I (1. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) an d34 4 n g SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t achiev e SO aemissio n reduction s o f 25 0 Mg/yea r (28 0 tons/year ) an d40 0 Mg/yea r (44 0 tons/year) , respectively , ove r th e regulator y baseline

. A n alternativ e standar dbase do n th e us e o f ver y lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 12 9 n g SOa/ J (0. 3 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t achieve s SO aemissio n reduction s o f

49 0 Mg/yea r

(54 0 tons / year ) ove r

th e regulator y baseline

. A n alternativ e contro l leve l o r standar d requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO a emission s result s i n emissio n reduction s o f 53 0 Mg/yea r

(58 0 tons/year ) ove r

th e regulator y baseline

. Similarly , a t

acapacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0.15 , standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r

oi l t o mee t

emissio n limit s o f 68 8 n g SOa/

T (1. 6 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) an d34 4 n g SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t input , an dver y lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t a n emissio n limi t

o f 12 9 n g SOa/ J (0. 3 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t input , achiev e SO aemissio n reduction s o f 12 5 Mg/yea r (14 0 tons/year) , 20 0 Mg/yea r (22 0 tons/year) , an d24 5 Mg/yea r (27 0 tons/year) , respectively , ove r th e regulator y baseline

. Alternativ e standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s achiev e emissio n reduction s o f

26 5 Mg/yea r

(29 0 tons / year ) ove r

th e regulator y baseline

. Th e SO aemissio n reduction s associate dwit h astandar drequirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s ar e greater , therefore , tha n thos e associate dwit h standard s base do n th e us e o f

lo w o r ver y low

sulfu r oi l fo r oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s operate da t

lo w capacit y utilizatio n factors

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Demonstrate d Emissio n Contro l Technolog y Costs " an da s show n i n Tabl e 6-28 , th e potentia l increas e ove r th e regulator y baselin e i n annualize dcost s o f ane w 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t operatin g a t

lo w capacit y utilizatio n factor s associate dwit h standard s base d o n th e us e o f

lo w sulfu r

oi l t o me t emissio n limi t

o f 68 8 n g SOa/ J (1- 6 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t

inpu t range s fro 3 t o 4 percent

. Th e potentia l n ove r th e regulator y baselin e i n annualize dcost s associate dwit h a standar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 344 n g SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) h

. range s fro mabou t

7 t o 9 percent

. 1 potentia l increas e ove r th e regulutor y baselin e i n annualize dcost s o f ane w 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t i ; capacit y oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g associate dwit h astandar dbase do n us e o f ver y lo w sulfu r

oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 12 9 n g SOa/ J (0. 3 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t

inpu t range s fro m abou t 1 5 t o 1 7 percent

. Th e poten : increas e ove r

th e regulator y baselin e i n annualize dcost s o f

ane w 4 4 M W millio n Btu/hour ) hea t

inpu t capn
oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t o p a t alo w capacit y utilizatio n facto r associate dwit h astandar drequirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO aemission s range s fro mabou t

2 0 t o 2 2 percent

. Th e averag e cos t

effectivenes s o f standard s base do n th e us e of lo w sulfu r oi l remain s essentiall y constan t wit h respec t t o stea mgeneratin g uni t capacit y utilizatio n factor

. Fo r a4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y stea mgeneratin g uni t operatin g a t capacit y utilizatio n factor s o f 0.1 5 t o 0.3

. th e averag e cos t

effectivenes s o f standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n SO aemissio n limi t

o f 68 8 ng/ J (1. 6 lb/millio n Btu ) hea t inpi i abou t $475/M g ($435/ton ) o f SO , removed

. Th e averag e cos t

effectivenes s of standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n SO aemissio n limi t

o f 34 4 ng/ J (0. 8 lb/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t i s abou t $700/M g ($635/ton ) o f SO a removed , an di s abou t

$855/M g ($775 / ton ) o f SO aremove dfo r

a n emissio n limi t o f 12 9 n g SOa/ J (0. 3 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t base do n th e us e o f

ver y lo w sulfu r

oil

. Fo r astandar dbase do n achievin g a percen t reductio n i n SO aemissions , averag e cos t

effectivenes s increase s wit h decreasin g stea mgeneratin g uni t capacit y factor

. Fo r

a4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t

inpu t capacit y stea mgeneratin g unit , th e averag e cos t effectivenes s o f

astandar drequirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO aemission s i s $1,100/M g ($1,000/ton ) o f SO aremove d a t acapacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0. 3 an d increase s t o $1,550/M g ($l,410/ton ) of SO aremove da t

acapacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0.15

. Th e incrementa l cos t

effectivenes s o f astandar drequirin g apercen t reduc '2240 2 Federa l Registe r/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19

. 198 6 / Propose dRule s P.2 1

i n SO aemission s compare dt o a standar dbase do n th e us e o f very lo w sulfu r oi l range s fro

mabou t $4,410/M g ($4,000/ton ) o

f SO aremove dfo

r ane w 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t operate da t

acapacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0.3 0 t o abou t

$11,000/M g ($10,000/ton ) o f SO aremove dfo

r thi s sam e siz e stea m generatin g uni t

operate da t

acapacity utilizatio n facto r

o f 0.15

. Th e incrementa l cos t

effectivenes s o

f a standar dbase do n th e us e o f very lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 129 ng SOa/

J (0. 3 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t over astandar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfur

oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t o f 34 4 n g SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t i s abou t $1,540/M g ($l,400/ton ) o

f SO aremove dfo

r ne w 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s operatin g a t

capacit y utilizatio n factor s o f 0.1 5 an d0.30

. Th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s o

f astandar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t o f 34 4 ng SOa/ J (0. 8 l b S0 2 /millio n Btu) hea t inpu t over astandar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l t o mee t

a n emissio n limi t

o f 68 8 n g SOj/J (1. 6 l b SOa/millio n Btu) hea t

inpu t i s abou t $1,03 0 t o $1,100/M g ($94

0 t o $l,000/ton ) o f SO aremoved

. Thes e result s indicat e tha t th e annua l emissio n reduction s achieve dunde r a standar drequirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s compare dt o a standar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l decreas e a s stea mgeneratin g uni t capacit y utilizatio n facto r decreases

. Th e incrementa l annualize dcos t impact s associate dwith standard s requirin g apercen t

reductio n ove r standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r oi l or very lo w sulfu

r oil increase , an d th e incrementa l SO

aremova l cos t increase s significantly , a s capacit y utilizatio n facto r

decreases

. A s discusse dabov e an di n "Summary , o f Regulator

y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Nationa l Impacts, " however , man y stea mgeneratin g unit s fir e natura l ga s instea do

f oi l i n respons e t o astandar dbase do n th e us e o f very lo w sulfu r oil o r astandar drequirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions

. Th e analysi s discusse dabov e o f th e potentia l impact s o

f standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemission s o n lo w capacit y utilizatio n facto r stea m generatin g unit s doe s no t

reflec t th e effec t o f fue l switching

. Th e nationa l impact s analysis , with it s allowanc e fo

r fue l switching , suggest s tha t

th e incrementa l contro l cost s o f apercen t reductio n requiremen t var y inversel y with capacit y utilizatio n factor

. Tha t

is , SO acontro l cost s fo

r stea mgeneratin g unit s operatin g a t lowe r capacit y utilizatio n factor s ar e higher tha n th e contro l cost s fo

r stea m generatin g unit s operatin g a t higher capacit y utilizatio n factors

. Th e nationa l incrementa l cos t effectivenes s o

f astandar drequirin g a percen t reductio n i n emission s for stea m generatin g unit s operatin g a t capacit y utilizatio n factor s o

f approximatel y 0. 5 or more (an da n emissio n limi t base do n th e combustio n o

f lo w sulfu r fue l fo r stea mgeneratin g unit s with capacit y utilizatio n factor s belo w 0.5 ] compare d t o astandar dbase do n th e combustio n o f lo w sulfu r fue l fo r al l stea m generatin g unit s i s approximatel y $850 / M g ($775/ton)

. A s th e applicability o

f percen t reductio n requirement s i s extende dt o includ e stea mgeneratin g unit s with capacit y utilizatio n factor s belo w 0.5 , th e incrementa l cos t

effectivenes s o

f th e standard s increases

. For

example , th e incrementa l cos t

effectivenes s o

f requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n emission s fo

r al l stea mgeneratin g unit s with capacit y utilizatio n factor s les s tha n 0. 5 i s $1,020/M g ($925/ton)

. Extendin g th e applicabilit y o f percen t reductio n requirement s t o stea m generatin g unit s with capacit y utilizatio n factor s belo w 0. 5 yield s a n emissio n reductio n o

f 38,00 0 M g (42,00 0 tons ) o f SO ape r yea r (roughly 1 5 percen t o f baselin e emissions ) a t

annualize d cost s o f $3 9 million

. Whil e th e Agenc y i s proposin g standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n emission s fo

r al l oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g units , th e Agenc y i s intereste di n alternativ e way s o f establishin g standard s tha t woul dmak e the mmore cos t

effective

. A s note d above , suc h approache s might includ e exemptin g stea mgeneratin g unit s operatin g a t

lowe r capacit y utilizatio n factors

. 4

. Selectio n o

f Standar dfo

r Oil-Fire d SteamGeneratin g Unit s A s discusse dabov e fo

r coal-fire d stea mgeneratin g units , anumbe r o f technologie s ar e capabl e o f reducin g emission s o

f SO afro moil-fire d industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g units

. Conventiona l we t FG D technologies , suc h a s sodiu m scrubbin g systems , hav e bee n widel y applie dt o oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s an dar e considere ddemonstrate d fo r purpose s of

developin g NSPS

. Short

- an dlong-ter

mtes t dat awer e gathere dt o asses s th e performanc e o f we t FG D system s i n achievin g apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemission s fro

moil-fire d stea mgeneratin g units

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulatory Analysis " unde r "Performanc e o

f Demonstrate d Emissio n Contro l Technologies, " analysi s o f th e dat aindicate s tha t

thes e technologie s ar e capabl e o f continuousl y achievin g a9 0 percen t

reductio n i n SO

a emission s o n a30-da

y rollin g averag e basis

. Therefore , a9 0 percen t reductio n i n SO aemission s o n a30-da

y rollin g averag e basi s throug h th e us e o f we t FG D technologie s i s considere d demonstrate dfo

r oil-fire dstea m generatin g units

. Assessin g th e performanc e o f othe r demonstrate dcontro l technologies , suc h .a s FB C o r lime spra y drying , i n achievin g sustaine dSO

aemissio n reduction s o n oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s i s no t

a s straightforward

. Th e FB C an dlime spra y dryin g technologies , fo r example , wer e develope dprimaril y fo r coa l firin g an dnearl y al l commerciall y operatin g installation s o

f thes e technologie s ar e o n coal-fire dstea m generatin g units

. Therefore , th e performanc e o

f thes e contro l technologie s i n achievin g sustaine d reduction s i n SO

aemission s fro

moil

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s mus t largel y b e inferre dfro

mthei r performanc e o n coal-fire dunits

. Whil e some change s i n th e desig n o

f thes e technologie s may b e appropriat e fo

r thei r us e o n oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g units , suc h a s th e us e o f electrostati c precipitator s rathe r tha n fabri c filters , ther e ar e n o technica l reason s t o expec t

tha t th e performanc e o f FB C o r lime spra y dryin g whe n applie dt o oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s woul ddiffe

r substantiall y fro

mth e performanc e level s demonstrate do n coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. Consequently , a9 0 percen t reductio n i n SO aemission s o n a30-da

y rollin g averag e basi s i s als o considere d demonstrate dfo

r thes e technologie s whe n applie dt o oil-fire dstea m generatin g units

. Th e cos t impact s associate dwith variou s percen t

reductio n requirement s wer e examine dan danalyze dfo r oil

firedstea mgeneratin g unit s a t bot h th e nationa l leve l an dth e individua l stea m generatin g uni t

level

. Thes e analyse s ar e discusse di n "Summar

y o f Regulatory Analysis " unde r

"Consideratio n o

f Nationa l Impacts " an d"Consideratio n o f Demonstrate dEmissio n Contro l Technolog y Costs. " A s discusse di n "Summary o f Regulatory Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Nationa l Impacts " an dshow n i n Tabl e 8-5 , nationa l annualize dcos t

impact s wer e foun dt o b e relativel y insensitiv e t o variation s i n th e specifi c leve l o

f th e percen t reductio n requirement

. Fo r example , th e nationa l averag e cos t

effectivenes s associate dwith variou s percen t reductio n requirement s rangin g fro m7 0 percen t t o 9 0 percen t

varie dfro

m$600 / )

### P.2 2

Federa l Registe r/

Vol

. 51

. No

. 11 8 / Thursday

. Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s 2240 3

M g ($540/ton ) o f

SO aremove dt o $560 / M g ($510/ton ) o f

SO aremoved

. However

. SO aemission s unde r a9 0 percen t reductio n requiremen t ar e reduce db y a n additiona l 28.00 0 Mg / 31.00 0 tons/year ) belo w th e emissio n level s achieve dunde r a7 0 percen t reductio n requirement

. ;ofore

. o n anationa l basis , a9 0 percen t reductio n requiremen t achieve s greate r SO aemissio n reduction s a t cost s onl y slightl y highe r

tha n thos e associate dwit h lowe r

percen t reductio n requirement s fo r

oil-fire dstea m generatin g units

. Th e cos t impact s associate dwit h variou s percen t

reductio n requirement s niine dfo r

atypica l oil

fire dindustiial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g uni t

wit h ahea t

inpu t capacit y o f

4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu / A s show n i n Tabl e 6-2 9 o f "Summar y o f

Regulator y Analysis. " th e annualize dcos t

difference s o f

operatin g a n FG D syste mt o achiev e a9 0 percen t reductio n versu s a5 0 percen t reductio n i n SO z emission s range s fro mabou t $30.000/yea r

fo r lo w sulfu r

oi l t o abou t 000/yea r fo r hig h sulfu r

oil

. Th e spondin g incrementa l emissio n ion s achieve dunde r

a9 0 percen t reductio n requiremen t

rang e fro m8 0 Mg/yea r (8 8 tons/year ) fo r

lo w sulfu r

oi l t o 29 8 Mg/yea r

(32 8 tons/year ) fo r

hig h sulfu r oil

. Th e averag e cos t

effectivenes s o f operatin g a n FG D syste ma t 9 0 percen t reductio n i s $62 8 t o $1.500/M g ($57 0 t o $1.360/ton ) o f

SO aremoved , compare dt o $75 0 t o $2.040/M g ($68 0 t o $1.850/ton ) o f

SO aremove dfo r

a n FG D syste moperate da t

5 0 percen t

reduction

. A s i n th e nationa l impac t an d individua l stea mgeneratin g uni t impac t analyse s discusse dabov e fo r coal-fire d stea mgeneratin g units , th e result s o f bot h th e nationa l impac t an dindividua l stea mgeneratin g uni t

impac t analyse s fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s lea d t o th e sam e conclusion : a9 0 percen t reductio n requiremen t

i s mor e cos t effectiv e tha n lowe r

percen t reductio n requirements

. A s discusse dabove , thi s resul t emerge s becaus e th e onl y increase d cost s associate dwit h operatin g a n FG D syste mt o achiev e ahig h percen t reductio n i n SO z emissions , rathe ; alo w percen t

reduction , ar e th e increase dcost s resultin g fro mincrease d chemical s an dutilitie s consumptio n an d increase dwast e disposa l costs

. Thes e increase dcost s ar e incrementa l i n natur e an drelativel y small

. However , th e increase dreductio n i n SO a ion s resultin g fro moperatio n a t a hig h percen t

reductio n leve l i s quit e significant

. I n addition , i n th e nationa l impact s analysis , th e cos t

effectivenes s o f

a9 0 percen t

reductio n requiremen t compare d t o th e cos t

effectivenes s of

alowe r percen t reductio n requiremen t i s als o influence db y fue l switching

. A s als o discusse dabove , th e impac t o f fue l switchin g i n respons e t o percen t reductio n requirement s tend s t o improv e th e resultin g cos t

effectivenes s o f

SO a control

. Whil e th e increase dcost s associate dwit h operatin g a n FG D syste ma t

ahig h percen t

reductio n ar e small , i n som e case s thes e increase d cost s ar e sufficien t

t o caus e s
. additiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s t o fir e natura l ga s instea do f

oil

. Thi s tend s t o improv e furthe r

th e cos t effectivenes s o f SO acontro l associate dwit h th e 9 0 percen t reductio n requirement

. Consequently , i n bot h th e nationa l impac t an dindividua l stea mgenerat

in g uni t impac t analyses , a9 0 percen t reductio n requiremen t

emerge s a s mor e cos t effectiv e tha n lowe r

percen t reductio n requirements

. A s discusse dabove , th e abilit y o f we t FG D systems , lim e spra y dryin g systems , an dFB C system s t o achiev e thi s leve l o f

performanc e o n a30-da y rollin g averag e basi s i s considere d demonstrated

. Thus , astanc ' requirin g a9 0 percen t

reductio n i n SO a emission s ha s bee n selecte dfo r ne w oil

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s o f greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y (excep t

fo r unit s usin g emergin g technologies , a s discusse d below)

. I n selectin g a n SO aemissio n limi t t o accompan y th e percen t reductio n requiremen t

fo r oil-fire dstea m generatin g units , consideratio n wa s give n t o emissio n level s which , whe n combine dwit h arequiremen t t o achiev e a9 0 percen t

reductio n i n SO aemissions , woul dno t

preclud e th e us e o f

ver y hig h sulfu r oils

. Revie w o f

dat ao n fue l oil s currentl y produce db y U.S

. refinerie s indicate s tha t

th e SO aconten t

o f th e residua l oil s prio r

t o hydrodesulfurizatio n ca n b e i n exces s of 2,58 0 ng/ J (6. 0 lb/millio n Btu)

. However , residua l oil s produce dfro mparticularl y heav y crud e oils , o r

oil s recovere dfro m ta r sand s an doi l shales , coul dhav e SO a content s o f

u p t o 3.44 0 ng/ J (8. 0 lb / millio n Btu)

. Althoug h thes e type s o f oil s ar e no t currentl y widel y processe db y U.S

. refineries , the y ar e expecte dt o b e processe dmor e frequentl y i n th e future

. Therefore , a n SO aemissio n limi t of 344 ng/ J (0. 8 lb/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t ha s bee n selecte da s th e emissio n limi t include di n th e 9 0 percen t reductio n requiremen t

for oil-fire dindustr : commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g units

. A s discusse dabov e concernin g coal

fire dstea mgeneratin g units , i t i s questionabl e whethe r

thes e standard s fo r oil-fi r tol d b e achiev*I I ^ies

. Accommodatin g an d; th e inue ddevelopmen t

of emergin g Is considere ddesire : wit h c stea mgeneratin g u i establishin g les s str i reductio n requirement s fo r emergin g technologie s ap | generatin g unit s woul d likelihoo dtha t

owner s an dop t ne w al

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s wil l instal l an doperat e emergin g technologies

. A s mentione di n th e introdi

. thi s section , stan di l fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s s i conceptuall y simila r

s o a s t o i : a n advantag e i n th e us e o f on e fuel o
. another

. Therefore , th e regulator y approac h selecte dfo r

accommodatin g th e us e o f

emergin g technologie s o n coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wa s als o selecte dfor

a t 'din g th e o f emergin g technologie s o n oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g units

. Mos t emergin g technologie s for to l o f SO aemi a<i m generatin g unit s ar e bein g d, < primaril y fo r

appli t stea mgeneratin g units

. No n suc h emergin g technologie s a s dr y al l injectipn , electro n bea n n d LIM B coul db e applie dt o o generatin g unit s a s well

. Ther e et n addition , n o reason s t o expe r performanc e o f

emergin g tec ! whe n applie dt o oil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s woul db e A l wors e tha n whe n a : stea mgeneratin g units

. The n propose dstandard s woul dr e new , modified , o r

reconstructe doil- f industrial-commercial-insfitiiti-in.i l generatin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) emplo j s>in

g SO acontro l technologie s t o achiev e a minimu mo f

5 0 percen t emission s o n a30-da y rollin g averag e basis

. In orde r t o minimiz e emissi i oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s usin«

. emergin g technolog y fo r SO acontro l subjec t t o th e 5 0 p requirement , th e propose dstandar d include s a n emissio n I

L SOa/ J (0. 4 l b SOa/millio n ll' A s discusse dabov e fo r coal-fire dstea m generatin g units , thi s limi t i s one-hal f

of th e otherwis e applicabl e li n limit s th e us e o f

emergin g technologie s achievin g th e minimu m5 0 percen t reductio n i n SO aemission s b generatin g unit s firin g lo w gullu r oil ; i.e.

. oi l wit h asulfu r

conten t o f 34 4 n g SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t Inpu tP.2 3

2240 4 Federa l Registe r/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s
less

. T o th e exten t

tha t emergin g technologie s ma y achiev e SO aemissio n reduction s o f

greate r tha n 5 0 percent , oil s wit h highe r

sulfu r content s ca n b e burne dwithou t

exceedin g th e propose d emissio n limit

. Becaus e highe r sulfu r oil s ar e generall y les s expensiv e tha n lo w ' sulfu r oils , thi s wil l ac t

a s a n incentiv e t o achiev e percen t

reduction s o f

greate r tha n 5 0 percent

. A s discusse dabov e fo r coal-fire d stea mgeneratin g units , therefore , th e propose dstandard s provid e alimite d "window " fo r

us e o f emergin g technologie s o n oil-fire dstea m generatin g units

. Thi s windo w wil l b e reviewe dregularl y durin g th e cours e o f th e revie w proces s associate dwit h al l NSPS

. A s appropriate , th e percen t reductio n requirement s wil l b e revise d upward s i n ligh t

o f additiona l performanc e dat aavailabl e a t tha t tim e fo r emergin g technologies

. A s aresul t o f thes e reviews , emergin g contro l technologie s tha t

d o no t demonstrat e improvement s i n performanc e capabilities , o r

sho w n o promis e o f achievin g emissio n reduction s greate r tha n 5 0 percent , wil l n o longe r b e considere demergin g technologie s an d woul db e subjecte dt o th e sam e requirement s a s thos e include di n th e standard s fo r

conventiona l demonstrate dtechnologies

. 5

. Basi s o f

Standar dfo r

Mixe dFuel

Fire dStea mGeneratin g Unit s Th e regulator y analysi s fo r mixe d fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s (i.e. , thos e firin g mixture s o f sulfur-bearin g an dnonsulfur-bearin g fuels ) wa s conducte di n amanne r

paralle l t o tha t fo r stea mgeneratin g unit s firin g coa l an doil

. Th e analysi s considere dth e impact s o f

alternativ e contro l level s o r standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r fue l o r requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO aemission s fromthre e differen t perspectives : overal l nationa l impacts ; specifi c industrie s subjec t t o th e standards ; an dindividua l stea m generatin g unit s subjec t t o th e standards

. Fo r purpose s of

calculatin g thes e impacts , th e analyse s assume dtha t "emissio n credits " ar e no t provide dfo r mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. (Emissio n credit s woul dpermi t "dilution " o f

th e SO aemission s resultin g fro mcombustio n o f

coa l o r oi l wit h "clean " gase s resultin g fro mcombustio n o f non-sulfu r

containin g fuel s a s a mean s o f reducin g emission s an d meetin g standards. ) A s discusse di n "Summar y o f

Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Demonstrate d Emissio n Contro l Technolog y Costs, " thi s assumptio n permit s mixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s t o b e considere d a s atyp e of lo w capacit y utilizatio n facto r fossi l fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit

. Th e merit s o f

emissio n credit s ar e considere dan ddiscusse dbelo w unde r "Othe r Considerations. " National Impacts. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f

Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Nationa l Impacts, " th e nationa l impact' s associate dwit h NSP S wer e analyze do n th e basi s of

projection s t o 199 0 o f

ne w mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. Th e compute r

mode l use dt o asses s th e impact s of

variou s standard s fo r

fossi l fuel-fire dunits , IFCAM , consider s onl y stea mgeneratin g unit s firin g fossi l fuels

. Consequently , thi s mode l coul dno t b e use di n th e analysi s o f

nationa l impact s o n mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. Th e methodologica l approac h employe di n th e analysi s o f nationa l impact s o n mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g units , however , wa s th e sam e a s tha t employe di n th e IFCA M model

. Simila r t o th e analyse s o f

nationa l impact s discusse dabov e fo r coal

- an d oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g units , ase t of regulator y alternative s o r alternativ e standard s wa s structure dt o examin e nationa l impact s o n mixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s a s afunctio n o f stea mgeneratin g uni t

size

. Thes e alternative s ar e show n i n Tabl e 8-1 1 of "Summar y of

Regulator y Analysis. " Th e regulator y alternative s becom e progressivel y mor e stringen t b y firs t requirin g onl y mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s abov e 7 3 M W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o mee t

astandar dbase do n
. th e us e lo w sulfu r

fuel

. Th e secon d alternativ e require s al l stea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t

inpu t capacitie s greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o mee t a n emissio n limi t

base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r

fuel

. Th e thir dalternativ e require s onl y mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s large r

tha n 7 3 M W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t

inpu t capacit y t o achiev e apercen t

reductio n i n SO 2 emissions , whil e al l othe r stea m generatin g unit s ar e require dt o mee t a n emissio n limi t

base do n th e us e o f

lo w sulfu r fuels

. Th e fourt h alternativ e require s al l stea mgeneratin g unit s large r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu / hour ) hea t

inpu t capacit y t o achiev e a percen t reductio n i n SO aemissions

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Nationa l Impacts " an dshow n i n Tabl e 8-12 , standard s base do n th e us e o f

lo w sulfu r

fue l fo r al l ne w mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) resul t i n aprojecte d reductio n i n nationa l SO aemission s o f 42,00 0 Mg/yea r (46,00 0 tons/year ) ove r th e regulator y baselin e i n th e fift h yea r followin g proposa l of

standard s (i.e. , 1990)

. I n comparison , standard s requirin g al l ne w mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 • millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n emission s resul t i n a projecte dnationa l SO 2 emissio n reductio n of

55,70 0 Mg/yea r

(61,20 0 tons/year ) ove r

th e regulator y baselin e i n 1990

. - O f th e differenc e i n projecte dnationa l SO 2 emissio n reduction s betwee n thes e tw o alternative s (abou t 14,00 0 Mg/year) , nearl y al l (abou t

13,50 0 Mg/year ) result s fro mstandard s requirin g all-ne w mixe d fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 7 3 M W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e a percen t reductio n i n SO aemissions

. Thi s occur s fo r

tw o reasons : (1 ) Onl y aver y smal l numbe r

o f ne w mixed-fue l fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s i n 199 0 (i.e. , 5 ou t o f atota l o f

35 ) ar e projecte dt o hav e hea t inpu t capacitie s les s tha n 7 3 M W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour) , an d(2 ) al l of th e ne w mixe dfuel-fire dunit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s les s tha n 7 3 M W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) ar e projecte dt o bur n smal l amount s of

coa l o r oi l (i.e. , abou t 2 0 percent ) relativ e t o th e amoun t o f nonsulfur-bearin g fue l fire dannually

. Th e amoun t

o f coa l o r oi l fire di n a stea mgeneratin g uni t

ca n b e expresse d i n term s o f

afossi l fue l utilizatio n factor

. Thi s represent s th e percentag e of th e rate dstea mgeneratin g uni t hea t inpu t capacit y tha t

i s supplie db y coa l o r

oil

. Th e fossi l fue l utilizatio n factoras , therefore , calculate do n th e basi s o f th e amoun t o f coa l o r oi l tha t i s actuall y fire dcompare dt o th e maximu mamoun t o f fue l that'coul db e fire di n th e stea m generatin g unit

. Fo r

example , a11 7 M W (40 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g uni t

operatin g a t

a n annua l capacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0. 6 i s firin g 7 0 M W (24 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t o n a n annua l basis

. I

f thi s uni t fire s 2 0 percen t coa l an d8 0 percen t

nonsulfur

bearin g fuel , th e hea t

inpu t supplie d

• fro mcoa l i s 1 4 M W (4 8 millio n Btu / hour ) o n a n annua l basis

. Thi s represent s 1 2 percen t

o f th e potentia l tota l annua l hea t

inpu t t o th e stea m generatin g unit , o r

afossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r

o f 0.12

. Similarly , a mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t operatin g a t

a n annua l capacit y utilizatio n facto r

o f 0. 6 an dfirin g a5 0 percen t coal/5 0 percen t

nonsulfur

bearin g fue l mixtur e woul dhav e afossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r

o f 0.3 , an dauni t firin g 8 0 percen t

coa l an d2 0 percen tP.2 4

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s 2240 5
nonsulfur-bearin g fue

l woul dhav e a fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r

o f 0.48

. Base do n th e abov e discussion , thi s analysi s project s tha t

standard s requirin g al l ne w mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO

2 emission s achiev e greate r reduction s i n nationa l SO a emission s tha n standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r fuel

. A s show n i n Tabl e 8-1 2 o f "Summar y o f Regulator

y Analysis, " NSP S base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r fue l fo r al l ne w mixe dfuel-fire dsteamgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) resul t

i n a projecte dnationa l annualize dcos t increas e o

f $21. 5 million/year

ove r th e regulatory baselin e i n 1990

. Thi s represent s a n increas e o

f abou t 5 percen t i n th e tota l nationa l annualize d cost s associate dwith operatio n o f al l ne w mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s projecte dt o b e constructe d betwee n 198 6 an d1990

. In comparison , standard s requirin g al l ne w mixe dfuel

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 29 M

W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e a percen t reductio n i n emission s resul t i n projecte dnationa l annualize dcos t increase s o

f abou t $42. 9 million/year over th e regulatory baselin e i n 1990

. Thi s represent s a n increas e in tota l nationa l annualize dcost s o f abou t 1 0 percent

. O f th e differenc e i n projecte d increase s i n tota l nationa l annualize d cost s betwee n thes e tw o alternative s (abou t $21. 4 million/year) , nearl y al l ($19. 9 million/year ) result s fro m standard s requirin g al l ne w mixe dfuel

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 7 3 M

W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) to achiev e a percen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions

. Again , thi s occur s a s aresul t o f both th e smal l numbe r

o f ne w mixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s projecte dt o hav e hea t inpu t capacitie s les s tha n 7 3 M W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) an dth e lo w fossi l fue l utilizatio n factor s projecte dfo r thes e units

. Base do n th e projecte dnationa l emissio n reduction s an dannualize dcos t increase s describe dabove , th e nationa l averag e cos t

effectivenes s o

f NSP S base do n th e us e o

f lo w sulfu r fue l fo r al l ne w mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 29 M

W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) i s abou t $520/M g ($470/ton ) o

f SO 2 removed

. In comparison , standard s requirin g al l ne w mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n emission s resul t i n anationa l averag e cos t effectivenes s o f $770/M g ($700/ton ) o

f SO aremoved

. A s show n i n Tabl e 8-12 , however , th e incrementa l cos t

effectivenes s o

f a standar drequirin g al l mixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions , ove r

a standar drequirin g onl y mixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 7 3 M

W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions , i s abou t $5,800/M g ($5,300/ton ) o

f SO aremoved

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Nationa l Impacts, " thi s high incrementa l cos t effectivenes s leve l i s no t

du e t o th e relativel y smal l siz e of stea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s les s tha n 7 3 M W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour) , bu t

rathe r result s fro mth e projectio n tha t

al l o f th e ne w mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s les s tha n 7 3 M W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) wil l hav e lo w fossi l fue

l utilizatio n factors

. O n a n annua l basis , th e potentia l emissio n reduction s obtainabl e fro m thes e mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s les s tha n 7 3 M

W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) unit s ar e much les s tha n thos e obtainabl e fro mlarge r units , eve n unde r

astandar d that require s apercen t

reductio n i n SO

a emissions

. Moreover , FG

D system s installe do n thes e mixe dfuel-fire dunit s would"b e designe dt o accommodat e firing o f coal o r oi l a t ful l loa dt o provid e maximu mfuel us e flexibility

. Thus , th e cost s o f thes e FG D system s woul db e simila r t o thos e installe do n coal

- o r oil

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s or o n mixe d fuel-fire dunit s tha t

fir e relativel y larg e amount s of

coa l o r oi l relativ e t o nonsulfur-bearin g fue

l (i.e. , with high fossi l fuel utilizatio n factors)

. A s a result , fo r mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s o

f les s tha n 7 3 M

W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) tha t

hav e lo w fossi l fue l utilizatio n factors , th e cost s o f achievin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO

a emission s ar e relativel y hig h i n proportio n t o th e emissio n reduction s achievabl e o n a n annua l basis

. I n summary , thi s analysi s indicate s tha t th e nationa l averag e cos t effectivenes s o

f standard s requirin g al l ne w mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s i s no t

substantiall y higher tha n th e nationa l averag e cos t effectivenes s o

f standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r fuel

. Thi s analysi s als o appear s to indicat e tha t

th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s o

f astandar d requirin g al l stea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

than 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) to achiev e a percen t reductio n in SO

aemission s over astandar dtha t

woul drequir e onl y mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s v wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 7 3 M W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) t o achiev e apercen t reductio n in emission s i s high

. A s discusse dabove , however , thi s high incrementa l cos t

effectivenes s i s no t

du e primaril y t o th e smalle r

siz e o f thes e mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g units , bu t rathe r t o th e lo w fossi l fue

l utilizatio n factor s projecte dfo r ne w mixe dfuel-firedstea mgeneratin g unit s o f les s tha n 7 3 M

W (25 0 millio n Btu / hour) hea t

inpu t capacit y (i.e. , fossi l fue

l utilizatio n factor s i n th e rang e o f 0.12)

. A s discusse din "Summar y o f Regulatory Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Nationa l Impacts " an dshow n i n Tabl e 8-12 , NSP S ar e no t projecte dt o hav e an y impac t on fue l us e i n ne w mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g units

. Unde r

th e regulatory baseline , th e tota l fue

l consumptio n in ne w mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s i s projecte dto b e evenl y divide d betwee n coa l an dnonfossi l fuels

. Oi l an dnatura l ga s ar e no t

competitiv e wit

h coal fo r us e i n mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s unde r

eithe r th e high oil penetratio n or

high coal penetratio n energ y scenario s discusse dabov e fo r fossi l fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. I n addition , a s show n i n Tabl e 8-12 , thi s fue l us e patter n doe s no t

chang e unde r an y o f th e regulatory alternative s o r standard s examined

. Thus , thi s analysi s indicate s tha t

th e fue l switchin g projecte dt o occur

fo r fossi l fuel-fired stea mgeneratin g unit s i n respons e to variou s NSP S i s no t

projecte dto occu r fo r mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Secondary Environmenta l Impacts, " potential secondar y environmenta l impact s associate dwit

h standard s o

f performanc e tha t

includ e apercen t reductio n requiremen t

hav e als o bee n analyzed

. Th e impact s of

variou s regulatory alternative s o n th e generatio n an ddisposa l o

f soli dan dliqui dwaste s wer e examine da t

th e nationa l level , a s show n i n Tabl e 8-12

. Regulatory alternative s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemission s resul t

i n greate r quantitie s o

f liqui dwast e tha n d o regulatory alternative s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r fuels

. Th e tabl e ab o indicate s tha t

th e soli dwast e impact s associate dwith regulatory alternative s requirin g apercen t

reductio n in SO

a emission s ar e no t

significantl y greate r2240 6 Federa l Registe r/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s

tha n thos e associate dwit h regulator y alternative s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r fuel

. A s discusse dpreviousl y fo r coal

- an d oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g units , th e quantitie s of

waste s generate db y FG D system s installe do n mixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s i s smal l compare dt o th e tota l amount s o f existin g liqui dan dsoli dwaste s generate db y industria l plant s a t whic h thes e stea mgeneratin g unit s ar e located

. I n addition , th e nontoxi c an d nonhazardou s natur e o f th e FG D waste s permit s thei r

disposa l usin g conventiona l technique s suc h a s ponding , landfilling , o r

direc t discharg e withou t leadin g t o an y unreasonabl e secondar y environmenta l impacts

. Industry-Specific Economic Impacts. Th e analysi s discusse dabov e o f potentia l nationa l impact s associate d wit h standard s o f

performanc e fo r

ne w mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s represent s a n assessmen t o f th e aggregat e nationwid e impac t o f standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emissions

. Becaus e of th e aggregat e natur e o f

thi s analysi s o f nationa l impacts , th e potentia l impac t o f standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s wa s no t assesse dfo r specifi c industria l sector s withi n th e nationa l economy
. Accordingly , th e potentia l economi c impact s o f a standar drequirin g apercen t reductio n i n S0 2 emission s o n majo r industria l stea muser s wer e als o considered

. Fo r th e sam e siz e stea mgeneratin g uni t operatin g a t

th e sam e overal l capacit y utilizatio n factor , th e annualize dcost s associate dwit h standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emission s woul db e somewha t les s fo r amixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g uni t

tha n fo r afossi l fuel

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit

. I n bot h cases , a n FG D syste mwoul db e
. installe dt o compl y wit h th e percen t reductio n requirement , an dthi s FG D syste mwoul db e designe dt o handl e th e tota l exhaus t

ga s volum e fro mth e stea m generatin g unit

. Thi s woul db e necessar y fo r

th e mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit , a s wel l a s th e fossi l fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit , becaus e 10 0 percen t

coa l o r oi l migh t

hav e t o be

. fire do n occasio n i n th e mixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g uni t

whe n nonsulfur

bearin g fuel s wer e no t

available

. A s a result , capita l cost s associate dwit h standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emission s woul db e essentiall y th e sam e fo r

bot h mixe dfuel-fire dan d fossi l fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. Operatin g costs , however , woul db e somewha t

lowe r fo r amixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit

. Thes e cost s ar e a functio n of

th e amoun t

o f SO2 remove d b y th e FG D syste mwhich , fo r stea m generatin g unit s o f

th e sam e size , operatin g a t

th e sam e capacit y utilizatio n factor , an dfirin g coa l o r oi l o f th e sam e sulfu r

content , woul db e les s fo r amixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t tha n fo r afossi l fuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit

. A s aresult , th e industry-specifi c economi c impact s associate dwit h alternativ e standard s fo r mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s woul dals o b e somewha t les s tha n thos e associate dwit h alternativ e standard s fo r

fossi l fuel-fire dstea m generatin g units

. A s discusse dabov e fo r coal-fire d stea mgeneratin g units , th e "wors e case " analysi s o f

potentia l industry-specifi c economi c impact s o f

standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emission' s indicate s tha t

th e increase s i n produc t price s a s aresul t

o f suc h astandar d coul drang e fro mles s tha n 0. 1 percen t t o 1. 5 percent

. Similarly , assumin g ful l cos t absorption , potentia l increase s i n produc t valu e adde drang e fro mles s tha n 0. 1 percen t

t o 5. 0 percent , an d potentia l decrease s i n manufacturin g plan t profitabilit y o r

retur n o n asset s rang e fro mles s tha n 0. 1 t o 2. 8 percent

. A s mentione dabove , non e o f thes e industry-specifi c impact s associate d wit h astandar drequirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s fro mcoal

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s i s considere dunreasonable

. Th e annualize dcost s associate dwit h achievin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO a emission s fro mmixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s ar e smalle r tha n th e annualize dcost s associate dwit h achievin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO 2 emission s fro mcoal-fire dstea m generatin g units

. A s aresult , non e o f th e industry-specifi c impact s associate d wit h standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s frommixe d fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s ar e considere dunreasonable

. Impacts on Individual

Steam Generating I/nits. Th e analysi s o f industry-specifi c impact s discusse d abov e examine dth e potentia l impact s o f standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s withi n specifi c industrie s a t

th e manufacturin g plan t level

. Thi s analysis , however , wa s unabl e t o asses s potentia l impact s a t th e individua l stea mgeneratin g uni t level

. Consequently , th e regulator y analysi s als o examine dth e cos t an demissio n impact s associate dwit h standard s requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO 2 emission s an dstandard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r

coa l i n term s o f individua l stea mgeneratin g units

. A s wa s discusse dabov e an di n "Summar y o f

Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o f

Demonstrate d Emissio n Contro l Technolog y Costs, "

assumin g tha t

emissio n credit s ar e no t provided , th e cos t

impact s o n mixe d fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s o f alternativ e contro l level s o r standard s base do n th e us e o f

lo w sulfu r

fue l woul db e essentiall y th e sam e a s thos e fo r fossi l fuel-fire dunit s operatin g a t lo w annua l capacit y utilizatio n factors

. Th e annua l cost s associate dwit h alternativ e contro l level s o r standard s base do n achievin g apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emission s woul dals o b e th e sam e fo r mixe dfuel-fire dan dfossi l fuel

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s operatin g a t lo w annua l capacit y utilizatio n factors

. Therefore , th e cos t

impact s o n mixe d fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s o f alternativ e contro l level s o r standard s ca n b e examine db y considerin g th e cos t analysi s performe dfo r

fossi l fuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s operatin g a t lo w annua l capacit y utilizatio n factors

. A mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t firin g 5 0 percen t

coa l o r oi l an d5 0 percen t nonsulfur-bearin g fue l a t a n annua l capacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0. 6 (i.e. , fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r of 0.3) , fo r example , ca n b e considere dafossi l fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t operatin g a t

a n annua l capacit y utilizatio n facto r

of 0. 3 fo r purpose s o f analysis

. Mos t nonfossi l fuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s ar e designe dwit h th e flexibilit y t o fir e fossi l fuel , a s wel l a s nonfossi l fuel

. A s aresult , mos t nonfossi l fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s ca n b e considere dmixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g units

. Th e flexibilit y t o fir e fossi l fue l i s generall y provide dt o overcom e potentia l flam e stability , problem s tha t

aris e wit h som e nonfossi l fuel s an dt o ensur e tha t th e stea m generatin g uni t

ca n continu e t o operat e durin g period s whe n nonfossi l fue l ma y no t b e available

. Th e basi c desig n o f

astea m generatin g uni t

designe dt o fir e nonfossi l fue l i s ver y simila r

t o th e basi c desig n o f astea mgeneratin g uni t designe dt o fir e coal

. Th e increas e i n capita l cost s necessar y t o provid e th e flexibilit y fo r a nonfossi l fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t t o fire coal , therefore , ar e small

. A s aresult , selectio n o f

th e fossi l fue l t o fir e i n amixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t i s primaril y a consideratio n o f th e pric e o f th e fossi l fuel

. I n suc h a situation , wit h fe w exceptions , coa l normall y i s th e les s expensiv e fuel

. Consequently , mos t

mixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s fir e coal , rathe r tha n natura l ga s o r

oil , wit h nonfossi l fuels

. Th e potentia l impact s associate dwit h standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r fue l an dstandard s requirir g apercen tFedera l Registe r / Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s
reductio n i n SO

aemissions , therefore , wer e examine db y considerin g th e potentia l impact s discusse dabov e an d i n "Summar

y o f Regulator

y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n of

Demonstrate d Emissio n Contro l Technolog y Costs " fo r acoal-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t with a hea t inpu t capacit y o

f 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) operatin g a t annua l capacity utilizatio n factor s o f 0. 3 an d 0.15

. A s discusse dabove , annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r

i s calculate db y multiplyin g th e annua l capacit y utilizatio n facto r

b y th e percentag e o

f fossi l fue l firedi n th e stea mgeneratin g unit

. Thus , th e cos t

impact s fo

r coal

firedstea mgeneratin g unit s operatin g a t annua l capacit y utilizatio n factor s o f 0. 3 an d0.1 5 correspon dt o th e cos t impact s associate dwith mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s operatin g a t a n overal l capacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0. 6 an d firing amixture o

f 5 0 percen t

coal/5 0 percen t nonsulfur-bearin g fue

l an d25 percen t coal/7 5 percen t

nonsulfur

bearin g fuel , respectively

. An alternativ e contro l leve l o r standar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coal result s i n SO

aemissio n reduction s o f 205 Mg/yea r

(23 0 tons/year ) ove r

th e regulatory baselin e fo

r a4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t

inpu t capacit y mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t locate di n Regio n V an doperatin g a t a n annua l fossi l fuel utilizatio n facto r o f 0.30

. An alternativ e contro l leve l or standar drequirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO aemission s result s i n emissio n reduction s o

f 30 0 Mg/yea r

(33 0 tons / year ) ove r

th e regulatory baseline

. At a n annua l fossi l fue

l utilizatio n facto r

o f 0.15 , a n alternativ e contro l leve l o r standar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coa l achieve s SO

aemissio n reduction s o f 10 0 Mg/yea r

(11 5 tons/year ) over

th e regulatory baselin e an da n alternativ e contro l leve l o r

standar drequirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO

aemission s result s i n emissio n reduction s o f 15 0 Mg/year^16 5 tons/year ) ove r th e regulatory baseline

. Th e SO aemissio n reduction s associate dwith astandar d requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO

a emission s ar e greater , therefore , tha n thos e associate dwith astandar dbase d o n th e us e o

f lo w sulfu r coal

. A s show n i n Table s 6-1 5 an d6-1 6 o f "Summar y o f Regulator

y Analysis, " th e potentia l increas e ove r

th e regulatory baselin e i n annualize dcost s o f ane w 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g uni t

associate dwit h standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coa l i s abou t

1 or 2 percen t i n both Regio n V an dRegio n VIII

. Th e potentia l increas e i n annualize dcost s ove r th e regulatory baselin e associate dwit h standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n emission s i s abou t

8 or 9 percen t i n Regio n V an dabou t

1 0 o r 1 1 percen t

i n Regio n VIII

. Thus , th e incrementa l increas e i n annualize dcost s a s aresul t o f standard s requirin g apercen t reductio n i n emission s ove r standard s base do n th e us e o

f lo w sulfu r coa l fo r mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s i s abou t 7 t o 8 percen t

i n Regio n V an d9 t o 1 0 percen t

i n Regio n VIII

. O n th e basi s o

f th e emissio n reduction s an dpotentia l annualize dcos t increase s note dabove , th e averag e cos t effectivenes s o

f standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coal i n Regio n V i s betwee n $440/M g ($400/ton ) an d$480 / M g ($440/ton ) o

f SO aremove dfor typica l mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wit h annua l fossi l fuel utilizatio n factor s betwee n 0. 3 an d0.15 , respectively

. Fo r

standard s requirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions , th e averag e cos t

effectivenes s i n Regio n V range s fro m$1,250/M g ($l,150/ton ) o f SO aremove dfo

r amixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g uni t

with a n annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r

o f 0. 3 t o $2,130/M g ($l,930/ton ) o

f SO aremove d fo r amixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t with a n annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r o f 0.15

. In Regio n VIII , th e averag e cos t effectivenes s o

f standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coal i s betwee n $240/M g ($220/ton ) an d$300/M g ($270 / ton ) o f SO aremove dfo

r mixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s with annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n factor s betwee n 0. 3 an d0.15 , respectively

. For standard s requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO

a emissions , th e averag e cos t effectivenes s i n Regio n VII I range s fro

m $1,190/M g ($1,080/ton ) o

f SO aremove d for amixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t with a n annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r o f 0. 3 t o $1,870/M g ($l,700/ton ) of SO aremove dfo

r amixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g uni t

with a n annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r

o f 0.15

. I n Regio n V , th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s o

f astandar drequirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO

aemission s over astandar dbase do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coa l range s fro

m$3,080/M g ($2,790/ton ) o

f SO aremove dfo

r amixe d fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t with a n annua l fossi l fuel utilizatio n facto r o f 0. 3 t o $5,110/M g ($4,640/ton ) o f SO a remove dfor

amixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g uni t

with a n annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r

of 0.15

. Similarly , i n Regio n VIII , th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s range s from$2,420/M g ($2,200/ton ) t o $3,950/M g ($3,580/ton ) o f SO aremove dfo

r mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s with annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n factor s betwee n 0. 3 an d0.15 , respectively

. Thes e result s indicat e tha t both th e averag e an dincrementa l cos t impact s associate dwith standard s requirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO

aemission s increas e significantl y a s th e fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r

o f amixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g uni t

decreases

. A s note dabov e an ddiscusse din "Summar y o f Regulatory Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Nationa l Impacts, " mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s ar e no t

projecte dt o fir

e natura l ga s instea do

f coa l in respons e t o astandar drequirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions

. Thi s i s tru e unde r both th e hig h oil penetratio n an d high coal penetratio n scenarios

. Unlik e fossi l fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g units , firing natura l ga s woul dno t resul t i n an y significan t reductio n i n stea mgeneratin g uni t capitatcost s whic h woul dpartiall y offset th e increase dpric e o

f natura l gas
. Thus , unlike lo w capacit y utilizatio n facto r fossi l fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s whic h ar e likel y t o fir e natura l ga s instea do f coa l t o avoi dth e cos t

impact s discusse dabove , mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wil l likel y incu r th e ful l cos t impact s associate dwith standard s requirin g apercen t

reductio n i n SO

a emissions

. Bot h th e analysi s o

f impact s a t

th e nationa l leve l an dth e analysi s o f impact s a t

th e individua l stea m generatin g uni t

level , therefore , indicat e tha t th e cost s o

f astandar drequirin g a percen t reductio n i n SO

aemission s ar e disproportionat e t o th e emissio n reduction s obtaine dfo

r mixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s tha t fir e smal l amount s o

f coa l relativ e t o nonsulfur

bearin g fue

l o n a n annua l basis

. Consequently , ne w mixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s wit h hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) tha t

hav e annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n factor s o

f 0. 3 or les s ar e considere dacategory o

f stea m generatin g unit s fo

r whic h apercen t reductio n requiremen t

woul dhav e unreasonabl e impacts

. Thes e analyses , however , als o sho w tha t

th e impact s o

f standard s containin g emissio n limit s onl y ar e reasonabl e fo

r al l size s an d type s o f mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g units

. Accordingly , th e basi s o f th e standar dfo

r mixe dfuel-fire d industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) tha t

operat e a t

annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n factor s fo

r coal o f 3 0 percen t

(0.3 ) o r les s i s a n emissio n limi t only

. Th e analysi s o

f nationa l impacts , impact s o n specifi c industries , an d impact s o n individua l stea mgeneratin g unit s hav e show n tha t

th e impact s o

f aP.2 7



### 2240 8 Federa

l Registe r/

Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s
standar drequirin g apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emission s ar e reasonabl e fo r mixe dfuel-fire dsteamgeneratin g unit s that operat e a t

annua l fossi l fue

l utilizatio n factor s greate r tha n 0.3

. Thes e impact s ar e reasonabl e whe n compare d to standard s base do n th e us e o f lo w sulfu r fue l an dwhe n compare dt o th e regulatory baseline

. Therefore , th e basi s o f standard s fo

r mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s with hea t inpu t capacitie s greate r

tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) tha t

operat e a t

annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n factor s fo

r coal o f more tha n 0. 3 i s apercen t reductio n i n SO 2 emissions

. 6

. Selectio n o

f Standar dfo

r Mixe dFuel

Fire dSteamGeneratin g Unit s A s wit h coal

- an doil-fire dstea m generatin g units , th e SO

2 contro l technologie s whic h ar e capabl e o f continuousl y achievin g apercen t reductio n i n SO

2 emission s fro

mmixe d fuel-firedstea mgeneratin g unit s includ e both combustio n modification s an d post-combustio n controls

. Combustio n modificatio n throug h th e us e o f FB C ha s receive dwidesprea dapplicatio n t o steamgeneratin g unit s whic h fir e lo w quality fossi l fuel s an dnonfossi l fuels , includin g mixe dfuel-firedstea m generatin g units. ' We t

an ddry FG

D technologie s ar e als o applicabl e t o mixe dfuel-firedstea mgeneratin g units

. Th e S0 2 emission s fro

mamixe dfuel

fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t ar e aproduc t o f th e sulfu r conten t o f th e coa l or

oi l i n th e fue l mixture

. Consequently , th e sam e technologie s that

ar e effectiv e i n controllin g SO

2 emission s fro

mcoal

- or oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s ar e als o effectiv e i n controllin g SO ? emission s fro msteamgeneratin g unit s tha t fir e coal o r oil in combinatio n with nonsulfur-bearin g fuels

. Further , thes e contro l technologie s ar e capabl e o f achievin g th e sam e leve l o f emissio n reductio n fro

mmixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s a s fro

mcoal

- o r

oil

fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Performanc e o

f Demonstrate dEmissio n Contro l Technologies, " analysi s o f dat a gathere dto asses s th e performanc e o f - we t FG D technologie s (sodium , lime / limestone , an ddua l alkali) , lime spray dryin g systems , an dFB C system s indicate s tha t

thes e technologie s ar e capabl e o f continuousl y achievin g a90 percen t reductio n i n SO

aemission s fro

m coal

- an doil-fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. Because , a s mentione dabove , thes e technologie s ar e capabl e o f achievin g th e sam e leve l o f performanc e on mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g units , a90 percen t

reductio n in SO

2 emission s o n a30-da

y rollin g averag e basi s throug h th e us e o f thes e technologie s i s considere ddemonstrate d fo r mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. Th e cos t impact s associate dwith a rang e o f percen t reductio n requirement s wer e examine dfo

r coal

- an doil-fire d stea mgeneratin g units

. A s discusse d above , thes e analyse s indicat e tha t a90 percen t reductio n requiremen t

achieve s th e greates t

emissio n reduction s a t

cost s onl y slightl y higher

tha n thos e associate dwith lowe r

percen t reductio n requirement s an dtha t

a9 0 percen t reductio n requiremen t

i s mor e cos t effectiv e tha n lowe r

percen t reductio n requirements

. Similarly , a9 0 percen t reductio n requiremen t

fo r mixe dfuel

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s woul dals o resul t i n th e greates t

emissio n reductio n a t cost s onl y slightl y higher tha n thos e associate dwith lowe r

percen t reductio n requirements

. A s discusse dabove , th e analysi s o f cos t impact s o

f percen t reductio n standard s o n fossi l fuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s operatin g a t lo w annua l capacity utilizatio n factor s ca n b e use d

• t o represen t

th e impact s o

f percen t reductio n requirement s o n mixe dfuel

fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. Consequently , a s show n i n Tabl e 6-1 0 o f "Summar y o f Regulator

y Analysis, " fo

r amixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t locate di n EP

A Regio n VII

I an d operatin g a t

a n annua l fossi l fue

l utilizatio n facto r

o f 0.30 , th e averag e cos t effectivenes s o

f a5 0 percen t reductio n requiremen t

i s $1,380/M g ($l,250/ton ) o

f SO aremoved

. For

a7 0 percen t reductio n requirement , th e averag e cos t

effectivenes s i s $1,270/M g ($1,150/ton ) o

f SO aremoved , an dfo

r a 90 percen t reductio n requirement , th e averag e cos t

effectivenes s i s $1,200/M g ($l,090/ton ) o

f SO aremoved

. A s discusse dabove , th e ability o f we t FG D systems , lime spray dryin g systems , an dFB C system s t o achiev e a 9 0 percent ' reductio n i n SO 2 emission s o n a30-da

y rollin g averag e basi s fro m mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s i s considere ddemonstrated

. Thus , a standar drequirin g a9 0 percen t reductio n i n SO

2 emission s ha s bee n selecte dfo

r ne w mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s o

f greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t

inpu t capacit y tha t

hav e a n annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r

o f greate r tha n 0.3 0 (excep t fo r unit s usin g emergin g technologies , a s discusse dbelow)

. Becaus e mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s obtai n thei r fossi l fue l supplie s fromth e sam e marke t source s a s fossi l fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g units , th e sam e consideratio n wa s give n t o emissio n limit s which , whe n combine dwith a9 0 percen t reductio n i n SO aemissions , woul dno t

preclud e th e us e o f high sulfu

r fuels

. Therefore , emissio n limit s o

f 51 6 ng/ J (1. 2 lb / millio n Btu ) hea t

inpu t fo r mixe dfuel

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s firing coal , an d34 4 ng/ J (0. 8 lb/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t fo r mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s firing oil , hav e bee n selecte da s th e emissio n limit s include d i n th e 90 percen t

reductio n standar dfo

r ne w industrial-commercial-institutiona l mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. A s discusse dabov e fo

r coal-fire dan d oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g units , i t i s questionabl e whethe r

th e standard s discusse dabov e coul db e achieve db y emergin g technologies

. Th e importanc e o f accommodatin g emergin g technologie s ha s als o bee n discusse d previously

. Establishin g les s stringen t percen t reductio n requirement s fo r emergin g technologie s woul dincreas e th e likelihoo dtha t

owner s an doperator s o f ne w industrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s firin g mixe dfuel s wil l instal l an d operat e thes e systems

. A s discusse dabove , emergin g SO a contro l technologie s ar e bein g develope dprimaril y fo

r applicatio n t o coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. Nonetheless , suc h emergin g technologie s a s dry alkal i injection , electro n bea m irradiation , an dLIM

B coul db e applie d t o mixe dfue

l firing a s well

. Ther e are , i n addition , n o reason s to expec t tha t th e performanc e o

f emergin g technologie s whe n applie dt o mixe dfuel-fire dateam generatin g unit s woul db e an y bette r o r wors e tha n tha t

fo r coal

- or oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g units

. Therefore , th e propose dstandard s woul drequir e al l new , modified , o r

reconstructe dmixe d fuel-fire dindustrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s whic h hav e hea t

inpu t capacitie s greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour) , whic h hav e a n annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r

o f greate r tha n 0.30 , an dwhic h emplo y emergin g SO acontro l technologies , t o achiev e a5 0 percen t reductio n i n SO

2 emissions

. In orde r t o minimiz e emission s fro m mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s usin g a n emergin g technolog y fo r SO a contro l an dsubjec t

t o th e 5 0 percen t reductio n requirement , th e propose d standar dinclude s SO

aemissio n limit s o

f 25 8 ng/ J (0. 6 lb/millio n Btu) an d17 2 ng SOa/ J (0. 4 lb SOa/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t fo r stea mgeneratin g unit s firing coal an doil , respectively , i n afue l mixture

. A s discusse dabove , thes e emissio n limit s ar e one-hal f

th e otherwis e applicabl e SO

aemissio n limits

. A s a result , th e us e o

f emergin g technologie s achievin g th e minimumpercen t

### P.2 8

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s 2240 9

reductio n i n SO aemission s i s limite dt o mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s firin g coa l wit h asulfu r conten t o f 51 6 n g SOa/ J (1 2 l b Sa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t o r less , o r oi l wit h asulfu r

conten t of 344 n g SOa/ J (0. 8 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t o r less

. However , t o th e exten t tha t thes e technologie s ca n achiev e SO a emissio n reduction s o f

greate r tha n 5 0 percent , coal s o r

oil s wit h highe r

sulfu r content s ca n b e burne dwithou t exceedin g th e propose demissio n limit

. Becaus e highe r

sulfu r fuel s ar e generall y les s expensiv e tha n lo w sulfur fuels , thi s wil l ac t a s a n incentiv e t o achiev e percen t reduction s o f

greate r tha n 5 0 percent

. Th e propose dstandards , therefore , provid e alimite d"window " fo r us e o f emergin g technologies

. Thi s windo w wil l b e reviewe dregularl y durin g th e cours e of th e revie w proces s associate dwit h al l NSPS

. A s appropriate , th e percen t reductio n requirement s wil l b e revise d upward s i n ligh t

o f additiona l performanc e dat aavailabl e a t tha t tim e for emergin g technologies

. A s aresul t o f thes e reviews , emergin g contro l technologie s tha t

d o no t demonstrat e improvement s i n performanc e capabilities , o r

sho w n o promis e o f achievin g emissio n reduction s greate r tha n 5 0 percent , wil l n o longe r b e considere demergin g technologie s an d woul db e subjecte dt o th e sam e requirement s a s thos e include di n th e standard s fo r

conventiona l demonstrate dtechnologies

. A s discusse dabove , th e applicatio n o f apercen t reductio n requiremen t t o mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s tha t hav e a n annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r

o f 0.3 0 o r les s i s considere dunreasonable

. Consequently , th e standar dfo r

thi s categor y o f

stea m generatin g unit s i s a n emissio n limi t only

. I n selectin g a n SO aemissio n limi t fo r thi s categor y o f

mixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g units , consideratio n focuse do n th e analysi s o f individua l stea mgeneratin g uni t

cost s fo r

coal

firedstea mgeneratin g unit s whic h operat e a t

lo w annua l capacit y utilizatio n factors

. Th e analysi s o f

th e cost s o f alternativ e contro l level s o r standard s centere do n SO aemissio n limit s o f 73 1 ng/ J (1. 7 lb/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t an d 51 6 ng/ f (1. 2 lb/millio n Btu ) hea t input

. Analysi s o f

ahighe r emissio n limi t

wa s unnecessar y becaus e ahighe r limi t woul db e equa l t o th e regulator y baseline

. O n th e othe r

hand , a n emissio n limi t

lowe r tha n 51 6 ng/ J (1. 2 lb/millio n Btu ) wa s no t considere d becaus e coal s of

lowe r sulfu r conten t ar e no t widel y availabl e throughou t th e Unite dStates

. A s discusse dabove , th e impact s o f alternativ e contro l level s o r standard s o n mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s ma y b e considere db y examinin g th e impact s discusse dabov e an di n "Summar y o f

Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n of

Demonstrate d Emissio n Contro l Technologies " o n coal

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s operatin g a t lo w capacit y utilizatio n factors

. A t a n annua l capacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 0. 3 fo r coa l (i.e.

. annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r

o f 0. 3 fo r coal) , a n SO aemissio n limi t

of 73 1 ng/ J (1. 7 lb / millio n Btu ) hea t

inpu t reduce s SO a emissio n reduction s fro ma4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t

inpu t capacit y mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t b y 11 5 Mg/yea r

(13 0 tons/year ) ove r

th e regulator y baseline

. A n emissio n limi t o f 51 6 ng/ J (1. 2 lb/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t result s i n SO aemissio n reduction s o f 20 5 Mg/yea r (23 0 tons/year ) ove r

th e regulator y baseline

. Thus , th e incrementa l reductio n i n SO aemission s achieve db y a n emissio n limi t o f 51 6 n g SOa/ J (1. 2 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t ove r a n emissio n limi t

of 73 1 n g SOa/ J (1. 7 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t i s 9 0 Mg/yea r (10 0 tons/year)

. A t a n annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r o f 0.1 5 fo r coal , a n SO aemissio n limi t o f 73 1 ng/ J (1. 7 lb/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t achieve s SO aemissio n reduction s fro ma4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y mixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g uni t

o f 6 0 Mg/yea r

(6 5 tons/year ) ove r

th e regulator y baseline

. A n emissio n limi t

of 51 8 ng/ J (1. 2 lb / millio n Btu ) hea t

inpu t result s i n SO « emissio n reduction s o f

10 5 Mg/yea r

(11 5 tons/year ) ove r

th e regulator y baseline

. Thus , th e incrementa l reductio n i n emission s achieve db y a n emissio n limi t of 51 6 n g SOa/ J (1. 2 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t ove r a n emissio n limi t

o f 73 1 n g SOa/ J (1. 7 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t i s 4 5 Mg/yea r

(5 0 tons/year)

. Th e potentia l increase s i n annualize d cost s associate dwit h thes e alternativ e standard s ar e show n i n Table s 6-1 5 an d 6-1 6 o f "Summar y o f

Regulator y Analysis. " Th e potentia l increas e i n th e annualize dcost s ove r

th e regulator y baselin e a s aresul t

o f complianc e wit h a n alternativ e contro l leve l o r standar d o f 73 1 n g SOa/ J (1. 7 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t i s abou t 1 percen t

fo r a4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g uni t

operatin g a t

annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n factor s o f 0.1 5 t o 0. 3 i n bot h Regio n V an dRegio n VIII

. Th e potentia l increas e i n annualize dcost s o f ane w mixe dfuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t ove r th e regulator y baselin e a s a resul t o f complianc e wit h a n alternativ e contro l leve l o r

standar do f

51 6 n g SOa/J (1. 2 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inp u abou t 1 percen t

i n Regio n VIII

. an dIro m 1 t o 2 percen t

i n Regio n V

. Tl incrementa l cos t

In c wit h a n alternativ e contro l leve l o r standar do f

51 6 n g SOa/ J (1. 2 l b SO. / millio n Btu ) hea t

inpu t ove r a n alternativ e contro l l

< 73 1 n g SOa/ J (1. 7 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t i s generall y i

n th e rang ' percen t o r les s for ane w m

i - firedstea mgeneratin g unit

. O n th e basi s ofth e reduction s an dpotentia l increa v annualize dcosts , .h< cos t effectivenes s o f

a n e leve l o r stan d[(1. 7 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t

inpu t range s fro m $250/M g ($230/ton ) of

SO are : $340/M g ($310/ton ) of

SO aremove dW a4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) I

. inpu ! mixe dfuel-fir; ' generatin g uni t

operatin g a n an m fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r fo r coa l o t 0.1 5 an d0.3 , dependin g o n regio n location

. Th e averag e cos t e -s s of a n alternativ e contro l lev a standar do f

51 6 n g SOa/J (1. 2 l b SO? / millio n Btu ) hea t

inpu t range s fro m $240/M g ($220/ton ) of

SO aremo v $480/M g ($440/ton ) of

SO aremo v Thus , th e incrementa l i o f a n alternativ e contro l leve l o r standar do f

51 6 n g SO a(1. 2 l b SOa/ millio n Btu ) hea t

inpu t ove r a n alternativ e contro l leve l o r stand i 73 1 n g SOa/J (1. 7 l b SOa/millio n I hea t inpu t range s fro m$110/M g ( $ ton ) o f SO aremove dt o $670/M g (S ton ) o f SO aremoved

. Thes e result s indicat e tha t u limitin g emission s o f

SO J fro mn

u fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wit h annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n factor s for coa l o f 0. 3 o r les s t o 51 8 n g SOa/ J ( 1 2 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t

inpu t woul d achiev e greate r

emissir

. tha n a n alternativ e standar do f 73 SOa/ J (1. 7 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t a t reasonabl e costs

. Th e emissio n limi t

o f 51 8 n g SOa/J (1. 2 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t

inpu t h selecte dfo r

mixe dfuel -fire dIndustrial ' commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s operatin g a t annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n factor s fo r coa l of 0. 3 o r less

. 7

. Othe r Consideration s Percent Redaction Cn Pretreatment. Sectio n 111(a)(1 ) of th e Clea n Ai r

Ac t permit s ; i n emission s resultin g fro mpretreatmen t of fuel s t o b e credite dtowar dsatisfyin g th e percen t

reductio n include di n standard s o f perform s fo r fossi l fuel-fire dstationar y sources , Th e propose dstandards , thiP.2 9

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s
includ e suc h credits

. Thes e credits , however , ar e applie di n suc h awa y tha t th e uncontrolled , o

r partiall y controlled , emission s fro

mfiring th e pretreate dfue l ar e n o greate r

tha n th e controlle d emission s whic h woul dhav e occurre di f th e untreate dfue

l ha dbee n fired

. For example , i

f acoal wit

h asulfu r conten t o f 1,00 0 ng SOa/ J (2. 3 l b S0 2 / millio n Btu) hea t

inpu t wa s treate dt o reduc e th e sulfu

r conten t t o 75 0 ng SOa/

J (1. 7 l b S0 2 /millio n Btu) prio r to bein g fired , acredi t

fo r thi s reductio n i n th e sulfu r conten t o f th e coa l coul db e applie dtoward s complianc e with th e percen t reductio n requirement s include d in th e propose dstandards

. Withou t pretreatment , a9 0 percen t reductio n requiremen t

woul drequir e tha t

SO 2 emission s b e reduce dto 10 0 ng SOa/ J (0.23 lb SOa/millio n Btu)

. With pretreatment, SO

aemission s mus t

stil l b e reduce dt o thi s sam e level

. Pretreatment , therefore , effectively reduce s th e minimal percen t reductio n requiremen t

fro m9 0 percen t

t o 8 7 percen t in thi s case
. Type s o f coal pretreatmen t

processe s fo r whic h percen t

reductio n credit s woul db e give n includ e physica l coa l cleanin g an dsolven t

refining

. Crushin g an dscreenin g t o separat e roc k an d othe r materia l fro

mra w coal prio r

t o processin g or

shipmen t woul dno t

b e considere dfue

l pretreatmen t

processes
. Th e primar

y typ e o f oi l pretreatmen t proces s fo r whic h percen t

reductio n credit s woul db e given i s hydrodesulfurization

. Th e fue l pretreatmen t

credi t woul db e determine db y th e sulfu

r conten t o f th e residua l oi l prio r

t o hydrodesulfurizatio n compare dt o th e sulfu

r conten t o f th e residua l oil

. following hydrodesulfurization

. Distillatio n to separat e oil s int o variou s fraction s or blendin g o

f oil s to mee t

variou s fue

l oil specification s suc h a s viscosity or sulfu r conten t woul dno t

b e considere dfue

l pretreatmen t

processes
. Credit s fo r th e reductio n i n SO

a emission s resultin g fro

mfue l pretreatmen t

may b e applie dtowar d complianc e with th e 90 percen t reductio n requiremen t

include di n th e standards

. However , credit s fo r fue l pretreatmen t

may no t b e applie dtowar d complianc e wit

h th e 5 0 percen t reductio n requiremen t

fo r emergin g technologies

. Th e primary objectiv e o f th e 5 0 percen t

reductio n requiremen t

i s to stimulat e an dencourag e th e developmen t

an dus e o

f emergin g SO

2 emissio n contro l technologies

. I f acredi t wer e provide dfo

r th e percen t

reductio n achieve da s aresul t

o f fue l pretreatment, emergin g technologie s coul db e operate da t

performanc e level s significantl y belo w th e minimumleve l o f 5 0 percent

. Th e decisio n no t

t o allo w percen t reductio n credit s fo

r fue l pretreatmen t with th e SO

astandar dfo

r emergin g technologie s wil l no t

hav e an y advers e impact s o n th e continue ddevelopmen t or us e o f emergin g o

r conventiona l fue

l pretreatmen t

technologies

. Owner s or

operator s wishin g to receiv e credi t

fo r th e percen t

reductio n i n SO aemission s achieve db y fue l pretreatmen t

ar e require dt o provid e documentatio n tha t

th e fue l use dha s undergon e pretreatmen t

fo r purpose s o

f reducin g sulfu

r content

. Tw o type s o

f documentatio n woul db e required

. First , astatemen t

fro mth e fue l pretreatmen t facilit y woul db e require dtha t

identifie s th e fue l sulfu r conten t before and

. after pretreatment"

. Thi s statemen t mus t als o outlin e th e process(es ) use dto reduc e fue l sulfu r conten t an dconfir

mtha t th e percen t sulfu r remova l reporte dwa s determine di n accordanc e with Referenc e Metho d1 9 o r

a n approve d alternativ e method

. Second , documentatio n woul db e require dt o ensur e tha t

th e fue l fire di n th e stea m generatin g uni t

i s th e sam e fuel tha t

ha s undergon e pretreatment

. Thi s woul d includ e documentatio n trackin g th e shipmen t o f th e fue l betwee n th e pretreatmen t

facilit y an dth e stea m generatin g unit

. Conventiona l oi l pretreatmen t technologies , suc h a s hydrodesulfurization , ar e capabl e o f reducin g th e sulfu

r conten t o f residua l fue l oil fro mabou t 7 0 t o more tha n 9 5 percent

. Thus , i n some cases , th e propose dstandard s o

f performanc e fo

r oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s coul db e achieve dwith littl e or

n o additiona l post-combustio n contro l o f SOa ' emissions

. In fact , considerin g th e sulfu r conten t o f typica l untreate dresidua l fuel oils , i n combinatio n with th e performanc e capabilitie s o f hydrodesulfurizatio n processe s an dFG D systems , achievin g a n SO aemissio n rat e o f 8 6 ng/ J (0. 2 lb/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t o r les s a t a n oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t generall y reflect s apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemission s o

f 9 0 percen t or more
. Thi s hold s tru e whethe r fue l pretreatmen t

i s use dalon e o r

i n combinatio n with a n FG

D system

. Therefore , owner s o r

operator s o

f oil r fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s tha t ca n show , i n accordanc e with procedure s outline di n Metho d1 9 or

19A , tha t SO a emission s hav e bee n reduce dt o 8 6 ng/ J (0. 2 lb/millio n Btu) hea t

inpu t or less , ar e no t require dt o provid e additiona l documentatio n t o demonstrat e complianc e with th e percen t reductio n requiremen t

o f th e standards

. Thi s serve s t o remov e th e unnecessar y administrativ e burde n associate dwith th e documentatio n procedure s outline d abov e t o obtai n percen t

reductio n credit s fo r oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s firing very lo w sulfu r oil s [i.e. , 8 6 n g SOa/ J (0. 2 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t or less]

. Conventiona l coa l pretreatmen t technologies , suc h a s physica l coa l cleaning , o n th e othe r

hand , ar e generall y onl y capabl e o

f reducin g th e sulfu r conten t o f coa l b y abou t

20 t o 3 0 percent

. In al l cases , therefore , coal

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wil l nee dt o emplo y a n FG

D syste mt o compl y with th e propose dstandards

. In addition , documentin g th e percen t

reductio n achieve db y physica l coa l cleanin g an d trackin g th e shipmen t

o f coal fro ma coa l cleanin g plan t

t o acoal-fire dstea m generatin g uni t

shoul dprov e les s comple x tha n fo

r oil

. Consequently , provision s similar

t o thos e mentione d abov e fo r very lo w sulfu

r oil s ar e no t provide dfo

r coal

. Emission Credits for

Cogeneration and Mixed Fuel Firing. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator

y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Emissio n Credits, " th e impact s o

f emissio n credit s wer e analyze dfo

r tw o genera l type s o

f industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g units : cogeneratio n stea mgeneratin g unit s an dmixe dfuel

fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. I f emissio n credit s wer e include di n th e propose d standards , the y woul dpermi t higher SO a emission s fro

mthes e type s o

f stea m generatin g units

. In th e cas e o f a cogeneratio n stea mgeneratin g unit , thi s emissio n credi t

woul dpermi t

SO a emission s (i n term s o

f pound s or

ton s pe r day , fo r example ) t o increas e t o th e leve l tha t woul dhav e existe di

f a conventional , rathe r

tha n a cogeneration , stea mgeneratin g uni t ha d bee n installed

. In th e cas e o f amixe d fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit , thi s emissio n credi t

woul dpermi t

SO a emission s t o increas e t o th e sam e leve l tha t woul dhav e existe di

f onl y coa l or oil , rathe r tha n amixtur e o

f sulfur

bearin g an dnonsulfur-bearin g fuels , wer e fire di n th e stea mgeneratin g unit

. In eithe r case , therefore , th e environmenta l benefit s associate dwith cogeneratio n or

mixe dfue

l firing , i n term s o f decrease dSO

aemissions , woul db e eliminate db y providin g emissio n credits

. A s illustrate db y Table s 10- 1 an d10- 4 o f "Summar y o f Regulatory Analysis, " emissio n credit s fo

r oil

- an dcoal-fire d cogeneratio n stea mgeneratin g unit s woul dresul t

i n very smal l an drelativel y insignifican t

cos t savings

. Ir

i contrast , however , annua l SO

2 emission s fro

mP.3 0

leg / Vol

. 51

. No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s 2241 1 cogeneratio n stea mgeneratin g unit s coul dincreas e substantially

. Similarly , th e analysi s o

f emissio n credit s fo

r oil

an dcoal-fire dcombine dcycl e stea m generatin g unit s (se e Table s 10- 6 an d 10- 9 o f "Summar y o f Regulator

y Analysis" ) indicate s tha t

emissio n credit s woul dals o resul t

i n very smal l cos t savings , bu t

substantia l an dvery significant increase s i n SO

aemissions

. Th e incrementa l cos t

effectivenes s associate dwit

h th e incrementa l reduction s i n SO

aemission s achieve db y no t providin g emissio n credit s fo r cogeneratio n an dcombine dcycl e stea m generatin g unit s i s generall y les s tha n $1,100/M g ($l,000/ton ) o

f SO aremove d fo r al l fuel s an dregiona l locations examined

. Thi s i s no t

considere d unreasonabl e and , a s aresult , th e propose dstandard s d o no t includ e emissio n credit s fo

r stea mgeneratin g unit s employe da s par t

o f cogeneratio n o r combine dcycl e systems

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Emissio n Credits, " th e analysi s o f emissio n credit s fo

r mixe d fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s indicate s tha t

emissio n credit s fo

r th e hea t inpu t supplie dt o th e stea m generatin g uni t

fro mcombustio n o

f nonsulfur-bearin g fuels , suc h a s woo do r municipal waste , woul dresul t i n very smal l reduction s i n costs , bu t very larg e an dsignificant

increase s i n SO

a emissions

. Th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s associate dwith th e incrementa l reductio n i n SO aemission s achieve db y no t

providin g emissio n credit s fo r mixe dfuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s i s generall y les s tha n $460/M g ($420/ton ) o

f SO aremove dfo

r both coal

- an doil-fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. Thi s i s no t

considere d unreasonabl e and , a s aresult , th e propose dstandard s d o no t includ e emissio n credit s fo

r mixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g units

. Provisions for

FGD Malfunction.. Th e Genera l Provision s include dii i 40 CFR, Part 60 , whic h appl y t o al l standard s o f performance , defin e amalfunctio n a s "

. . . an y sudde n an dunavoidabl e failure o f ai r pollutio n contro l equipmen t

. . . t o operat e i n anorma l o r usua l manner
. Failure s tha t

ar e cause d entirel y o r

i n par t b y poo r maintenance , careles s operation , or

an y othe r preventabl e upse t

conditio n o r preventabl e equipmen t

breakdow n shal l no t b e considere dmalfunctions. " A wel l operate dan dproperl y maintaine dFG

D syste mi s capabl e o

f achievin g ahigh degre e o f reliability

. A s discusse di n "Summar

y o f Regulator

y Analysis " unde r

"Performanc e o

f Demonstrate dEmissio n Contro l Technologies, " long-ter

mreliabilitie s i n exces s o f 9 5 percen t

hav e bee n reporte d fo r man y FG D systems

. A s wit

h an y piec e o f equipment , however , ther e ma y b e occasiona l instance s o f malfunction s durin g whic h contro l o

f SO aemission s ma y b e limite dor

curtaile dfo

r short period s o f time

. I f a n FG D malfunctio n doe s occur , ther e ar e severa l method s b y whic h emission s coul db e minimize ddurin g th e perio dwhe n th e FG

D syste mi s no t operational

. Thes e includ e th e temporary us e o

f lo w sulfu r or nonsulfur-bearin g fuels , suc h a s very lo w sulfu r fue l oil s or natura l gas ; th e us e o f aspar e FG

D absorbe r

module ; o r eve n temporary shutdow n o f th e stea m generatin g uni t

a t thos e site s with multipl e stea mgeneratin g units

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Demonstrate d Emissio n Contro l Technolog y Costs, " th e cost s associate dwith th e us e o f eac h o f thes e alternative s (wit

h th e exceptio n o f temporary shutdow n o

f th e stea m generatin g unit) wer e examined

. Th e variatio n i n th e cost s amon g th e us e o f natura l gas , very lo w sulfu r fue l oil , or a spar e FG D module , however , i s relativel y small

. Fo r

purpose s o

f th e analyse s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Demonstrate d Emissio n Contro l Technolog y Costs " an d"Consideratio n o

f Nationa l Impacts, " therefore , th e us e o f natura l ga s wa s assume ddurin g period s o f FG D syste mmalfunction

. (The FG D syste m malfunction s wer e assume dt o occu r 5 percen t o f th e time o n a n annua l basis. ) Thus , th e cost s associate dwith thi s genera l approac h o

f firing natura l gas , very lo w sulfu

r oil , or usin g aspar e FG

D modul e t o contro l SO

aemission s durin g period s o f FG D syste mmalfunctio n wer e include dthroughou t al l o f th e analyse s discusse dabove

. Th e propose dstandards , therefore , woul dno t permi t increase dSO

a emission s durin g period s o f FG D syste m malfunction

. Th e standard s woul d requir e SO

aemissio n dat acollecte d durin g period s o

f FG D malfunctio n t o b e include di n calculatin g th e 30-da y rollin g averag e SO

aemissio n rat e an dpercen t reductio n fo

r eac h reportin g perio d durin g whic h a n FG

D malfunctio n occurred

. A s discusse dabove , combustio n o f a very lo w sulfu

r fue l oi l with asulfu

r conten t o f 8 6 ng SOa/

J (0. 2 l b SOa

/ millio n Btu) or

les s woul densur e complianc e with th e percen t reductio n requirement s include di n th e propose d standards

. Therefore , i

f fue l oi l with a sulfu r conten t o f 8 6 ng SOa/

J (0. 2 lb SOa

/ millio n Btu) or

les s i s fire di n astea m generatin g uni t

durin g period s o

f FG D malfunction , apercen t reductio n o

f 80 percen t ma y b e assumed , a s appropriate , fo

r purpose s o

f calculatin g 30-day-rollin g average s fo r thos e period s durin g whic h FG

D malfunction s occurred

. Th e SO

aemissio n rat e associate dwit

h firing ver

y lo w sulfu

r oi l durin g period s o

f FG D malfunctio n ma

y b e determine deithe r

throug h continuou s emissio n monitorin g or

fue l samplin g an danalysis

. A s discusse dbelo w unde r "Performanc e Tes t

Method s an d Monitorin g Requirements, " period s durin g whic h eithe r

coal or oil i s no t fire dar e no t

include di n tri e stea m generatin g uni t

operatin g hour s fo

r purpose s o

f calculatin g th e 30-da

y rollin g averages
. Provisions for

Startup and

Shutdown. Th e operatio n o

f some industrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s ma

y b e cycli c o r periodi c i n nature

. Thes e type s o f unit s ar e often operate dfo

r onl y afew hour s pe r day o r o n asporadi c or

seasona l basis , makin g th e occurrenc e o f startu p an dshutdow n period s fo

r suc h unit s relativel y frequent

. Emission s durin g thes e periods , therefore , coul db e a significant portio n o f th e tota l annua l SO 2 emission s fro

mthes e stea m generatin g units

. Th e FG D system s d o no t

achiev e thei r peak performanc e level s immediatel y after a"cold " startup

. Som

e time i o usuall y require dfo

r FG D system s to reac h thei r

optimu moperatin g temperatur e or

t o reac h chemical equilibrium

. However , arevie w o f th e factor s affectin g th e performanc e o f SO a contro l system s indicate s tha t SO a remova l efficienc y ca n b e maintaine da t high level s eve n durin g period s o f startu p an dshutdown

. Any short-term variabilit y in SO

aemission s tha t

ma y resul t fro mfluctuation s in contro l devic e performanc e durin g syste mstartu p woul db e minimize dover a30-da y averagin g period

. Becaus e o f th e potentiall y significant emission s tha t

coul doccur

durin g period s o f startu p an dshutdown , an d becaus e technique s exis t

(suc h a s firing natura l ga s or

ver y lo w sulfu

r oil ) tha t ca n minimiz e emission s durin g thes e periods , th e propose dstandard s includ e aprovisio n tha t

emissio n dat acollecte d durin g period s o

f startu p an dshutdow n b e include di n th e calculation s o f al l 30

- da y rollin g averag e percen t reductio n an dSO aemissio n values

. A s discusse d abov e fo r FG D malfunction , period s in whic h anonsulfur-bearin g fue l suc h a s natura l ga s i s th e onl y fue l fire dwoul d no t b e considere dstea mgeneratin g uni t operatin g hour s fo

r purpose s o

f calculatin g 30-da

y rollin g averages
.P.3 1

2241 2 Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 51 , No , 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s
D. Selection of

Best System of Particulate Matter

Emission Reduction Standard s o

f performanc e fo

r ne w industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s wer e propose d o n June 19,198 4 (4

9 F R25102)

. Thes e standard s o

f performanc e include dP

M emissio n limit s fo

r stea mgeneratin g unit s firing coal , wood , municipal-typ e soli dwaste , an dmixture s o f fossi l an d nonfossi l fuels

. Th e Jun e 19,198 4 proposa l di dno t

includ e P M standard s fo r oil-fire dindustrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g units

. A s discusse dabove , th e propose d standard s fo

r contro l o f SO aemission s woul drequir e al l coal-fire dindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s to achiev e apercen t , reductio n in SO

aemissions

. I

n orde r t o mee t thi s requirement , owner s an d operator s o

f coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s ar e anticipate dt o instal l SO a contro l devices

. Thes e device s wil l consis t primaril y o

f we t FG D systems

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis, " we t

FG D system s ar e capabl e o

f reducin g emission s o

f P M a s wel l a s emission s o

f SO afro m industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g units

. Consequently , th e propose dP

M standard s fo

r coal

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s (4 9 F R 25102 ) wer e reviewe dt o determin e whethe r different standard s fo

r P M emission s shoul dappl y t o coal-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s subjec t t o th e propose dSO

astandards

. Th e propose dSO J standard s woul d als o requir e oil-fire dindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s t o achiev e apercen t

. reductio n i n SO

aemissions

. A s with coal-fire dsteamgeneratin g units , th e us e o f FG D system s to reduc e SO

a emission s fro

moil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s ca n als o reduc e P M emissions

. Similarly , th e us e o f lo w sulfur/lo w as h oi l to reduc e emission s o f SO aals o reduce s emission s o f PM

. Therefore , standard s limitin g emission s o f P M fro moil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s wer e als o considered

. 1

. Coal-Fire dSteamGeneratin g Unit s Th e regulatory analysi s (se e "Performanc e o

f Demonstrate dEmissio n Contro l Technologies " i n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis" ) conclude dtha t we t FG D system s ar e capabl e o

f reducin g P

M emission s fro

mcoal-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s t o 4 3 ng/ J (0. 1 lb / millio n Btu) hea t

inpu t or less

. Th e analysi s conducte dfo

r th e previousl y propose dP

M standard s (4

9 F R25102 ) indicate dtha t

fabri c filter s an d electrostati c precipitator s (ESP's ) ca n reduc e P M emission s fro

mthes e unit s t o 2

2 ng/ J (0.05 lb/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t or less

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Demonstrate d Emissio n Contro l Technolog y Costs " an dshow n i n Tabl e 6-32 , th e cost s o f a n FG D syste mtha t

i s capabl e o

f controllin g both P

M an dSC ^ emission s ar e greate r

tha n th e cost s o

f a n FG D syste mfo r controllin g SO

aemission s alone

. For example , asodiu mFG

D syste mcapabl e o

f reducin g P

M emission s to 4 3 ng/

J (0. 1 lb/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t or les s fro matypica l 4

4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y stea mgeneratin g uni t firing coal woul dcos t

abou t $400,000/yea

r more t o operat e tha n a n FG D syste m designe dt o contro l SO

aonly

. Th e annualize dcos t

o f installin g an d operatin g a n ES P upstrea mo f a n FG D syste muse dfo

r SO acontro l alon e woul d b e abou t $390,000 , an dth e annualize d cos t o f operatin g afabri c filter

upstrea m o f a n FG D fo r SO acontro l alon e woul d b e abou t $420,000

. Th e us e o f a n ES P or

afabri c filter achieves incrementa l reduction s i n particulat e emission s of

abou t 1 8 Mg / yea r (2 0 tons/year ) ove r

thos e achieve d b y th e us e o

f a n FG D capabl e o

f controllin g both P

M an dSO 2 emission s fo r atypica l 4

4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/ hour ) hea t

inpu t capacit y stea m generatin g uni t

firing coal

. I n th e cas e o

f , a n ESP , thes e additiona l emissio n reduction s ar e achieve da t n o additiona l cos t abov e thos e associate dwith usin g a n FG D syste mfo

r combine dcontro l o

f SO aan dPM

. Th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s o

f usin g afabri c filter upstrea mo

f a n FG D system , compare d t o usin g a n FG

D syste mfo

r combine d contro l o f SO aan dPM , i s abou t

$1,275 / M g ($l,160/ton ) o

f particulat e matte r removed

. Th e us e o f afabri c filter

or ES P t o reduc e P M emission s i n combinatio n wit h a n FG D syste mt o reduc e SO

a emission s fro

mcoal-fire dstea m generatin g units , therefore , i s considere d reasonable

. Consequently , th e P M emissio n limit

o f 2 2 ng/ J (0.0 5 lb/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t previousl y propose dfo

r industrial-commercial-institutiona l coal

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s remain s applicabl e t o ne w coal-fire dstea m generatin g unit s subjec t

t o today' s propose dSO

astandards

. 2

. Oil-Fire dSteamGeneratin g Unit s A s discusse dabove , we t

FG D system s installe dt o reduc e SO

aemission s fro

m oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s ca n als o reduc e P M emissions

. However , unlike FG D system s installe do n coal-fire d stea mgeneratin g units , FG D system s installe do n oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s fo r contro l o f both SO aan dP M emission s ar e n o different fro mthos e installe dfo

r contro l o f SO aemission s alone

. Fo r oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g units , therefore , P

M emissio n reduction s achieve db y FG

D system s ar e achieve d a t anegligibl e incrementa l cos t ove r th e cost s associate dwith SO

acontro l alone

. A s aresult , th e us e o

f a n FG D syste mi s highly cos t

effectiv e fo

r controllin g P

M emission s fro

moil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s i n thos e instance s wher e thes e contro l technique s ar e use d fo r purpose s o

f SO acontrol

. Therefore , th e reduction s i n P

M emission s achieve d b y FG D system s ca n b e viewe da s representin g th e minimumleve l o f P M contro l tha t

merit s consideratio n fo

r oil

firedstea mgeneratin g units

. A s discusse dabove , th e propose d standard s requir e oil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s t o achiev e apercen t reductio n i n SO

aemissions

. With th e exception , discusse dabove , fo r oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s firing very lo w sulfu r oil , thi s wil l requir e th e us e o f FG D systems

. Th e regulatory analysi s (se e "Performanc e o

f Demonstrate dEmissio n ' Contro l Technologies " i n "Summar y o f Regulatory Analysis" ) conclude dtha t FG D system s ar e capabl e o

f reducin g P M emission s fro

moil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s t o 4 3 ng/ J (0.1 0 lb / millio n Btu) hea t

inpu t o r less

. A s als o discussed , however , ESP' s ca n reduc e P M emission s fro

moil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s t o 3 0 ng/ J (0.0 7 lb / millio n Btu) hea t

inpu t or less

. Th e us e o f a n ES P upstrea mo

f a n FG D system , therefore , woul dreduc e P M emission s fro moil-fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s t o 3 0 ng/ J (0.0 7 lb/millio n Btu) hea t

inpu t o r less

. A s discusse di n "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " unde r "Consideratio n o

f Demonstrate d Emissio n Contro l Technolog y Costs " an dshow n i n Tabl e 6-31 , annua l P M emission s ar e reduce dfro mabou t 8 2 Mg/yea r (90 tons/year ) t o abou t

3 3 Mg/ yea r (3 6 tons/year ) whe n a n FG D syste mi s installe dt o contro l emission s o f SO afro matypica l high sulfu

r oil-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit

. Th e additio n o f a n ES P upstrea mo

f a n FG D syste m woul dreduc e P

M emission s fro

ma typica l 4 4 M W (15 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y stea mgeneratin g uni t fro m3 3 Mg/yea r

(3 6 tons/year ) t o 2 3 Mg/yea r

(25 tons/year)

. Th e incrementa l annualize dcos t o f installin g an doperatin g a n ES P upstrea mo f a n FG D syste mwoul db e abou t $340,000

. Therefore , th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s associate dwith addin g a n ES P t o a n oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g uni t equippe dwit

h a n FG D syste mwoul db eP.3 2

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s 2241 3
abou t $34,O00/M

g ($31,000/ton ) o

f P M removed

. Thi s i s considere d unreasonabl e give n th e smal l incrementa l amoun t

o f P M contro l achieved

. Therefore , aP

M emissio n limi t o f 4 3 ng/ J (0.1 0 lb/millio n Btu) hea t inpu t i s propose dfo

r oil-fire dindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g units

. E. Modification and

Reconstruction Provisions Existin g stea mgeneratin g unit s tha t ar e modifie dor

reconstructe dwoul db e subjec t t o th e requirement s i n th e Genera l Provision s (4

0 CF R60.1 4 an d 60.15 ) whic h appl y t o al l NSPS

. Few , i f any , change s typicall y mad e t o existin g stea mgeneratin g unit s woul db e expecte df

o brin g suc h stea mgeneratin g unit s unde r

th e propose dSO

ao r P M standards

. A modificatio n i s an y physica l o r operationa l chang e t o a n existin g facilit y tha t result s i n a n increas e i n emissions

. Change s t o a n existin g facilit y tha t d o no t resul t i n a n increas e i n emissions , eithe r becaus e th e natur e o

f th e chang e ha s n o effect

o n emission s or

becaus e additiona l emissio n contro l technolog y i s employe dt o offse

t a n increas e i n emissions , ar e no t

considere d modifications

. In addition , certai n change s hav e bee n exempte dunde r th e Genera l Provision s (4

0 CF R60.14)

. Thes e exemption s include : routin e maintenance , repair , an dreplacement ; productio n increase s achieve dwithou t a capita l expenditur e a s define di n § 60.2 ; productio n increase s resultin g fro ma n increas e i n th e hour s o

f operation ; additio n o r

replacemen t

o f equipmen t fo r emissio n contro l (a s lon g a s th e replacemen t

doe s no t increas e emissions) ; relocatio n or

chang e o f ownershi p o

f a n existin g facility ; an d us e o f a n alternativ e fuel o r

ra w materia l i f th e existin g facilit

y wa s designe dt o accommodat e if

. In addition , both Sectio n 11 1 o

f th e Clean Ai r

Ac t an d40 CF R60.1 4 o f th e Genera l Provision s exemp t

mandator y conversion s t o coal

. Reconstructio n o

f a n existin g facilit

y woul dmak e tha t

facilit y subjec t t o a n NSP S regardles s o

f an y chang e i n th e emissio n rate , dependin g o n th e cos t o f th e replace dcomponent s an dth e feasibility o

f meetin g th e standards

. Reconstructe dstea mgeneratin g unit s woul dbecom e subjec t

t o th e propose d standard s unde r

th e reconstructio n - provisions , regardles s o

f change s i n emissio n rate , i

f th e fixe dcapita l cos t

o f reconstructio n exceed s 5 0 percen t o f th e cos t o f a n entirel y ne w stea mgeneratin g uni t o f comparabl e desig n an di

f i t i s technologicall y an deconomicall y feasibl e t o mee t

th e applicabl e standards

. Cost s associate dwith stea m generatin g uni t

routin e maintenanc e ar e no t include di n determinin g reconstructio n costs

. F. Performance Test

Methods and Monitoring Requirements Th e performanc e testin g an demissio n monitorin g requirement s include di n th e propose dregulatio n woul dappl y t o al l industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s subjec t f o th e propose dSO

aemissio n standard s an d oil-fire dindustrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s subjec t t o th e propose dP

M standards

. 1

. Sulfu r Dioxid e Th e propose dregulatio n include s provision s fo

r continuou s monitorin g o

f SO aemission s t o demonstrat e continuou s complianc e with th e standards

. Thi s woul db e accomplishe d throug h th e installatio n an doperatio n o f continuou s emissio n monitorin g system s (CEMS ) a t th e inle t an doutle t

o f th e SO a contro l device

. Dat acollecte db y th e CEM S woul db e use dt o determin e complianc e wit h th e SO

apercen t reductio n requirement s an demissio n limit s i n accordanc e with Referenc e Metho d1 9 (Appendi x A)

. As-fire dfue l samplin g an danalysi s a t

th e inle t t o th e stea mgeneratin g uni t

or emission s measuremen t

i n accordanc e wit h Referenc e Metho d6

B a t th e inle t o r outle t f o th e stea mgeneratin g uni t ma y b e use di n lie u o

f CEMS

. Affecte dfacilitie s fo

r whic h a n emissio n limi t

onl y ha s bee n establishe d woul db e abl e t o monito r

SO aemission s usin g an y o

f th e procedure s include di n Metho d19A (Appendi x A) o r othe r approve dalternativ e procedures

. Thes e procedure s includ e as-fire dfue l samplin g an danalysis , stac k sampling , or operatio n o

f asingl e CEM S a

f th e outle t o f th e SO acontro l device

. Method s fo

r as-fire dfue

l samplin g an danalysi s diffe

r slightl y fo

r coal

- an d oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. Fo r coal-fire dstea mgeneratin g units , a representativ e sampl e i s collecte da f th e time th e coa l bunke r

i s fille dan d analyze dfo

r sulfu r conten t an dheatin g value

. Thes e values ar e use df o calculat e th e SO

aemissio n rat e unti l th e bunke r i s refilled , a t

whic h time ane w sampl e i s collecte dan danalyzed

. Fo r oil-fire dstea mgeneratin g units , on e sampl e i s collecte ddurin g eac h stea m generatin g uni t

operatin g da y a

f th e pipelin e inle t

f o th e stea mgeneratin g uni t an danalyze dfo

r heatin g valu e an d sulfu r content

. Complianc e with th e SO

apercen t reductio n requirement s an demissio n limit s woul db e determine da s a30-da y rollin g averag e base do n CEM S or fue l samplin g dat acollecte ddurin g th e previou s 3 0 consecutiv e stea m generatin g uni t

operatin g days

. Th e firs t 30-da y averag e percen t

reductio n an d emissio n values calculate dafter initia l uni t startu p woul dserv e a s th e initia l performanc e tes t

require dunde r

§ 60.8

. Thereafter , th e dat awoul db e use dt o determin e 30-da

y rollin g averag e percen t reductio n an dSO

aemissio n rate s calculate da s th e arithmeti c averag e o f al l hourl y SO

aemissio n value s collecte ddurin g th e precedin g 3 0 stea mgeneratin g uni t

operatin g days

. A ne w 30-da

y rolling-averag e percen t reductio n an dSO

aemissio n rat e ar e calculate da t

th e en do f eac h stea m generatin g uni t

operatin g day

. A s discusse di n "Summar

y o f Regulator

y Analysis " unde r

"Performanc e o

f Demonstrate dEmissio n Contro l Technologies, " a30-da

y rollin g averag e ha s bee n determine dt o bes t represen t th e long-termaverag e emissio n level s an dth e performanc e o

f emissio n contro l devices

. Whe n establishin g standard s tha t requir e th e us e o

f CEM S fo r determinin g compliance , i t

i s necessar y t o conside r tha t monitor s underg o period s o f downtim e and , thus , ar e no t alway s availabl e 10

0 percen t o f th e time

. Therefore , minimumdat arequirement s shoul db e establishe dtha t provid e fo

r downtime , bu t

limi t th e amoun t

o f dat a permitte dt o b e los t

before us e o

f a n alternativ e monitorin g metho di s required

. Thes e minimumdat a requirement s woul dprovid e th e owne r or operato r with time t o maintai n an d calibrat e th e CEMS , correc t mino r malfunctions , and , i

f necessary , arrang e fo r a n alternativ e monitorin g method , whil e a t th e sam e time providin g sufficien t dat afo r complianc e determinations

. The y als o woul d preven t th e possibility o

f a n affecte d facilit y operatin g fo

r unreasonabl y lon g period s withou t

collectin g emissio n data

. Unde r th e propose dstandards , eac h 30-da y rollin g averag e woul db e calculate dusing , a s aminimum , dat a collecte ddurin g 2

2 ou t o f 3 0 consecutiv e stea mgeneratin g uni t

operatin g days

. Collectio n o

f thi s amoun t

o f dat aha s bee n determine dt o b e readil y achievabl e usin g eithe r

fue l samplin g an danalysi s o r

awel l operate dan d properl y maintaine dCEMS

. I f th e specifie damoun t

o f dat acanno t

b e capture ddu e t o unusua l circumstances , alternativ e monitorin g method s may b e use df o provid e sufficient

dat afo r calculatin g th e 30-da

y rollin g averages
. I f astea mgeneratin g uni t

periodicall y burn s natura l ga s or

othe r nonsulfur

bearin g fuels , 24-hou

r period s durin gP.3 3

2241 4 Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s
whic h thes e fuel s ar e th e only fuel s fire d i n th e stea mgeneratin g uni t woul dno t b e considere dstea mgeneratin g uni t operatin g day s fo

r purpose s o

f determinin g complianc e wit h th e SO a standards

. Rather , onl y thos e 24-hou r period s (a s define di n th e propose d regulation ) durin g whic h an y fue l subjec t t o th e SO aemissio n limit s unde r § 60.42 b i s fire di n th e stea mgeneratin g uni t woul dconstitut e stea mgeneratin g uni t operatin g days

. Twenty-four-hour period s durin g whic h both sulfur-bearin g an dnonsulfur-bearin g fuel s ar e fire d wil l b e considere dstea mgeneratin g uni t operatin g days , bu t

emission s dat a collectio n woul dno t

b e require ddurin g thos e portion s o

f th e stea mgeneratin g uni t operatin g da y whe n nonsulfur

bearin g fuel s ar e fired

. Emission s o f SO a fro mth e combustio n o

f natura l ga s an d othe r nonsulfur-bearin g fuel s ar e s o lo w tha t includin g thes e emission s i n th e 30

- day rollin g averag e calculation s woul d serv e onl y t o "dilute " th e reporte d emissio n values

. In orde r t o ensur e tha t

CEM S provid e accurat e data , dail y calibratio n drif t check s an dquarterl y accurac y audit s woul db e require dt o b e performe do n eac h CEMS

. Thes e quality assuranc e check s woul db e performe di n accordanc e wit

h 40 CF RPart 60 , Appendi x F , Procedur e 1 , "Quality Assuranc e Requirement s fo r Gaseou s Continuou s Emissio n Monitorin g System s Use dfo

r Complianc e Determination. " Appendi x F , Procedur e 1 applie s to al l CEM S use dfo r continuou s complianc e determinatio n unde r 4 0 CF RPart 60 , Subpart s D , Da , an dDb

. 2

. Particulate Matte r Th e performanc e tes t

method s an d monitorin g requirement s fo r oil-fire d industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s ar e identica l t o thos e propose do n Jun e 19,198 4 fo r coal- , wood- , an dmunicipal-typ e soli dwaste

fire dstea mgeneratin g unit s (4 9 F R 25102) , a s amende db y th e additio n o f Referenc e Metho d5

B a s aparticulat e matte r tes t metho d(5 0 F

R21863 , Ma

y 19 , 1985)

. G. Reporting and

Recordkeeping Requirements Th e propose dstandard s woul d requir e owner s an doperator s o f al l affecte dfacilitie s t o submi t notification s o f stea mgeneratin g uni t

constructio n o r reconstruction , dat e o

f anticipate d startup , dat e o

f actua l startup , an d anticipate ddat e o

f demonstratio n o

f th e CEM S (i f applicable) , a s require dunde r th e Genera l Provision s (4

0 CF R60.7)

. In addition , thi s notificatio n woul dinclud e adescriptio n o

f th e fuel(s ) to b e fire di n th e stea mgeneratin g unit

. I f astea m generatin g uni t

wil l fir e avery lo w sulfu r oi l an dclaim s ful

l fue l pretreatmen t

credi t towar dsatisfyin g th e applicabl e percen t

reductio n requirement , thi s woul dals o b e state di n th e initia l notification

. Mixe dfuel-fire d stea mgeneratin g unit s no t subjec t t o th e percen t reductio n requirement s woul d submi t astatemen t

verifyin g tha t

the y ar e subjec t

t o aFederall y enforceabl e Stat e or loca l permi t

limitin g th e fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r

fo r coal t o 3 0 percen t (0.3 ) o r les s o n a n annua l basis , astatemen t

tha t th e annua l capacit y utilizatio n facto r

fo r fuel s othe r

tha n coal , oil , or

natura l ga s i s 1 0 percen t (0.10 ) o r greater , an dadescriptio n o f th e type s an damount s o

f al l fuel s t o b e fire di n th e stea mgeneratin g unit

. Th e annua l capacit y utilizatio n factor s woul db e determine do n a12-mont h rollin g averag e basis , with ane w averag e capacit y utilizatio n facto r calculate da t

th e en do f eac h calenda r month

. Finally , i

f a n emergin g SO

a contro l technolog y wil l b e use dfo r SO a control , adescriptio n o

f th e technolog y t o b e use dwoul dals o b e include di n th e initia l notification

. After th e initia l performanc e tes t ha s bee n completed , th e propose dregulatio n woul drequir e tha t

quarterl y report s b e submitted

. Thes e report s woul dinclud e al l 30-da y rollin g averag e emissio n rate s an dpercen t

reductio n value s calculate d durin g th e reportin g period , a s wel l a s identificatio n o

f an y period s fo

r whic h * dat awer e exclude dfro

mthes e calculations

. I

f credi t towar dth e applicabl e percen t

reductio n requiremen t

i s claime dbase do n fue

l pretreatment , astatemen t woul db e submitte dwith th e quarterl y repor t certifyin g tha t

th e credi t

wa s determine d i n accordanc e with Metho d1 9 an d documentin g eac h pretreate dfue l shipmen t a s discusse dunde r

"Othe r Considerations. " I n addition , eac h quarterl y report

woul dinclud e th e result s o f th e dail y CEM S drif

t test s an d quarterl y accurac y determination s a s require dunde r

Appendi x F , Procedur e 1

. I f th e applicabl e SO

aemissio n limi t

or percen t reductio n requiremen t

i s exceede db y an y 30-da

y averag e durin g th e reportin g period , th e quarterl y report woul dals o describ e th e reaso n fo r th e exceedanc e or

failure t o mee t

th e percen t reductio n requiremen t

an dth e correctiv e actio n taken

. I

f th e minimum amoun t o f dat a(a s discusse di n "Performanc e Tes t

Method s an d Monitorin g Requirements" ) wa s no t obtaine dfo

r an y 30-da

y rollin g averag e period , reason s fo

r failure t o obtai n sufficient dat aan dadescriptio n o

f correctiv e actio n take n woul dals o b e included , alon g with al l informatio n neede dt o calculat e th e 30-da y averag e values accordin g t o Metho d19 , Sectio n 7

. Th e propose dregulatio n woul dals o requir e tha t

certai n type s o

f record s b e maintained

. Record s t o b e maintaine d includ e al l dat aoutput s o f th e CEM S o r result s o f fuel samplin g an danalysis ; al l quarterl y report s submitte dunde r thi s rulemaking ; an dal l record s require d unde r Appendi x F , Procedur e 1

. Al l require drecord s woul db e maintaine d fo r 2 year s followin g th e dat e o f suc h records , after

whic h the y coul db e discarded

. Th e reportin g an drecordkeepin g requirement s i n th e propose dregulatio n ar e necessar y t o infor

menforcemen t personne l a s ne w stea mgeneratin g unit s initiat e operation

. In addition , the y woul dprovid e th e dat aan dinformatio n necessar y t o ensur e continue d complianc e o

f thes e stea mgeneratin g unit s with th e propose dregulation

. At th e sam e time , thes e requirement s woul dno t impos e a n unreasonabl e burde n o n stea mgeneratin g uni t owner s o r operators

. VI

. Administratio n Requirements A. Public Hearing A publi c hearin g wil l b e held , i f requested , t o discus s th e propose d standard s i n accordanc e with sectio n 307(d)(5 ) o

f th e Clean Air

Act

. Person s wishin g t o mak e ora l presentation s shoul dcontac t

EP A a t th e addres s give n i n th e ADDRESSE

S sectio n o

f thi s preamble

. Ora l presentation s shoul db e limite dt o 1 5 minute s each

. Any membe r o f th e publi c ma

y file awritte n statemen t before , during , o r

withi n 3 0 day s after th e hearing

. Writte n statement s shoul db e maile dt o th e Centra l Docke t

Sectio n a t

th e addres s give n i n th e ADDRESSE

S sectio n o

f thi s preamble

. A verbati mtranscrip t

o f th e hearin g an dwritte n statement s wil l b e availabl e fo r publi c inspectio n an dcopyin g durin g norma l workin g hour s a t

EPA' s Centra l Docket Sectio n i n Washington , D.C

. (se e ADDRESSE

S sectio n o

f thi s preamble)

. B. Docket Th e docke t

i s a n organize dan d complet e file o

f al l th e informatio n submitte dt o or

otherwis e considere di n th e developmen t

o f thi s propose d rulemaking

. Th e principa l purpose s o f th e docke t

are : (1 ) t o allo w intereste d partie s t o identif

y an dlocat e document s s o tha t the y ca n effectively participat e i n th e rulemakin g process , an d(2 ) t o serv e a s th e recor din cas e o f judicia lP.3 4

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s 2241 5
revie w (excep t

fo r interagenc y revie w material s [Sectio n 307(d)(7)(A)])

. C. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements 1

. Administrato r

Listing—Sectio n 11 1 A s prescribe db y Sectio n 11 1 o f th e Clean Air Act , a s amended , establishmen t

o f standard s o

f performanc e fo

r industrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s i s base do n th e Administrator' s determinatio n (4

0 CF R60.16 , 4 4 F R 49222 , date dAugus t

21,197 9 an d4 9 F

R 25156 , date dJun e 19,1984 ) tha t thes e source s contribut e significantl y t o ai r pollutio n whic h may reasonabl y b e anticipate dt o endange r

publi c healt h o r welfare

. 2

. Periodi c Review—Sectio n 11 1 Th e regulatio n wil l b e reviewe d4 year s fro mth e dat e o

f promulgatio n a s require db y th e Clean Ai r Act

. Thi s revie w wil l includ e a n assessmen t o f suc h factor s a s th e nee dfo r integratio n with othe r

programs , th e existenc e o f alternativ e methods , enforceability , improvement s i n emissio n contro l technology , an dreportin g requirements

. 3

. Externa l Participation—Sectio n 11 7 2

. Executiv e Orde r 1229 1 Revie w D. Office of Management

and Budget Reviews 1

. Paperwor

k Reductio n Ac t Th e informatio n collectio n requirement s i n thi s propose drul e hav e bee n submitte dfo

r approva l t o th e Office o f Managemen t

an dBudget (OMB ) unde r

th e Paperwork

Reductio n Ac t o f 1980 , 4 4 US C 350 1 e t

seq
. Comment s o n thes e requirement s shoul d b e submitte dt o th e Office o f Informatio n an dRegulator y Affairs , OMB , 726 Jackso n Place , NW. , Washington , D

C 20503 marke d "Attention : Des k

Office r fo r EPA. " Copie s o f thes e comment s shoul dals o b e submitte dt o Centra l Docke t Sectio n (LE-131) , Attention : Docket Number A

83-27 , U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , 40 1 M Stree t

SW. ; Washington , DC 20460

. Th e fina

l rul e wil l respon dt o an y OM B or publi c comment s o n th e informatio n collectio n requirements

. Th e averag e annua l industry-wid e burde n o f th e reportin g an d recordkeepin g requirement s associate d with th e propose dregulatio n woul db e 7 5 person-years , base do n a n averag e o f 180 respondent s pe r

year
.
I n accordanc e with sectio n 11 7 o f th e Clean Ai r Act , publicatio n o

f thi s proposa l wa s precede db y consultatio n with appropriat e advisory committees , independen t

experts , an dFedera l department s an dagencies

. Th e Administrato r

wil l welcom e comment s o n al l aspect s o

f th e propose d regulation , includin g economi c an d technological issues

. In addition , comment s ar e specificall y solicite do n severa l aspect s o f th e propose drulemaking

. Thes e issue s wer e discusse dpreviousl y i n th e SOLICITATION O FPUBLI C COMMEN

T sectio n o

f thi s preamble

. 4

. Economi c Impac t

Assessment

— Sectio n 31 7 Sectio n 31 7 o

f th e Clean Ai r

Ac t require s th e Administrato r t o prepar e a n economi c impac t

assessmen t

fo r an y NSP S promulgate dunde r

sectio n 111(b) o f th e Act

. An economi c impac t assessmen t

wa s prepare dfo

r th e propose dstandard s an dfo r othe r regulatory alternatives

. Al l aspect s o f th e assessmen t

wer e considere di n th e formulatio n o

f th e propose dstandard s t o ensur e tha t

th e propose dstandard s woul drepresen t

th e bes t syste mo f emissio n reductio n considerin g costs

. Portion s o f th e economi c impac t assessmen t

ar e include di n th e backgroun dinformatio n document s an d additiona l informatio n i s include ^ i n th e Docket

. Unde r Executiv e Orde r

12291 , th e Agenc y mus t

judg e whethe r

aregulatio n i s "major " an dtherefor e subjec t t o th e requiremen t

o f aRegulator

y Impac t Analysi s (RIA)

. Thi s propose d regulatio n coul dresul t

i n industry-wid e annualize dcost s i n th e fift h yea r after th e standard s woul dg o int o effect o f more tha n th e $10

0 millio n cutof

f establishe da s th e firs t

criterio n fo

r a majo r regulatio n i n th e Order

. In accordanc e with th e Order , a n RI A ha s bee n prepare dfo

r th e propose d regulation

. Th e RI

A consider s th e 0 benefits , costs , an deconomi c impact s associate dwith th e regulatory alternative s tha t

wer e considere di n developin g th e propose dstandards

. Th e analysi s o

f benefit s derive dfro

m reduction s i n SO

aemission s include d th e followin g benefi t

categories : Improvement s i n visibility du e t o lowe r ambien t sulfate (SO4

) concentrations ; reduce dmorbidity , reduce dresidentia l material s damages , an dreduce d agricultura l damag e du e t o lowe r ambien t SO aconcentrations ; an d reduce dmorbidity an dreduce d househol dsoilin g du e t o lowe r ambien t P M concentrations

. However , coverag e o f thes e benefi t

categorie s i s i n some case s incomplete

. For

example , estimate s o

f visibility improvement s du e t o SO 4 reduction s includ e visibility improvement s i n onl y th e 3 1 easter n State s (eas t

o f th e Mississipp i River)

. Likewise , benefit s fro

mreduction s i n P

M ar e estimate donly fo

r th e 3 1 easter n States

. In addition , th e S0 2 benefi t estimate s includ e reduction s in residentia l material s damage , bu t n o estimate s ar e include dfo

r reduction s i

n material s damag e fo

r commercial , industrial , or

institutiona l facilities

. It i s als o importan t

to not e tha t

a numbe r o f benefi t categorie s wer e no t include di n th e analysis

. For example , potentiall y significant

benefit s fro

m reduction s in aci ddepositio n ar e omitted , an dreduce dhealth effect s du e t o lowe r SO 4 concentration s ar e no t included

. O n th e othe r

hand , thes e estimate s ma

y als o overstate , in some respects , th e benefi t

categories

. Result s o f th e analysi s indicat e tha t th e recommende dstandard s woul d resul t i n annualize dbenefit s o

f th e sam e magnitud e a s th e annualize dcosts

. A cop y o f th e RI A ha s bee n place di

n Docket A-83-2 7 an di s availabl e fo r publi c review

. Th e Agenc y solicit s comment s o n th e RI

A an dit s potential rol e i n thi s rulemaking

. Thi s regulatio n wa s submitte dt o th e OM B fo r revie w a s require db y Executiv e Orde r

12291

. Any writte n comment s fro

mOM B an dan y response s t o thos e comment s wil l b e include di n Docket A-83-27

. Thi s docke t

i s availabl e fo

r publi c inspectio n a t

EPA' s Centra l Docke t

Section , whic h i s liste d unde r th e ADDRESSE

S sectio n o

f thi s notice. E. Regulatory

Flexibility

Act Compliance Th e Regulator

y Flexibility Ac t require s consideratio n o

f th e impact s o

f propose dregulation s o n smal l entitie s includin g smal l businesses , organizations , an djurisdictions

. A smal l busines s i s define da s an y busines s concern whic h i s independentl y owne d an doperate dan dno t

dominan t in it s fiel da s define db y th e Smal l Busines s Administratio n regulation s unde r Sectio n 3 o

f th e Smal l Busines s Act

. Similarly , asmal l organizatio n i s define db y th e Smal l Busines s Administratio n a s anot-for-profi t enterprise , independentl y owne dan d operated , an dno t

dominan t in it s field

. A smal l jurisdictio n i s define da s an y governmen t

distric t wit h apopulatio n o

f les s tha n 50,00

0 people

. Pursuan t t o th e provision s o

f 5 U.S.C

. 605(b) , I hereb y certif

y tha t thi s rule , i

f promulgated , wil l no t

hav e asignificant economi c impac t

o n asubstantia l numbe r o f smal l busines s entitie s becaus e th e numbe r

o f smal l entitie s tha t woul db e affected , i

f any , i s no t substantial

.P.3 5

2241 6 Federa l Registe r/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s
Lis t o f Subject s i n 4 0 CFRPar t 6 0 Ai r pollutio n control , Incorporatio n b y reference , Intergovernmenta l relations , Reportin g an drecordkeeping , Fossi l fuel-fire dstea mgeneratin g units

. Dated : Ma

y 3,1986

. Le e M

. Thomas , Administrator. PAR T 60—STANDARD S O F PERFORMANC E FO R NE W STATIONAR Y SOURCE S Fo r reason s se t

ou t i n th e preamble , 4 0 CF RPar t 6 0 Subpar t

D b a s propose do n Jun e 19,198 4 (4 9 F R25102 ) i s propose d t o b e amende da s follows : 1

. Th e authorit y citatio n fo r Par t 6 0 continue s t o rea da s follows : Authority : 42 U.S.C

. 7411 , 7414 , an d7601(a)

. 2

. Sectio n 60.40 b a s propose do n Jun e 19,198 4 (4 9 F

R25102 ) i s amende db y revisin g paragraph s (a) , (b) , an d(c ) t o rea da s follows : § 60.40 b Applicabilit yan d definitio n o f affecte d facility

. (a ) Th e affecte dfacilit y t o whic h thi s subpar t applie s i s eac h industrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g uni t

fo r whic h construction , modification , o r

reconstructio n i s commence dafte r

Jun e 19,198 4 an d whic h ha s ahea t

inpu t capacit y fro m fuel s combuste di n th e stea mgeneratin g uni t o f mor e tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour)

. (b ) Excep t

a s provide di n paragraph s (d ) an d(e ) o f

thi s section , an y affecte d facilit y meetin g th e applicabilit y requirement s unde r

paragrap h (a ) o f

thi s sectio n an dfo r

whic h construction , modification , o r

reconstructio n i s commence dafter

Jun e 19,198 6 i s subjec t t o th e standard s fo r

particulat e matte r (PM) , nitroge n oxide s (NOJ , an dsulfu r dioxid e (SOa) unde r

thi s subpart

. (c ) Excep t

a s provide di n paragraph s (d ) an d(e ) o f

thi s section , an y affecte d facilit y meetin g th e applicabilit y requirement s unde r

paragrap h (a ) o f

thi s sectio n an dfo r

whic h construction , modification , o r

reconstructio n i s commence dbefore Jun e 19,198 6 i s subjec t t o th e followin g standards : (1 ) Coal-fire dindustrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s ar e subjec t t o th e P M an dNO x standard s unde r thi s subpart

. Coal-fire dindustrial

commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s meetin g th e applicabilit y requirement s unde r Subpar t D (Standard s o f

performanc e forfossi l fuel-fire dstea mgenerators ; § 60.40 ) ar e als o subjec t t o th e SO a standard s unde r

Subpar t D ( § 60.43)

. (2 ) Oil-fire dindustrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s ar e subjec t t o th e NO x standard s unde r thi s subpart

. Oil-fire dindustrial-commercial

institutiona l stea mgeneratin g unit s meetin g th e applicabilit y requirement s unde r Subpar t D (Standard s o f performanc e fo r

fossi l fuel-fire dstea m generators ; § 60.40 ) ar e als o subjec t t o th e P M an dSO astandard s unde r Subpar t D ( § 60.4 2 an d§ 60.43)

. **** * 3 i Sectio n 60.41 b a s propose do n Jun e 19,198 4 (4 9 F R25102 ) i s amende db y revisin g th e definitio n o f "stea m generatin g uni t

operatin g day " an d addin g i n alphabetica l orde r definition s a s follows : § 60.41 b Definitions

. **** * "Cogeneratio n stea mgeneratin g unit " mean s astea mgeneratin g uni t tha t simultaneousl y produce s bot h electrica l (o r mechanical ) an dtherma l energ y fro mth e sam e primar y energ y source
. **** * "Conventiona l technology " mean s SO acontro l technologie s tha t includ e we t flu e ga s desulfurizatio n technology , fluidize dbe dcombustio n technology , o r lim e spra y dryin g technology

. **** * "Emergin g technologies " mean s an y flu e ga s desulfurizatio n syste mo r combustio n modificatio n technolog y whic h i s no t

aconventiona l technology , a s determine db y th e Administrato r pursuan t t o § 60.49b(a)(4)

. "Flu e ga s desulfurization " mean s a syste mwhic h use s a n alkalin e reagen t t o remov e SO afro mflu e gases
. **** * "Fluidize dbe dcombustio n technology " mean s adevic e wherei n fue l an dsoli dsorben t

ar e distribute d ont o abed , o r

serie s o f beds , o f aggregat e fo r

combustio n an dthes e material s togethe r

wit h soli dproduct s o f combustio n ar e force dupwar di n th e devic e b y th e flo w o f

combustio n air

. an dth e gaseou s product s o f combustion

. "Fossi l fue l utilizatio n factor " mean s th e percentag e o f

th e rate dstea m generatin g uni t

hea t inpu t capacit y tha t i s supplie db y fossi l fuel

. "Fue l pretreatment " mean s th e proces s b y whic h aportio n o f th e pollutan t concentratio n o f

afue l i s remove dprio r

t o it s combustio n i n a stea mgeneratin g unit

. **** * "Lim e spra y drying " mean s adr y flu e ga s desulfurizatio n syste mi n whic h th e flue gase s fro mastea mgeneratin g uni t ar e spraye dwit h afinel y atomize dlim e slurr y i n aspra y dryer

. **** * "Potentia l SO aemissio n rate " mean s th e theoretica l emission s (ng/J , lb / millio n Bt u hea t input ) tha t

woul dresul t fro mth e combustio n o f afue l i n a n uncleane dstat e withou t emissio n contro l systems

. **** * "Stea mgeneratin g uni t

operatin g day " mean s a24-hou r

perio dbetwee n 12:0 0 midnigh t an dth e followin g midnigh t durin g whic h an y fue l i s combuste da t an y tim e i n th e stea mgeneratin g unit

. I t i s no t necessar y fo r

fue l t o b e combuste dcontinuousl y fo r th e entir e 24-hou r period

. "We t flue ga s desulfurizatio n technology " mean s aflue ga s desulfurizatio n syste mwhic h remove s sulfu r oxide s fro maga s b y contactin g th e ga s wit h a n aqueous , liqui dreagent

. Th e product s o f

thi s contac t

ar e aga s wit h decrease damount s o f sulfu r oxide s an da n aqueous , liqui dmateria l wit h increase damount s o f

sulfu r compounds

. Thi s definitio n shal l appl y t o adevic e eve n if th e aqueous , liqui dmateria l produc t o f thi s contac t

i s subsequentl y converte dint o asoli dmateria l b y furthe r processin g b y equipmen t integra l to , o r separat e from , th e device

. We t flu e ga s desulfurizatio n technolog y include s lime , limestone , dua l alkali , an dsodiu m we t scrubbing

. **** * 4

. Sectio n 60.42 b i s redesignate da s § 60.43 b an dparagrap h (a)(4 ) i s adde d a s follows : § 60.43 b Standar

d fo rparticulat e matter

. (a ) * * *

Stea m generatin g unit/fue l typ e Particulat e matte r emissio n limi t nanogram s pe r joul e nea t inpu t (lb/mlllio n Bt u hea t input )

(4 ) Oil.

. 4 3 (0.10 )

5

. A ne w § 60.42 b i s adde da s follows : § 60.42 b Standar d fo r sulfu r dioxide

. (a ) Excep t

a s provide di n paragraph s (b) , (c) , o r

(d ) o f thi s section , o n an d afte r th e dat e o n whic h § 60. 8 require s a performanc e tes t

t o b e completed , n o owne r o r operato r o f a n affecte dfacilit y tha t combust s coa l o r

oil , eithe r

alon e o r i n combinatio n wit h an y othe r fuel , shal l caus e t o b e discharge dint o th e atmospher e an y gase s whic h contai n SO ai n exces s o f

1 0 percen t

o f th e potentia l SO aemissio n rat e (9 0 percen t reduction ) an dwhic h contai n SO ai n exces s o f

th e emissio n limi t

determine d accordin g t o th e followin g formula : E soa =(516H„+344H 1) )/H t

[£^=(1.211. + 0.8H„}/H, ] where :P.3 6

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s 2241 7

*-so 2 i s th e S0 2 emissio n limit , expresse di n nanogram s pe r

joul e (ng/J ) or

lb/millio n Bt u heat input , H „ i s th e heat

inpu t fro mth e combustio n o

f coal , i n joule s (million Btu) , H b i s th e hea t

inpu t fro mth e combustio n o

f oil , in joule s (million Btu) , an d H t i s th e total heat

inpu t fro mth e combustio n o f coal an doil , in joule s (millio n Btu)

. (H t include s onl y th e heat

inpu t supplie dto th e steamgeneratin g uni t

fro mth e combustio n o

f coal an doil an dno t

th e heat inpu t fro mth e combustio n o

f natura l gas , wood , soli dwaste , or othe r fuels. ) (b ) O n an dafte r

th e dat e o n whic h § 60. 8 require s aperformanc e tes t t o b e completed , n o owne r

o r operato r o f a n affecte dfacilit y tha t

combust s coa l o r oil , eithe r

alon e o r i n combinatio n wit h an y othe r

fuel , an dtha t

use s a n emergin g technolog y fo r th e contro l o f SO aemissions , shal l caus e t o b e discharge dint o th e atmospher e an y gase s whic h contai n SO ai n exces s of 5 0 percen t o f th e potentia l SO aemissio n rat e (5 0 percen t

reduction ) an dwhic h contai n SO ai n exces s o f th e emissio n limi t determine daccordin g t o th e followin g formula : ES0 2 = {256H c +172d)/Ht

[ESO 2 = (0.6H c + 0.4d)/ H U where : ES O i s th e SO : emissio n limit , expresse din n g/ J (lb/millio n Btu

) heat input , H c i s th e hea t

inpu t fro mth e combustio n o

f coal , in joule s (million Btu) , H i i s th e hea t

inpu t fro mth e combustio n o

f oil , i n joule s (million Btu) , an d H , i s th e total heat

inpu t fro mth e combustio n o

f coal an doi l i n joule s (millio n Btu)

. (H , include s onl y th e heat inpu t supplie dt o th e stea

mgeneratin g uni t fro mth e combustio n o

f coal an d oi l an dno t

th e heat inpu t fromth e combustio n o

f natura l gas , wood , soli d waste , o r othe r fuels. ) (c)(1 ) Th e requirement(s ) t o reduc e emission s t o acertai n percentag e of th e potentia l SO aemissio n rat e include di n paragraph s (a ) an d(b ) of thi s sectio n d o no t appl y t o a n affecte dfacilit y tha t combust s coa l i n combinatio n wit h an y othe r fuel , excep t

oi l o r natura l gas , provide dth e affecte dfacility : (i ) Ha s a n annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r fo r coa l of 3 0 percen t

(0.30 ) o r less ; (ii ) Ha s a n annua l capacit y utilizatio n facto r o f 1 0 percen t

(0.10 ) o r mor e fo r fuel(s ) othe r

tha n coal , oil , o r

natura l gas ; an d (iii ) I s subjec t

t o aFederal , State , o r loca l permi t

limitin g operatio n of

th e affecte dfacilit y t o condition s (i ) an d(ii ) above

. (2 ) Th e SO aemissio n limit(s ) determine daccordin g t o th e applicabl e formul ai n paragrap h (a ) o f thi s sectio n continu e t o appl y t o facilitie s meetin g th e criteri ai n paragrap h (c)(1 ) o f thi s section

. (d ) Complianc e wit h th e emissio n limit(s ) an dpercen t

reductio n requirement s unde r

thi s sectio n ar e bot h determine do n a30-da y rollin g averag e basis

. 6

. Sectio n 60.43 b i s redesignate da s § 60.44b

. 7

. Sectio n 60.45 b i s redesignate da s § 60.48b , an dane w § 60.45 b i s adde da s follows : § 60.45 b Compliance an d performanc e testin g fo rsulfu rdioxide

. (a ) Th e SO aemissio n standard s unde r § 60.42 b appl y a t

al l time s includin g period s of

startup , shutdown , an d malfunction

. (b ) Complianc e wit h th e SO aemissio n standard s unde r

§ 60.42 b shal l b e determine dthroug h performanc e testin g a s describe di n paragrap h (c ) o f thi s section

. (c ) Th e followin g procedure s ar e use d i n performanc e testin g t o determin e th e SO aemissio n rat e an dth e percen t o f potentia l SO aemissio n rat e discharge d t o th e atmosphere

. (1 ) Th e SO aemissio n rat e discharge d t o th e atmospher e shal l b e determine d usin g th e followin g formula : Eso^E^./x ^ where : Eso 2 i s th e S0 2 emissio n rate i n ng/ J (lb/ millio n Btu) hea t

input

. Eso 2 o i s th e arithmeti c averag e o f al l hourl y outle t emissio n rate s fo

r 3 0 successiv e steamgeneratin g uni t

operatin g days , a s determine db y Metho d1 9 o r Metho d 19A , i n ng/

J (lb/millio n Btu ] heat

input

. X k i s th e fractio n o

f tota l hea t inpu t fo r 3 0 successiv e steamgeneratin g uni t operatin g day s derive dfro mcoal , oil , o r coal an doi l a s determine db y Metho d1 9 o r Metho d19A

. (X h =1. 0 i

f onl y coal , onl y oil , or mixture s o

f only coal an doil together ar e combusted. ) (2 ) Th e percen t

o f potentia l SO a emissio n rat e (

% PER ) discharge dt o th e atmospher e shal l b e determine da s follows : (i ) Th e percen t

reductio n achieve db y an y fue l pretreatmen t

shal l b e

- determine dusin g th e procedure s i n Metho d19 , Sectio n 2 (Appendi x A)

. (ii ) Th e percen t

reductio n achieve db y an y SO acontro l syste mshal l b e determine db y comparin g th e arithmeti c averag e of

al l hourl y emissio n rate s measure da t

th e inle t t o th e contro l syste mt o th e arithmeti c averag e of al l hourl y emissio n rate s measure da t th e outle t t o th e contro l syste mfo r 3 0 successiv e stea mgeneratin g uni t operatin g days , followin g th e procedure s i n Metho d19 , Sectio n 3

. A n "a s fired " fue l samplin g syste mma y b e use dt o determin e th e SO ainpu t rat e a t th e inle t t o th e SO acontro l devic e a s describe di n Metho d19 , Sectio n 3

. Whe n a n "a s fired" fue l samplin g syste mi s used , th e percen t reductio n i s calculate dusin g th e arithmeti c averag e of

al l hourl y emissio n rate s fro mth e SO acontro l devic e an dth e arithmeti c averag e o f al l 24-hou r o r dail y SO ainpu t

rate s fro mth e "a s fired " fue l analysi s fo r 3 0 successiv e stea mgeneratin g uni t

operatin g days

. (iii ) Th e overal l percen t reductio n shal l b e determine dusin g th e resul t obtaine di n paragraph s (e)(1 ) (i ) an d(ii ) o f thi s sectio n followin g th e procedure s i n Metho d19 , Sectio n 4 (Appendi x A)

. (iv ) Th e percen t

o f potentia l SO a emissio n rat e emitte dt o th e atmospher e shal l b e determine dusin g th e followin g formula : % PE R= 10 0 - % R o wher e % R

o i s th e overal l percen t

reductio n a s determine di

n subparagrap h (iii ) o

f thi s section

. (d ) Fo r th e initia l performanc e tes t require dunde r

§ 60.8 , complianc e wit h th e SO aemissio n limit s an dpercen t reductio n requirement s unde r § 60.42 b i s base do n th e averag e emissio n rate s an d th e averag e percen t

reductio n fo r

SO a fo r th e firs t 3 0 consecutiv e stea m generatin g uni t

operatin g days

. Th e initia l performanc e tes t i s th e onl y tes t fo r whic h a t

leas t 3 0 day s prio r

notic e i s require dunles s otherwis e specifie db y th e Administrator

. Th e initia l performanc e tes t

i s t o b e schedule ds o tha t th e first stea mgeneratin g uni t operatin g da y of

th e 3 0 successiv e stea m generatin g uni t

operatin g day s i s complete dwithi n 3 0 day s afte r achievin g th e maximu mproductio n rat e a t whic h th e affecte dfacilit y wil l b e operated , bu t

no t late r tha n 15 0 day s afte r initia l startu p o f

th e facility

. (e ) Afte r th e initia l performanc e tes t require dunde r

§ 60.8 , complianc e wit h th e SO aemissio n limit s an dpercen t reductio n requirement s unde r § 60.42 b i s base do n th e averag e emissio n rate s an d th e averag e percen t

reductio n fo r

SO a fo r 3 0 successiv e stea mgeneratin g uni t operatin g days

. A separat e performanc e tes t i s complete da t

th e en do f

eac h stea mgeneratin g uni t

operatin g da y afte r th e initia l performanc e test , an da ne w 30-da y averag e emissio n rat e an d percen t reductio n fo r

SO aar e calculate d t o sho w complianc e wit h th e standard

. (f ) Emission s o f

8 6 ng/ J (0. 2 lb/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t o r les s fro mstea m generatin g unit s combustin g oi l constitut e complianc e wit h th e requiremen t

t o reduc e emission s t o a certai n percentag e o f

th e potentia l SO a emissio n rat e unde r

§ 60.42b

. (g ) I f th e owne r

o r operato r o f a n affecte dfacilit y ha s no t obtaine dth e minimu mquantit y o f

emissio n dat aa s require dunde r

§ 60.46b , complianc eP.3 7

2241 8 Federa l Registe r/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s
wit h th e emissio n limit s an dth e percen t reductio n requirement s unde r § 60.42 b fo r th e da y o n whic h th e 30-da y perio d end s ma y b e determine db y th e Administrato r

b y followin g th e applicabl e procedure s i n Metho d19 , Sectio n 7 Appendi x A)

. 8

. Sectio n 60.44

b a s propose do n Jun e 19,198 4 (4 9 F R25102 ) i s redesignate da s § 60.46b

. 9

. A ne w § 60.47b i s adde da s follows : § 60.471 ) Emissio n monitorin g fo r sulfu r dioxide

. (a) Excep t a s provide di n paragrap h (b ) o f thi s section , th e owne r

o r operato r o f a n affecte dfacilit

y subjec t t o th e SO

a standard s unde r

§ 60.42 b shal l install , calibrate , maintain , an doperat e continuou s emissio n monitorin g system s (CEMS ) fo

r measurin g SO

a concentration s an deithe r oxyge n o r carbo n dioxid e concentration s an dshal l recor dth e outpu t

o f th e systems

. Sulfu

r dioxid e an deithe r

oxyge n o r

carbo n dioxid e concentration s shal l both b e monitore da t

th e inle t an doutle t

o f th e SO acontro l device

. (b ) A s a n alternativ e t o operatin g CEM S a s require dunde r

paragrap h (a) o f thi s section , a n owne r

o r operato r may elec t t o determin e th e averag e SO j emission s an dpercen t

reductio n by : (1 ) Collectin g fue

l sample s i n a n as
fire dconditio n a t

th e inle t t o th e stea m generatin g uni t

analyzin g fo

r sulfu r an d hea t conten t accordin g t o Metho d19

A (Appendi x A)

. Sectio n 2 o f Metho d19

A provide s procedure s fo

r convertin g thes e measurement s int o th e forma t t o b e use d i n calculatin g th e averag e SC* ainpu t rate

. (2 ) Measurin g SO

aaccordin g t o Referenc e Metho d6

B a t th e inle t o r outle t t o th e SO acontro l system

. (c ) Th e CEM S require dunde r paragrap h (a) o

f thi s sectio n shal l b e operate dan ddat arecorde ddurin g al l period s o f operatio n o

f th e affecte d facility , includin g period s o f startup , shutdown , o r

malfunction , excep t

fo r CEM S breakdowns , repairs , calibratio n checks , an dzer o an dspa n adjustments

. (d ) Th e 1-hou

r averag e SO

aemissio n rate s measure db y th e CEM S require d b y paragrap h (a) o

f thi s sectio n an d require dunde r

§ 60.13(h ) shal l b e expresse di n ng/

J o r lb/millio n Bt

u hea t inpu t an dshal l b e use dt o calculat e th e averag e emissio n rate s unde r § 60.42b

. At leas t 2 dat apoint s mus t

b e use dt o calculat e eac h 1-hou

r average
. (e ) Th e procedure s unde r

§ 60.1 3 shal l b e followe dfo

r installation , evaluation , an doperatio n o

f th e CEMS

. (1 ) Al l CEM S shal l b e operate di n accordanc e with th e applicabl e procedure s unde r

Performanc e Specification s 1 , 2 , an d3 (Appendi x B)

. (2 ) Quarterl y accurac y determination s an ddail y calibration drif

t test s shal l b e performe di n accordanc e wit h Procedure , 1 (Appendi x F)

. (3 ) For affecte dfacilitie s burnin g coal or oil , alon e o r

i n combinatio n with othe r fuels , th e spa n valu e o

f th e SO a CEMS a t th e inle t t o th e SO acontro l devic e i s 125 percen t

o f th e maximu m estimate dhourl y potentia l SO a emission s o

f th e fue l fired , an dth e spa n valu e o f th e CEM S a t

th e outle t t o th e SC ^ contro l devic e i s 5 0 percen t o f th e maximu mestimate dhourl y potentia l SCf e emission s o

f th e fue l fired

. (f ) Whe n SO

aemissio n dat aar e no t obtaine dbecaus e o

f CEM S breakdowns , repairs , calibratio n check s an dzer o an d spa n adjustments , emissio n dat awil l b e obtaine db y usin g othe r

monitorin g system s a s approve db y th e Administrato r

o r th e referenc e method s a s describe di n paragrap h (h ) o f thi s sectio n t o provid e emissio n dat afo r a minimumo

f 7 5 percen t

o f th e operatin g hour s i n a t

leas t 2 2 ou t o f 3 0 successiv e stea mgeneratin g uni t

operatin g days

. (g ) I f astea mgeneratin g uni t periodicall y combust s natura l gas , wood , o r soli dwaste , o r

an y othe r nonsulfur-bearin g fuels , 24-hou r period s durin g whic h thes e nonsulfur-bearin g fuel s ar e th e onl y fuel s combuste di n th e stea mgeneratin g uni t

durin g th e entir e 24-hou r perio dfro

mmidnight

t o th e followin g midnigh t

shal l no t b e considere dstea mgeneratin g uni t operatin g day s fo

r purpose s o

f determinin g complianc e with th e SO a standar dunde r

§ 60.42b

. Fo r

period s durin g whic h both sulfur-bearin g an d nonsulfur-bearin g fuel s ar e combuste d i n th e stea mgeneratin g unit , onl y thos e hour s durin g whic h an y sulfur-bearin g fue l i s combuste dshal l b e considere d stea mgeneratin g uni t

operatin g hours

. (h ) Referenc e method s use dt o supplemen t

CEM S dat at o mee t

th e minimumdat arequirement s i n paragrap h (f

) o f thi s sectio n wil l b e use d a s specifie dbelo w o r

otherwis e approve db y th e Administrator

. (1 ) Referenc e Method s 3 an d6 o r 6B , a s applicable , ar e used

. Th e samplin g location(s ) fo

r Referenc e Method s 3 an d 6 ar e th e sam e a s thos e use dfo r th e CEMS

. (2 ) Fo r Metho d6 , th e minimum samplin g tim e i s 2

0 minute s an dth e minimumsamplin g volum e i s 0.0 2 dsm 3 (0.7 1 ds f

3 ) fo r eac h sample

. Sample s ar e take n a t approximatel y 60 minut e intervals

. Eac h sampl e represent s a1

- hou r average
. (3 ) For Metho d3 , th e oxyge n o r carbo n dioxid e sampl e i s t o b e take n fo r eac h hou r whe n continuou s SO

adat a ar e collecte do

r whe n Metho d6 i s used

. Eac h sampl e shal l b e take n fo r a minimumo

f 3 0 minute s i n eac h hou r usin g th e integrate dba g metho d specifie di n Metho d3

. Eac h sampl e represent s a1-hou

r average
. (4 ) For eac h 1-hou

r average , th e emission s expresse di n ng/ J (lb/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu t ar e determine dan duse d a s neede dto achiev e th e minimumdat a requirement s o

f paragrap h (f

) o f thi s section

. 10

. Sectio n 60.46

b a s propose do n Jun e 19,198 4 (49 F

R25102 ) i s redesignate da s § 60.49b an damende db y revisin g paragraph s (b ) an d(i) ; an daddin g paragraph s (a)(3) , (a)(4) , (j) , (k) , (1) , an d (m ) a s follows : § 60.49 b Reportin g an d recordkeepin g requirements

. (a) * * * (3 ) th e desig n hea t

inpu t capacit y an d th e annua l capacit y facto r a t whic h th e owne r o r operato r anticipate s operatin g th e facility , and , i

f applicable , acop y o

f an y Federa l o r

Federall y enforceabl e Stat e o r loca l permi t

whic h limit s th e annua l fossi l fue

l utilizatio n facto r

fo r coa l t o 3 0 percen t

(0.30 ) o r les s an d limit s th e annua l capacit y facto r fo r fuel s othe r

tha n coal , oil , o r

natura l ga s t o 1 0 percen t

(0.10 ) o r greate r fo r affecte dfacilitie s regulate dunde r § 60.42b(c)

. Th e annua l fossi l fue l utilizatio n facto r

an dth e annua l capacit y utilizatio n facto r shal l b e determine do n a12-mont

h rollin g averag e basis , wit

h ane w averag e calculate da t

th e en do f eac h calenda r month

. (4 ) identificatio n an ddescriptio n o f an y emergin g technologie s use dfo r controllin g emission s o

f SO aunde r § 60.42b

. Upo n receivin g notificatio n fro mth e owne r

o r operato r o f a n affecte dfacility tha t

a n emergin g technolog y wil l b e use dfo r controllin g emission s o

f SOa, th e Administrato r

wil l examin e th e descriptio n o f th e emergin g technolog y propose dt o b e use dan dwil l determin e whethe r

thi s technolog y qualifie s a s a n emergin g technology

. I n makin g thi s determination , th e Administrato r

may requir e th e owne r

o r operato r o f th e affecte dfacilit

y to submi t additiona l informatio n concernin g th e contro l device

. Th e determinatio n o

f th e Administrato r

shal l b e communicate dt o th e owne r o r operato r o f th e affecte dfacilit

y withi n 3 0 workin g day s o

f receip t o f notificatio n fro

mth e owne r

o r operator

. (b ) Fo r facilitie s subjec t

t o th e SOa, PM , an dNO , emissio n limit s unde r § 60.42b , § 60.43b , an d§ 60.44b , th e performanc e tes t

dat afro mth e initia l performanc e tes t

an dth e performanc e evaluatio n o

f th e CEM S usin g th e applicabl e performanc e specification s i nP.3 8

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 51 , No

. 11 8 /

Thursday , Jun e 19 , 198 6 / Propose dRule s 2241 9
Appendi x B shal l b e submitte dt o th e Administrato r

b y th e owne r

o r operato r of th e affecte dfacility

.

* * * * * • (i ) Th e owne r

o r operato r o f an y affecte dfacilit y subjec t t o th e S0 2 standard s unde r

§ 60.42 b shal l submi t writte n report s t o th e Administrato r fo r ever y calenda r

quarter

. Al l quarterl y report s shal l b e postmarke db y th e 30t h da y followin g th e en do f eac h calenda r quarter

. (j ) Fo r eac h affecte dfacilit y subjec t t o th e reportin g requiremen t i n paragrap h (i ) of thi s section , th e followin g informatio n shal l b e reporte dt o th e Administrator : (1 ) Calenda r

date s covere di n th e reportin g period

. (2 ) Eac h 30-da y averag e S0 2 emissio n rat e measure ddurin g th e reportin g period , endin g wit h th e las t 30-da y perio di n th e quarter ; reason s fo r noncomplianc e wit h th e emissio n standards ; an dadescriptio n of correctiv e action s taken

. (3 ) Eac h 30-da y averag e percen t reductio n i n SO aemission s calculate d durin g th e reportin g period , endin g wit h th e las t 30-da y perio di n th e quarter ; reason s fo r

noncomplianc e wit h th e emissio n standards ; an dadescriptio n o f correctiv e action s taken

. (4 ) Identificatio n o f

th e stea m generatin g uni t

operatin g day s fo r

whic h S0 2 o r diluen t (oxyge n o r

carbo n dioxide ) dat ahav e no t

bee n obtaine db y a n approve dmetho dfo r a t leas t 7 5 percen t o f th e operatin g hours ; justificatio n fo r

no t obtainin g sufficien t data ; an ddescriptio n of correctiv e actio n taken

. (5 ) Identificatio n o f th e time s whe n emission s dat ahav e bee n exclude dfro m th e calculatio n of

averag e emissio n rates ; justificatio n fo r

excludin g data ; an ddescriptio n o f

correctiv e actio n take n if dat ahav e bee n exclude dfo r period s othe r

tha n thos e durin g whic h nonsulfur-bearin g fuel s wer e combuste d i n th e stea mgeneratin g unit

. (6 ) Identificatio n of

"F " facto r

use dfo r calculations , metho do f determination , an dtyp e of

fue l combusted

. (7 ) Identificatio n o f

time s whe n hourl y average s hav e bee n obtaine dbase do n manua l samplin g methods

. (8 ) Identificatio n of

th e time s whe n th e pollutan t

concentratio n exceede d ful l spa n of

th e CEMS

. (9 ) Descriptio n of

an y modification s t o th e CEM S whic h coul daffec t th e abilit y of th e CEM S t o compl y wit h Performanc e Specification s 2 o r 3

. (10 ) Result s o f

dail y CEM S drif

t test s an dquarterl y accurac y assessment s a s require dunde r

Appendi x F , Procedur e 1

. (k) Fo r eac h affecte dfacilit y subjec t t o th e SO astandard s unde r § 60.42 b fo r whic h th e minimu mamoun t o f dat a require dunde r

§ 60.47b(f

) wer e no t obtaine ddurin g acalenda r quarter , th e followin g informatio n i s reporte dt o th e Administrato r

i n additio n t o tha t require dunde r

paragrap h (j ) o f

thi s section : (l).Th e numbe r

o f hourl y average s availabl e fo r

outle t emissio n rate s an d inle t emissio n rates

. (2 ) Th e standar ddeviatio n o f hourl y average s fo r

outle t emissio n rate s an d inle t emissio n rates , a s determine di n Metho d19 , Sectio n 6

. (3 ) Th e lowe r confidenc e limi t

fo r th e mea n outle t

emissio n rat e an dth e uppe r confidenc e limi t

fo r th e mea n inle t emissio n rate , a s calculate di n Metho d 19 , Sectio n 6

. (4 ) Th e applicabl e potentia l SO a emissio n rate(s)

. a (5 ) Th e rati o o f

th e lowe r

confidenc e limi t fo r th e mea n outle t

emissio n rat e an dth e allowabl e emissio n rate , a s determine di n Metho d19 , Sectio n 7

. (1 ) I f fue l pretreatmen t

credi t towar d th e S0 2 emissio n standar dunde r § 60.42 b i s claimed , th e owne r o r operato r o f th e affecte dfacilit y shal l submi t asigne dstatemen t

wit h th e quarterl y report : (1 ) Indicatin g wha t

percentag e fue l pretreatmen t

credi t wa s take n fo r

th e calenda r quarter ; (2 ) Listin g th e quantity , hea t content , an ddat e eac h pretreate dfue l shipmen t wa s receive ddurin g th e previou s calenda r quarter ; th e nam e an dlocatio n of th e fue l pretreatmen t

facility ; an dth e tota l quantit y an dtota l hea t conten t o f al l fuel s receive da t

th e affecte dfacilit y durin g th e previou s calenda r quarter ; (3 ) Certifyin g tha t

th e emissio n credi t wa s determine di n accordanc e wit h th e provision s of

§ 60.45 b an dMetho d1 9 (Appendi x A) ; an d (4 ) Documentin g th e transpor t o f th e fue l fro mth e fue l pretreatmen t facilit y t o th e stea mgeneratin g unit

. (m) Al l record s require dunde r thi s sectio n shal l b e maintaine db y th e owne r o r operato r o f th e affecte dfacilit y fo r aperio do f

2 year s followin g th e dat e o f suc h record

. [F RDoc.86-1326 3 File d6-18-88 ; 8:4 5 am ) BILLIN G COD E 6530-50- M