p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1865 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 56 ) IV-H- 3
Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 12/3/20089:15:29AM

Sheet 56 of 105P. 2



# A-83-27

CORPORATIO N

IV-H- 3

Decembe r 16 , 198 7

MEMORANDU M SUBJECT : Fina l Performanc e Standard s (S0 2 ) fo r Industrial-Commercial '



### Institutiona l Stea

m Generatin g unit s (Subpar t Db ) FROM : Davi dM . Whit e J^Vic ) VAvvAt >

Radia nCorporatio n TO : Fil e

Th e attache ddraf t document s wer e submitte dt o the Offic e o f Managemen t

an dBudge t fo r thei r review unde r the Paperwor k Reductio nAc t an d Executiv e Orde r 1229 1 o n Octobe r 19 , 1987 .
3 attachment s

Progres s Center/320 0 E

. Chape l Hil l Rd./Nelso n Hwy./P.O

. Bo x13000/Researc h triangl e Park

. N. C 27709/(919)541-910 06560-5 0

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC Y 4 0 CF RPar t 6 0 (AD-FRL - ) STANDARD S O F PERFORMANC E FORNEW STATIONARYSOURCE S Industrial-Commercial-Institutiona l Stea m Generatin g Unit s

AGENCY : Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y (EPA) . ACTION : Fina l Rule . SUMMARY : Standard s o f performanc e unde r Subpar t D bo f 4 0 CF R6 0 limitin g emission s o f sulfu r dioxid e (SO* ) fro m coal - an

d oil-fire d industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s an

d particulat e matte r (PM ) fro

m oil-fire d industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s wer e propose dinth e FEDERAL REGISTE RonJun e 19 , 198 6 (5 1 FR22384) . Today' s actio npromulgate s thes e standard s unde r Subpar t D ban d als o revise s emissio ntestin g procedure s unde r Metho d 1 9 o f 4 0 CF R60 , Appendi xA . Standard s o f performanc e limitin g emission s o f nitroge noxide s (N O )

an dPM fro m fossil - an

d nonfossil-fuel-fire d industrial-commercia l - institutiona l stea

m generatin g unit s wer e promulgate d onNovembe r 25 , 198 6 (5 1 FR42768) . Th e complet e tex t o f Subpar t D bintegratin g th e requirement s fo r SO- , N O , an

dPM i s include d i ntoday' s notice . Thi s combine d tex t i s provide da s a convenienc e t o th e reade r an d i s M £ a repromulgatio no f th e previousl y

promulgate dstandard s fo r NO xan d PM . A noutlin e o f th e specifi c addition s t o Subpar t D bresultin g fro m today' s actio ni s provide d i nth e administrativ e sectio no f th e preamble .P. 4

Thes e standard s implemen t Sectio n11 1 o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t an dar e base donth e Administrator' s determinatio ntha t industrial-commercial institutiona l stea

m generatin g unit s cause, o r contribut e significantl y to , ai r pollutio nwhic hma y reasonabl y

b e anticipate dt o endange r publi c healt h

o r welfare . Th e intende deffec t o f thes e standard s i s t o requir e al l new , modified , an

dreconstructe dindustrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s t o reduc e emission s o f S0 ~ an dP M t o th e level s achievabl e b y th e bes t demonstrate dsyste m o f continuou s emissio nreduction , considerin g costs , nonai r qualit y healt han

denvironmenta l impacts , an d energ y requirements . EFFECTIV E DATE : (dat e o f publicatio n1 nFEDERAL REGISTER) . Unde r Sectio n307(b)(1 ) o f th e Clea nAi r Act , judicia l revie w o f th e action s take nb

y thi s notic e i s availabl e onl y b y th e filin g o f a petitio n fo r revie w

i nth e U . S . Cour t o f Appeal s fo r th e Distric t o f Columbi a Circui t withi n6 0 day s o f today' s publicatio no f thi s rule . Unde r Sectio n 307(b)(2 ) o f th e Clea nAi r Act , th e requirement s tha t ar e th e subjec t o f today' s notic e ma y

no t b e challenge dlate r 1ncivi l o r crimina l proceeding s t o enforc e thes e requirements . INCORPORATION

BYREFERENCE : Th e Incorporatio nb y referenc e o f certai n publication s i nthes e standard s 1 s approve db y th e Directo r o f th e Offic e o f th e FEDERAL REGISTE Ra s o f (dat e o f publicatio n1nth e FEDERAL REGISTER) . ADDRESSES : Docket . Docke t numbe r A-83-27 , containin g informatio n
use di ndevelopmen t o f th e standards , 1 s availabl e fo r publi c Inspectio n betwee n8:0 0 a.m . an

d4:0 0 p.m . Monda y

throug hFrida y

a t th e Centra l Docke tP. 5

Sectio n(LE-131) , Sout hConferenc e Center , Roo m 4 , 40 1 M

Street , S.W. , Washington , D.C . 20460 . A reasonabl e fe e ma y

be charge dfo r copying . Backgroun dInformatio nDocuments . Becaus e o f printin g an ddistributio n costs , onl y

a limite dnumbe r o f th e backgroun dInformatio ndocumen t (BID ) fo r th e promulgate dstandard s wer e printed . Distributio no f thes e document s t o industrie s i s bein g coordinate db y industr y

trad e associations . Companie s wishin g t o review th e BI D shoul dcontac t thei r representativ e trad e association . I f th e trad e associatio ndoe s no t hav e acces s t o th e BID , a copy

wil l b e provide dfo r th e us e o f thei r membership . FORFURTHE RINFORMATION CONTACT : Mr . FredPorte r o r Mr . Walte r Stevenson , Standard s Developmen t Branch , Emissio nStandard s an dEngineerin g Divisio n(MD-13) , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolin a 27711 , telephon e (919 ) 541-525 1 o r (919 ) 541-5264 . SUPPLEMENTAR YINFORMATION : Th e followin g outlin e i s provide dt o ai d i nreadin g th e preambl e t o th e fina l regulation . I . Summar y

o f Standard s A . Applicabilit y B . Sulfu r Dioxid e Standard s C . Particulat e Matte r Standard s II . Summar y

o f Change s t o Propose dStandard s A . Sulfu r Dioxid e Standard s B . Sulfu r Dioxid e Complianc e Provision s C . Particulat e Matte r Complianc e Provision s D . Reportin g Requirement s III . Summar y

o f Impact s fro

m th e Promulgate dStandard sIV . Publi c Participatio n

V . Significan t Comment s an dChange s t o th e Propose d Standard s A . Applicabilit y B . Basi s o f Standar d C . Standar dfo r Sulfu r Dioxid e D . Nationa l Impact s E . Cos t o f th e Standar d F . Performance/Reliabilit y o f Demonstrate d Technologie s G . Secondar y

Environmenta l Impact s H . Emissio nCredit s I . Emergin g Technologie s VI . Administrativ e A . Outlin e o f Addition s t o Subpar t D b B . Revisio no f Metho d 1 9 C . Docke t D . Clea nAi r Ac t Procedura l Requirement s E . Offic e o f Managemen t an d Budge t Review s F . Regulator y

Flexibilit y

Ac t Complianc eP. 7

I . SUMMAR YO F STANDARD S Standard s o f performanc e fo r new source s establishe dunde r Sectio n11 1

o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t reflect : ...applicatio no f th e bes t technologica l system o f continuou s emissio n reductio nwhic h(taking int o consideratio nth e cos t o f achievin g suc h emission s reduction , an y nonai r qualit y

healt han

denvironmenta l impac t an denerg y requirements ) th e Administrato r determine s ha s bee n adequatel y

demonstrate d(Sectio n111(a)(1)) . Fo r convenience , thi s wil l be referre dt o a s "bes t demonstrate dtechnology. " A . Applicabilit y Th e new sourc e performanc e standard s (NSPS ) bein g adopte dtoda y appl y t o al l new , modified , o r reconstructe dstea m generatin g unit s wit ha hea t inpu t capacit y

greate r tha n2 9 M

W (10 0 millio nBtu/hour ) fo r whic h constructio ni s commence dafte r Jun e 19 , 1986 , excep t fo r electri c utilit y stea m generatin g unit s covere db y 4 0 CF RPar t 60 , Subpar t Da , o r stea m generatin g unit s covere dunde r 4 0 CF RPar t 60 , Subpar t J (Standard s o f performanc e fo r petroleu m refineries) . Th e definitio no f "stea m generatin g unit " include s al l device s tha t combus t fue l an dproduc e steam , ho t water , o r hea t othe r fluid s whic har e use da s hea t transfe r media . Th e owne r o r operato r o f an y stea m generatin g uni t tha t i s capabl e o f combustin g greate r tha n2 9 M W (10 0 millio nBtu/hour ) o f fue l mus t submi t certai ninformatio na s require db y th e Genera l Provision s (4 0 CF R60.11) , includin g notificatio no f th e dat e o f initia l uni t startup , an dmus t maintai ncertai nfue l us e records . Sulfu r dioxid e contro l requirement s ar e establishe dfo r stea m generatin g unit s whic hcombus t coal , oil , coal/oi l mixtures , o r coa l o r oi l wit han y othe r fuels .P. 8

Particulat e matte r emissio nlimit s ar e establishe dfo r stea m generatin g unit s combustin g oi l o r mixture s o f oi l wit han y othe r fuels . Th e PM standar dbein g adopte dtoda y fo r oil-fire dstea

m generatin g unit s supplement s P

M emissio nstandard s adopte do nNovembe r 25 , 1986 , fo r stea m generatin g unit s combustin g coal , wood , municipa l soli dwaste , o r fue l mixture s containin g an y o f thes e fuel s (5 1 FR42768) . B . Sulfu r Dioxid e Standard s (1 ) Steam

generatin g unit s combustin g coal , eithe r alon e o r i n combinatio nwit hothe r fuels , ar e require dt o achiev e a 9 0 percen t reductio n i npotentia l SO * emission s an dmee t a nemissio nlimi t o f 52 0 ng/ J (1. 2 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t input , excep t a s note dbelow . (2 ) Steam

generatin g unit s combustin g oil , eithe r alon e o r i n combinatio nwit hothe r fuels , ar e require dt o achiev e a 9 0 percen t reductio n inpotentia l SO - emission s an dmee t a nemissio nlimi t o f 34 0 ng/ J (0. 8 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t input , excep t a s note dbelow . (3 ) Steam

generatin g unit s combustin g coal , oil , o r a mixtur e o f coa l

an doil , wit ho r withou t othe r fuels , tha t hav e a Federall y enforceabl e permi t limitin g th e combustio no f coa l an doi l t o 3 0 percen t o r les s o f th e maximu m annua l steam

generatin g uni t hea t inpu t capacity , ar e exemp t fro m th e percentag e reductio nrequirement , bu t mus t mee t certai nemissio nlimits . Coal-fire dstea

m generatin g unit s ar e subjec t t o a nemissio nlimi t o f 52 0 ng/ J (1. 2 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t input . Oil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s ar e subjec t t o a

nemissio nlimi t o f 13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t input .P. 9

(4 ) Stea m generatin g unit s combustin g coa l an dusin g a

nemergin g SO * contro l technolog y

mus t achiev e a 5 0 percen t reductio ninpotentia l S0 - emission s an

dmee t a nemissio nlimi t o f 26 0 ng/ J (0. 6 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t input . (5 ) Steam

generatin g unit s combustin g oi l an dusin g anemergin g SO * contro l technolog y

mus t achiev e a 5 0 percen t reductio ninpotentia l SO * emission s an

dmee t a nemissio nlimi t o f 17 0 ng/ J (0. 4 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t input . (6 ) Steam

generatin g unit s locate dinnoncontinenta l area s (Hawaii , th e Virgi nIslands , Guam , America nSamoa , th e Commonwealt ho f Puert o Rico , an dth e Norther nMarian a Islands ) ar e exemp t fro m th e percentag e reductio n requirement s bu t mus t mee t certai nemissio nlimits . Coal-fire dstea m generatin g unit s ar e subjec t t o anemissio nlimi t o f 52 0 ng/ J (1. 2 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t input . Oil-fire dsteam generatin g unit s ar e subjec t t pa

nemissio nlimi t o f 13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 lb/mil l io nBtu ) hea t input . (7 ) Fluidize dbe dcombustio n(FBC ) stea m generatin g unit s combustin g
coa l refus e mus t achiev e an8 0 percen t reductio ninpotentia l SO * emission s
an dmee t anemissio nlimi t o f 52 0 ng/ J (1. 2 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t Input . (8 ) Duc t burner s operatin g a s par t o f a supplementary-fire dcombine d cycl e system

inwhic hles s tha n3 0 percen t o f th e tota l hea t inpu t t o th e stea m generatin g uni t i s fro m th e combustio no f coa l o r oi l i nth e duc t burne r ar e exemp t from th e percentag e reductio nrequirement s bu t mus t mee t certai nemissio nlimits . Coal-fire dsteam generatin g unit s ar e subjec t t o
a nemissio nlimi t o f 52 0 ng/ J (1. 2 1b/mi11 1 onBtu ) hea t input . Oil-fire d stea m generatin g unit s ar e subjec t t o anemissio nlimi t o f 13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t input .(9 ) Steam generatin g unit s combustin g very lo w sulfu r conten t residua l oi l ar e exemp t fro

m th e percentag e reductio nrequirements , bu t ar e subjec t t o a nemissio nlimi t o f 13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t input . (10 ) Continuou s SO g emissio nmonitorin g i s require dfo r al l coal - an d oil-fire dstea

m generatin g units . Th e SO * emissio ndat a collecte dthroug h continuou s monitorin g ar e use dt o determin e complianc e wit hth e standard s o n
a continuou s basi s throug hth e us e o f a 30-da y rollin g averag e emissio nrat e
an dpercen t reductio nleve l calculate deac hday . Al l continuou s emissio n monitorin g system s (CEMS ) ar e subjec t t o th e qualit y assuranc e requirement s i nAppendi xF , Procedur e 1 (5 2 F R21003 ; Jun e 4 , 1987) . Metho d6 B stac k samplin g 1 s allowe dbot ha s analternativ e SO * monitorin g metho dan dt o supplemen t CEM S dat a t o mee t th e minimu m dat a requirement s (7 5 percen t o f stea m generatin g uni t operatin g hour s durin g a stea m generatin g uni t operatin g day) . Fo r unit s firin g low sulfu r coa l o r oi l withou t anS0 - contro l technology , fue l samplin g an danalysi s procedure s ar e allowe da s a n alternativ e t o CEM S o r Metho d6B . Quarterl y reportin g o f al l 30-da y rollin g averag e emissio nrate s an dpercen t reduction , a s applicable , i s als o required . (11 ) Excep t a s provide dbelow , al l coal - o r oil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s mus t conduc t anInitia l 30-da y complianc e test . (12 ) Steam

generatin g unit s combustin g onl y oi l an dtha t hav e a Federall y

enforceabl e permi t limitin g th e combustio no f oi l t o 1 0 percen t o r les s o f th e maximu

m annua l stea

m generatin g uni t hea t Inpu t capacit y ar e no t require dt o perform

aninitia l 30-da y

complianc e tes t bu t mus t perform a n initia l 24-hou r complianc e test .P.1 1

C . Particulat e M*tt» r standard s Fo r stea m generatin g unit s firin g oil , eithe r alon e o r i ncombinatio n wit hothe r fuels , th e particulat e matte r emissio nlimi t 1 s 4 3 ng/ J (0. 1 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t input . Th e opacit y

limi t fo r stea

m generatin g unit s firing oil , alon e o r i n combinatio nwit hothe r fuels , 1 s 2 0 percen t opacit y (6-minut e average ) wit h

on e 6-minut e excursio npe r hou r upt o 2 7 percen t opacity . Th e opacit y standar dapplie s a t al l time s excep t durin g period s o f startup , shutdown , o r malfunctio na s provide db y th e Genera l Provision s (4 0 CF R60.11(c)) . Performanc e test s t o determin e complianc e wit hth t particulat e matte r emissio nlimit s ar e conducte dusin g Metho d5 , 5 B (5 1 F R42839 ; November 26 , 1986) , o r 17 . Metho d5 B i s use dt o tes t we t scrubbin g systems ; otherwis e Method s 5 and1 7 ar e used . Metho d3 I s use dfo r ga s analysi s an dMetho d1 fo r th e selectio no f samplin g points . Metho d9 woul db e use dt o determin e complianc e wit hth e opacit y standard . Th e stea

m generatin g uni t owne r o r operato r ma y elec t t o us e th e opacit y monito r t o determin e complianc e wit hth e opacit y standar dunde r th e Genera l Provisions , a s amende d(5 2 F R9778 ; Marc h26 , 1987) . Continuou s opacit y monitorin g 1 s require dfo r al l stea m generatin g unit s excep t a s provide dfo r by

th e Genera l Provision s (S60.11(b)) . Exces s emission s (opacity ) report s ar e require dt o b e submitte do na semiannua l basis . II . SUMMARYO F CHANGE S T O PROPOSE D STANDARD S 

## A . Sulfu r Dioxid e Standard s Th e fina l standard s retai nth e 9 0 percen t reductio nrequirement s fo r SO * emission s tha t wer e Include d1 nth e propose dstandards . However , base do

ncomment s receive dafte r proposal , certai nsituation s wer e identifie d wher e th e impact s o f achievin g a 9 0 percen t reductio nwer e judge d t o b e unreasonable . Emissio nlimit s remai napplicabl e inal l cases . Unde r th e propose dstandards , SO - percen t reductio nrequirement s wer e
no t applicabl e t o mixed-fuel-fire d stea m generatin g unit s (unit s firin g mixture s o f coal/woo do r coal/municipa l waste ) tha t had a nannua l coa l capacit y facto r o f 3 0 percen t o r less . Unde r th e fina l standards , thi s exemptio nfro

m percen t reductio nrequirement s ha s bee nexpande d t o cove r al l lo w capacit y

facto r stea

m generatin g unit s combustin g coa l o r oil , Includin g bot hmixed-fuel-fire d application s an d fossil-fuel-fire d application s (unit s tha t combus t onl y

coa l o r oil) . A s wit hth e propose d standards , t o qualif y fo r thi s exemption , th e uni t mus t hav e anannua l coa l an d oi l capacit y facto r o f 3 0 percen t o r les s an da Federall y

enforceabl e operatin g permi t tha t limit s annua l coa l an d oi l combustio nt o 3 0 o r les s o f annua l rate d capacity . A nexemptio nfro

m th e percen t reductio nrequiremen t ha s als o bee n include d1 nth e fina l standard s fo r stea m generatin g unit s locate d in noncontinenta l area s (Hawaii , th e Virgi nIslands , Guam , America nSamoa , Puert o Rico , an

dth e Norther nMarian a Islands) . Fluidize dbe dcombustio nunit s firin g coa l refus e ar e require dt o achiev e an8 0 percen t reductio n1nSO * emissions . Thi s les s stringen t provisio nwa s no t Include d 1 nth e propose d standards , bu t wa s adde dt o th e fina l standards . Th e fina l standard s als o Includ e a provisio nexemptin g steam generatin g unit s combustin g ver y

lo w sulfu r conten t residua l oi l fro m percen t reductio n requirements .
1 0P.1 3

B . Sulfu r Dioxid e Complianc e Provision s Th e propose dstandard s require dal l stea m generatin g unit s t o conduc t a 30-da y performanc e tes t durin g initia l startup . Th e fina l standard s includ e th e 30-da y

performanc e tes t requiremen t fo r mos t stea m generatin g units , bu t permi t a 24-hou r performanc e tes t fo r oil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s tha t hav e a Federall y

enforceabl e permi t limitin g combustio no f oi l t o 1 0 percen t
o r les s o f th e maximu

m annua l hea t inpu t capacity . Inth e propose dregulation , SO * emissio nmonitorin g an dcalculatio no f 30-da y rollin g averag e emissio nrate s an dpercen t reductio nlevel s woul d hav e bee nperforme di naccordanc e wit hMetho d1 9 an dMetho d19A . Th e fina l standar dspecifie s onl y on e method , Metho d19 . Metho d1 9 ha s bee nmodifie d t o incorporat e certai nrelevan t portion s o f Metho d19A , an di s bein g republishe da s par t o f today' s action . Th e revise dMetho d1 9 include s SO* , N0 X , an dP M calculatio nprocedure s an daddresse s bot hstea

m generatin g unit s usin g S0 2 contro l device s a s wel l a s unit s combustin g lo w sulfu r complianc e fuels . Metho d1 9 ha s als o bee nrevise dt o Includ e fue l samplin g an d analysi s procedure s fo r determinin g SO * emission s fro m stea m generatin g unit s firin g complianc e fuels . Qualit y assuranc e procedure s fo r CEM S ar e se t fort hi n4 0 CF RPar t 60 , Appendi xF , Procedur e 1 . Appendi xF wa s promulgate donJun e 4 , 198 7 (5 2 FR21003 ) an

dapplie s t o CEM S installe dunde r today' s standard s t o monito r SO * emissions . C . Particulat e Matte r Complianc e Provision s Th e particulat e matte r complianc e provision s remai nth e same a s thos e promulgate donNovembe r 25 , 198 6 (5 1 F R42768) , a s amende db y th e additio n

1 1P.1 4

o f Metho d5 B a s a complianc e metho dfo r "wet " stack s alon g wit hMethod s 5

an d1 7 fo r "dry " stacks . Metho d5 B wa s promulgate do nNovember 26 , 198 6 (5 1 FR42839) . D . Reportin g Requirement s Th e reportin g requirement s remai nessentiall y th e sam e a s thos e proposed , wit hon e exception . Becaus e th e Appendi xF qualit y assuranc e requirement s fo r CEM S hav e bee npromulgated , quarterl y report s require d unde r Appendi xF ar e now require dt o b e submitte da s par t o f th e quarterl y report s submitte dunde r thi s regulatio nwher e CEM S ar e used . III . SUMMARYO F IMPACT S FROM TH E PROMULGATE D STANDARD S Th e projecte dimpact s associate dwit hth e fina l standard s recommende d fo r promulgatio nar e summarize di nTable s 1 an d2 . Tabl e 1 summarize s nationa l Impact s andTabl e 2 summarize s impact s ontypica l steam generatin g units . NOT E T O GP O TYPESETTER : Pleas e pu t thes e table s 1 ntwo column s immediatel y

followin g th e precedin g lin e o f text .

TABL E 1 . NATIONAL IMPACT S

AI REMISSION

REDUCTION S Sulfu r Dioxide , thousan dtons/y r Particulat e Matter , thousan dtons/y r LIQUI D & SOLI D WASTE S GENERATE D Liqui dWastes , millio ncubi c ft/y r Soli dWastes , thousan dtons/y r ENERG YIMPACT S Increas e inNatura l Ga s Use , trillio nBtu/y r COS T IMPACT S Tota l Annualize dCost , millio n$/y r Averag e Cos t Effectiveness , $/ton Incrementa l Cos t Effectiveness , $/ton JFQAM . 130-36 0 9-2 4 negligibl e negligibl e 110-31 0 5-5 0 40-13 0 0 SALE S DAT A

14 0 3 5 3 27 0 0 12 0 89 0 140 0

1 2P.1 5



### 86 0 75 0 190 0 

### 920

120 0 120 0 TABL E 2 . TYPICA L STEA M GENERATINGUNI T IMPACT S

Small a Larg e AI REMISSIO N

REDUCTION S Sulfu r Dioxide , tons/y r 120 0 78 0 Particulat e Matter , tons/y r 5 4 0 LIQUI D & SOLI D WASTE S GENERATE D Liqui dWastes , millio ncubi c ft/y r 1. 3 Soli dWastes , thousandtons/y r -- 2. 7 COS T IMPACT S Tota l Annualize dCost , thousan dS/yr Averag e Cos t Effectiveness , $/to n Incrementa l Cos t Effectiveness , $/ton

a Base don15 0 millio nBtu/h r oil-fire dstea m generatin g uni t firin g a low

sulfu r oil , operatin g a t 5 5 percen t annua l capacit y factor , an

dusin g a sodiu

m FG D system

t o reduc e SO * emissions , compare dt o a uni t subjec t t o SO * emissio nlimit s unde r a typica l Stat e implementatio nplan . Base dona 40 0 millio nBtu/h r coal-fire dstea m generatin g uni t firin g mediu

m sulfu r coal , operatin g a 6 0 percen t annua l capacit y factor , an

dusin g lime spra y

dryin g FGD , compare dt o a uni t subjec t t o Subpar t D . Projectednationa l impact s associate dwit hth e standard s ca nvar y considerabl y

dependin g onth e approac huse dt o estimat e thes e Impacts . Th e approac huse db

y th e Agenc y

start s wit hestimate s o f th e growt hinnationa l energ y consumptio nprojectedb y th e Departmen t o f Energy . Thes e projection s
ar e use dt o estimat e energ y consumptio ninne w

industrial-commercia l - institutiona l steam

generatin g units . Thes e energ y consumptio nestimates , alon g wit hprojection s o f futur e fue l prices , serv e a s input s t o a compute r mode l know

na s th e "Industria l Fue l Choic e Analysi s Model " (i.e. , IFCAM) . Base do nthes e inpu t assumptions , IFCA M project s a populatio no f ne w stea m generatin g unit s distribute db y geographi c area , uni t size , an d operatin g leve l base donhistorica l patterns . Fo r eac hprojectedne w stea m

1 3P.1 6

generatin g unit , th e tota l cos t associate dwit heac htyp e o f fue l tha t coul d be fired , includin g th e cost s t o compl y wit hstandard s limitin g SO * emissions , i s calculate dan dth e lowes t cos t alternativ e i s selecte dfo r compliance . Th e result s ar e the naggregate dt o yiel destimate s o f nationa l impact s associate dwit hstandard s limitin g S0 2 emissions . Usin g thi s approach , "fue l switching " fro m coa l o r oi l t o natura l ga s ca n
occu r i nrespons e t o standard s limitin g SO * emissions . Fo r example , i nth e absenc e o f SO * standards , i t ma y b e les s expensiv e t o combus t coa l o r oi l tha nnatura l gas . Wit hSO * standards , however , i t ma y b e les s expensiv e t o combus t natura l ga s tha ncoa l o r oil . Whe nfue l switchin g occurs , i t result s i nlowe r cost s an dgreate r SO * emissio nreductions . Th e typ e o f fue l projecte db y IFCA M t o b e fire d1 neac hne w stea m generatin g uni t a s wel l a s th e likelihoo do f fue l switchin g occurrin g in respons e t o standards , depend s primaril y o nrelativ e fue l prices . Give nth e uncertaint y

inprojecte dfue l prices , a numbe r o f differen t fue l pric e scenario s wer e examined . Th e rang e o f nationa l Impact s associate dwit hthos e projection s o f fue l price s whic har e currentl y considere d"mos t likely " i s show nunde r th e "IFCAM " colum ninTabl e 1 . Impact s o f th e fina l standard s recommende dfo r promulgatio nontypica l stea m generatin g unit s ar e summarize di nTabl e 2 . Thes e impact s ignor e th e possibilit y

o f fue l switchin g an

dassume tha t a ne w

stea m generatin g uni t whic hwoul dfir e coa l o r oi l 1nth e absenc e o f standard s wil l continu e t o fir e
coa l o r oi l whe nface dwit hstandards , regardles s o f th e cost s involved . Th e actua l cos t impact s woul db e lowe r an demissio nreduction s highe r i f fue l switchin g ha dbee nassume dt o occur .

1 4P.1 7

A numbe r o f commenter s note dtha t th e approac huse db y th e Agenc y

t o estimat e nationa l impact s (i.e. , IFCAM ) probabl y underestimate dth e cost s an d overestimate dth e emissio nreduction s associate dwit hth e standards . Commenter s suggeste dtha t bot hth e amoun t o f fue l switchin g projecte dt o occu r
a s wel l a s th e numbe r o f new stea m generatin g unit s projecte dt o be buil t wer e excessive . T o respon dt o thes e concerns , analternativ e approac hwa s als o
use dt o estimat e nationa l impact s (show nunde r th e "SALE S DATA " colum ni n Tabl e 1) . Thi s alternat e approac hi s simila r t o tha t use dt o estimat e th e impact s
ontypica l stea

m generatin g units . I t use s annua l stea m generatin g uni t sale s statistic s gathere db

y th e America nBoile r Manufacturin g Associatio n(ABMA ) fo r th e pas t fiv e year s t o projec t a populatio no f new industrial-commercial institutiona l steam

generatin g unit s expecte dt o b e buil t i nth e nex t fiv e years . Th e cost s an

demissio nreduction s associate dwit hth e recommende d standard s ar e estimate dfo r eac hnew coal - o r oil-fire dstea m generatin g uni t
an dn o fue l switchin g i s assume dt o occu r i nrespons e t o standard s limitin g SO - emissions . Th e result s ar e the naggregate dt o yiel danalternativ e estimat e o f nationa l impacts . A s show ninTable s 1 an

d2 , th e fina l standard s resul t insignifican t reduction s i nS0 2 emission s fro m ne w industrial-commercial-institutional stea m generatin g unit s onbot ha nationa l an danindividua l basis . Table s 1

an d2 show th e standard s could , however , resul t i nsome increas e i nliqui d

an dsoli dwaste . Th e amoun t o f liqui dan dsoli dwast e generate ddepend s on th e amoun t o f fue l switchin g tha t occurs . Whe nstea m generatin g unit s fue l switc hfro

m firin g coa l o r oi l t o firin g natura l gas , th e SO * standard s

1 5P
. 1 8

woul dno t resul t inan y wast e generatio nan

dth e standard s could , i nfact , resul t ina ne t decreas e inliqui do r soli dwastes . Whe nfue l switchin g doe s no t occur , th e liqui do r soli dwast e increas e depend s o nth e typ e o f FG D system

installe dt o contro l SO * emissions . Some system s generat e onl y liqui dwastes , other s generat e onl y soli dwastes . Impact s o nenerg y

consumptio nassociate dwit hth e recommende dstandard s als o depen do nth e exten t t o whic hfue l switchin g occurs . A t most , th e standard s woul dresul t inles s tha n5 percen t increas e inth e amoun t o f natura l ga s consume db y Industria l sources . Muc ho f thi s Increase dnatura l ga s consumption , however , woul db e balance db y a correspondin g decreas e i noi l consumption . Overall , therefore , th e fina l standard s ar e viewe da s havin g minima l energ y

impact s an

dar e considere dconsisten t wit hnationa l energ y policie s directe dtowar dreducin g import s o f oi l andIncreasin g us e o f domesti c energ y

supplies . I nadditio nt o th e nationa l an dtypica l stea

m generatin g uni t impact s summarize di nTable s 1 an d2 , Industr y

specifi c economi c Impact s wer e als o
assesse dfo r si xindustrie s whic hwer e considere dlikel y t o experienc e th e
mos t sever e impacts . Fo r thes e industries , produc t price s wer e projecte dt o increas e b

y les s tha n0.0 1 t o 1. 5 percen t 1 n1990 , assumin g "ful l cos t pass-through " o f al l increase dcost s associate dwit hstandard s requirin g a percen t reductio ni nSO * emission s a t al l stea m generatin g unit s firin g coa l

o r oil . Assumin g "ful l cos t absorption, " retur no nasset s wa s projecte dt o decreas e b

y 0.0 3 t o 2. 8 percentag e points .

1 6P.1 9

IV . PUBLI C PARTICIPATIO N Prio r t o proposa l o f th e standards, intereste dpartie s wer e advise do f

a meetin g o f th e Nationa l Ai r Pollutio nContro l Technique s Advisor y Committe e (NAPCTAC ) t o discus s th e standard s unde r development . Thi s meetin g wa s hel do

nMa y 1 an d2 , 1985 . Th e meetin g wa s ope nt o th e publi c
an deac hattende e wa s give nanopportunit y t o commen t onth e standards . Severa l presentation s t o NAPCTAC wer e als o mad e throughou t th e developmen t
o f th e propose dstandard s t o solici t th e view s o f committe e member s an d intereste dmember s o f th e public . Additiona l meeting s wer e hel dwit h affecte dindustrie s a t severa l time s durin g developmen t o f th e standards . Th e standard s wer e propose do nJun e 19 , 198 6 (5 1 F

R22384) . Th e preambl e t o th e propose dstandard s discusse dth e availabilit y o f th e backgroun dinformatio ndocuments , whic hconsiste do f nin e document s liste d i nth e preamble . These backgroun dinformatio ndocument s describe d1ndetai l th e regulator y

alternative s considere dan dth e impact s o f those alternatives . Publi c comment s wer e solicite da t th e tim e o f proposal , an d copie s o f th e backgroun dinformatio ndocument s wer e distributed . T o provid e intereste dperson s th e opportunit y fo r ora l presentatio no f data , views , o r argument s concernin g th e propose dstandards , a publi c hearin g wa s hel do nSeptembe r 4 , 1986 , a t Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort h Carolina . Th e hearin g wa s ope nt o th e publi c an deac hattende e wa s give na n opportunit y

t o commen t o nth e propose dstandards . Ninetee nintereste d partie s testifie da t th e publi c hearin g concernin g issue s relativ e t o th e propose dstandards . A transcrip t o f th e publi c hearin g wa s prepare dan d place dinDocke t A-83-27 .

1 7P.2 0

Th e publi c commen t perio dwa s fro m Jun e 19 , 1986 , t o Octobe r 2 , 1986 . A tota l o f 9 9 commen t letter s wer e receive dan dplace dinDocke t A-83-27 . Th e comment s hav e bee ncarefull y considere dand , wher e determine dt o b e appropriat e b

y th e Administrator , change s hav e bee nmad e i nth e propose d standards . V . SIGNIFICAN T COMMENT S AN D CHANGE S T O TH E PROPOSE D STANDARD S Comment s o nth e propose dstandard s wer e receive dfro m industry , trad e associations , Federa l agencies , Stat e agencies , a nenvironmenta l group , an d th e genera l public . A numbe r o f majo r issue s wer e raise d1nth e followin g
areas : Applicability , Basi s o f Standard , Standar dfo r SO- , Nationa l Impacts , Cost , Performance/Reliability o f Contro l Technology , Environmenta l Impacts , Emissio nCredits , an dEmergin g Technologies . Significan t comment s
ar e discusse dbelow . A summary o f al l comment s an

dresponse s whic har e no t discusse dbelow

ca nb e foundi nth e promulgatio nBID , whic hi s referre dt o i nth e ADDRESSE S sectio no f thi s preamble . Th e summary o f comment s an

d response s discusse dbelow , a s wel l a s inth e BID , serve s a s th e basi s fo r th e revision s tha t hav e bee nmad e t o th e standard s betwee nproposa l an d promulgation . A . Applicabilit y A numbe r o f commenter s fel t tha t stea m generatin g unit s operatin g a t lo w capacit y

utilizatio nrate s fo r oi l o r coa l shoul db e exempte dfro m th e S 0 2 standards . The y

indicate dtha t no t al l lo w capacit y

facto r stea

m generatin g unit s woul delec t t o us e natura l ga s an dsai dth e cos t t o compl y wit hth e standard s woul db e unreasonabl e fo r lo w capacit y

facto r unit s combustin g coa l o r oil , considerin g th e smal l amoun t o f S0 2 contro l

1 8P.2 1

obtained . Specifically , th e commenter s mentione dauxiliar y stea m generatin g unit s locate da t electri c utilit y powe r plant s whic har e use dt o star t u p mai nstea

m generatin g units , unit s tha t ar e operate dinfrequentl y t o provid e "backup " stea

m o r t o mee t seasona l demands , mixed-fuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s burnin g smal l amount s o f coa l o r oil , an dnonfossil-fuel fire dstea

m generatin g unit s tha t us e oi l o r coa l a s a backu pfue l durin g period s o f unavailabilit y o f th e nonfossi l fuel . Revie w an dreconsideratio no f th e initia l analysi s o f thi s issu e indicat e there ar e a numbe r o f site-specifi c factor s tha t th e previou s analysi s overlooke dwhic hca ncause plant s t o instal l low capacit y

facto r coal - o r oil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s rathe r tha n"fue l switch " t o natura l gas . Suc hfactor s includ e particularl y attractive loca l price s fo r these fuels , whic har e no t reflecte di nprojection s o f nationa l fue l prices , o r th e existenc e o f th e "infrastructure " fo r handlin g coa l o r oi l a t an existin g plan t (I.e. , coa l o r oi l handlin g an dstorag e facilitie s ar e already available) . Factor s suc ha s these coul dmak e th e installatio no f a ne w low capacit y facto r coal - o r oil-fire dstea m generatin g uni t mor e attractive tha nth e analysi s indicated . I nfact , suc hfactor s coul db e o f suc hsignificanc e tha t some stea

m generatin g uni t owner s o r operator s woul dno t fue l switc ht o natura l gas , despit e promulgatio no f standard s requirin g a percen t reductio n inemission s fro

m coal - an

doil-fire dstea

m generatin g units . Thes e low capacit y facto r coal - o r oil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s coul dexperienc e unreasonabl y

highcos t effectivenes s value s i f require dt o achiev e a percen t reductio ni nemissions .

1 9P.2 2

T o avoi dimposing emissio ncontro l requirement s tha t coul dresul t i n highcos t effectivenes s levels , th e fina l standard s provid e a nexemptio n fro m th e percen t reductio nrequiremen t fo r coal - an doil-fire dstea

m generatin g units , a s wel l a s mixed-fuel-fire dstea m generatin g units , whic h obtai n3 0 percen t o r les s o f thei r rate dannua l hea t inpu t capacit y fro m th e combustio no f oi l an

dcoal , provide dth e owne r o r operato r o r th e sourc e ha s obtaine da Federall y

enforceabl e permi t limitin g th e annua l capacit y facto r
o f th e uni t fo r coa l an doi l t o 3 0 percen t o r less . I f a decisio ni s subsequentl y

mad e t o operat e th e stea m generatin g uni t a t highe r loads , complianc e wit hth e percen t reductio nrequiremen t woul db e necessary . Thes e "lo

w capacit y

factor " stea

m generatin g unit s would , however , b e require dt o mee t certai nemissio nlimits . Emission s o f SO - fro m steam generatin g unit s operatin g a t coa l an doi l annua l capacit y

factor s o f 3 0 percen t o r les s woul dbe limite dt o 52 0 ng/ J (1. 2 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t inpu t i f coa l i s fire dan

d13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 lb/mill1o nBtu ) If'oi l 1 s fired . Continuou s emissio nmonitorin g (o r fue l samplin g an danalysis) , continuou s complianc e provisions , an dquarterl y

reportin g ar e require dfo r al l units , includin g thes e "lo

w capacit y

factor " units . Othe r commenter s requeste dtha t a nexemptio nfro

m th e percen t reductio n requiremen t b e grante dfo r stea m generatin g unit s burnin g anthracit e coa l o r anthracit e minin g wast e (culm) , a s wa s don e inSubpar t D a fo r electri c utilit y stea m generatin g units . Some als o state dtha t othe r coa l minin g an d washin g waste s shoul db e include di nthi s exemption . Th e exemptio nfro

m th e percen t reductio nrequiremen t grante dfo r anthracit e i nSubpar t D a wa s provide dt o encourag e reclamatio no f abandone d

2 0P.2 3

anthracit e mine s durin g new anthracit e mining , resultin g i nenvironmenta l benefit s suc ha s improvemen t o f min e drainag e acid-wate r conditions , eliminatio no f ol dminin g scar s o nth e topography , an

deradicatio no f dangerou s fire s indee pmine s an dcul m banks . Th e exemptio nfro m th e percen t reductio nrequiremen t provide dfo r anthracit e unde r Subpar t D a wa s t o creat e a specia l loca l utilit y marke t fo r thi s fuel , an dth e environmenta l benefit s associate dwit hutility-scal e reclamatio nwer e judge dt o outweig henvironmenta l impact s fro m burnin g anthracit e withou t a post-combustio nSO - contro l system . Th e smalle r coa l deman di nth e industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g uni t marke t i s unlikel y t o resul t i nutility-scal e min e reclamatio neve ni f anexemptio nfro m th e percen t reductio nrequiremen t wer e grante dfo r anthracite . Therefore , n o specia l provision s fo r anthracit e hav e bee ninclude dinth e fina l standards . A differen t situatio nexists , however , wit hth e firin g o f anthracit e minin g wast e an

dothe r coa l minin g an dwashin g waste s (collectivel y referre d t o a s coa l refuse) . Thes e waste s rais e concern s simila r t o thos e addresse d i nth e Subpar t D a exemptio nfo r anthracite . Thes e wast e pile s ar e no t onl y unsightly , bu t the y

ar e responsibl e fo r aci ddrainag e problem s an dca nals o lea dt o fire s fro

m spontaneou s combustion . Therefore , i t i s importan t t o encourag e th e us e o f thes e waste s a s fuel s insteam generatin g unit s (specificall y

fluidize dbe dcombustio n[FBC ] stea m generatin g units ) t o eliminat e a potentia l environmenta l hazard . Consequently , a les s stringen t requiremen t o f 8 0 percen t reductio ncombine dwit ha nemissio nlimi t o f 52 0 ng/ J (1. 2 lb/millio nBtu ) ha s bee nprovide dfo r FB C stea m generatin g unit s

2 1P2 4

whic hfir e coa l refuse . Thi s actio nbalance s th e nee dt o minimiz e ai r pollutio nfro

m combustio no f thes e waste s agains t th e environmenta l benefit s resultin g fro

m eliminatin g coa l refus e piles . On e commente r sai dth e fina l standard s shoul dinclud e a nexemptio nfro

m th e percen t reductio nrequiremen t fo r stea m generatin g unit s locate di n noncontinenta l areas , a s wa s don e i nSubpar t Da . Th e commente r sai dthat , du e t o a lac k o f flexibilit y i nfue l choic e an

dth e necessit y

o f importin g th e reagen t material s necessar y fo r flu e ga s desulfurizatio n(FGD ) system operation , th e cost s associate dwit hachievin g a percen t reductio ni n emission s coul db e exorbitant . Facilitie s innoncontinenta l area s (Hawaii , th e Virgi nIslands , Guam , America nSamoa , Puert o Rico , an dth e Norther nMarian a Islands ) constitut e a subcategor y

subjec t t o uniqu e environmenta l an deconomi c constraint s in complyin g wit hthi s NSPS . Becaus e o f a lac k o f natura l ga s supplies , "fue l switching " t o natura l ga s i s no t feasible . Inaddition , th e cos t o f importin g FG D reagen t an dothe r material s t o noncontinenta l area s woul dmak e th e cost s associate dwit hachievin g a percen t reductio ninemission s muc h highe r tha nonth e continenta l mainland . I nligh t o f thes e considerations , a nexemptio nfro

m th e percen t reductio nrequiremen t ha s bee nprovide dfo r stea m generatin g unit s locate d innoncontinenta l areas , regardles s o f th e capacit y facto r o f th e unit . Suc hfacilitie s are , however , require dt o mee t th e SO * emissio nlimitation s discusse dabov e fo r unit s operatin g a t low capacit y

factor s fo r coa l o r oil . Thes e emissio nlimits , a s wel l a s th e fac t tha t thes e facilitie s wil l b e reviewe dt o ensur e complianc e wit hlimitation s establishe dunde r th e

2 2P.2 5

preventio no f significan t deterioratio n(PSD ) program , wil l minimiz e th e impac t o f thes e facilitie s o nambien t ai r quality . B . Basi s o f Standar d
A numbe r o f commenter s questione d th e lega l basi s fo r establishin g a percen t reductio nrequiremen t a s th e basi s o f th e standard . The y sai d th e percen t reductio nprovisio ninSectio n11 1 o f th e Clea nA1 r Ac t wa s intende d
t o appl y t o utilit y

stea m generatin g unit s only , an d 1 s no t appropriat e fo r industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g units . Th e percentag e reductio nrequiremen t wa s enacte d b y th e 197 7 Amendment s t o th e Act . Sectio n111(a)(1 ) define s th e term "standar d o f performance " a s fol1ows : "(A ) wit hrespec t t o an y ai r pollutan t emitte d fro m a categor y

o f fossi l fue l fire d stationar y sources.. . a standar d - (i ) establishin g allowabl e emissio nlimitation s fo r suc hcategor y o f

sources , an

d (11 ) requirin g th e achievemen t o f a percentag e reductio ni nth e emission s fro

m suc hcategor y

o f source s fro

m th e emission s whic hwoul d hav e resulte d fro

m th e us e o f fuel s whic har e no t subjec t t o treatmen t prio r t o combustion. " Althoug hth e discussio no f th e percentag e reductio nrequiremen t i nth e legislativ e histor y

sometime s refer s t o particula r type s o f fossil-fuel fire d sources , th e term "boilers " i s use d generall y an d i s no t limite d t o utilit y stea m generatin g units . Th e legislativ e histor y specificall y mention s "industria l sources " an d "mines , processin g plants , an d factories, "

an d indicate s tha t th e Agenc y ha s th e authorit y

t o includ e a percentag e



### 2 3reductio nrequiremen t ina nNSP S fo r fossil-fuel-fire d source s [S . Rep . No . 564 , 95t hCong. , 1s t Sess . 13 0 (1977) ; H . R . Rep . No . 294 , 95t hCong. , 1s t Sess . 18 8 (1977 ) a t 188-192 ; Accord . Sierr a Clu bv . Ruckelshaus . Civi l Actio nNo . 84-032 5 (D.D.C . Sept . 4 , 1985) , a t 5] . Some commenter s asserte dtha t th e Agenc y conclude dafte r promulgatio n
o f th e utilit y

stea m generatin g uni t NSP S tha t ther e wa s n o obligatio nt o revis e th e existin g larg e Industria l stea m generatin g uni t NSP S (Subpar t D ) t o includ e a percen t reductio nrequirement . Th e commenter s referre dt o a brie f file db

y th e Agenc y

inSierr a Clu bv . Ruckelshau s i n1984 . Th e issu e inSierr a Clu bwa s th e scop e o f th e nondiscretionar y dutie s unde r Sectio n111(b)(6) . Th e Agenc y di dno t expres s an

y view i ntha t cas e abou t th e applicatio no f percentag e reductio nrequirement s unde r Sectio n 111(a)(1 ) t o industrial-commercial-Institutiona l stea m generatin g units , bu t simpl y argue dtha t Sectio n111(b)(6 ) di d no t impos e a nondiscretionar y dut y t o promulgat e revise dNSP S fo r thes e stea m generatin g units . Similarly , th e utilit y stea m generatin g uni t NSP S rulemakin g cite dintha t brie f di dno t analyz e th e applicabilit y o f th e percentag e reductio nrequiremen t t o non-utilit y

stea m generatin g unit s [4 4 FR3358 0 (Jun e 11 , 1979) ; 4 3 FR4215 4 (Sept . 19 , 1978)] . Othe r commenter s sai d tha t Sectio n11 1 give s th e Agenc y th e flexibilit y t o foreg o a percentag e reductio nwher e ther e 1 s no demonstrate dnee dfo r it , o r wher e th e cost s ar e to o hig hcompare dt o th e benefits , o r wher e a percen t reductio nwoul dcreat e mor e problem s tha n1 t solves . Severa l commenter s sai dtha t anemissio nlimi t only , rathe r tha na percen t reductio n

2 4P.2 7

requirement , shoul dbe establishe dan dsource s shoul dbe allowe dt o achiev e tha t limi t b

y whateve r mean s i s appropriat e fo r eac hsource . Sectio n11 1 doe s provid e th e flexibilit y t o foreg o th e percentag e reductio nrequiremen t i f th e impact s associate dwit hi t woul db e unreasonable . However , a s discusse dthroughou t thi s rulemaking , a thoroug h analysi s o f th e economic , environmental , an denerg y impact s associate dwit h th e standar dwa s conducted , an dn o unreasonabl e impact s wer e identifie dfo r th e fina l standards . Therefore , th e fina l standar dpromulgate dunde r Sectio n11 1 i s considere dreasonable . Th e percen t reductio nrequiremen t doe s no t forc e a sourc e t o instal l

an y particula r technologica l system o f SO * emissio nreduction . I t 1 s simpl y
a performanc e standar dtha t 1 s base do nth e performanc e capabilitie s o f th e "bes t demonstrate dtechnology. " Source s ar e fre e t o us e an y technologica l system tha t i s abl e t o achiev e emissio nreduction s equa l t o o r greate r tha n tha t achievabl e b

y th e "bes t demonstrate dtechnology. " 

## c . standar dfo r Sulfu r Dioxid e Some commenter s expresse dconcer ntha t a 9 0 percen t reductio n requiremen t wa s to o stringen t t o allow flexibilit y

i nselectio no f S0 - contro l technology . The y fel t tha t a lowe r percen t reductio nrequiremen t woul dallow

th e us e o f les s expensiv e technologies , achiev e comparabl e S0 2 control , an

dfoste r increase dcoa l us e i nth e future . Th e issu e o f regulator y complianc e flexibilit y o f a 9 0 percen t reductio nrequiremen t compare dt o lowe r percen t reductio nrequirement s wa s carefull y

evaluated . Whil e i t i s tru e tha t lowe r percen t reductio n requirement s woul dallow th e us e o f a greate r numbe r o f S0 2 contro l

2 5P.2 8

technologies , thi s alternativ e mus t b e evaluate di nrelatio nt o th e requirement s o f Sectio n11 1 o f th e Clea nAi r Act . Sectio n11 1 require s th e NSP S t o b e establishe da t th e leve l achievabl e b y th e bes t demonstrate d technolog y

fo r whic hno unreasonabl e cost , environmental , o r energ y impact s hav e bee nidentified . Thi s "bes t demonstrate dtechnology " i s flu e ga s desulfurizatio nan

dfluidize dbe dcombustion , bot ho f whic hhav e demonstrate d9 0 percen t reduction s i nSO * emissions . Inaddition , th e impact s associate dwit hachievin g a 9 0 percen t reductio na s require db y th e fina l standar dar e considere dreasonable . Thus , th e fina l standard s requir e
a 9 0 percen t reductio ninSO * emission s fro m coa l an doil , excep t wher e unreasonabl e impact s woul doccur . I nthes e cases , percen t reductio ni s no t required , bu t a

nemissio nlimi t base donus e o f low sulfu r complianc e fue l i s applicable . T o provid e som

e flexibilit y

an dt o encourag e th e developmen t o f alternativ e SO * contro l technologies , a percen t reductio nrequiremen t o f 5 0 percen t ha s bee nestablishe dfo r emergin g technologies . Thi s provisio n
wa s discusse di nth e preambl e t o th e propose dstandard s an di s retaine din th e fina l standard s an d1 s discusse di nmor e detai l below . Severa l commenter s sai dth e requirement s i nth e Subpar t D a electri c utilit y NSP S shoul db e th e mos t stringen t scenari o considere dfo r industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g units . The y sai dther e i s n o reaso nIndustrial-commercial-Institutiona l unit s shoul db e regulate d

mor e stringentl y

tha nutilit y

units . Direc t compariso no f th e standar dfo r industrial-commercia l - institutiona l stea

m generatin g unit s wit hth e utilit y standar dpromulgate d

2 6P.2 9

i n197 9 i s inappropriat e fo r severa l reasons . First , th e Subpar t D a standar dwa s adopte dalmos t 1 0 year s ag o and , therefore , doe s no t necessaril y

reflec t curren t technologica l capabilitie s o r regulator y considerations . Second , th e desig nan

doperatin g characteristic s o f utilit y stea m generatin g unit s an

demissio ncontro l system s ar e differen t fro m industrial-commercial-institutiona l units . Utilit y stea m generatin g unit s
ar e generall y

muc hlarger . A

typica l 50 0 M

W electri c utilit y

uni t woul d hav e a hea t inpu t capacit y o f abou t 1,45 0 M

W (5,00 0 millio nBtu/hour) . Thi s compare s t o 4 4 M

W (15 0 millio nBtu/hour ) fo r a typica l industrial commercia l -institutiona l unit , a 30-fol ddifferenc e i nsize . Becaus e o f thei r larg e size , utilit y stea m generatin g unit s an

dFG D system s ar e fiel d erecte dan

dar e usuall y

custom designe dfo r a specifi c site . Long-term fue l purchas e contract s fo r u pt o 2 0 year s ar e common . A s a result , utilit y stea m generatin g unit s an

dFG D system s ca nb e designe dt o optimiz e site - an d fuel-specifi c factors . Also , t o handl e th e larg e quantitie s o f flu e ga s generated , utilit y

FG D system s typicall y consis t o f multipl e paralle l FG D module s (typicall y

4 o r 5 modules) , wit heac hcapabl e o f handlin g par t o f th e tota l flu e gas . T o ensur e operatin g reliabilit y o f th e tota l FG D system , anadditiona l FG D modul e i s frequentl y installe da s a spar e o r backu pmodul e t o b e availabl e durin g period s o f FG D malfunctio no r fo r rotatio ndurin g preventiv e maintenanc e an dservicin g o f othe r FG D modules . I ncontrast , industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s
an dFG D system s ar e likel y t o b e shop-assemble dbase do nstandar ddesign s
an dhav e th e abilit y

t o handl e a wide r rang e o f fuel s tha ntypica l utilit y

2 7stea

m generatin g units . Also , long-ter m fue l suppl y

contract s specifyin g deliver y o f a fue l o f well-define dqualit y ar e les s commo ntha ninutilit y applications . Becaus e o f thei r smalle r size , switchin g t o natura l ga s o r lo w sulfu r oi l durin g FG D system malfunction s i s a viabl e alternativ e t o installin g a spar e FG D module . Third , a t th e time Subpar t D a wa s promulgated , lime/1Imeston e we t scrubbin g wa s th e predominan t FG D technolog y use db y utilities . Newe r technologies , suc ha s lime spra y dryin g FGD , wer e stil l i nth e earl y stage s
o f commercia l applicatio nan dconcern s existe dabou t th e abilit y o f thes e
newe r technologie s t o achiev e highSO * reductions o na reliabl e basis . Today , a numbe r o f demonstrate dFG D technologie s ar e availabl e fo r us e b y industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s includin g sodiu m scrubbing , 11me spra y

drying , an

ddua l alkal i FG D systems , a s wel l a s fluidize dbe dcombustion . Base donexperienc e gaine dwit hthes e technologie s durin g th e pas t decade , a s wel l a s variou s technica l advantage s
o f thes e technologie s ove r we t lime/limeston e FGD , industria l FG D system s
ar e expecte dt o b e mor e efficien t an dreliabl e tha nutilit y FG D system s wer e
a t th e time Subpar t D a wa s adopted . Becaus e o f th e man y

difference s betwee nIndustrial-commercial institutiona l andutilit y steam generatin g units , i t i s inappropriat e t o conclud e tha t th e standard s bein g adopte dtoda y mus t mimi c Subpar t Da . Som e commenter s sai dth e propose dSO * emissio nlimi t o f 8 6 ng/ J (0. 2 lb/millio nBtu ) fo r a noil-fire dstea m generatin g uni t withou t a nFG D system wa s unrealistic . The y sai dtha t oi l wit hthi s sulfu r conten t i s no t commerciall y

available , an

dsuggeste dsulfu r content s rangin g fro m 13 0 ng/ J

2 8P.3 1

(0. 3 lb/millio nBtu ) t o 26 0 ng/ J (0. 6 lb/millio nBtu ) a s lo w sulfu r oi l complianc e alternatives . Th e basi s fo r th e SO * emissio nlimi t o f 8 6 ng/ J (0. 2 lb/millio nBtu ) in th e proposa l wa s t o provid e a nalternativ e mean s o f demonstratin g complianc e wit hth e percen t reductio nrequirement . Th e sulfu r conten t o f thi s oi l wa s
s o lo w tha t i t appeare dreasonabl e t o assume tha t refinin g o f th e origina l crud e oi l ha dresulte dina 9 0 percen t reductio ni npotentia l SO * emissions . Thi s provision , therefore , wa s no t base dona nassessmen t o f th e availabilit y

o f suc hoils , bu t merel y anassessmen t o f how

low th e sulfu r conten t o f a

noi l woul dnee dt o b e i norde r t o reasonabl y ensur e tha t a 9 0 percen t reductio ni nit s sulfu r conten t ha dbee nachieved . A s a resul t o f thes e comments , th e basi s fo r thi s provisio nwa s reviewed . A

mor e detaile dassessmen t tha ntha t don e a t th e time o f proposa l

wa s undertake nt o determin e th e mean s b y whic hmos t ver y

low sulfu r oil s ar e produced . Thi s assessmen t conclude dtha t mos t ver y lo w sulfu r oils , eve n thos e a s lo

w a s 8 6 ng/ J (0. 2 l bSO*/millio nBtu) , ar e produce db y distillatio no f ver y

low sulfu r conten t crud e oils , an dtha t littl e o r n o desulfurizatio nma y

tak e place . Th e analysi s als o indicate dtha t mos t desulfurize doil s wer e no t sol da s ver y low sulfu r conten t fue l oils , bu t
wer e upgrade dt o gasolin e o r othe r highe r cos t products . A s a result , ther e i s n o particula r sulfu r conten t tha t ca nreasonabl y b e assume dt o b e th e resul t o f 9 0 percen t reductio nb y fue l pretreatmen t (i.e. , hydrodesulfurization) . Consequently , th e fina l standard s contai nn o provision s simila r t o thos e propose dtha t provid e analternativ e mean s o f demonstratin g complianc e wit hth e 9 0 percen t reductio nrequirement .

2 9However , th e fina l standard s d o exemp t certai nstea m generatin g unit s fro m th e percen t reductio nrequirement s wher e th e impact s associate dwit h th e percen t reductio nrequirement s ar e considere dunreasonabl e (e.g. , lo w capacit y facto r fossil-fuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s an

dmixed-fuel fire dstea

m generatin g units) . Thes e stea m generatin g units , however , ar e subjec t t o anS0 2 emissio nlimit , whic hi nth e cas e o f oil-fire dunit s i s 13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 l bS0 2 /mi11io nBtu) . Unlik e th e 8 6 ng/ J (0. 2 1b/mi1 1 io nBtu ) emissio nlimi t provide da t proposal , th e 13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 lb/millio nBtu ) emissio nlimi t fo r stea m generatin g unit s exemp t fro m th e percen t reductio nrequiremen t 1 s base do n
a nassessmen t o f th e emissions , costs , an davailabilit y

o f suc hoils . A s cite db y th e commenters , thi s assessmen t foundtha t th e lowes t sulfu r conten t specificatio nplace doncommerciall y availabl e oil s 1 s generall y 13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 lb/millio nBtu) . Oil s wit hsuc hlo w sulfu r contents , however , ar e widel y

available . I nsom

e areas , thes e oil s ma y b e residua l oil s an

di n othe r area s the y

ma y b e distillat e oils . I neithe r case , suc hoil s ar e availabl e an

dth e cost s associate dwit hthei r us e ar e considere dreasonabl e compare dt o highe r sulfu r conten t oils . Consequently , wher e lo w capacit y facto r oil-fire dsteam generatin g unit s ar e exemp t fro m th e percen t reductio nrequirement s i nth e fina l standards , the y ar e subjec t t o anSO * emissio nlimi t o f 13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 lb/mill1o nBtu) . I nreviewin g th e reasonablenes s o f applyin g percen t reductio n requirement s t o highe r capacit y oil-fire dstea

m generatin g units , reasonabl e impact s wer e note dfo r distillat e oil s an dmos t residua l oils . Unreasonabl e impact s wer e noted , however , fo r applyin g percen t reductio nrequirement s t o

3 0P.3 3

very low sulfu r conten t residua l oils . Thus , th e fina l standard s exemp t fro m percen t reductio nrequirement s stea m generatin g unit s firin g ver y low sulfu r conten t residua l oil s wit hSO * emissio nrate s les s tha n13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 lb/millio nBtu ) becaus e o f cos t effectivenes s considerations . Th e fina l standard s exemp t fro m percen t reductio nrequirement s duc t burner s use da s par t o f combined-cycl e systems . Thi s exemptio ni s include d becaus e o f cost-effectivenes s considerations , bu t i s actuall y a clarificatio no f th e exemptio nfro m percen t reductio nfo r mixed-fuel-fire d stea m generatin g unit s tha t hav e a nannua l coa l an

doi l capacit y

facto r o f les s tha n3 0 percent . Th e effec t o f exhaus t gase s supplie dt o th e duc t burne r fro

m upstream

processe s (e.g. , ga s turbine , interna l combustio n engines , kilns , etc. ) i s simila r t o th e firin g o f woo do r municipa l wast e wit hcoa l o r oi l ina mixed-fuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit . Th e cost-effectivenes s consideration s associate dwit hth e exemptio no f duc t burner s fro

m percen t reductio nrequirement s ar e th e same a s thos e fo r bot h mixed-fuel-fire dan

dfossil-fuel-fire dstea m generatin g unit s wit hlow
annua l coa l an

doi l capacit y

factors . D . Nationa l Impact s Severa l commenter s fel t tha t th e propose dstandard s conflic t wit ha nationa l energ y

polic y o f encouragin g th e us e o f domesti c coa l an dencourag e furthe r U.S . dependenc e o nunreliabl e foreig nenerg y supplies . On e commente r expresse dconcer nabou t an y regulatio ntha t discourage dcoa l use , unles s some assuranc e coul db e provide dtha t th e exodu s fro m coa l wil l no t be t o oil . Anothe r sai dtha t recen t nationa l energ y polic y recommendation s shoul db e considere di ndevelopin g these standards .

3 1Revise dfossi l fue l pric e scenario s indicat e that , wit hrecen t oi l an d ga s prices , th e cost s o f generatin g stea m fro m oi l an dnatura l ga s ar e competitiv e wit hthos e o f generatin g stea m fro m coal . Infact , base don economi c factor s alone , i t i s expecte dtha t natura l ga s and , t o som e extent, oi l wil l clai m

th e larges t shar e o f th e industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g uni t marke t eve ni nth e absenc e o f th e standards . Thus , th e curren t leve l o f oi l an dnatura l ga s price s wil l hav e muc hmor e impac t
o ncoa l us e inindustrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s tha nwil l th e fina l standards . Curren t nationa l energ y polic y a s reflecte di na-recen t repor t b y a senio r Federa l Interagenc y grou p("Energ

y Security-- A

Repor t t o th e Presiden t o f th e Unite dStates, " U.S . Departmen t o f Energy , Marc h1987 ) conclude s tha t th e primar y nationa l energ y

securit y

nee dI s t o limi t Import s
o f foreig noi l whil e encouragin g th e us e o f a versatil e mi xo f domesticall y produce dfuels , includin g bot hcoa l an dnatura l gas . Whil e th e standard s
ma y caus e a large r proportio no f ne w stea m generatin g unit s t o fir e natura l ga s tha nmigh t otherwis e d o so , muc ho f thi s "fue l switching " wil l b e fro m oi l t o ga s rathe r tha nfro m coa l t o oi l o r coa l t o gas . Althoug hsom e decreas e incoa l us e ma y result, th e fina l standard s trea t coa l an doi l in equivalen t fashion s andar e therefor e expecte dt o discourag e th e us e o f importe doil . A s a result, th e promulgate dstandard s ar e viewe da s consisten t wit hnationa l energ y policies . I nan y event , th e tota l amoun t o f fossi l fue l deman db y industrial commercial - institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s i s a ver y smal l percentag e
o f tota l U.S . demand , andan y change s inth e fue l mi xi nthi s secto r wil l

3 2P.3 5

no t caus e significan t change s inU.S . energy market s o r threate nU.S . energ y security . Fo r example , th e nationa l impact s analysi s assume s tha t sale s o f

ne w industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s ove r th e nex t 5 year s wil l resul t i ntota l annua l fossi l fue l consumptio no f 52 5 P J (50 0 trillio nBtu) . Thi s represent s les s tha n2 percen t o f th e tota l

curren t U.S . oi l marke t (abou t 32,50 0 P J o r 31,00 0 trillio nBt u pe r year) . A numbe r o f commenter s sai d th e fue l pric e scenario s use d t o evaluat e th e impact s o f th e propose dstandard s wer e out-of-date . On e commente r sai d tha t a greate r rang e o f energ y price s an

da spectru

m o f possibl e energy scenario s shoul db e considere dinevaluatin g th e possibl e energ y impact s o f th e standards . I naddition , thi s commente r suggeste d tha t anenerg y scenari o I nwhic hoi l an dga s price s Increas e substantially , leadin g t o massiv e fue l switchin g fro m oi l an d ga s t o coal , b e considered . A s a resul t o f changes 1 nfossi l fue l price s sinc e earl y 1986 , th e projecte denerg y

price s use d t o asses s th e Impact s associate d wit hth e propose d standard s wer e reviewed . Thi s revie w le d t o developmen t o f revise d projection s o f futur e energ y prices . Thes e revise d projection s reflec t
severa l different , bu t possible , energ y scenario s and , a s a result , lea d t o
a wid e rang e I nprojecte dprices . Tw o scenario s concernin g futur e worl d oi l prices , fo r example , wer e considered . Bot hreflec t curren t "low " worl d oi l prices , bu t on e scenari o assume s a gradua l increas e I nworl d oi l price s whil e th e othe r assume s a rapi d retur nt o "high " oi l prices . Simila r t o th e results o f th e analysi s unde r th e projectio no f futur e energ y price s considere dmos t likel y a t proposa l (i.e. , th e hig hoi l penetratio nscenario) , thes e revise d projection s o f futur e energ y price s

3 3le dth e Industria l Fue l Choic e Analysi s Mode l (IFCAM ) t o projec t tha t ne w stea m generatin g unit s wil l generall y fir e natura l ga s o r oil . Ver y little , i f any , coa l i s projecte dt o b e fire d inne w units . A nenerg y scenari o leadin g t o massiv e fue l switchin g fro m oi l an d natura l ga s t o coal , therefore , 1 s considere d Improbable . Althoug h improbable , suc ha scenari o wa s examine d a t proposa l (i.e. , th e highcoa l penetratio nscenario ) an d th e potentia l impact s o f standard s requirin g a percen t reductio ni nemission s unde r suc ha scenari o wer e considere d reasonable . Usin g thes e revise dprojection s o f futur e energ y prices , however , th e potentia l nationa l impact s associate d wit hth e fina l standard s wer e examine d("Revised Impact 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 d Boilers, " Februar y 1987) . Natura l ga s consumptio ni nne w stea m generatin g unit s 1 s projecte d b y IFCA M t o Increas e b

y abou t 120-33 0 PJ/y r (110-31 0 trillio nBtu/yr ) i n 1990 . Thi s represent s abou t 1. 5 t o 4. 5 percen t o f natura l ga s consumptio n b y al l industria l sources . Thi s projecte dIncreas e i nnatura l ga s consumption , however , i s projecte d t o b e accompanie db y a simila r decreas e innationa l oi l consumption . Coa l consumptio n1 s no t projecte dt o b e affecte dsinc e littl e coa l consumptio nb y new stea m generatin g unit s 1 s projecte dby

IFCA M eve nInth e absenc e o f anNSPS . Th e fina l standard s ar e als o projecte d t o reduc e nationa l SO * emission s b y 120,00 0 t o 320,00 0 Mg/y r (130,00 0 t o 360,00 0 tons/yr ) 1 n1990 . Th e correspondin g nationa l annualize d cost s ar e projecte d t o rang e fro m $ 5 t o 5 0 million , resultin g i na nationa l averag e cos t effectivenes s o f $45-150/M g

3 4P.3 7

_

($40-130/ton ) o f SO * reductio nan dth e nationa l incrementa l cos t effectivenes s associate dwit hth e fina l standard s compare dt o standard s base donth e us e o f lo w sulfu r fuel s i s projecte dt o b e negligible . A numbe r o f commenter s hav e questione dwhethe r fue l switchin g t o natura l ga s woul db e a s widesprea da s IFCA M projects . I

nrespons e t o thes e comments , th e nationa l impact s associate dwit hth e fina l standard s wer e examine dbase donhistori c stea m generatin g uni t sale s dat a an dth e assumptio ntha t fue l switchin g fro m oi l o r coa l t o natura l ga s woul dno t
occu r ("Estimationo f Nationa l Impact s Base do nStea m Generatin g Uni t Sale s Data, " 1987) . Usin g thi s approach , tota l nationa l annua l cost s associate d wit hth e fina l standar dar e projecte dt o b e $12 0 million . Nationwid e emission s o f S0 2 ar e projecte dt o decreas e b y 130,00 0 Mg/y r (140,00 0 tons/yr) , resultin g i na naverag e cos t effectivenes s o f $980/M g ($890/ton) . Th e nationa l incrementa l cos t effectivenes s o f th e fina l standard s relativ e t o standard s base do ncombustio no f low sulfu r fue l 1 s projecte dt o b e abou t $1,600/M g ($l,400/ton ) o f S0 2 » Th e us e o f revise dprojection s o f futur e energ y price s o r eve nth e us e
o f differen t approache s t o estimat e th e nationa l impact s o f th e fina l standards , therefore , doe s no t alte r th e conclusio ntha t th e fina l standard s
ar e appropriat e an

dreasonable . A numbe r o f commenter s questione dth e potentia l impac t o f standard s o n th e installatio no f new stea m generatin g unit s an

dth e replacemen t o f ol d stea m generatin g units . Some fel t tha t th e IFCA M analysi s overestimate dth e tota l steam

generatin g uni t populatio nbecaus e replacemen t stea m generatin g unit s wer e treate da s "new capacity. " Accordin g t o th e commenters , a s muc h

3 5P.3 8

a s 8 0 percen t o f new

unit s ar e installe da s replacement s fo r existin g units . Th e commenter s indicate dtha t stringen t standard s coul ddiscourag e thes e replacemen t projects , resultin g i na furthe r depressio no f th e already sluggis hindustrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g uni t marke t
an da ne t increas e i nSO - emission s compare dt o standard s base do n combustio no f lo

w sulfu r fuel . Th e numbe r o f new

stea m generatin g uni t Installation s use db y IFCA M t o estimat e nationa l impact s i s base do nprojection s o f growt hi nenerg y consumptio ndevelope db y th e Departmen t o f Energy . Th e projecte dnumbe r o f

new uni t Installation s usin g thi s approac h1 s abou t doubl e th e estimate s mad e b y othe r organizations , suc ha s th e America nBoile r Manufacturer s Associatio n(ABMA) . A s show nb y sale s statistics , annua l stea m generatin g uni t sale s hav e decrease dsinc e 197 0 du e t o lowe r growt hi nsteam-consumin g industrie s an

denerg y conservatio nefforts , bu t appea r t o hav e stabilize d sinc e 1980 . Thus , i t i s possibl e tha t emissio nreduction s a s wel l a s cost s attribute dt o th e propose dstandard s ma y b e overestimate dt o some extent . However , thi s doe s no t significantl y alte r th e overal l balanc e betwee nth e cost s an dbenefit s o f th e standard . Eve ni f fewe r new stea m generatin g unit s ar e buil t tha nprojected, th e SO * reduction s achieve db y th e standar d

ar e stil l considere dsignificant, bot hfro m Individua l unit s an

dfro m th e
sourc e categor y

a s a whole . Also , whil e stea m generatin g uni t sale s ar e lowe r tha ni n1970 , new unit s ar e bein g buil t an dwil l continu e t o b e buil t i nth e future . A s mor e an dmor e unit s ar e constructed , further SO * reduction s wil l b e achieve db y th e standard s bein g adopte dtoday . Th e cost , environmental , an

denerg y impact s o f th e fina l standard s therefor e ar e considere dreasonable , eve nassumin g lowe r populatio ngrowt hprojections .

3 6P.3 9

Inrespons e t o comment s concernin g th e proportio no f ne w stea m generatin g unit s tha t ar e replacement s fo r existin g stea m generatin g units , a surve y wa s conducte do f stea m generatin g unit s ordere dbetwee nJanuar y 198 1 an dSeptembe r 198 4 ("Surve y o f Ne w Industria l Boile r Project s - 1981-1984, " EPA-450/3-87-006 , Apri l 1987) . Response s wer e receive dfo r 16 8

new projects , encompassin g a tota l o f 22 9 ne w stea m generatin g units . O f these , 15 1 stea

m generatin g unit s wer e inth e regulate dsiz e categor y an d forme dth e basi s for th e analysi s discusse dbelow . Compariso nwit hstea m generatin g uni t sale s dat a collecte db y ABM A Indicate d tha t thes e unit s represen t almos t al l o f th e industria l stea m generatin g unit s I nthi s siz e categor y sol dbetwee n198 1 an

d1984 . Th e surve y

indicate dtha t abou t 5 0 percen t o f ne w

stea m generatin g units , rathe r tha n8 0 percen t a s suggeste d b y th e commenters , wer e fo r replacemen t o f existin g stea m generatin g units . Assumin g tha t recen t decline s i nth e pric e o f oi l an dnatura l ga s resul t in
a curtailmen t o f new

stea m generatin g unit s installe dfo r th e purpos e o f switchin g fro

m oi l o r ga s t o coal , th e percentag e o f new stea m generatin g unit s sol da s replacement s fo r existin g unit s wil l b e eve nlowe r tha n indicate dby

th e survey . Man y commenter s note dtha t withou t anoptio nt o us e low sulfu r fuel , operatin g cost s fo r ne w stea m generatin g unit s wil l increas e sufficientl y t o discourag e thei r installation , thu s inhibitin g th e replacemen t o f existin g unit s firin g hig hsulfu r fuel s an ddelayin g th e reduction s I nSO * emission s associate dwit hthi s replacemen t process . Ne w stea m generatin g uni t purchase s ca nb e divide dint o tw o categories : discretionary , meanin g th e purchas e coul db e deferre di f economics , environmenta l requirements , o r othe r factor s changed ; an dnondiscretionary ,
3 7P.4 0

meanin g a new

uni t mus t b e installed . Th e abov e surve y indicate d tha t discretionar y

installation s accounte d fo r abou t hal f o f th e ne w stea m generatin g uni t project s surveyed . However , th e surve y found tha t many

o f thes e discretionar y

installation s wer e relativel y insensitiv e t o cos t changes . Nearl y

three-fourth s o f al l project s woul d hav e proceede d a s designe di f cost s increase d b y up t o 2 0 percent . Inalmos t al l cases , th e percen t reductio nrequiremen t woul d increas e cost s b y les s tha nthi s amount . Therefore , whil e som

e project s coul db e affecte dby th e NSPS , mos t o f th e
ne w steam generatin g uni t installation s woul d remai nviable , and ar e no t expecte dt o b e discourage d o r delaye d b y th e fina l NSPS . Inrespons e t o comment s suggestin g anNSP S migh t actuall y resul t i n delayin g emissio nreduction s du e t o a slowdow ni nne w steam generatin g uni t installations , dat a fro m th e boile r replacemen t surve y mentione d abov e wer e
use d t o examin e th e chang e i noveral l SO - emission s fro m plant s Installin g
new industria l stea

m generatin g units . Analysi s o f SO * emission s befor e an d afte r Installatio no f th e ne w stea m generatin g unit s found that , althoug h th e ne w coal - andoil-fire dsteam generatin g unit s generall y emitte dles s SO * pe r millio nBt uo f fue l fire dtha nth e existin g (replaced ) stea m generatin g units , th e tota l annua l emission s (i.e. , tons/year ) emitte d b y plant s t o installin g ne w stea m generatin g unit s increase d by roughl y 7 0 percent . Thi s Increas e result s fro m (1 ) installatio no f ne w stea m generatin g capacit y

tha t i s no t replacin g existin g units , (2 ) replacemen t o f existin g unit s wit hne w unit s tha t ar e significantl y larger , (3 ) fue l switche s fro

m natura l ga s an

doi l t o coal , an

d(4 ) continue d operatio no f th e existin g stea

m generatin g unit s whic hwer e "replaced " by ne w units .

3 8P.4 1

A larg e portio no f th e emission s increas e wa s du e t o stea m generatin g unit s installe deithe r t o switc hbas e fue l (usuall y fro m ga s o r oi l t o coal )

o r t o cogenerat e electricity . Becaus e thes e type s o f project s ar e mor e sensitiv e t o cos t considerations , calculation s wer e als o mad e excludin g these type s o f projects . Eve nwithou t these significan t source s o f SO * emissions , tota l emission s a t plant s installin g new stea m generatin g unit s increase db

y roughl y 2 0 percen t afte r installatio no f new projects . Thes e result s indicat e tha t installatio no f new stea m generatin g unit s di dno t resul t i nan

y "natural " decreas e i noveral l S0 2 emissions . Base do nfurthe r analysi s o f th e surve y data , however , applyin g a 9 0 percen t reductio n standar dt o th e new

stea m generatin g unit s (assumin g th e standar ddi dno t affec t th e fue l choic e an ddesig no f th e projects ) woul dhav e resulte di nan estimate dne t reductio ninSO - emission s fro m thes e plant s o f 2 5 t o 3 0 percent . Othe r commenter s sai dthat , b y includin g replacemen t unit s inth e analyse s o f ne w

stea m generatin g units , th e proposa l overestimate dth e actua l emissio nreduction s attributabl e t o th e standards . Emission s fro

m al l ne w stea m generatin g unit s (includin g thos e tha t replace dexistin g stea m generatin g units ) wer e correctl y include da s "new " capacit y emission s i nth e Impact s analyses . Th e SO * emissio nreductio n attribute dt o th e NSP S i s th e reductio ni nemission s fro m ne w stea m generatin g unit s unde r th e fina l standard s compare dt o baselin e emission s tha t woul doccu r fro

m th e same unit s i

nth e absenc e o f th e NSPS . Becaus e SO - emission s fro

m ne w industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s ca nb e reduce da t reasonabl e cost, , regardles s o f whethe r the y ar e replacemen t o r new

capacity , the y

ar e covere db

y th e fina l standards .
3 9P.4 2

E . Cos t o f th e Standar d Severa l commenter s fel t tha t th e cos t analyse s associate dwit hth e propose dstandard s wer e deficien t o r inaccurate . Commenter s specificall y mentione dtha t actua l data , rathe r tha nestimates , shoul dhav e bee nuse dfo r capita l cos t calculations , an dtha t ignorin g economie s o f scal e resulte di n th e capita l cost s bein g greatl y underestimated . Othe r commenter s state d tha t th e cos t estimate s di dno t adequatel y conside r cost s associate dwit h sludg e disposal , th e nee dfo r backu pSO - contro l durin g contro l system malfunction , coa l transportation , o r manufacturers * profi t margins . Th e cos t estimate s use dt o asses s th e impact s o f variou s alternative s
wer e generate dfro

m cos t algorithm s develope dfro m dat a o nindustria l stea m generatin g unit s supplie db y vendors . Th e validit y o f th e cos t algorithm s
wa s examine db

y compariso nwit hcost s associate dwit hactua l installations . Th e agreemen t betwee nthes e algorithm s an dactua l installation s wa s foundt o b e ver y goo dan dwa s wel l withi nth e genera l criteri a o f + 3 0 percen t fo r a n individua l uni t whic hi s normall y associate dwit h"budge t cost " estimates . Validit y o f th e cost s use di nth e cos t analyse s wa s als o confirme db y statement s fro

m severa l commenters , includin g some industr y trad e associations . Thi s doe s no t mea ntha t th e cos t estimate s generate db y th e
cos t algorithm s wil l agre e 1 nevery cas e wit hactua l Installe dcosts . Uniqu e desig nrequirement s relate dt o site-specifi c factor s ma y wel l caus e actua l cost s t o b e highe r o r lowe r tha nthos e generate db y th e cos t algorithm s use d1 nth e cos t analyses . Th e cost s generate db y th e cos t algorithms , however , ar e considere drepresentativ e o f th e cost s associate d wit hinstallatio nan

doperatio no f stea

m generatin g unit s an

demissio n contro l system s an

dar e appropriat e fo r estimatin g tota l costs .

4 0P.4 3

Th e cos t analyse s examine d th e cost s associate d wit hvariou s emissio n contro l requirement s fo r stea m generatin g unit s a s smal l a s 2 9 M W (10 0 millio nBtu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacit y an d a s larg e a s 11 7 M

W (40 0 millio n Btu/hour ) hea t inpu t capacity . Cost s wer e als o assesse d fo r unit s o f 44 , 58 , an d 7 3 M W (150 , 20 0 an

d 25 0 millio nBtu/hour) . Th e effect s o f "economie s o f scale, " therefore , wer e considere d i nthes e cos t analyses . Sludg e disposa l cost s wer e include d i nth e cos t analyses . Th e cost s reflec t th e typica l cost s associate d wit hoff-sit e lan d disposa l o f sludge s fro m emissio ncontro l systems . Thes e cost s wer e base d onInformatio n provide d b

y stea m generatin g uni t vendor s an d operators , an

d ar e considere d representativ e o f sludg e disposa l cost s ingeneral . The y may , however , b e lowe r o r highe r tha nactua l cost s experience d a t specifi c location s wher e uniqu e o r site-specifi c requirement s ma y apply . Th e cos t analyse s assumed , base d o noperatin g dat a fro m a numbe r o f FG D system s o nindustria l stea m generatin g units , tha t FG D system s ar e capabl e o f 9 5 percen t reliabilit y wit hprope r design , operation , an d maintenance . Th e cos t analyses , therefore , considere d contro l system reliabilit y

an d examine d variou s approache s t o reducin g emission s durin g period s o f contro l system malfunction s o r servicing . Thes e approache s include d bot hth e us e o f spar e absorbe r module s an d th e firin g o f backu p fuel s suc ha s natura l gas . Th e assessmen t conclude d tha t th e cost s associate d wit hth e us e o f spar e absorbe r module s o r th e firin g o f ver y low sulfu r fuel s wer e o f th e same orde r o f magnitude . Thus , eithe r approac h coul d b e use d i nth e cos t analyse s t o represen t th e additiona l cost s o f reducin g emission s durin g period s o f emissio ncontro l system malfunction .



### 4 1P.4 4

Fo r convenienc e an

deas e o f calculation , th e cos t analyse s assume dth e firin g o f natura l gas . Th e capita l an dannualize dcost s o f spar e equipmen t t o fir e natura l gas , suc ha s valves , controls , etc. , wer e als o adde dt o th e contro l costs . Consequently , th e cos t analyse s considere dth e increase d cost s necessar y

t o addres s reliabilit y problems . Th e coa l price s use di nth e cos t analyse s wer e als o develope d specificall y

fo r industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g units . Th e coa l transportatio ncost s assume dsingl e coa l ca r rate s t o reflec t th e lac k o f volum e discount s obtainabl e b y utilitie s whic hus e muc hgreate r quantitie s o f fuel . Thus , th e cost s associate dwit hth e fina l standard s wer e develope d specificall y

fo r industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g units , an dthes e cost s wer e carefull y considere d1ndevelopin g th e fina l standards . On e commente r sai dth e highemission s baseline s use di nth e cos t analysi s resulte dinunderestimatin g th e cos t effectivenes s o f th e standard . Th e baselin e use dinth e nationa l impact s analysi s reflect s existin g Stat e Implementatio nPlan(SIP ) emissio nlimit s withi neac hA1 r Qualit y Contro l Regio n(AQCR) . Th e baselin e use di nth e "mode l boiler " cos t analysi s wa s chose nt o represen t a typica l SI P emissio nlimit . Othe r baseline s coul d hav e bee nselected . However , i f mor e stringen t baseline s wer e used , th e annualize dcost s fo r SO * contro l a t th e revise dbaselin e woul dals o hav e t o b e increase dt o accoun t fo r th e additiona l complianc e cost s associate dwit h

mor e stringen t baselin e regulations . Us e o f differen t baselines , however , woul dno t alte r th e analysi s o f incrementa l difference s 1 nemission s an d cost s amon g increasingl y stringen t alternatives . Varyin g assumption s

4 2P.4 5

regardin g th e baselin e hav e n o effec t o nthes e incrementa l comparisons . A s
a result , change s o r refinement s i nbaselin e emissio nlevel s woul dhav e littl e effec t o

njudgin g th e reasonablenes s o f th e fina l standard . Many commenter s fel t tha t th e cos t estimate s associate dwit hFG D system s wer e to o low . Some sai dth e cost s o f FGD system s ar e muc hgreate r fo r industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s tha nfo r utilit y stea m generatin g unit s du e t o lac k o f economie s o f scale , an dthi s shoul dbe considere dincalculatin g th e impact s o f th e standards . Stil l othe r commenter s sai dtha t becaus e sodiu m once-throug hFG D wa s selecte da s th e basi s fo r th e cos t analysis , th e cost s wer e underestimated . Th e economic s o f FGD system s ar e differen t fo r utilit y an dindustria l stea m generatin g units . Becaus e o f large r uni t siz e an dth e highe r capacit y factor s o f many

utilit y units , operatin g cost s generall y pla y a mor e dominant rol e i nth e economic s o f FG D system s fo r utilit y unit s tha nthe y

d o fo r industria l units . Thus , th e typica l FG D system fo r a utilit y

stea m generatin g uni t 1 s frequentl y on e whic hminimize s operatin g costs , ofte na t th e expens e o f highe r capita l costs . I ncontrast , th e mos t attractive FG D system fo r anindustria l stea m generatin g uni t i s frequentl y on e whic h minimize s capita l costs , ofte na t th e expens e o f highe r operatin g costs . Fo r example , sodiu

m FG D system s ar e characterize db y relativel y

lo w capita l costs , bu t highe r operatin g cost s du e t o th e us e o f sod a as ha s a reagent . Lime spra y

dryin g systems , o nth e othe r hand , hav e relativel y hig hcapita l costs , bu t relativel y

low operatin g cost s du e t o th e us e o f lime a s a reagent . A s on e migh t expect , therefore , whe nth e economic s o f thes e tw o FG D system s ar e compared , lime spra y dryin g i s les s expensiv e fo r utilit y

4 3stea

m generatin g units , bu t sodiu m scrubbin g i s les s expensiv e fo r many industria l stea

m generatin g units . Sodiu m scrubbin g i s currentl y th e mos t widel y

use dFG D technolog y

fo r reducin g SO * emission s fro m industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g units . Thi s i s becaus e sodiu m scrubbin g i s generall y les s expensiv e tha nothe r FG D technologie s fo r many industrial-commercial institutiona l units . Consequently , th e sodiu m scrubbin g cos t algorith m wa s
use dprio r t o proposa l t o generat e cost s whic hwer e viewe da s representativ e
o f th e typ e o f FG D system tha t woul db e mos t widel y use dt o contro l SO * emission s fro

m new industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g units . I nrespons e t o comment s concernin g th e us e o f th e sodiu m scrubbin g cos t algorith m i nthi s manner , however , th e cost s o f variou s type s o f FG D system s
wer e reviewe dan

dcompare dagain . Th e cos t o f sodiu m scrubbin g wa s generall y

foundt o b e somewha t lowe r tha nth e cos t o f othe r FG D systems , suc ha s dua l alkal i an dlime spray

drying , a s wel l a s fluidize dbe d combustion . Fro

m th e standpoin t o f overal l projec t economics , th e tota l annualize dcos t o f th e stea m generatin g uni t an

dSO * contro l system

varie d b y les s tha n1 0 percen t fo r al l technologie s examined . However , whe nonl y th e cos t associate dwit hSO * contro l wa s considered , thi s variatio nwa s muc h larger , rangin g fro

m 3 0 t o 10 0 percent . Therefore , becaus e o f variation s 1 n project-specifi c factor s tha t coul dinfluenc e th e choic e o f S0 2 contro l system , th e us e o f an

y singl e technolog y

a s a "surrogate " fo r al l type s o f SO * contro l system s i ncos t analyse s wa s judge dt o b e Inappropriate . Consequently , "generic " FG D cos t estimate s wer e develope dt o represen t th e

4 4P.4 7

midpoin t inth e rang e o f cos t estimate s fo r severa l type s o f industria l S0 ~ contro l system s (specifically , sodiu m scrubbing , lime spra y drying , dua l alkali , an

dfluidize dbedcombustion) . Thes e generi c FGD cos t estimate s
wer e the nuse dt o represen t th e cos t o f FG D system s fo r industrial commercia l -institutiona l stea m generatin g units . Thi s approac hresulte din somewha t highe r FG D system cos t estimate s tha na t proposal , bu t di dno t lea d t o an y significan t difference s inconclusions . Two commenter s sai dtha t bot hth e nationa l annualize dcost s an dth e individua l stea

m generatin g uni t cost s associate dwit hth e standard s woul d b e muc hhigher . Inparticular , th e commenter s said , th e cost s o f achievin g
a percen t reductio ni nemission s fo r stea m generatin g unit s no t switchin g t o natura l ga s coul db e unreasonable . A s discusse dearlier , th e nationa l cos t impact s associate dwit hth e fina l standard s wer e reassesse dbase do nrevise dfue l price projections . I n addition , th e cos t Impact s o ntypica l o r Individua l stea m generatin g unit s
wer e als o reassesse dusin g thes e revise dfue l pric e projections , assumin g n o fue l switchin g fro

m coa l o r oi l t o natura l ga s occurred . A s discusse d earlier , severa l case s wer e Identifie di nwhic hth e cos t impact s associate d wit happlicatio no f a percen t reductio nrequiremen t wer e considere d unreasonable . Consequently , th e fina l standar dprovide s exemption s fro m th e percen t reductio nrequirement s i nthese cases . Wit hthese exemptions , th e
cos t impact s associate dwit hth e fina l standard s ar e considere dreasonable . Severa l commenter s expresse dconcer ntha t th e capita l cost s o f auxiliar y

fue l system s neede dfo r startups , shutdowns , an dmalfunction s wer e
no t considered . Accordin g t o th e commenters , these cost s ar e significant .

4 5P.4 8

Inmany cases , stea

m generatin g unit s wil l b e designe dan dconstructe d wit halternativ e fue l firin g capabilit y eve ninth e absenc e o f th e standard s t o allo w greater flexibilit y

i nfue l selectio nan

dt o provid e fo r stea

m generatin g uni t startu pcapability . T o tha t extent , th e onl y additiona l cost s fo r firin g alternativ e fuel s suc ha s natura l ga s durin g period s o f FG D startup , shutdown , o r malfunctio nwoul db e th e differenc e i nth e pric e betwee nnatura l ga s an dth e primar y

fuel . However , becaus e no t al l unit s
ar e designe dwit hdua l fue l capability , additiona l capita l cost s associate d wit hswitchin g fro

m firin g coa l o r oi l t o firin g analternativ e fue l durin g period s o f malfunctio nwer e include di nth e cos t analyses . Fo r al l mode l stea m generatin g uni t size s analyze d(100 , 150 , 25 0 an d40 0 millio n Btu/hour) , th e capita l cos t o f providin g alternativ e fuel-firin g capabilit y t o a coal-fire dstea

m generatin g uni t wa s abou t two t o thre e percen t o f th e tota l stea

m generatin g uni t cost . Th e annualize dcos t o f providin g alternativ e fue l firin g capabilit y wa s thre e t o fou r percen t o f th e tota l annualize dcos t o f th e stea m generatin g uni t system . Therefore , th e additiona l capita l cost s o f providin g ver y lo w sulfu r fue l backu pcapabilit y represen t onl y

a smal l percentag e o f th e tota l stea m generatin g uni t cost s whil e providin g significan t benefit s 1nterm s o f additiona l S0 2 control . F . Performance/Reliabilit y o f Demonstrate dTechnologie s Man y commenter s sai dther e i s inadequat e proo f tha t ther e ar e demonstrate dSO * contro l technologie s whic hca nmee t th e 9 0 percen t remova l requiremen t o na continuou s basi s fo r industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g units . The y contende dtha t th e performanc e o f "demonstrated " technologie s ha s bee nassesse dfo r utilit y stea m generatin g

4 6P.4 9

units , whic hhav e totall y differen t desig nan

doperatio nrequirement s tha n industria l units . Othe r commenter s questione dth e adequac y o f th e dat a bas e fo r SO * contro l technologie s o noil-fire dstea

m generatin g units . Th e performanc e dat a fo r FGD system s discusse di nth e "Summary

o f Regulator y

Analysis, " "Fossi l Fuel-Fire dIndustria l Boilers-Backgroun d Information, " an

d"SO - Technolog y

Updat e Report " ar e base donexperienc e wit hindustria l stea

m generatin g units . Moreover , a s als o discussed , fo r
severa l type s o f FG D system s thi s experienc e i s supporte db y experienc e wit h utilit y FG D systems . Sodiu m FG D system s ar e currentl y th e mos t widel y

use dFGD system

on industria l stea

m generatin g units . Therefore , th e industria l dat a bas e fo r thi s technolog y

i s mor e extensiv e tha nthos e fo r othe r FG D technologies . Bot hshort - an

dlong-term

emission s dat a fo r 4 5 sodiu m FG D system s locate d

a t 1 8 differen t industria l site s sho w consisten t SO * remova l efficiencie s o f greate r tha n9 0 percent , an daverage dgreate r tha n9 6 percent . Syste m reliabilities average dnea r 9 8 percent . Mos t o f th e Industria l experienc e wit hsodiu

m FG D system s i s onoil-fire dstea m generatin g unit s use di n enhance doi l recover y

whic hoperat e a t fairl y constan t load . However , dat a
wer e als o gathere dfro m sodiu m FGD system s operatin g o noil-fire dstea

m generatin g unit s i nothe r Industria l application s whic hhav e mor e typica l loa dswings . Dua l alkal i FG D system s ar e als o use do nindustrial-commercia l - institutiona l stea

m generatin g units . Test s o f dua l alkal i FG D system s operatin g oncoal-fire dstea m generatin g unit s hav e show nshort-term

SO *

remova l efficiencie s o f greate r tha n9 0 percent , wit hlong-term efficiencie s

4 7P.5 0

o f around9 2 percent . Althoug hdua l alkal i FG D system s hav e generall y no t bee napplie do noil-fire dstea m generatin g units , thei r performanc e shoul d b e simila r t o sodiu

m FG D systems . Althoug hlittl e long-term dat a ar e availabl e t o demonstrat e 9 0 percen t SO * remova l level s wit hlime spray drying , short-term

test s resultin g i n greate r tha n9 0 percen t SO - remova l indicat e thi s proces s i s capabl e o f achievin g thes e performanc e levels . Curren t long-term remova l rate s o f 6 0 t o 8 0 percen t reflec t th e fac t tha t thes e system s hav e no t bee nrequire dt o achiev e hig hremova l levels , rathe r tha nan y Inheren t limitatio nonth e technology . Thi s i s supporte db y th e willingnes s o f vendor s o f lime spra y dryin g system s t o guarante e long-term SO - remova l performanc e o f 9 0 percent . Lime an dlimeston e FG D systems , becaus e o f highe r capita l an d maintenanc e costs , hav e ha dlimite dapplicatio ni nth e industria l sector . However , i na long-term tes t a t anindustria l stea m generatin g uni t tha t operate da lime/Hmeston e FG D system , th e SO * remova l efficienc y range dfro

m 9 1 t o 9 4 percent . Remova l efficiencie s wer e insensitiv e t o change s i nstea m generatin g uni t load . I naddition , lim e an dlimeston e we t FG D system s ar e prove nprocesse s i nth e utilit y industry . Lime andlimeston e FG D system s
accoun t fo r approximatel y 6 8 percen t o f existin g utilit y FG D systems . Althoug hfew , i f any , lime o r limeston e FG D system s ar e expecte dt o b e installe do nindustrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s du e t o economics , ther e ar e n o technica l limitation s whic hwoul dmak e thi s technolog y

les s effectiv e o nindustria l stea m generatin g unit s tha no n utilit y steam generatin g units .

4 8P.5 1

Performanc e tes t dat a als o demonstrat e tha t FB C technolog y i s capabl e
o f achievin g 9 0 percen t SO - remova l a t highreliabilities . A recen t 30-da y tes t ona bubblin g bedFB C uni t burnin g highsulfu r coa l (400 0 ng S0-/J , 9. 3 lb/millio nBtu ) showe dSO * remova l efficiencie s averagin g 93. 5 percent . A
second30-da y

tes t conducte da t a differen t sit e an dcombustin g a lo

w sulfu r
coa l (47 0 n

g S0 2 /J , 1. 1 lb/millio nBtu ) showe da naverag e SO - remova l o f 9 0 percen t wit hgreate r tha n9 9 percen t reliability . Durin g a 67-da y perio da t thi s secondsite , th e FB C uni t ha da reliabilit y o f 9 7 percent . I n addition , vendor s hav e state dtha t FB C unit s ca nb e designe dt o achiev e wel l

ove r 9 0 percen t SO * remova l a t highreliabilit y levels . Consequently , th e abilit y o f FG D an

dFB C system s t o achiev e a 9 0 percen t SO * reductio nonindustria l steam generatin g unit s i s wel l demonstrated . Inaddition , experienc e gaine db y utilitie s operatin g simila r FG D system s serve s t o confirm th e abilit y

o f thes e technologie s t o achiev e 9 0 percen t SO - reductio na t highreliabilit y levels . Commenter s als o questione dth e adequac y o f th e dat a bas e fo r S0 - contro l technologie s o nstea m generatin g unit s operate dunde r condition s o f loa dswings . Accordin g t o th e commenters , th e variabl e operatin g mode s an d highcapacit y

loa dswing s typica l o f industria l operation s ca ncaus e sever e upset s i nFG D efficienc y andreliability . Th e FG D system

performanc e dat a bas e i s primaril y compose do f dat a collecte dfrom

industria l steam

generatin g uni t installations . Thes e steam generatin g unit s wer e locate da t plant s representativ e o f th e industrial commercia l -institutiona l steam generatin g uni t population , includin g steam generatin g unit s operate dunde r man y differen t conditions . Steam generatin g

4 9unit s wit haverag e capacit y utilizatio nfactor s rangin g fro m 5 t o 10 0 percen t wer e include di nth e dat a base . Inaddition , stea m generatin g uni t load s wer e varie ddurin g test s o f individua l unit s t o simulat e loa dswing s tha t migh t b e experience di nsome industria l applications . Base donthes e data , SO * remova l efficienc y wa s foundt o b e insensitiv e t o change s i nstea m generatin g uni t loa dove r th e range s observed . Th e primar y

concer nfo r FG D system s operatin g o nstea m generatin g unit s whic hexperienc e loa dswing s i s a sudde nincreas e i nth e SO * loading . Thi s
ca nresul t fro

m a nincreas e ineithe r th e flu e ga s flow rat e o r th e flu e ga s SO * concentration . A s discusse di nth e "SO * Technolog y Updat e Report, " change s i nflu e ga s flow rat e ar e matche db

y correspondin g change s inth e scrubbin g solutio nflow rat e accordin g t o a se t liquid-to-ga s (L/G ) ratio . I na wel l designe dan

doperate dsystem , a safet y margi n1 s maintaine di nth e L/ Grati o t o accoun t fo r delay s i ncontro l loo presponse ; thus , anincreas e i nflu e ga s flow

rat e woul db e adequatel y handled . Also , FG D system s whic h experienc e highl y

variabl e S0 2 loading s typicall y operat e a t hig halkalin e reagen t concentrations . Thi s provide s a bufferin g capacit y agains t larg e swing s i nsolutio np H cause db y dramati c change s i nS0 2 concentration . A s a result , sufficien t exces s alkalin e reagen t 1 s presen t t o ensur e adequat e SO *

remova l performanc e durin g loa dswings . A numbe r o f commenter s questione dth e reliabilit y o f FG D systems , expressin g concer ntha t thes e system s canno t mee t th e hig hoperationa l availabilit y

demande db

y man y industria l operations . Other s sai dtha t utilit y FG D reliabilit y

experienc e canno t b e extrapolate dt o industria l application s becaus e mos t utilitie s instal l spar e scrubber s t o maintai nhigh

5 0P.5 3

reliabilitie s an

dd o no t experienc e th e radica l loadfluctuation s typica l o f industria l operations . Th e reliabilit y

o f variou s type s o f FG D system s fo r industria l application s wa s discusse di nth e "Backgroun dInformatio nDocument, " th e "Summary o f Regulator y

Analysis, " an

dth e "S0 2 Technolog y

Updat e Report." A s wit hth e dat a onperformanc e o f S0 2 contro l systems , reliabilit y dat a
wer e gathere dfro

m a variet y

o f industria l applications , wit hdat a fro m utilit y stea m generatin g unit s use dt o supplemen t th e industria l data . Reliabilit y

dat a wer e reporte dfo r ove r 25 0 sodiu m FG D system s operatin g onindustrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s firin g coa l an

doil . Averag e long-term reliabilit y

level s fo r thes e unit s
o f 98-10 0 percen t wer e reporte dfo r period s o f time rangin g fro m severa l month s t o severa l years . SO * removal s durin g thes e period s average di n
exces s o f 9 0 percent . Reliabilit y

an davailabilit y

dat a wer e reporte dfo r seve ndua l alkal i systems . On e dua l alkal i system operatin g ona

nindustria l coal-fire dstea m generatin g uni t reporte danavailabilit y o f ove r 9 7 percen t fo r a 12-mont h period . Othe r dua l alkal i system s operatin g o nbot hindustria l andutilit y steam generatin g unit s reporte dreliabilit y andavailabilit y

level s o f 9 4 t o 9 9 percen t ove r simila r length s o f time . Fo r 11me spra y

dryin g systems , reliabilit y level s rangin g fro

m 7 0 t o 9 7 percen t wer e reporte dfo r variou s site s surveyed . A nexaminatio no f th e
reason s fo r th e wid e rang e i nreporte dreliabilit y level s indicate dtha t th e low reliabilit y

level s coul dhav e bee nimprove do r prevente dwit hbette r operatin g an

dmaintenanc e procedures . . Althoug hlim e spra y dryer s toda y

ar e

5 1P.5 4

typicall y

operate da t moderat e performanc e levels , ther e i s no reaso nt o believ e lime spra y

dryer s canno t maintai nhighreliabilitie s achievin g 9 0 percen t SO * removal . Infact , on e vendo r o f lime spray dryer s i s prepare d t o guarante e 9 5 percen t reliability , provide dth e operato r follow s a preventiv e maintenanc e program . Thi s claime d reliabilit y leve l i s consisten t wit hth e tw o year s o f commercia l operatin g dat a obtaine d fro m a 13 2 M W (45 0 millio nBtu/hour ) stea m generatin g uni t equippe d wit ha lime spra y drye r FG D tha t achieve dinexces s o f 9 8 percen t reliability . A s state d above , lime/limeston e FG D system s hav e ha dlimite d applicatio ni nth e industria l sector . Therefore , mos t o f th e dat a on lime/limeston e FG D system reliabilit y

ar e fro m utilit y stea m generatin g units . However , durin g a long-term (85-day ) performanc e tes t o f a lime/limeston e FG D system onanindustria l stea m generatin g unit , FG D syste m reliabilit y

wa s greate r tha n9 0 percent . Dat a fro m a utilit y

lime/limeston e FG D system

firin g coa l indicat e reliabilitie s clos e t o 10 0 percen t ove r a perio d o f severa l years . Als o a s discusse dabove , th e reliabilit y o f FB C system s ha s als o bee n demonstrate di nbot hlong - an dshort-term

test s inindustria l applications . Th e abov e discussio nIndicates , therefore , tha t wit hprope r operatio n
an d maintenance , hig hreliabilitie s ca nb e achieve dan dmaintaine d on industrial-commercial-institutiona l FG D an d FB C system s operatin g a t high SO * remova l levels . T o allow continue dstea

m generatin g uni t operatio n durin g period s o f FG D system malfunction , backupFG D modules , commo n1 nth e electri c utilit y

sector , ca nb e installe d o r th e uni t ca nfir e ver y low sulfu r fuels , suc ha s natura l ga s o r very low sulfu r oil .

5 2P.5 5

On e commente r sai dtha t a naverag e 9 0 percen t reductio nusing a nFG D system i s feasibl e onl y

whe na stea

m generatin g uni t i s usin g a highsulfu r fuel , an dtha t i t i s les s feasibl e whe na lo w sulfu r fue l i s use dbecaus e o f th e lowe r concentratio no f S0 2 inth e flu e gas . Th e abilit y

o f anFG D system

t o achiev e highSO * remova l efficiencie s durin g combustio no f lo w sulfu r fuel s i s determine db y th e concentratio no f SO * i nth e flu e ga s exitin g th e FG D system . Tes t dat a fro m sodiu m an dlime spra y dryin g FG D system s an dfro m FB C system s indicat e S0 2 emission s o f les s tha n1 5 pp

m (equa l t o roughl y

1 3 ng/ J o r 0.0 3 lb/m1H1o nBtu ) ar e achievable ; i nsome tests , SO - level s o f les s tha n5 pp m (4. 3 ng/ J [0.0 1 lb/millio nBtu] ) wer e measured . Thi s indicate s tha t 9 0 percen t remova l i s achievabl e wit hflu e gase s havin g uncontrolle demissio nrate s a s lo w a s 13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 l bS0 2 /mill1o nBtu) . Thes e performanc e level s measure di n operatin g FG D system s ar e supporte db y kineti c dat a fro

m laborator y

studie s
an db y FG D vendo r claims . Consequently , th e abilit y t o achiev e a 9 0 percen t reductio nwhe nfirin g low sulfu r fuel s i s considere dwel l demonstrated . G . Secondar y

Environmenta l Impact s Severa l commenter s sai dth e impact s o f standard s "based " o nth e us e o f sodiu m FG D system s wer e no t evaluate d1 nrelatio nt o othe r regulations , especiall y

Stat e an

dloca l wate r qualit y

regulations . The y

sai d th e effluen t produce db

y sodiu m FG D system s coul dcaus e wastewate r disposa l problem s i nsome areas . Th e limit s impose db

y existin g regulatio no nth e disposa l o f wastewate r stream s fro

m sodiu m FG D system s wer e examine db y reviewin g curren t disposa l practice s fo r thes e type s o f wastes . Wastewate r stream s fro m sodiu m FG D

5 3P.5 6

system s ar e no t considere dhazardou s wastes , eve nunde r th e mos t stringen t Stat e o r loca l regulations . I nth e West , disposa l o f thes e type s o f waste s i s generall y

b y dee pwel l injection , abov e ground evaporation , o r percolatio nponds . Inth e East , disposa l o f thes e type s o f waste s i s generall y

b y direc t discharg e t o a receivin g wate r bod y o r indirec t discharg e throug ha publicl y owne d treatmen t wor k (POTW) . Thes e stream s
ar e ofte ntreate dprio r t o discharg e t o compl y wit hth e term s o f applicabl e permits , Stat e o r loca l effluen t limitations , wate r qualit y standards , o r POT W pretreatmen t standard s o r limitations . Thus , whil e treatmen t ma y b e
necessar y

i nsom e cases , thes e type s o f wastewate r stream s ar e currentl y bein g dispose d o f b

y severa l method s incomplianc e wit hFederal , State , an d loca l regulations . Th e cos t algorith

m fo r sodiu

m FGD system s include dcost s fo r oxidatio n inorde r t o reflec t som e for m o f treatmen t prio r t o disposal . Insome
cases , however , eve nwit htreatmen t o f th e wastewate r streams , some form s o f disposal , suc ha s direc t o r indirec t discharge , ma y no t b e permitted . Thi s coul dhappe ninarea s o f hig hindustria l usag e wher e maximu m pollutan t loadings fo r th e receivin g wate r body o r POTW ha s bee nreached . In addition , i t i s als o possibl e insom e case s tha t disposa l b y dee p wel l injection , evaporatio nponds , o r landfil l container s ma y no t b e permitted . Thi s coul dhappe ninarea s wher e concern s abou t possibl e contaminatio no f undergroun daquifer s effectivel y prohibi t disposa l o f an y liqui d waste s b

y
suc hmeans . Fo r thi s reason , a s wel l a s othe r reasons , th e standard s ar e no t "based " onth e us e o f sodiu m FG D system s alone , no r fo r tha t matte r d o th e

5 4P.5 7

standard s requir e th e us e o f an y particula r FG D system o r SO * contro l technology . Rather , th e standard s reflec t th e leve l o f contro l tha t i s achievabl e throughth e us e o f an y on e o f severa l technologies , includin g sodiu m FGD , dua l alkal i FGD , lime/limeston e FGD , lim e spray dryin g FGD , an

d FBC . I naddition , wher e a

nindividua l confronte dwit hth e standar dmay view th e "burden " o f usin g thes e contro l technologie s a s excessive , "fue l switching " t o natura l ga s ca nb e employed . Inthi s manner , th e necessit y o f usin g thes e SO - contro l technologie s ca nb e avoided . A s discusse dthroughou t th e "BackgroundInformatio nDocument, " th e "SO * Contro l Technolog y

Updat e Report, " an

dth e "Summary

o f Regulator y

Analysis, " th e environmenta l (i.e. , air , water , an dsoli dwaste) , energy , cost , an d economi c impact s associate dwit hus e o f al l o f th e abov e mentione dSO * contro l technologies , a s wel l a s thos e associate dwit hfue l switching , wer e reviewe dan

dar e considere dreasonable . Consequently , inarea s wher e disposa l o f wastewate r stream s fro m sodiu m FG D systems , o r fo r tha t matte r wastewate r stream s fro m an y "wet " FG D system , 1 s foundt o b e ver y costl y o r essentiall y

prohibite db

y loca l regulation , stea m generatin g unit s woul dbe expecte dt o selec t analternativ e approac ht o complyin g wit hth e standards . Suc halternative s coul drang e fro m th e us e o f "dry " S0 2 contro l system s (i.e. , lim e spra y

dryin g o r FBC ) t o firin g natura l gas . Othe r commenter s expresse dconcer nabou t th e availabilit y o f adequat e landfil l capacit y

t o dispos e o f FG D system waste . On e adde dtha t Stat e an d loca l soli d wast e disposa l regulation s ar e forcin g th e closur e o f many existin g landfills , makin g th e sitin g o f proxima l landfill s difficul t an d drivin g updisposa l costs . Anothe r sai d that , accordin g t o th e proposal ,

5 5P.5 8

th e us e o f FGD system s coul dgenerat e u pt o 1 5 time s a s muc hwast e a s th e
us e o f lo

w sulfu r coal , an

dther e i s no evidenc e inth e recor do f landfil l capacit y sufficien t t o handl e thi s larg e increas e i nwaste . Stea m generatin g unit s d o no t generall y operat e a s independen t entities , bu t ar e mos t ofte npar t o f a nindustria l plan t whic hproduce s othe r waste s requirin g disposal . I naddition , coal-fire d stea m generatin g unit s generat e fl y

as hwhic hals o require s disposal . Thus , us e o f a nFGD system t o contro l SO * emission s generall y doe s no t creat e a new problem (i.e. , a nee dt o dispos e o f waste s wher e no suc hnee dexiste dbefore) . A s discusse dinth e "Summary o f Regulator y

Analysis, " th e quantit y o f soli dwast e generate db y FG D technologie s depend s onth e sulfu r conten t o f th e fuel . Ingeneral , however , FG D technologie s generat e les s tha ntwic e a s
muc hsoli dwast e a s th e us e o f lo w sulfu r coa l alone , rathe r tha nfiftee n time s a s suggeste db

y th e commenters . Fo r example , a typica l 4 4 M W (15 0 millio nBtu/hour ) stea m generatin g uni t firin g lo w sulfu r coa l generate s abou t 3,20 0 Mg/yea r (3,50 0 tons/year ) o f soli d wast e (mainl y stea m generatin g uni t blowdow nan das hfro

m P M control) . Th e us e o f a dua l alkal i

o r lime spra y

dryin g FG D system

t o achiev e 9 0 percen t reductio n1 nS0 2 emission s fro

m th e same steam

generatin g uni t firin g th e same low sulfu r
coa l woul dgenerat e a nadditiona l 1,200-2,10 0 Mg/yea r (1,300-2,30 0 tons/year ) o f soli dwast e 1nth e for m o f FG D sludge . I f a hig hsulfu r coa l

wer e fire di nthi s unit , th e quantit y o f soli dwast e generate dwoul d increas e b

y 6,600-6,80 0 Mg/yea r (7,300-7,50 0 tons/year) . I nmos t cases , disposa l o f waste s generate db y FG D system s present s n o
mor e o f a proble m

tha ndisposa l o f plan t waste s o r steam generatin g uni t fl y

5 6P.5 9

ash . A s a result , FGD syste m waste s ma y

generall y

b e dispose do f b

y th e
sam e mean s a s thes e wastes . I nfact , sinc e th e waste s fro m som e industria l plant s ar e considere dtoxi c o r hazardou s an dFG D system

waste s ar e not , disposa l o f waste s fro m FGD system s ma y

presen t les s o f a problem tha n disposa l o f othe r plan t wastes . Consequently , i nthos e specifi c location s wher e landfil l capacit y ma y be limited , disposa l o f othe r plan t waste s i s likel y t o presen t a s many problem s --an di nsome case s mor e problem s -- a s disposa l o f waste s fro m FG D systems . Fo r individua l plants , suc hconstraint s ma y necessitat e substantia l change s t o th e manufacturin g proces s i norde r t o minimiz e th e waste s generate do r t o alte r thei r characteristics . Fo r th e steam generatin g uni t an

dSO * contro l system , thi s ma y necessitat e selectio no f

on e typ e o f contro l system ove r anothe r (i.e. , a "dry " system ove r a "wet " system , fo r example ) o r selectio no f a nalternativ e fuel , suc ha s natura l gas , tha t generate s littl e o r n o wast e products . H . Emissio nCredit s
A numbe r o f commenter s fel t tha t emissio ncredit s shoul db e grante dfo r stea m generatin g unit s firin g wast e materials , sayin g tha t th e environmentall y

beneficia l andcos t effectiv e us e o f wast e fuel s shoul db e encouraged . Othe r commenter s sai dth e standar dshoul dcredi t th e hea t inpu t fro m natura l ga s fire di ncombinatio nwit hcoa l o r oi l whe ncalculating SO * emissio nrate s rathe r tha nrequirin g coa l o r oi l t o mee t thei r respectiv e emissio nlimit s withou t dilutio ncredits . Emissio ncredit s woul dallow a plan t operato r firin g a sulfur-fre e fue l

suc ha s woo do r natura l ga s i nconjunctio nwit hcoa l o r oi l t o emi t SO - a t

5 7P.6 0

th e sam e overal l rat e a s a stea m generatin g uni t firin g onl y coa l o r oil . State danothe r way , a stea m generatin g uni t firin g a 50/5 0 mixtur e o f coa l

an dwood , o r coa l an

d natura l gas , coul d hav e twic e th e SO * emission s wit h

a nemissio ncredi t a s i t coul dwithou t a nemissio ncredit . A s a result , emissio ncredit s depriv e th e publi c o f th e ai r qualit y benefits , interm s o f reduce d SO * emissions , associate d wit hth e combustio no f nonsulfur-bearin g fuels . Th e effect s o f encouragin g wast e fue l us e throug hemissio ncredit s wer e thoroughl y

examine dan

ddiscusse d in"Summary o f Regulator y

Analysis, " "A

n Analysi s o f th e Cost s an dCos t Effectivenes s o f SO * Contro l fo r Mixe d Fuel-Fire d Steam

Generatin g Units, " an d "Impact s o f Ne w

Fue l Price s onS0 2 Emissio nCredit s fo r Cogeneratio nSystem s an dMixe d Fuel-Fire d Steam Generating Units. " Thes e analyse s sho w tha t grantin g emissio ncredit s fo r mixed-fuel-fire d stea

m generatin g unit s result s 1 nvery smal l reduction s in cost s whil e allowin g significan t increase s i nSO - emissions . A s a result , th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s o f th e additiona l reductio ninS0 - emission s achieve db

y no t providin g emissio ncredit s 1 s low , generall y i n th e rang e o f $220-330/M g ($200-300/ton) . Thes e cost s ar e considere d reasonable . Consequently , th e standard s d o no t includ e emissio ncredit s fo r mixed-fuel-fire d stea

m generatin g unit s firin g wast e fuel s o r natura l ga s in combinatio nwit hcoa l o r oil . Firin g wast e fuel s i s economicall y attractiv e i nman y

case s an

d result s inreduce dfue l cost s fo r th e plan t operator . Th e absenc e o f provision s fo r emissio ncredit s shoul d no t discourag e th e us e o f thes e waste s a s steam generatin g uni t fuels . Inmany cases , th e disposa l o f suc hwaste s inthi s

5 8P.6 1

manne r woul drepresen t th e mos t cos t effectiv e metho do f disposa l regardles s
o f th e NSPS . I

naddition , th e fina l standard s includ e a nexemptio nfro

m th e percen t reductio nrequiremen t fo r stea m generatin g unit s obtainin g 3 0 percen t o r les s o f thei r rate dannua l hea t inpu t capacit y fro m coa l o r oil . Thi s provide s substantia l incentiv e t o us e waste s i norde r t o reduc e th e amoun t o f oi l o r coa l burne dinth e stea m generatin g unit . Othe r commenter s state dtha t emissio ncredit s shoul db e allowe dfo r cogeneratio nsystem s inrecognitio no f th e increase defficienc y achieve db

y thes e system s ove r separat e system s fo r stea m an dpowe r generation . Emissio ncredit s fo r cogeneratio nsystem s wer e als o thoroughl y examine d

an ddiscusse di nth e "Summary o f Regulator y

Analysis, " "A

nAnalysi s o f th e Cost s an dCos t Effectivenes s o f Allowin g SO - Emissio nCredit s fo r Cogeneratio nSystems, " an d"Impac t o f Ne w

Fue l Price s o nS0 2 Emissio n Credit s fo r Cogeneratio nSystem s an dMixe dFuel-Fire d Steam Generatin g Units. " A s wit hmixed-fuel-fire d stea m generatin g units , thes e analyse s conclude dtha t granting a nemissio ncredi t fo r cogeneratio nstea m generatin g unit s result s i nver y

smal l reduction s i ncost s whil e allowin g significan t increase s i nS0 2 emissions . Therefore , th e incrementa l cos t effectivenes s
o f th e additiona l reduction s i nemission s achieve db y no t providin g emissio n credit s fo r cogeneratio nstea m generatin g unit s i s low , generall y i nth e rang e o f $220-660/M g ($200-600/ton) . Thes e cost s ar e considere dreasonable . Stron g economi c incentive s exis t fo r us e o f cogeneratio nan dth e absenc e o f emissio ncredit s fo r cogeneratio nsystem s i s no t expecte dt o significantl y

reduc e thes e incentives . Consequently , th e fina l standard s d o
no t includ e provision s fo r emissio ncredit s fo r cogeneratio nsystems .

5 9P.6 2

Some commenter s state d tha t imposing a percentag e reductio nrequiremen t

o ncogeneratio nstea

m generatin g unit s coul dseverel y affec t th e economic s
o f cogeneratio nprojects . Accordin g t o th e commenters , impact s on cogeneratio nsystem s woul db e mor e sever e tha no nothe r industria l sector s becaus e th e increase d cost s canno t b e "passe d through " t o th e consumer . Th e fina l standard s wil l increas e th e cos t o f coal - an d oil-fire d cogeneratio nstea

m generatin g units . Thi s coul d preclud e some smaller , les s profitabl e cogeneratio nprojects . However , mos t coal - an doil-fire d cogeneratio nstea

m generatin g unit s covere d b y th e standard s wil l no t b e severel y affected. A

cos t analysi s o f th e impac t o f standard s o na typica l coal-fire d cogeneratio nstea m generatin g uni t showe dtha t a percen t . reductio nrequiremen t increase dtota l annualize dcost s b y abou t 1 1 percent . Th e "Surve y

o f Ne w Industria l Boile r Projects " Indicate s tha t mor e tha n 8 0 percen t o f th e cogeneratio nproject s complete d i n198 1 throug h198 4 woul d hav e gon e forwar da s designe deve ni f cost s increase d b y 1 0 percent , an

d

mor e tha n6 0 percen t o f th e cogeneratio nproject s woul d hav e gon e forwar da s designe d i f cost s increase d by 2 0 percent . I naddition , man y

cogeneratio nproject s wil l no t b e subjec t t o fina l SO - standard s a t all . Give ncurren t fue l pric e projections , man y ne w cogeneratio nproject s ar e expecte d t o b e base d o nfirin g natura l ga s (i n bot hga s turbin e cogeneratio nsystem s an d stea m turbin e cogeneratio n systems ) o r firin g municipa l soli dwaste . Cogeneratio nproject s firin g thes e fuel s ar e no t affecte d by th e fina l standards . Finally , new

coal - an

d oil-fire d cogeneratio nsteam generatin g unit s compet e wit hne w

coal-fire d electri c utilit y steam generatin g unit s tha t ar e

6 0P.6 3

subjec t t o percen t reductio nrequirement s unde r Subpar t Da . Thus , applicatio no f percen t reductio nt o coal - an doil-fire dcogeneratio nstea m generatin g unit s unde r Subpar t Dbcoul dbe viewe da s a "neutral " positio n whic htreat s bot hutilit y stea m generatin g unit s an

dIndustrial-commercial institutiona l cogeneratio nstea m generatin g unit s ina simila r manner . Consequently , th e fina l standard s trea t coal - o r oil-fire dcogeneratio n stea m generatin g unit s jus t lik e an y othe r coal - o r oil-fire dstea m generatin g unit . I . Emergin g Technologie s Severa l commenter s sai dthat , becaus e emergin g technologie s hav e no t bee n"adequatel y

demonstrated " a s require db y th e Clea nA1 r Act , a standar d fo r emergin g technologie s canno t b e establishe dunde r Sectio n111 . Other s expresse dconcer ntha t establishin g standard s fo r emergin g technologie s coul dinhibi t developmen t andcommercia l demonstratio no f thes e technologies . Stil l othe r commenter s state dtha t ne w o r emergin g technologie s shoul db e require dt o achiev e th e same performanc e level s tha t existin g technologie s ar e capabl e o f achievin g an dtha t th e standard s shoul d

no t includ e an

y specia l provision s fo r ne w o r emergin g technologies . NSP S shoul db e se t s o a s t o avoi dunreasonabl e cost s o r othe r Impact s rEsse xChemica l Corp . v . Ruckelshaus . 48 6 F . 2 d4 2 (D . C . C1r . 1973)] . Standard s requirin g a hig hleve l o f performance , suc ha s 9 0 percen t reduction , withou t a provisio nfo r emergin g technologies , woul dac t t o discourag e continue ddevelopmen t o f some ne w technologie s andthei r attendan t economi c andenvironmenta l benefits . Owner s an doperator s o f new steam generatin g unit s coul dsimpl y vie w th e risk s o f usin g a ne w an d

6 1untrie demissio ncontro l technolog y t o achiev e a 9 0 percen t reductio nin emission s a s to o great . Thus , t o encourag e th e continue d developmen t o f emissio ncontro l technologie s tha t sho w promis e o f achievin g level s o f performanc e comparabl e t o thos e o f existin g technologies , bu t a t lowe r cos t
o r wit hothe r offsettin g environmenta l o r energ y benefits , specia l provision s ar e neede dwhic hencourag e th e developmen t an d us e o f new technologies , whil e ensurin g tha t an y increas e inS0 2 emission s wil l b e minimized . Th e fina l standar d requirin g a 5 0 percen t reductio ni nSO - emission s whil e limitin g emission s t o 17 0 an d 26 0 ng/ J (0. 4 an

d 0. 6 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t inpu t fo r oi l an

dcoal , respectively , appear s t o achiev e thi s objective . Th e minima l percen t reductio nrequiremen t o f 5 0 percen t shoul d effectivel y

eliminat e th e ris k o f failur e fo r an y technolog y

whic hha s th e potentia l t o ultimatel y reduc e emission s b

y 9 0 percent . Whe ncombine dwit h emissio nlimit s o f 17 0 an d26 0 ng/ J (0. 4 an

d0. 6 lb/millio nBtu) , th e standar dals o minimize s SO - emission s b y limitin g allowabl e emissio nrate s t o les s tha nhal f th e leve l tha t woul dresul t fro m th e us e o f lo

w sulfu r fuel . Th e emissio nlimit s als o encourag e improvement s inthes e technologie s b y requirin g highe r percen t reduction s whe nfirin g highe r sulfu r fuels . Fo r example , a technolog y

ma y b e Initiall y

teste d a t 5 0 percen t SO - reductio no n
a steam generatin g uni t firin g low sulfu r coal , an

d then , base d onth e informatio ngathere dfro m thes e tests , improve d t o achiev e increase d percen t reduction s o nhighe r sulfu r coal s i norde r t o compl y wit hth e emissio n limi t o f 26 0 ng/ J (0. 6 lb/millio nBtu) .

6 2P.6 5

Severa l commenter s sai ddisallowanc e o f credi t fo r precombustio n cleanin g o f fue l towar dth e percen t reductio nrequiremen t fo r emergin g technologie s i s inappropriat e an dcounte r t o th e philosophy o f preferrin g th e cleanu po f fuel s prio r t o combustion , rathe r tha npost-combustio n cleanup . Whil e th e allowanc e o f fue l pretreatmen t credit s towar dth e 9 0 percen t reductio nrequiremen t i s considere dappropriat e an di s allowe dinth e fina l standards , allowin g fue l pretreatmen t credit s towar dth e 5 0 percen t reductio nrequiremen t fo r emergin g technologie s i s contrar y t o th e purpos e
o f th e emergin g technolog y provisions . Th e primar y objectiv e o f th e 5 0 percen t reductio nrequiremen t i s t o stimulat e an dencourag e th e developmen t
an dus e o f emergin g S0 2 contro l technologie s whic hsho w promis e o f achievin g significan t emissio nreduction s i nth e future . Any emergin g technolog y

tha t i s unabl e t o reduc e emission s b y 5 0 percen t withou t th e us e o f fue l pretreatmen t credit s i s unlikel y t o hav e an

y potentia l fo r achievin g S0 2
remova l level s o f 9 0 percen t 1 nth e future . Th e fina l standard , therefore , doe s no t allow fue l pretreatmen t t o b e credite dagains t th e percen t reductio nrequiremen t fo r emergin g technologies . Th e fina l standar dhas , however , bee namende dt o allow fue l pretreatmen t credi t fo r emergin g technologie s i f aJL L o f th e require d5 0 percen t reductio ni s achieve db y th e fue l pretreatmen t technology . Thi s wil l serv e t o encourag e th e developmen t o f fue l pretreatmen t technologie s tha t show

promis e o f achievin g significan t (i.e. , 9 0 percent ) S0 - reductions .

6 3P.6 6

On e commente r suggeste dtha t th e Agenc y shoul d conside r how

i t plan s t o limi t th e emergin g technolog y provisio nto : (1 ) new technologie s o r processe s whic har e uniqu e relativ e t o demonstrate d technologie s rathe r tha n simpl y modifie dversion s o f currentl y demonstrate d technologies , an d (2 ) thos e whic har e likel y t o b e abl e t o mee t 9 0 percen t remova l afte r a reasonabl e demonstratio nan d developmen t time . A s i nth e propose dstandards , th e fina l standard s includ e definition s
o f conventiona l technologies . I nsom e cases , thes e definition s hav e bee n revise di nrespons e t o th e commenter' s concerns . Technologie s considere da s nothin g mor e tha nmodifie dversion s o f existin g demonstrate d technologie s wil l no t b e viewe da s emergin g technologie s an d wil l no t b e approve dfo r installatio no r operation . Curren t example s o f emergin g technologie s includ e injectio no f dr y sorbent s int o th e furnac e o f a stea m generatin g uni t (a.k.a. , LIMB ) an dth e us e o f electron s t o enhanc e SO - o r NO reactivit y

(E-beam) . Th e definitio no f conventiona l "dry flu e ga s desulfurizatio ntechnology " inth e regulatio nha s bee nrevise d t o mak e i t clea r tha t i t onl y

include s processe s tha t injec t analkalin e slurr y Int o th e flu e gas . I t doe s no t includ e processe s tha t injec t dr y sorbent . Th e Agenc y recognize s tha t demonstratio no f anemergin g technolog y ma y requir e installatio nandtestin g a t severa l differen t stea m generatin g unit s befor e i t i s considere ddemonstrate dan dintend s t o allow

severa l installation s o f

anemergin g technology . Th e emergin g technolog y provision s wil l b e reviewe d regularl y durin g th e cours e o f th e revie w process associate d wit hal l NSPS . A s a resul t o f thes e reviews , emergin g contro l technologie s tha t hav e bee ndemonstrate d

6 4P.6 7

wil l b e reclassifie da s conventiona l technologie s an dwoul db e subjecte dt o th e sam e requirement s a s othe r conventiona l contro l technologies . A s wit hal l NSPS , stea m generatin g unit s subjec t t o th e fina l standard s
mus t notif y

th e Agenc y

withi n3 0 day s o f th e dat e o f constructio no f th e affecte dfacility . I f th e owne r o r operato r o f th e stea m generatin g uni t plan s t o us e a

nemergin g technology , an dthereby

operat e unde r a 5 0 percen t reductio nrequirement , a ful l an dcomplet e descriptio no f thi s technolog y
mus t b e submitte dt o th e Agenc y alon g wit ha discussio no f how o r wh y thi s technolog y

doe s no t mee t an

y o f th e definition s o f conventiona l technologies . Technologie s no t considere demergin g b y th e Agenc y

wil l b e treate da s conventiona l technologies , an dth e stea

m generatin g uni t owne r o r operato r wil l b e s o notified . T o ensur e consisten t enforcemen t o f th e specia l provision s fo r emergin g technologies , thes e provision s wil l no t b e delegate dt o th e State s an dwil l remai nwit hth e Agency .

6 5P.6 8

VI . ADMINISTRATIV E A . Outlin e o f Addition s t o Subpar t Db Subpar t Db , a s publishe d intoday' s FEDERAL REGISTER , include s bot hth e provision s fo r N0 Xan

dP M promulgate d o

nNovembe r 25 , 198 6 (5 1 FR42768 ) an d th e provision s fo r SO * an dP M fro m oil-fire d stea

m generatin g unit s promulgate dtoday . Th e followin g lis t i s provide d a s a nai d t o th e reade r i nidentifyin g th e section s o f Subpar t D btha t ar e bein g adde d o r substantivel y

revise db

y today' s action . §60.40b : revise dparagraph s (b ) an d(c) , adde d paragraph(g) . §60.41b : revise dan

d adde d new

definitions . §60.42b : adde d entir e section . §60.43b : adde dparagraph(b) . §60.44b : n o substantiv e changes . §60.45b : adde dentir e section . §60.46b : n o substantiv e changes . §60.47b : adde dentir e section . §60.48b : n o substantiv e changes . §60.49b : revise d paragrap h(b) , adde dparagraph s (a)(3) , (a)(4) , (j) ,

(k),(l),(m) , an

d(n) . B . Revisio no f Metho d1 9 Today' s actio nals o promulgate s revision s t o Metho d 1 9 o f 4 0 CF R6 0 Appendi xA . Thes e revision s includ e updating , reorganizing , an d combinin g th e existin g Metho d1 9 an dpropose dMetho d19 A

int o th e new

Metho d 19 . A t th e time o f proposa l o f standard s o f performanc e fo r S0 2 onJun e 19 , 198 6 (5 1 F R22384) , Metho d 1 9 wa s applicabl e t o determining S0 2 emission s an d

6 6P.6 9

percen t reductio nfo r FGD-equippe d stea m generatin g units , an

dMetho d19 A
wa s applicabl e t o determinin g SO - emission s fro m stea m generatin g unit s firin g lo

w sulfu r conten t fuel s withou t FGD controls . Metho d19 A include d thre e alternative s fo r measurin g S0 2 emissions : continuou s emission s monitorin g system s (CEMS) , Metho d6 B (stac k testing) , an dfue l samplin g an

d analysi s procedures . Metho d1 9 wa s originall y adopte din197 9 a s a metho d fo r determinin g complianc e wit hth e SO - emissio nlimit s an dpercen t reductio nrequirement s fo r electri c utilit y stea m generatin g unit s subjec t t o 4 0 CF R6 0 Subpar t Da . Metho d19 A wa s propose di n1983 , bu t ha s no t bee n promulgated . Th e fina l S0 2 standard s referenc e onl y th e revise dMetho d19 . Metho d 1 9 i s now

applicabl e to : 1 ) S0 2 , N0 X , an dP M emissio ncalculations , 2 ) SO percen t reductio ncalculation s fo r post-combustio ncontrol , 3 ) SO * percen t reductio ncalculation s fo r fue l pretreatment , an d4 ) fue l samplin g an

d analysi s procedure s fo r complianc e fuel-fire d stea m generatin g units . Additionally , Metho d1 9 ha s bee nupdate dt o incorporat e ne w America nSociet y
o f Testin g an

dMaterial s (ASTM ) procedure s fo r analyzin g th e sulfu r conten t inpetroleu

m product s (ASTM

Metho dD1552-83 ) an

di ncoa l an

dcok e (ASTM Metho dD4239-85) . Additiona l informatio no nMetho d1 9 i s availabl e in Docke t A-81-15 . C . Relationshi po f Subpar t D bt o Operationa l Guidanc e an dPlan s t o Develo p Standard s fo r Municipa l Wast e Combustor s Today' s actio ncomplete s th e rulemakin g fo r Subpar t Db . A s such , Subpar t Dbnow

limit s emission s o f particulat e matter , nitroge noxides , an d sulfu r dioxid e fro

m th e combustio no f coal , oil , natura l gas , wood ,

6 7P.7 0

municipa l soli dwaste , an dmixture s o f thes e fuel s wit hothe r fuel s innew , modified , o r reconstructe dIndustrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g units . Subpar t Dbinclude s standard s limitin g emission s o f particulat e matte r fro m th e combustio no f municipa l soli dwaste . I naddition , Subpar t Db include s standard s limitin g emission s o f nitroge noxides , i f th e steam generatin g uni t combust s coal , oil , o r natura l ga s wit hmunicipa l soli d waste . Similarly , Subpar t Dbinclude s standard s limitin g emission s o f sulfu r dioxide , i f th e stea m generatin g uni t combust s coa l o r oi l wit h municipa l soli dwaste . Inrespons e t o concern s regardin g emission s fro m th e combustio no f municipa l soli dwast e whic har e beyon dthos e considere ddurin g th e developmen t o f Subpar t Db , th e Agenc y issue doperationa l guidanc e t o State s
an dRegiona l office s o nJun e 26 , 198 7 regardin g contro l technolog y applicabl e t o municipa l wast e combustors . Thi s guidanc e i s fo r us e inal l ongoin g preventio no f significan t deterioratio n(PSD ) an dnonattainmen t new
sourc e revie w

(NSR ) proceedings , a s wel l a s t o al l ne w permi t applications . Althoug hSubpar t Dblimit s emission s fro m combustio no f municipa l soli d waste , Subpar t D bshoul dno t b e viewe da s supersedin g th e Jun e 26 , 1987 , operationa l guidanc e o ncontro l technolog y fo r municipa l soli dwast e combustors . Thi s guidanc e wil l continu e t o b e use db y th e Agenc y

a s th e referenc e poin t init s oversigh t o f al l PS D an dnonattainmen t NS R proceedings , a s wel l a s al l ne w permi t application s fo r municipa l wast e combustors .

6 8P.7 1

Th e Agenc y

als o ha s announce dit s intentio nt o develo pnew sourc e performanc e standard s limitin g emission s fro m new , modified , o r reconstructe dmunicipa l wast e combustor s unde r Sectio n11 1 o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t (5 2 F

R25399) . Dependin g onth e natur e o f thes e standards , the y ma y supersed e o r complemen t thos e unde r Subpar t Db . Th e Agenc y als o intend s t o develo pstandard s limitin g emission s o f on e o r mor e designate dpollutant s (pollutant s no t regulate dunde r Section s 10 8 t o 11 0 o r 112 ) i nadditio nt o developin g standard s limitin g emission s o f criteri a pollutant s unde r Sectio n111 . Thi s wil l invok e Sectio n111(d ) an drequir e th e Agenc y

t o issu e guidanc e fo r contro l o f emission s fro m existin g municipa l wast e combustor s which , i nturn , wil l requir e State s t o develo pspecifi c emissio n standard s fo r existin g municipa l wast e combustors . D . Docke t Th e docke t i s a

norganize dan

dcomplet e fil e o f al l th e informatio n considere di nth e developmen t o f thi s rulemaking . Th e docke t 1 s a dynami c file , sinc e materia l i s adde dthroughou t th e rulemakin g process . Th e docketin g system

i s intende dt o allow

member s o f th e publi c an daffecte d industrie s t o identif y an dlocat e document s readil y s o the y ca nparticipat e effectivel y

i nth e rulemakin g process . Th e statement s o f basi s an dpurpos e
o f th e propose dan

dpromulgate dstandards , th e response s t o significan t comments , an

dth e othe r content s o f th e docke t (excep t fo r interagenc y revie w materials ) wil l serv e a s th e recor di ncas e o f judicia l revie w (Sectio n307(d)(7)(A)) . E . Clea nAi r Ac t Procedura l Requirement s Th e effectiv e dat e o f thi s regulatio ni s (dat e o f publicatio ni nth e FEDERAL REGISTER) . Sectio n11 1 o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t

6 907 2

provide s tha t standard s o f performanc e o r revision s thereo f become effectiv e
o npromulgatio nan

dappl y t o affecte dfacilitie s fo r whic hconstruction , modification , o r reconstructio nwa s commence d afte r th e dat e o f proposa l (5 1 F R22384 , Jun e 19 , 1986) . A s prescribe d b

y Sectio n111 , th e promulgatio no f thes e standard s i s base d onth e Administrator' s determinatio ntha t industrial-commercial institutiona l stea

m generatin g unit s contribut e significantl y t o ai r pollutio ntha t ma y

reasonabl y

b e anticipate d t o endange r publi c healt ho r welfare . Inaccordanc e wit hSectio n11 7 o f th e Act , publicatio no f thes e promulgate d standard s wa s precede d b y consultatio nwit happropriat e advisor y committees , independen t experts , an d Federa l department s an d agencies . Thi s regulatio nwil l b e reviewe d no t late r tha n4 year s fro m th e dat e
o f promulgatio na s require db y th e Clea nAi r Act . Thi s revie w wil l includ e
a nassessmen t o f suc hfactor s a s th e nee d fo r Integratio nwit hothe r programs , th e existenc e o f alternativ e methods , enforceability , improvement s inemissio ncontro l technology , an dreportin g requirements . Sectio n31 7 o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t require s th e Administrato r t o prepar e
a neconomi c impac t assessmen t fo r an y NSP S promulgate d unde r Sectio n111(b )

o f th e Act . A

neconomi c Impac t assessmen t wa s prepare d fo r thi s regulatio n
an d fo r othe r regulator y alternatives . Al l aspect s o f th e assessmen t wer e considere di nth e formulatio no f th e standard s t o ensur e tha t cos t wa s carefull y

considere dindeterminin g th e bes t demonstrate dtechnology . Portion s o f th e economi c impac t assessmen t ar e include d i nth e backgroun d informatio ndocument s fo r th e propose d standards , an d additiona l informatio n i s include di nDocke t A-83-27 .

7 0P.7 3

F . Offic e o f Managemen t an dBudge t Review s Th e informatio ncollectio nrequirement s associate dwit hthi s regulatio n (thos e include di

n4 0 CF RPar t 60 , Subpar t A an dSubpar t Db ) hav e bee n approve db

y th e Offic e o f Managemen t an dBudge t (OMB ) unde r th e provision s
o f th e Paperwor k Reductio nAc t o f 1980 , 4 4 U.S.C . 350 1 e t seq . an dhav e bee n assigne dOM B Contro l Numbe r 2060-0136 . Unde r Executiv e Orde r 12291 , th e Administrato r i s require dt o judg e whethe r a regulatio ni s a "majo r rule " an dtherefor e subjec t t o th e requirement s fo r preparatio no f a Regulator y Impac t Analysi s (RIA) . A t th e time o f proposal , i t wa s expecte dtha t thi s regulatio ncoul dresul t in industry-wid e annualize dcost s i nth e fift hyea r afte r th e standard s g o int o effec t o f mor e tha nth e $10 0 millio ncutof f establishe da s th e firs t criterio nfo r a "majo r rule " i nth e Order . I naccordanc e wit hth e Order , a n RI A wa s prepare dfo r thi s regulation. Th e RI A review s th e benefits , costs , an deconomi c impact s associate dwit hth e regulator y alternative s tha t wer e considered . Thi s rul e wa s submitte dt o OM B fo r review unde r Executiv e Orde r 12291 . G . Regulator y

Flexibilit y

Ac t Complianc e Th e Regulator y

Flexibilit y

Ac t o f 198 0 require s th e Identificatio no f potentiall y

advers e impact s o f Federa l regulation s upo nsmal l busines s entities . Th e Ac t specificall y require s th e completio no f a Regulator y Flexibilit y

Analysi s i nthos e instance s wher e smal l busines s impact s ar e possible . Becaus e thes e standard s impos e no advers e economi c Impact s on smal l businesses , a Regulator y Flexibilit y

Analysi s ha s no t bee nconducted .

7 1P.7 4

Pursuan t t o th e provision s o f 5 U.S.C . 605(b) , I hereby certif y tha t thi s regulatio nwil l no t hav e a significan t economi c impac t ona substantia l numbe r o f smal l entities . ^ LIS T O F SUBJECT S IN

4 0 CF RPAR T 6 0 Ai r pollutio ncontrol , Intergovernmenta l relations , Reportin g an d recordkeepin g requirements , Incorporatio nb y reference , Industrial commercia l -institutiona l stea m generatin g units .

Dat e Administrato r

7 2P.7 5 H I

PAR T 6 0 STANDARD S O F PERFORMANC E FO RNE W STATIONARYSOURCE S

1 . Th e authorit y

citatio nfo r Par t 6 0 continue s t o read a s follows : . Authority : 4 2 U.S.C . 7411 , 741 4 an d 7601(a) . 2 . Sectio n60.1 7 i s amende d b y revising subparagraph s (a)(1) , (a)(3) , (a)(7) , (a)(8) , (a)(9) , (a)(10) , (a)(24) , (a)(25) , (a)(26) , (a)(27) , (a)(28) , an

d (a)(47) ; an

d adding subparagraphsf^^^^P^ f

§60.1 7 Incorporatio nb y reference .

**** * (a ) ** * (1 ) AST M D388-77 , Standar d Specificatio nfo r Classificatio no f Coal s b y Rank , incorporatio nb y referenc e (IBR ) approve d Januar y 27 , 1983 , fo r §§60.41(f) ; 60.45(f)(4)(i) , (11) , (vi) ; 60.41a ; 60.41b ; 60.251(b) , (c) .

**** * (3 ) AST M D3176-74 , Standar d Metho d fo r Ultimat e Analysi s o f Coa l an d Coke , IB Rapprove d Januar y

27 , 1983 , fo r §60.45(f)(5)(1) ; Appendi xA t o Par t 60 , Metho d 19 .

**** * (7 ) AST M D2015-77 , Standar d Tes t Metho d fo r Gros s Calorifi c Valu e o f Soli d Fue l b

y th e Adiabati c Bom

bCalorimeter , IB

R approve d Januar y

27 , 198 3 fo r §60.45(f)(5)(ii) ; §60.46(g) ; Appendi xA t o Par t 60 , Metho d 19 . (8 ) AST M D1826-77 , Standar d Tes t Metho d fo r Calorifi c Valu e o f Gase s inNatura l Ga s Rang e b y Continuou s Recordin g Calorimeter , IB Rapprove d

7 3P.76 ^

Januar y 27 , 1983 , for§§60.45(f)(5)(ii) ; 60.46(g) ; 60.296(f) ; Appendi xA t o Par t 60 , Metho d19 . (9 ) AST M D240-76 , Standar d Tes t Metho d fo r Hea t o f Combustio no f Liqui dHydrocarbo nFuel s b y Bom bCalorimeter , IB

Rapprove dJanuar y

27 , 1983 , fo r §60.46(g) ; 60.296(f) ; Appendi xA t o Par t 60 , Metho d 19 . (10 ) AST M

D396-78 , Standar d Specificatio nfo r Fue l Oils , IB Rapprove d Januar y 27 , 1983 , fo r §§60.40b ; 60.41b ; 60.111(b) ; 60.111a(b) .

*
. * * * * (24 ) AST M

D2234-76 , Standar d Method s fo r Collectio no f a Gros s Sampl e
o f Coal , IB

Rapprove dJanuar y

27 , 1983 , fo r Appendi xA t o Par t 60 , Metho d19 . (25 ) AST M

D3173-73 , Standar d Tes t Metho dfo r Moistur e Inth e Analysi s Sampl e o f Coa l an

d Coke , IB

Rapprove dJanuar y

27 , 1983 , fo r Appendi xA t o Par t 60 , Metho d 19 . (26 ) AST M

D3177-75 , Standar d Tes t Method s fo r Tota l Sulfu r inth e Analysi s Sampl e o f Coa l an d Coke , IB

Rapprove d Januar y

27 , 1983 , fo r Appendi xA

t o Par t 60 , Metho d19 . (27 ) AST M

D2013-72 , Standar dMetho d o f Preparin g Coa l Sample s fo r Analysis , IB

Rapprove d Januar y

27 , 1983 , fo r Appendi xA t o Par t 60 , Metho d19 . (28 ) AST M

D270-6 5 (Reapprove d1975) , Standar d Metho d o f Samplin g Petroleu m an dPetroleu

m Products , IB

Rapprove d Januar y

27 , 1983 , fo r Appendi xA

t o Par t 60 , Metho d 19 .

7 4(47 ) AST M D3431-80 , Standar dTes t Metho dfo r Trac e Nitroge ninLiqui d Petroleu m Hydrocarbon s (Microcoulometri c Method) , IB Rapprove dNovembe r 25 , 1986 , fo r Appendi xA

t o Par t 60 , Metho d19 .

* * * * * (XX ) AST M

D129-6 4 (reapprove d1978) , Standar dTes t Metho dfo r Sulfu r

-4 inPetrJSfeu

m Product s (Genera l Bom bMethod) , IB

Rapprove dfo r Appendi xA t o Par t 6Q^Metho d19 . (x* | AST M

D1552-83 , Standar dTes t Metho dfo r Sulfu r inPetroleu m ProductM(H1gh-Temperatur e Method) , IB Rapprove dfo r Appendi xA t o Par t 60 , 

# u Methodlo_9 . 

# I (tfx ) AST M

D1835-86 , Standar dSpecificatio nfo r Liquifie dPetroleu m (LP ) Gases , t o b e approve dfo r §60.41b . |pc ) AST M

D3286-85 , Standar dTes t Metho dfo r Gros s Calorifi c Valu e o f Solid;;Fue l b

y th e Isothermal-Jacke t Bom bCalorimeter , IB

Rapprove dfo r Appendi xA

t o Par t 60 , Metho d19 . ||K ) AST M

D4057-81 , Practic e fo r Manua l Samplin g o f Petroleu m an d Petroleu m Products , IB

Rapprove dfo r Appendi xA t o Par t 60 , Metho d19 . (xx ) AST M

D4239-85 , Standar dTes t Metho dfo r Sulfu r i nth e Analysi s Sampliie f Coa l an

dCok e Usin g Hig hTemperatur e Tub e Furnac e Combustio n Methods , IB

Rapprove dfo r Appendi xA t o Par t 60 , Metho d19 . 3 . 4 0 CF RPar t 6 0 1 s amende db y addin g Section s 60.42b , 60.45b , an d60.47 b

an drevising othe r section s o f Subpar t D bt o rea da s follows : Subpar t D b- Standard s o f Performanc e fo r Industrial-Commercial Institutiona l Steam

Generatin g Unit s

7 5P.7 8

Sec . 60.40 bApplicabilit y an ddelegatio no f authority . 60.41 bDefinitions . 60.42 bStandard s fo r sulfu r dioxide . 60.43 bStandard s fo r particulat e matter . 60.44 bStandard s fo r nitroge noxides . 60.45 bComplianc e an dperformanc e tes t method s an d procedure s fo r sulfu r dioxide . 60.46 bComplianc e an dperformanc e tes t method s an d procedure s fo r particulat e matte r an

d nitroge noxides . 60.47 bEmissio nmonitorin g fo r sulfu r dioxide . 60.48 bEmissio nmonitorin g fo r particulat e matte r an d nitroge noxides . 60.49 bReportin g an d recordkeepin g requirements . Subpar t Db- Standard s o f Performanc e fo r Industrial-Commercial Institutiona l Steam

Generatin g Unit s §60.40 bApplicabilit y an ddelegatio no f authority . (a ) Th e affecte dfacilit y t o whic hthi s subpar t applie s i s eac hstea m generatin g uni t tha t commence s construction , modification , o r reconstructio n afte r Jun e 19 , 1984 , an dtha t ha s a hea t inpu t capacit y fro m fuel s combuste d i nth e steam

generatin g uni t o f greate r tha n2 9 M W (10 0 millio nBtu/hour) . (b ) Any affecte dfacilit y

meetin g th e applicabilit y requirement s unde r paragrap h(a ) o f thi s sectio nan dcommencin g construction , modification , o r reconstructio nafte r Jun e 19 , 1984 , bu t o no r befor e Jun e 19 , 1986 , i s subjec t t o th e followin g standards :

7 6P.7 9

(1 ) Coal-fire d affecte dfacilitie s havin g a hea t inpu t capacit y betwee n2 9 an

d7 3 M W (10 0 an d25 0 millio nBtu/hour) , inclusive , ar e subjec t t o th e particulat e matte r an dnitroge noxide s standard s unde r thi s subpart . (2 ) Coal-fire d affecte dfacilitie s havin g a hea t inpu t capacit y greate r tha n7 3 M

W (25 0 millio nBtu/hour ) an dmeetin g th e applicabilit y requirement s unde r Subpar t D (Standard s o f performanc e fo r fossil-fuel-fire d stea m generators ; §60.40 ) ar e subjec t t o th e particulat e matte r an dnitroge n oxide s standard s unde r thi s subpar t an dt o th e sulfu r dioxid e standard s unde r Subpar t D (§60.43) . (3 ) 011-fire d affecte dfacilitie s havin g a hea t Inpu t capacit y betwee n 2 9 an d7 3 M W (10 0 an d25 0 millio nBtu/hour) , Inclusive , ar e subjec t t o th e nitroge noxide s standard s unde r thi s subpart . (4 ) Oil-fire d affecte dfacilitie s havin g a hea t Inpu t capacit y greate r tha n7 3 M

W (25 0 millio nBtu/hour ) an dmeetin g th e applicabilit y requirement s unde r Subpar t D (Standard s o f performanc e fo r fossil-fuel-fire d stea m generators ; §60.40 ) ar e als o subjec t t o th e nitroge noxides , standard s unde r thi s subpar t an

dth e particulat e matte r an dsulfu r dioxid e standard s unde r Subpar t D (§60.4 2 and§60.43) . (c ) Affecte dfacilitie s whic hals o mee t th e applicabilit y requirement s unde r Subpar t J (Standard s o f performanc e for petroleu m refineries ; §60.104 )

ar e subjec t t o th e particulat e matte r an dnitroge noxide s standard s unde r thi s subpar t an

dth e sulfu r dioxid e standard s unde r Subpar t J (§60.104) . (d ) Affecte dfacilitie s whic hals o mee t th e applicabilit y requirement s unde r Subpar t E (Standard s o f performanc e fo r Incinerators ;

7 7P.8 0

§60.50 ) ar e subjec t t o th e nitroge noxide s an d particulat e matte r standard s unde r thi s subpart . (e ) Stea m generatin g unit s meetin g th e applicabilit y requirement s unde r Subpar t D a (Standard s o f performanc e fo r electri c utilit y stea m generatin g units ; §60.40a ) ar e no t subjec t t o thi s subpart . (f ) Any chang e t o a

nexistin g stea

m generatin g uni t fo r th e sol e purpos e o f combustin g gase s containin g TR S a s define dunde r §60.28 1 i s no t considere da modificatio nunde r §60.1 4 an d th e stea

m generatin g uni t i s no t subjec t t o thi s subpart . (g ) I ndelegatin g implementatio nan denforcemen t authorit y t o a Stat e unde r Sectio n111(c ) o f th e Act , th e followin g authoritie s shal l b e retaine d b y th e Administrato r an

d no t transferre dt o a State . (1 ) §60.44b(f ) (2 ) §60.44b(g ) (3 ) §60.49b(a)(4 ) §60.41 bDefinitions . A s use di nthi s subpart , al l term s no t define dherei nshal l hav e th e meanin g give nthem

inth e Ac t an

d inSubpar t A

o f thi s part . "Annua l capacit y

factor " mean s th e rati o betwee nth e actua l hea t Inpu t t o a stea

m generatin g uni t fro

m th e fuel s liste d i n§60.42b(a) , §60.43b(a) , o r §60.44b(a) , a s applicable , durin g a calenda r yea r an dth e potentia l hea t inpu t t o th e steam

generatin g uni t ha d i t bee noperate d fo r 8,76 0 hour s durin g a calenda r yea r a t th e maximu m stead y stat e desig nhea t inpu t capacity . Inth e cas e o f stea m generatin g unit s tha t ar e rente d o r leased ,

7 8P.8 1

th e actua l hea t inpu t shal l b e determine dbase donth e combine dhea t inpu t fro m al l operation s o f th e affecte dfacilit y i na calenda r year . "Byproduct/waste " mean s an y liqui do r gaseou s substanc e produce da t chemica l manufacturin g plant s o r petroleu m refinerie s (excep t natura l gas , distillat e oil , o r residua l oil ) an dcombuste di na stea

m generatin g uni t fo r hea t recover y

o r fo r disposal . Gaseou s substance s wit hcarbo ndioxid e level s greate r tha n5 0 percen t o r carbo nmonoxid e level s greate r tha n1 0 percen t ar e no t byproduct/wast e fo r th e purpose s o f thi s subpart . "Chemica l manufacturin g plants " mean s industria l plant s whic har e classifie db

y th e Departmen t o f Commerc e unde r Standar dIndustria l Classificatio n(SIC ) Cod e 28 . "Coal " mean s al l soli dfuel s classifie da s anthracite , bituminous , subbituminous , o r lignit e b y th e America nSociet y

o f Testin g an

dMaterial s 1 nAST M D388-77 , Standar dSpecificatio nfo r Classificatio no f Coal s b y Ran k (IBR- se e §60.17) , coa l refuse , an dpetroleu

m coke . Coal-derive dsyntheti c fuels , includin g bu t no t limite dt o solven t refine dcoal , gasifie dcoal , coal-oi l mixtures , an

dcoal-wate r mixtures , ar e als o include di nthi s definitio nfo r th e purpose s o f thi s subpart . "Coa l refuse " mean s an y byproduc t o f coa l minin g o r coa l cleanin g operation s wit ha nas hconten t greate r tha n5 0 percent , b y weight , an

da heatin g valu e les s tha n13,90 0 kJ/k g (6,00 0 Btu/lb ) ona dr y basis . "Combine dcycl e system " mean s a system i nwhic ha separat e source , suc h

a s a ga s turbine , interna l combustio nengine , kiln , etc. , provide s exhaus t ga s t o a hea t recover y stea m generatin g unit .

7 9P.8 2

"Conventiona l technology " mean s we t flu e ga s desulfurizatio n(FGD ) technology , dr y

FGD technology , atmospheri c fluidize d bed combustio n technology , an

d oi l hydrodesulfurizatio ntechnology . "Distillat e oil " mean s fue l oil s tha t contai n0.0 5 weigh t percen t nitroge no r les s an

d compl y wit hth e specification s fo r fue l oi l number s 1

an d 2 , a s define db

y th e America nSociet y

o f Testin g an

d Material s i nAST M D396-78 , Standar d Specification s fo r Fue l 011 s (incorporate d b y referenc e -
se e §60.17) . "Dr y flu e ga s desulfurizatio ntechnology " mean s a sulfu r dioxid e contro l system

tha t i s locate ddownstream o f th e stea

m generatin g uni t an

d

remove s sulfu r oxide s fro m th e combustio ngase s o f th e stea m generatin g uni t b y contactin g th e combustio ngase s wit ha nalkalin e slurr y

o r solutio nan

d formin g a dr y

powde r material . Thi s definitio ninclude s device s wher e th e dr y powde r materia l i s subsequentl y converte d t o anothe r form . Alkalin e slurrie s o r solution s use di ndr y flu e ga s desulfurizatio ntechnolog y includ e bu t ar e no t limite d t o lime an d sodium . "Duc t burner " mean s a devic e tha t combust s fue l an d tha t 1 s place d in th e exhaus t duc t fro

m anothe r source , suc ha s a stationar y ga s turbine , interna l combustio nengine , kiln , etc. , t o allow th e firin g o f additiona l fue l t o hea t th e exhaus t gase s befor e th e exhaus t gase s ente r a hea t
recover y stea m generatin g unit . "Emergin g technology " mean s an y sulfu r dioxid e contro l system tha t i s
no t define d a s a conventiona l technolog y unde r thi s section , andfo r whic h th e owne r o r operato r o f th e facilit y ha s applie d t o th e Administrato r an d receive dapprova l t o operat e a s anemergin g technolog y unde r §60.49b(a)(4) .

8 0P.8 3

"Federall y

enforceable " mean s al l limitation s an dcondition s tha t ar e enforceabl e b

y th e Administrator , includin g th e requirement s o f 4 0 CF RPart s 6 0 an d61 , requirement s withi nan y applicabl e Stat e Implementatio nPlan , an d t an y permi t requirement s establishe d unde r 4 0 CF R52.2 1 o r unde r 4 0 CF R51.1 8
an d4 0 CF R51.24 . "Fluidize dbe dcombustio ntechnology " mean s combustio no f fue l i na bed

o r serie s o f bed s (includin g bu t no t limite dt o bubblin g be dunit s an d circulatin g bedunits ) o f limeston e aggregat e (o r othe r sorben t materials ) inwhic hthes e material s ar e force dupwar db y th e flo w o f combustio nai r an

d th e gaseou s product s o f combustion . "Fue l pretreatment " mean s a proces s tha t remove s a portio no f th e sulfu r i na fue l befor e combustio no f th e fue l i na stea m generatin g unit . "Ful l capacity " mean s operatio no f th e stea m generatin g uni t a t 9 0 percen t o r mor e o f th e maximu m steady-stat e desig nhea t inpu t capacity . "Hea t input " mean s hea t derive dfro m combustio no f fue l i na stea m generatin g uni t an

ddoe s no t includ e th e hea t inpu t fro m preheate d combustio nair , recirculate dflu e gases , o r exhaus t gase s fro m othe r
sources , suc ha s ga s turbines , interna l combustio nengines , kilns , etc . "Hea t releas e rate " mean s th e stea m generatin g uni t desig nhea t inpu t capacit y (i nM W o r Btu/hour ) divide db y th e furnac e volume (i ncubi c meter s
o r cubi c feet) ; th e furnac e volum e i s tha t volume bounde db y th e fron t furnac e wal l wher e th e burne r i s located , th e furnac e sid e waterwall , an d extendin g t o th e leve l jus t below o r infron t o f th e firs t row o f convectio n pas s tubes .

8 1P.8 4

"Hea t transfe r medium " mean s an y materia l tha t i s use d t o transfe r hea t fro m on e poin t t o anothe r point . "Highhea t releas e rate " mean s a hea t releas e rat e greate r tha n730,00 0 J/sec-m 3 (70,00 0 Btu/hour-ft 3 ) . "Lignite " mean s a typ e o f coa l classifie da s lignit e A o r lignit e B b

y th e America nSociet y

o f Testin g an

d Material s inAST M

D388-77 , Standar d Specificatio nfo r Classificatio no f Coal s b y Ran k (IB

R- se e §60.17) . "Lo w hea t releas e rate " mean s a hea t releas e rat e o f 730,00 0 J/sec- m (70,00 0 Btu/hour-ft 3 ) o r less . "Mass-fee dstoke r stea m generatin g unit " mean s a steam generatin g uni t wher e soli dfue l i s introduce d directl y int o a retor t o r i s fe d directl y ont o a grat e wher e i t i s combusted . "Maximu m hea t inpu t capacity " mean s th e abilit y o f a stea

m generatin g uni t t o combus t a state dmaximu m amoun t o f fue l ona steady stat e basis , a s determine d b

y th e physica l desig nan d characteristic s o f th e stea m generatin g unit . "Municipal-typ e soli d waste " mean s refuse , mor e tha n5 0 percen t o f whic hi s wast e consistin g o f a mixtur e o f paper , wood , yar d wastes , food wastes , plastics , leather , rubber , an d othe r combustibl e materials , an d noncombustibl e material s suc ha s glas s an d rock . "Natura l gas " mean s (1 ) a naturall y occurrin g mixtur e o f hydrocarbo n
an dnonhydrocarbo ngase s found i ngeologi c formation s beneat hth e earth's surface , o f whic hth e principa l constituen t I s methane ; o r (2 ) liqui d petroleu m gas , a s define db

y th e America nSociet y

fo r Testin g an

d Material s

8 2P.8 5

i nAST M D1835-82 , "Standar dSpecificatio nfo r Liqui dPetroleu m Gases " (IBR- se e §60.17) . "Noncontinenta l area " mean s th e Stat e o f Hawaii , th e Virgi nIslands , Guam , America nSamoa , th e Commonwealt ho f Puert o Rico , o r th e Norther n Marian a Islands . "Oil " mean s crud e oi l o r petroleu m o r a liqui dfue l derive dfro m crud e oi l o r petroleum , includin g distillat e an dresidua l oil . "Petroleu m refinery " mean s industria l plant s a s classifie db y th e Departmen t o f Commerc e unde r Standar dIndustria l Classificatio n(SIC ) Cod e 29 . "Potentia l sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrate " mean s th e theoretica l sulfu r dioxid e emission s (ng/J , lb/millio nBt uhea t input ) tha t woul dresul t fro m combustin g fue l ina

nuncleane dstat e an

dwithou t usin g emissio ncontro l systems . "Proces s heater " mean s a devic e tha t 1 s primaril y use dt o hea t a materia l t o Initiat e o r promot e a chemica l reactio ninwhic hth e materia l participate s a s a reactan t o r catalyst . "Pulverize dcoal-fire dstea m generatin g unit " mean s a stea m generatin g uni t inwhic hpulverize dcoa l 1 s Introduce dint o a nai r strea

m tha t carrie s th e coa l t o th e combustio nchambe r o f th e stea m generatin g uni t wher e i t i s fire di nsuspension . Thi s include s bot hconventiona l pulverize dcoal-fire d

an dmicropulverize dcoal-fire dstea m generatin g units . "Residua l oil " mean s crud e oil , fue l oi l number s 1 an d2 tha t hav e a nitroge nconten t greate r tha n0.0 5 weigh t percent , an dal l fue l oi l number s

8 3P.8 6

4 , 5 an d 6 , a s define db

y th e America nSociet y

o f Testin g an

d Material s i

n AST M D396-78 , Standar dSpecification s fo r Fue l Oil s (IBR- se e §60.17) . "Spreade r stoke r stea

m generatin g unit " mean s a stea m generatin g uni t inwhic hsoli dfue l i s introduce d t o th e combustio nzon e b y a mechanis m

tha t throw s th e fue l ont o a grat e fro m above . Combustio ntake s plac e bot hi n suspensio nan

do nth e grate . "Stea m generatin g unit " mean s a devic e tha t combust s an y fue l o r byproduct/wast e t o produc e stea m o r t o hea t wate r o r an y othe r hea t transfe r medium . Thi s ter

m include s an

y municipal-typ e soli d wast e Incinerato r wit h

a hea t recover y

stea m generatin g uni t o r an y stea m generatin g uni t tha t combust s fue l an

di s par t o f a cogeneratio nsystem o r a combine d cycl e system . Thi s ter

m doe s no t includ e proces s heater s a s the y ar e define din thi s subpart . "Stea m generatin g uni t operatin g day " mean s a 24-hou r perio dbetwee n 12:0 0 midnigh t an

dth e followin g midnigh t durin g whic han y fue l i s combuste d

a t an y time i nth e stea

m generatin g unit . I t 1 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 . "Ver y low sulfu r conten t residua l oil " mean s anoi l tha t (1 ) whe n combuste dwithou t pos t combustio nSO - contro l ha s anSO * emissio nrat e equa l t o o r les s tha n13 0 ng/ J (0.3 0 l bS0*/m1ll1o nBtu) , (2 ) ha s a flas hpoin t greate r tha n60° C (140°F) , an d(3 ) ha s a kinemati c viscosit y greate r tha n 1 5 centistoke s a t 100° C (212°F) . "We t flu e ga s desulfurizatio ntechnology " mean s a sulfu r dioxid e contro l system

tha t i s locate ddownstream o f th e stea

m generatin g uni t an

d

remove s sulfu r oxide s fro m th e combustio ngase s o f th e stea m generatin g uni t

8 4P.8 7



### b y contactin g th e combustio nga s wit ha nalkalin e slurry

o r solutio nan

d formin g a liqui dmaterial . Thi s definitio napplie s t o device s wher e th e aqueou s liqui dmateria l produc t o f thi s contac t 1 s subsequentl y converte dt o othe r forms . Alkalin e reagent s use dinwe t flu e ga s desulfurizatio n technology include , bu t ar e no t limite dto , lime , limestone , an dsodium . "We t scrubbe r system " mean s an y emissio ncontro l devic e tha t mixe s a n aqueou s strea

m o r slurr y

wit hth e exhaus t gase s fro m a stea m generatin g uni t t o contro l emission s o f particulat e matte r o r sulfu r dioxide . "Wood " mean s wood , woo dresidue , bark , o r an y derivativ e fue l o r residu e thereof , 1nan

y form , Including , bu t no t limite dto , sawdust , sanderdust , woo dchips , scraps , slabs , millings , shavings , an dprocesse d pellet s mad e fro

m woo do r othe r fores t residues . §60.42 bStandard s fo r sulfu r dioxide . (a ) Excep t a s provide d1nparagraph s (b) , (c) , o r (d ) o f thi s section , onan dafte r th e dat e onwhic hth e performanc e tes t I s complete do r require d t o b e complete dunde r §60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r dat e come s first , n o owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte dfacilit y tha t combust s coa l or

oi l shal l
caus e t o b e discharge dint o th e atmospher e an y gase s tha t contai nsulfu r dioxid e i nexces s o f 1 0 percen t (0.10 ) o f th e potentia l sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrat e (9 0 percen t reduction ) an dtha t contai nsulfu r dioxid e in exces s o f th e emissio nlimi t determine daccordin g t o th e followin g formula :

E 

### s ' < K 

### a H 

### a + K 

### bH 

### b>/< H 

### a + 

### V where : E i s th e sulfu r dioxid e emissio nlimit , i nng/ J o r lb/millio nBt u hea t input ,

8 5P.8 8

Ki s 52 0 ng/ J (or 1. 2 lb/millio nBtu) , K bi s 34 0 ng/ J (o r 0.8 0 lb/millio nBtu) , H a i s th e hea t inpu t fro m th e combustio no f coal , i nJ (millio nBtu) , c l H bi s th e hea t inpu t fro m th e combustio no f oil , i nJ (millio nBtu) . Onl y th e hea t inpu t supplie dt o th e affecte dfacilit y fro m th e combustio no f coa l an

doi l i s counte d unde r thi s section . N o credi t i s provide dfo r th e hea t inpu t t o th e affecte d facilit y fro m th e combustio no f natura l gas , wood, municipal-typ e soli d waste , o r othe r fuel s o r hea t inpu t t o th e affecte dfacilit y fro m exhaus t gase s fro

m anothe r source , suc ha s ga s turbines , interna l combustio nengines , kilns , etc . (b ) O nan

dafte r th e dat e o

nwhic hth e performanc e tes t i s complete d

o r require dt o b e complete dunde r §60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r come s first ,
n o owne r o r operato r o f anaffecte d facilit y tha t combust s coa l refus e alon e ina fluidize dbe dcombustio nstea m generatin g uni t shal l caus e t o b e discharge dInt o th e atmospher e an y gase s tha t contai nsulfu r dioxid e in
exces s o f 2 0 percen t o f th e potentia l sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrat e (8 0 percen t reduction ) andtha t contai nsulfu r dioxid e 1 nexces s o f 52 0 ng/ J (1. 2 lb/m1llio nBtu ) hea t input . I f coa l o r oi l 1 s fire d wit hcoa l refuse , th e affecte dfacilit y

1 s subjec t t o paragrap h(a ) o r (d ) o f thi s section , a s applicable . (c ) O nan

dafte r th e dat e o

nwhic hth e performanc e tes t 1 s complete d

o r i s require dt o b e complete d unde r §60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r come s first , no owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte d facilit y

tha t combust s coa l o r oil , eithe r alon e o r i ncombinatio nwit han y othe r fuel , andtha t use s an emergin g technolog y

fo r th e contro l o f sulfu r dioxid e emissions , shal l caus e

8 6t o b e discharge dint o th e atmospher e an y gase s tha t contai nsulfu r dioxid e i nexces s o f 5 0 percen t o f th e potentia l sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrat e (5 0 percen t reduction ) an

dtha t contai nsulfu r dioxid e inexces s o f th e emissio n limi t determine daccordin g t o th e followin g formula :

E s " < K c H c + K d H d>/< H c + H d > where : E i s th e sulfu r dioxid e emissio nlimit , expresse d1nng/ J (lb/millio n Btu ) hea t input , K r i s 26 0 ng/ J (0.6 0 lb/millio nBtu) , K d1 s 17 0 ng/ J (0.4 0 lb/m1H1o nBtu) , H i s th e hea t Inpu t fro m th e combustio no f coal , J (millio nBtu) , H . i s th e hea t inpu t fro m th e combustio no f oil , J (millio nBtu) . Onl y th e hea t inpu t supplie dt o th e affecte dfacilit y fro m th e combustio no f coa l an

doi l i s counte dunde r thi s section . No credi t i s provide dfo r th e hea t Inpu t t o th e affecte dfacilit y fro m th e combustio no f natura l gas , wood , municipal-typ e soli dwaste , o r othe r fuels , o r fro m th e hea t Inpu t t o th e affecte dfacilit y fro m exhaus t gase s fro

m anothe r source , suc ha s ga s turbines , interna l combustio nengines , kilns , etc . (d ) O nan

dafte r th e dat e onwhic hth e performance tes t i s complete d

o r require dt o b e complete dunde r §60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r come s first , no owne r o r operato r o f anaffecte dfacilit y liste d insubparagraph s (1) , (2) , (3) , o r (4 ) o f thi s paragrap hshal l caus e t o b e discharge dint o th e atmospher e any

gase s tha t contai nsulfu r dioxid e i nexces s o f 52 0 ng/ J (1. 2 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t inpu t i f th e affecte dfacilit y combust s coal , o r 13 0 ng/ J (0.3 0 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t inpu t i f th e affecte dfacilit y combust s

8 7P.9 0

oil . Percen t reductio nrequirement s ar e no t applicabl e t o affecte d facilitie s unde r thi s paragraph : (1 ) affecte d facilitie s tha t hav e anannua l capacit y facto r fo r coa l

an d oi l o f 3 0 percen t (0.30 ) o r les s an d ar e subjec t t o a Federall y enforceabl e permi t limitin g th e operatio no f th e affecte dfacilit y t o a n
annua l capacit y

facto r fo r coa l an

doi l t o 3 0 percen t (0.30 ) o r less ; (2 ) affecte dfacilitie s locate d ina noncontinenta l area ; (3 ) affecte dfacilitie s combustin g coa l o r oil , alon e o r i ncombinatio n wit han y othe r fuel , ina duc t burne r a s par t o f a combine d cycl e syste m wher e 3 0 percen t (0.30 ) o r les s o f th e hea t inpu t t o th e stea m generatin g uni t i s fro

m combustio no f coa l an d oi l i nth e duc t burne r and 7 0 percen t (0.70 ) o r mor e o f th e hea t Inpu t t o th e stea m generatin g uni t 1 s fro m th e exhaus t gase s enterin g th e duc t burner ; o r (4 ) affecte d facilitie s combustin g ver y lo w sulfu r conten t residua l oil . (e ) Excep t a s provide di nparagraph(f ) o f thi s section , complianc e wit hth e emissio nlimit(s ) an d percen t reductio nrequirement s unde r thi s sectio nar e determine do na 30-da y

rollin g averag e basis . (f ) Complianc e wit hth e emissio nlimit s unde r thi s sectio nar e determine d o na 24-hou r averag e basi s fo r affecte dfacilitie s whic h(1 ) hav e
a Federall y

enforceabl e permi t limitin g th e annua l capacit y facto r fo r oi l t o 1 0 percen t o r less , (2 ) combus t onl y othe r oi l whic hemit s les s tha n13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 l bS0 2 /m11lio nBtu) , an d(3 ) d o no t combus t an y fuel .

8 8P.9 1

(g ) Excep t a s provide d inparagraph(i ) o f thi s section , th e sulfu r dioxid e emissio nlimit s an dpercen t reductio nrequirement s unde r thi s sectio nappl y

a t al l times , Including period s o f startup , shutdown , an d malfunction . (h ) Reduction s inth e potentia l sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrat e through fue l pretreatmen t o f les s tha n5 0 percen t ar e no t credite dtowar d th e percen t reductio nrequiremen t unde r paragraph(c ) o f thi s section . (i ) Anaffecte dfacilit y subjec t t o paragraph(a) , (b) , o r (c ) o f thi s sectio nma y

combus t oi l whic hha s a sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrat e equa l t o o r les s tha n13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 lb/mil l ionBtu ) hea t inpu t durin g period s whe nth e sulfu r dioxid e contro l syste m 1 s no t bein g operate d becaus e o f malfunctio n
o r maintenanc e o f th e sulfu r dioxid e contro l system , i f th e sulfu r dioxid e contro l system : (1 ) wa s operate d durin g th e calenda r quarte r an d (2 ) wa s 1ncomplianc e wit hth e percen t reductio nrequiremen t an d emissio nlimi t unde r paragraph(a) , (b) , o r (c ) o f thi s section , a s applicable , whe noperated . §60.43 bStandar dfo r particulat e matter . (a ) O nan

dafte r th e dat e onwhic hth e Initia l performanc e tes t 1 s complete do r I s require d t o b e complete dunde r §60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r
come s first , n o owne r o r operato r o f anaffecte d facilit y whic hcombust s
coa l o r combust s mixture s o f coa l wit hothe r fuels , shal l caus e t o b e discharge d Int o th e atmospher e fro m tha t affecte d facilit y an y gase s tha t contai nparticulat e matte r i nexces s o f th e followin g emissio nlimits : (1 ) 2 2 ng/ J (0.0 5 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t input ,

8 9P.9 2

(i ) i f th e affecte d facilit y combust s onl y

coal , o r (ii ) i f the affecte dfacilit y combust s coa l an

dothe r fuel s an

d ha s a n
annua l capacit y

facto r fo r th e othe r fuel s o f 1 0 percen t (0.10 ) o r less . (2 ) 4 3 ng/ J (0.1 0 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t Inpu t i f th e affecte dfacilit y combust s coa l an

dothe r fuel s an

d ha s anannua l capacit y facto r fo r th e othe r fuel s greate r tha n1 0 percen t (0.10 ) an d 1 s subjec t t o a Federall y enforceabl e requiremen t limitin g operatio no f th e affecte dfacilit y t o a n
annua l capacit y

facto r greate r tha n1 0 percen t (0.10 ) fo r fuel s othe r tha n coal . (3 ) 8 6 ng/ J (0.2 0 1b/m111 1 onBtu ) hea t Inpu t I f th e affecte dfacilit y combust s coa l o r coa l an d othe r fuel s an

d

89 aP.9 3

(1 ) ha s anannua l capacit y facto r fo r coa l o r coa l an d othe r fuel s o f 3 0 percen t (0.30 ) o r less , (ii ) ha s a maximu

m hea t inpu t capacit y

o f 7 3 M W (25 0 millio nBtu/hour )

o r less , (iii ) ha s a Federall y

enforceabl e requiremen t limitin g operatio no f th e affecte dfacilit y

t o anannua l capacit y facto r o f 3 0 percen t (0.30 ) o r les s fo r coa l o r coa l an dothe r soli d fuels , an d (iv ) constructio no f th e affecte d facilit y commence d afte r Jun e 19 , 1984 , an dbefor e Novembe r 25 , 1986 . (b ) O nan

dafte r th e dat e onwhic hth e performanc e tes t 1 s complete d

o r require d t o b e complete d unde r §60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r dat e come s first , n o owne r o r operato r o f anaffecte d facilit y tha t combust s oi l o r tha t combust s mixture s o f oi l wit hothe r fuel s shal l caus e t o b e discharge d int o th e atmospher e fro m tha t affecte dfacilit y an y gase s tha t contai n particulat e matte r i nexces s o f 4 3 ng/ J (0.1 0 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t input . (c ) Onan

dafte r th e dat e o nwhic hth e Initia l performanc e tes t 1 s complete do r i s require dt o b e complete dunde r §60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r dat e come s first , n o owne r o r operato r o f anaffecte d facilit y tha t combust s wood , o r woo dwit hothe r fuels , excep t coal , shal l caus e t o b e discharge d fro m tha t affecte dfacilit y an y gase s tha t contai nparticulat e matte r in
exces s o f th e followin g emissio nlimits : (1 ) 4 3 ng/ J (0.1 0 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t Inpu t I f th e affecte d facilit y ha s anannua l capacit y facto r greate r tha n3 0 percen t (0.30 ) fo r wood . (2 ) 8 6 ng/ J (0.2 0 lb/millio nBtu ) hea t Inpu t i f

9 0P.9 4

(i ) th e affecte dfacilit y ha s a nannua l capacit y

facto r o f 3 0 percen t (0.30 ) o r les s fo r wood , (ii ) i s subjec t t o a Federall y enforceabl e requiremen t limitin g operatio no f th e affecte dfacilit y t o a nannua l capacit y

facto r o f 3 0 percen t (0.30 ) o r les s fo r wood , an d (iii ) ha s a maximu

m hea t inpu t capacit y

o f 7 3 M W (25 0 millio n Btu/hour ) o r less . (d ) O nan

dafte r th e dat e o

nwhic hth e initia l performanc e tes t i s complete do r i s require dt o b e complete dunde r §60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r dat e come s first , n o owne r o r operato r o f anaffecte dfacilit y tha t combust s municipal-typ e soli dwast e o r mixture s o f municipal-typ e soli dwast e wit h othe r fuels , shal l caus e t o b e discharge dInt o th e atmospher e fro m tha t affecte dfacilit y

an y gase s tha t contai nparticulate matte r 1nexces s o f th e followin g emissio nlimits : (1 ) 4 3 ng/ J (0.1 0 lb/mill1o nBtu ) hea t input , (1 ) i f th e affecte dfacilit y combust s onl y

municipal-typ e soli dwaste , o r (ii ) i f th e affecte dfacilit y combust s municipal-typ e soli dwast e an d othe r fuel s an

dha s anannua l capacit y facto r fo r th e othe r fuel s o f 1 0 percen t (0.10 ) o r less . (2 ) 8 6 ng/ J (0.2 0 lb/mllllo nBtu ) hea t inpu t 1 f th e affecte dfacilit y combust s municipal-typ e soli dwast e o r municipal-typ e soli dwast e an dothe r fuels ; an

d (i ) ha s a

nannua l capacit y

facto r fo r municipal-typ e soli dwast e an d othe r fuel s o f 3 0 percen t (0.30 ) o r less ,

9 1P.9 5

(ii ) ha s a maximu

m hea t inpu t capacit y

o f 7 3 M W (25 0 millio nBtu/hour )

o r less , (iii ) ha s a Federall y

enforceabl e requiremen t limitin g operatio no f th e affecte dfacilit y

t o a nannua l capacit y

facto r o f 3 0 percen t (0.30 ) fo r municipal-typ e soli dwaste , o r municipal-typ e soli dwast e an dothe r fuels , an d (iv ) constructio no f th e affecte dfacilit y commence d afte r Jun e 19 , 1984 , bu t befor e Novembe r 25 , 1986 . (e ) Fo r th e purpose s o f thi s section , th e annua l capacit y facto r i s determine db

y dividin g th e actua l hea t inpu t t o th e stea m generatin g uni t durin g th e calenda r yea r fro m th e combustio no f coal , wood , o r municipal-typ e soli dwaste , an d othe r fuels , a s applicable , b y th e potentia l hea t inpu t t o th e steam generating uni t i f th e stea m generatin g uni t ha d bee noperate dfo r 8,76 0 hour s a t th e maximu m desig nhea t inpu t capacity . (f ) O nan

dafte r th e dat e onwhic hth e initia l performanc e tes t i s complete do r i s require dt o b e complete dunde r §60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r dat e come s first , n o owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte d facilit y

subjec t t o th e particulat e matte r emissio nlimit s unde r paragraph s (a) , (b ) o r (c ) o f thi s sectio nshal l caus e t o b e discharge d int o th e atmospher e an y gase s tha t exhibi t greate r tha n2 0 percen t opacit y (6-minut e average) , excep t fo r
on e 6-minut e perio dpe r hou r o f no t mor e tha n2 7 percen t opacity . (g ) Th e particulat e matte r an dopacit y

standard s appl y

a t al l times , excep t durin g period s o f startup , shutdow no r malfunction .

9 2§60.44 b Standar d fo r nitroge n oxides

. (a ) O n an

d afte r th e dat e o n whic h th e Initia l performanc e tes t i s complete d o r i s require d t o b e complete d unde r §60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r dat e come s first , n o owne r o r operato r o f an affecte d facilit ytha t i s subjec t t o th e provision s o f thi s sectio n an d tha t combust s onl ycoal , oil , o r natura l ga s shal l caus e t o b e discharge d int o th e atmospher e fro mtha t affecte d facilit yan

ygase s tha t contai n nitroge n oxide s i n exces s o f th e followin g emissio n limits : NOT E T O GP O TYPESETTER : Pleas e pu t thi s tabl e 1 n on e column immediatel yfollowin g th e precedin g lin e o f text
.

Nitroge n oxid e emissio n limit s ng/ J (lb/millio n Btu ) Fuel/Stea mgeneratin g uni t typ e hea t Inpu t (1 ) Natura l ga s an

d distillat e oil , excep t (4 ) (i ) lo whea t releas e rat e 4 3 (0.10 ) (11 ) hig h hea t releas e rat e 8 6 (0.20 ) (2 ) Residua l oi l (i ) lo whea t releas e rat e 13 0 (0.30 ) (ii ) hig h hea t releas e rat e 17 0 (0.40 ) (3 ) Coa l (i ) mass-fee d stoke r 21 0 (0.50 ) (ii ) spreade r stoke r and fluidize d be d combustio n 26 0 (0.60 ) (iii ) pulverize d coa l 30 0 (0.70 ) (iv ) lignite , excep t (v ) 26 0 (0.60 ) (v ) lignit e mine d i n Nort h Dakota , 34 0 (0.80 ) Sout h Dakota , o r Montan a an d combuste d i n a sla g ta p furnac e (vi ) coal-derive d syntheti c fuel s 21 0 (0.50 ) (4 ) Duc t burne r use d i n a combine d cycl e syste m (i ) natura l ga s and distillat e oi l 8 6 (0.20 ) (ii ) residua l oi l 17 0 (0.40 )

9 3P.9 7

(b ) Onan

dafte r th e dat e onwhic hth e initia l performanc e tes t i s complete do r i s require dt o be complete dunde r §60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r dat e come s first , n o owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte dfacilit y

tha t simultaneousl y

combust s mixture s o f coal , oil , o r natura l ga s shal l caus e t o b e discharge dint o th e atmospher e fro m tha t affecte dfacilit y an y gase s tha t contai nnitroge noxide s i nexces s o f a limi t determine db y us e o f th e followin g formula :

E „ » [(EL„ r t H I + (EL r nH I + (EL „ H r )]/(H nf t + ti + H J n xg o go ' r o ro 7 v c c ' g o r o c ' where : E i s th e nitroge noxide s emissio nlimit , ng/ J (lb/millio nBtu ) E L i s th e appropriat e emissio nlimi t fro m paragrap h(a)(1 ) fo r combustio no f natura l ga s o r distillat e oil , ng/ J (lb/millio nBtu ) H i s th e hea t inpu t fro m combustio no f natura l ga s o r distillat e oil , E L i s th e appropriat e emissio nlimi t fro m paragrap h(a)(2 ) fo r combustio no f residua l oil , H r Q i s th e hea t inpu t fro m combustio no f residua l oil , EL C i s th e appropriat e emissio nlimi t fro m paragrap h(a)(3 ) fo r combustio no f coal , an d H i s th e hea t inpu t fro m combustio no f coal . (c ) O nan

dafte r th e dat e onwhic hth e initia l performanc e tes t i s complete do r i s require dt o b e complete dunde r §60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r
come s first , n o owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte dfacilit y

tha t simultaneousl y

combust s coa l o r oil , o r a mixtur e o f thes e fuel s wit h natura l gas , an

dwood , municipal-typ e soli dwaste , o r an y othe r fue l shal l

caus e t o b e discharge dint o th e atmospher e an y gase s tha t contai nnitroge n

9 4P.9 8

oxide s inexces s o f th e emissio nlimi t fo r th e coa l o r oil , o r mixtur e o f thes e fuel s wit hnatura l ga s combuste dinth e affecte dfacility , a s determine dpursuan t t o paragraph(a ) o r (b ) o f thi s section , unles s th e affecte dfacilit y

ha s a nannua l capacit y

facto r fo r coa l o r oil , o r mixtur e
o f thes e fuel s wit hnatura l ga s o f 1 0 percen t (0.10 ) o r les s an di s subjec t t o a Federall y

enforceable requiremen t tha t limit s operatio no f th e facilit y t o a nannua l capacit y

facto r o f 1 0 percen t (0.10 ) o r les s fo r coal , oil , o r
a mixtur e o f thes e fuel s wit hnatura l gas . (d ) O nan

dafte r th e dat e onwhic hth e Initia l performanc e tes t 1 s complete do r i s require dt o b e complete dunde r §60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r dat e come s first , n o owne r o r operato r o f anaffecte dfacilit y tha t simultaneousl y

combust s natura l ga s wit hwood , municipal-typ e soli dwaste , o r othe r soli d fuel , excep t coal , shal l caus e t o b e discharge dInt o th e atmospher e fro

m tha t affecte dfacilit y an y gase s tha t contai nnitroge n oxide s i nexces s o f 13 0 ng/ J (0.3 0 1b/mi111o nBtu ) hea t Inpu t unles s th e affecte dfacilit y

ha s anannua l capacit y facto r fo r natura l ga s o f 1 0 percen t (0.10 ) o r les s an di s subjec t t o a Federall y enforceable requiremen t tha t limit s operatio no f th e affecte dfacilit y t o anannua l capacit y facto r
o f 1 0 percen t (0.10 ) o r les s fo r natura l gas . (e ) O nandafte r th e dat e o nwhic hth e initia l performanc e tes t i s complete do r I s require dt o b e complete dunde r §60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r dat e come s first , n o owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte dfacilit y tha t simultaneousl y

combust s coal , oil , o r natura l ga s wit hbyproduct/wast e shal l

caus e t o b e discharge dInt o th e atmospher e fro m tha t affecte dfacilit y an y gase s tha t contai nnitroge noxide s i nexces s o f a nemissio nlimi t determine d

9 5P.9 9

b y th e followin g formul a unles s th e affecte d facilit y ha s a nannua l capacit y facto r fo r coal , oil , an dnatura l ga s o f 1 0 percen t (0.10 ) o r les s an d i s subjec t t o a Federall y enforceabl e requiremen t whic hlimit s operatio no f th e affecte d facilit y t o a nannua l capacit y

facto r o f 1 0 percen t (0.10 ) o r less :

E „ - t(EL„ n H n* ) + (Ek * H, J + (EL „ HJ]/(H„ A + H + H J n t xg o go 7 v

r o ro 7 xc c /J ' v g o r o c ' where : E i s th e nitroge noxide s emissio nlimit , ng/ J (lb/millio nBtu ) E L i s th e appropriat e emissio nlimi t fro m paragraph(a)(1 ) fo r combustio no f natura l ga s o r distillat e oil , ng/ J (lb/millio n Btu) . H i s th e hea t inpu t fro m combustio no f natura l gas , distillat e oi l

an dgaseou s byproduct/waste , ng/ J (lb/millio nBtu) . EL r o i s th e appropriat e emissio nHmi t fro m paragrap h(a)(2 ) fo r combustio no f residua l oil , ng/ J (lb/millio nBtu ) H i s th e hea t Inpu t fro m combustio no f residua l oi l and/o r liqui d byproduct/waste . E L i s th e appropriat e emissio nlimi t fro m paragrap h(a)(3 ) fo r combustio no f coal , and H i s th e hea t Inpu t fro m combustio no f coal , (f ) An y owne r o r operato r o f anaffecte dfacilit y tha t combust s byproduct/wast e wit heithe r natura l ga s o r oi l ma y petitio nth e Administrato r withi n18 0 day s o f th e initia l startu p o f th e affecte d facilit y t o establis ha nitroge noxide s emissio nlimi t whic hshal l appl y specificall y

t o tha t affecte d facilit y whe nth e byproduct/wast e i s

9 6p. 1

combusted . Th e petitio nshal l includ e sufficien t an dappropriat e data , a s determine db

y th e Administrator , suc ha s nitroge noxide s emission s fro m th e affecte dfacility , wast e compositio n(includin g nitroge ncontent) , an d combustio ncondition s t o allo w th e Administrato r t o confirm tha t th e affecte dfacilit y

i s unabl e t o compl y

wit hth e emissio nlimit s i nparagraph (e ) o f thi s sectio nan

dt o determin e th e appropriat e emissio nlimi t fo r th e affecte dfacility . (1 ) Any owne r o r operato r o f anaffecte dfacilit y petitionin g fo r a facility-specifi c nitroge noxide s emissio nlimi t unde r thi s sectio nshall : (1 ) demonstrat e complianc e wit hth e emissio nlimit s fo r natura l ga s
an ddistillat e oi l i nparagraph(a)(1 ) o r fo r residua l oi l i nparagraph (a)(2) , a s appropriate , b y conductin g a 30-da y

performanc e tes t a s provide d i n§60.46b(e) . Durin g th e performanc e tes t onl y natura l gas , distillat e oil , o r residua l oi l shal l b e combuste di nth e affecte dfacility ; an d (ii ) demonstrat e tha t th e affecte dfacilit y 1 s unabl e t o compl y

wit h th e emissio nlimit s fo r natura l ga s an ddistillat e oi l 1 nparagrap h(a)(1 )

o r fo r residua l oi l i nparagrap h(a)(2) , a s appropriate , whe ngaseou s o r liqui dbyproduct/wast e i s combuste di nth e affecte dfacilit y unde r th e sam

e condition s an

dusin g th e same technologica l system o f emissio nreductio n applie dwhe ndemonstratin g complianc e unde r subparagrap h(1) . (2 ) Th e nitroge noxide s emissio nlimit s fo r natura l ga s o r distillat e oi l i nparagrap h(a)(1 ) o r fo r residua l oi l i nparagrap h(a)(2) , a s appropriate , shal l b e applicabl e t o th e affecte dfacilit y unti l an

dunles s th e petitio ni s approve db y th e Administrator . I f th e petitio ni s approve d b y th e Administrator , a facility-specifi c nitroge noxide s emissio nlimi t

9 7P. 2

wil l be establishe da t th e nitroge noxide s emissio nleve l achievabl e whe n th e affecte dfacilit y

i s combustin g oi l o r natura l ga s an d byproduct / wast e ina manne r tha t th e Administrato r determine s t o b e consisten t wit h minimizin g nitroge noxide s emissions . (g ) Any owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte dfacilit y

tha t combust s hazardou s wast e (a s define d b y 4 0 CF R26 1 o r 4 0 CF R761 ) wit hnatura l ga s o r oi l ma y petitio nth e Administrato r withi n18 0 day s o f th e initia l startu p o f th e affecte d facilit y

fo r a waive r fro

m complianc e wit hth e nitroge noxide s emissio nlimi t whic happlie s specificall y t o tha t affecte d facility . Th e petitio nmus t Includ e sufficien t an d appropriat e data , a s determine d b y th e Administrator , onnitroge noxide s emission s fro m th e affecte d facility , wast e destructio nefficiencies , wast e compositio n(includin g nitroge n content) , th e quantit y o f specifi c waste s t o b e combuste d an d combustio n condition s t o allow

th e Administrato r t o determin e i f th e affecte d facilit y i s abl e t o compl y

wit hth e nitroge noxide s emissio nlimit s require db y thi s section . Th e owne r o r operato r o f th e affecte dfacilit y shal l demonstrat e tha t whe nhazardou s wast e i s combuste dinth e affecte d facility , therma l destructio nefficienc y requirement s fo r hazardou s wast e specifie d1 nan applicabl e Federall y

enforceabl e requiremen t preclud e complianc e wit hth e nitroge noxide s emissio nlimit s o f thi s section . Th e nitroge noxide s emissio nlimit s fo r natura l ga s o r distillat e oi l inparagrap h(a)(1 ) o r fo r residua l oi l i nparagrap h(a)(2) , a s appropriate , ar e applicabl e t o th e affecte dfacilit y

unti l an

dunles s th e petitio n1 s approve d b y th e Administrator . (Se e 4 0 CF R761.7 0 fo r regulation s applicabl e t o th e incineratio no f material s containin g polychlorlnate d biphenyl s (PCB's). )

9 8P. 3

(h ) Th e nitroge noxid e standard s unde r thi s sectio nappl y a t al l time s includin g period s o f startup , shutdow no r malfunction . §60.45 bComplianc e an dperformanc e tes t method s an d procedure s fo r sulfu r dioxide . (a ) Th e sulfu r dioxid e emissio nstandard s unde r §60.42 bappl y a t al l times . (b ) I nconductin g th e performanc e test s require dunde r §60.8 , th e
owne r o r operato r shal l us e th e method s an d procedure s i nAppendi xA o f thi s par t o r th e metho dan

dprocedure s a s specifie dI nthi s section , excep t a s provide din§60.8(b) . Sectio n60.8(f ) doe s no t appl y t o thi s subpart . Th e 30-da y notic e require di n§60.8(d ) applie s onl y t o th e initia l performanc e tes t unles s otherwis e specifie d b y th e Administrator . (c ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f anaffecte dfacilit y shal l conduc t performanc e test s t o determin e complianc e wit hth e percen t o f potentia l sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrat e ( % P ) an d th e sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrat e (E $ ) pursuan t to§50.42 bfollowin g th e procedure s liste d below , excep t a s provide dunde r paragrap h(d ) o f thi s section . (1 ) Th e initia l performanc e tes t shal l b e conducte d ove r th e firs t 3 0 consecutiv e operatin g day s o f th e stea m generatin g unit . Complianc e wit h th e sulfu r dioxid e standard s shal l b e determine d usin g a 30-da y average . Th e firs t operatin g da y Include d i

nth e initia l performanc e tes t shal l b e schedule dwithi n3 0 day s afte r achievin g th e maximu m productionrat e a t whic hth e affecte dfacilit y wil l b e operated , bu t no t late r tha n18 0 day s afte r initia l startu p o f th e facility .

9 9(2 ) I f onl y coa l o r onl y

oi l i s combusted , th e followin g procedure s
ar e used : (i ) Th e procedure s inMetho d 1 9 ar e use d t o determin e th e hourl y sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrat e (E L ) an d th e 30-da y

averag e emissio nrat e (E art ) - Tn e hourl y

average s use d t o comput e th e 30-da y average s ar e obtaine d d o fro m th e continuou s emissio nmonitorin g syste m o f §60.47b(a ) o r (b) . (ii ) Th e percen t o f potentia l sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrat e ( % P ) emitte d t o th e atmospher e i s compute d using th e followin g formula :

% P s = 10 0 ( 1 - %

R g /100)( l - %

R f /100 ) where : % Ri s th e sulfu r dioxid e remova l efficienc y o f th e contro l devic e
a s determine d b

y Metho d 19 , i npercent . % R r i s th e sulfu r dioxid e remova l efficienc y o f fue l pretreatmen t a s determine d b

y Metho d 19 , i npercent . (3 ) I f coa l o r oi l i s combuste d wit hothe r fuels , th e same procedure s require d inparagrap h(c)(2 ) o f thi s sectio nar e used , excep t a s provide d i n th e following : (i ) A nadjuste d hourl y

sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrat e (E n o ° ) 1 s use d i n Equatio n19-1 9 o f Metho d 1 9 t o comput e a nadjuste d 30-da y

averag e emissio n rat e (E a o ° ) - Th e E h° i s compute d usin g th e followin g formula :

where :

: h o E 

## ho ° " t

E 

## h o " V 1 

## " V^ k

Ehn ° ^ S tn e adjuste d hourl y sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrate , ng/ J (lb/millio nBtu) . E . i s th e hourl y

sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrate , ng/ J (lb/millio nBtu) .

10 0P. 5



### E I s th e sulfu r dioxid e concentratio nI nfuel s othe r thancoa l an doi l combuste d1

nth e affecte dfacility , a s determine db y th e fue l sampling an

danalysi s procedure s I nMetho d19 , ng/ J (lb/million Btu) . Th e valu e E w



### fo r eac hfue l lo t I s use dfo r eac hhourl y averag e durin g th e tim

e tha t th e lo t 1 s being combusted . X k

### i s th e fractio no f tota l hea t Inpu t fro m fue l combustio nderive d fro m coal , oil , o r coa l an

doil , a s determine db

y applicabl e procedure s I nMetho d19 . (11 ) T o comput e th e percen t o f potentia l sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrat e ( % PJ , a nadjuste d%

R

_( % R.° ) I s compute dfro m th t adjuste dE ° fro

m s g g a o 

### paragraph(b)(3)(1 ) o f thi s sectio nan da nadjuste daverag e sulfu r dioxid e inle t rat e (E.j° ) usin g th t followin g formula :

XR g 

### ° - 10 0 (1. 0 - E a o 

### °/E a i 

### ° ) T o comput e E a 1 

### ° , anadjuste dhourl y sulfu r dioxid e Inle t rat e (E h1 

### ° ) 1 s used . Th t E^ 0 

### 1 s compute dusin g th t followin g formula :

where : E h 

### j ° I s th e adjuste dhourl y sulfu r dioxid e Inle t rate , ng/ J (lb/millio nBtu) . E h 1 

### 1 s th e hourl y

sulfu r dioxid e Inle t rate , ng/ J (lb/m1ll1o nBtu) . (4 ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte dfacilit y subjec t t o paragrap h(b)(3 ) o f thi s sectio ndoe s no t hav e t o measur e parameter s E w 

### o r X k

### i f th e owne r o r operato r elect s t o assume tha t X ^ - 1.0 . Owner s o r operator s o f affecte dfacilitie s wh o assume X ^ - 1. 0 shal l

10 1P. 6

(i ) determin e %

P $ followin g th e procedure s inparagraph(c)(2 ) o f thi s section , an

d (11 ) sulfu r dioxid e emission s (E J ar e considere d t o b e i ncomplianc e wit hsulfu r dioxid e emissio nlimit s unde r §60.42b . (5 ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte d facilit y

tha t qualifie s unde r th e provision s o f $60.42b(d ) doe s no t have t o measur e parameter s E o r X . unde r paragraph(b)(3 ) o f thi s sectio ni f th e owne r o r operato r o f th e affecte d facilit y

elect s t o measur e sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrate s o f th e
coa l o r oi l followin g th e fue l sampling an d analysi s procedure s unde r Metho d 19 . (d ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte d facilit y

tha t combust s onl y oi l emittin g les s tha n13 0 ng/ J (0. 3 lb/millio nBtu ) SO- , ha s a nannua l capacit y facto r fo r oi l o f 1 0 percen t (0.10 ) o r less , an d I s subjec t t o a Federall y

enforceabl e requiremen t limitin g operatio no f th e affecte d facilit y t o anannua l capacit y fo r oi l o f 1 0 percen t (0.10 ) o r les s shall : (1 ) Conduc t th e Initia l performanc e tes t ove r 2 4 consecutiv e stea m generatin g uni t operatin g hour s a t ful l load ; (2 ) Determin e complianc e wit hth e standard s afte r th e Initia l performanc e tes t base d o nth e arithmeti c averag e o f th e hourl y emission s dat a durin g eac hstea

m generatin g uni t operatin g da y i f a continuou s emissio nmeasuremen t system (CEMS ) 1 s used , o r base d o na dall y averag e i f Metho d 6 B o r fue l samplin g an d analysi s procedure s unde r Metho d 1 9 ar e used . (e ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f anaffecte d facilit y subjec t t o §60.42b(d)(l ) shal l demonstrat e th e maximu m desig ncapacit y

o f th e stea

m generatin g uni t b

y operatin g th e facilit y a t maximu

m capacit y

fo r 2 4 hours .

10 2P. 7

Thi s demonstratio nwil l b e mad e durin g th e initia l performanc e tes t an da subsequen t demonstratio nma y b e requeste da t an

y othe r time . I f th e 24-hou r averag e firin g rat e fo r th e affecte d facilit y 1 s les s tha nth e maximu m desig ncapacit y

provide db

y th e manufacture r o f th e affecte dfacility , the 24-hou r averag e firin g rat e shal l b e use dt o determin e th e capacit y utilizatio nrat e fo r th e affecte dfacility , otherwis e th e maximu m desig n capacit y provide db

y th e manufacture r 1 s used . (f ) Fo r th e initia l performanc e tes t require dunde r §60.8 , complianc e wit hth e sulfu r dioxid e emissio nlimit s an d percen t reductio nrequirement s unde r §60.42 b1 s base d onth e averag e emissio nrate s an d th e averag e percen t reductio nfo r sulfu r dioxid e fo r th e firs t 3 0 consecutiv e stea m generatin g uni t operatin g days , excep t a s provide d unde r paragraph(d ) o f thi s section . Th e Initia l performanc e tes t I s th e onl y tes t fo r whic ha t leas t 3 0 day s prio r notic e 1 s require d unles s otherwis e specifie d b y th e Administrator . Th e Initia l performanc e tes t 1 s t o b e schedule d s o tha t th e firs t stea m generatin g uni t operatin g da y o f th e 3 0 successiv e stea m generatin g uni t operatin g day s 1 s complete dwithi n3 0 day s afte r achievin g th e maximu m productio nrat e a t whic hth e affecte d facilit y wil l b e operated , bu t no t late r tha n18 0 day s afte r Initia l startu po f th e facility . Th e boile r load durin g th e 30-da y

perio d doe s no t hav e t o b e th e maximu m desig nload , bu t
mus t b e representativ e o f futur e operatin g condition s an d includ e a t leas t

on e 24-hou r perio d a t ful l load . (g ) Afte r th e Initia l performanc e tes t require d unde r §60.8 , complianc e wit hth e sulfu r dioxid e emissio nlimit s an d percen t reductio n requirement s unde r §60.42 bi s base do nth e averag e emissio nrate s an d th e averag e percen t reductio nfo r sulfu r dioxid e fo r 3 0 successiv e stea m
10 3P. 8

generatin g uni t operatin g days , excep t a s provide d unde r paragraph(d) . A separat e performanc e tes t 1 s complete da t th e en d o f eac hstea

m generatin g uni t operatin g da y

afte r th e Initia l performanc e test , an d a new 30-da y averag e emissio nrat e an d percen t reductio nfo r sulfu r dioxid e ar e calculate d t o sho

w complianc e wit hth e standard . (h ) Excep t a s provide dunde r paragraph(1 ) o f thi s section , th e owne r
o r operato r o f anaffecte d facilit y shal l us e al l vali d sulfu r dioxid e emission s dat a incalculatin g % P $ an d E h o unde r paragraph(c) , o f thi s sectio nwhethe r o r no t th e minimu m emission s dat a requirement s unde r §60.46 b

ar e achieved . Al l vali demission s data , includin g vali dsulfu r dioxide s emissio ndat a collecte ddurin g period s o f startup , shutdow nan d malfunction , shal l b e use d i ncalculatin g % P . an dE . pursuan t t o paragrap h(c ) o f thi s section . (1 ) Durin g period s o f malfunctio no r maintenanc e o f th e sulfu r dioxid e contro l system s whe noi l i s combuste da s provide d unde r §60.42b(1) , emissio n dat a ar e no t use d t o calculat e % P o r E unde r §60.42b(a) , (b ) o r (c) , however , th e emission s dat a ar e use dt o determin e complianc e wit hth e emissio nlimi t unde r §60.42b(1) . §60.46 bComplianc e and performanc e tes t method s an d procedure s fo r particulat e matte r an

dnitroge noxides . (a ) Th e particulat e matte r emissio nstandard s an d opacit y

limit s unde r §60.43 bappl y

a t al l time s excep t durin g period s o f startup , shutdown , o r malfunction . Th e nitroge noxide s emissio nstandard s unde r §60.44 bappl y a t al l times .

10 4P. 9

(b ) Complianc e wit hth e particulat e matte r emissio nstandard s unde r §60.43 bshal l b e determine d throughperformanc e testin g a s describe din paragrap h(d ) o f thi s section . (c ) Complianc e wit hth e nitroge noxide s emissio nstandard s unde r §60.44 bshal l be determine d throug hperformanc e testin g a s describe d in paragrap h(e ) o r (f ) o f thi s section .

104 aP.1 0

(d ) Th e followin g procedure s an dreferenc e method s ar e use d t o determin e complianc e wit hth e standard s fo r particulat e matte r emission s unde r §60.43b . (1 ) Metho d 3 i s usedfo r ga s analysi s whe napplyin g Metho d 5 o r Metho d17 . (2 ) Metho d5 , Metho d5B , o r Metho d 1 7 shal l b e use d t o measur e th e concentratio no f particulat e matte r a s follows : (i ) Metho d5 shal l b e use d a t affecte dfacilitie s withou t we t flu e ga s desulfurizatlo n(FGD ) systems ; an d (ii ) Metho d1 7 ma y

b e use da t facilitie s wit ho r withou t we t scrubbe r system s provide dth e stac k ga s temperatur e doe s no t excee da temperatur e o f 160° C (320°F) . Th e procedure s o f section s 2. 1 an d2. 3 o f Metho d 5 B ma y b e use din Metho d1 7 onl y

i f i t i s use d afte r a we t FG D system . D o no t us e Metho d1 7 afte r we t FG D system s i f th e effluen t i s saturate d o r lade nwit hwate r droplets . (iii ) Metho d5 B i s t o b e use d onl y afte r we t FG D systems . (3 ) Metho d1 1 s use dt o selec t th e samplin g sit e an dth e numbe r o f travers e samplin g points . Th e samplin g time fo r eac hrun1 s a t leas t 12 0 minute s an

dth e minimu

m samplin g volume i s 1. 7 dsc m (6 0 dscf ) excep t tha t smalle r samplin g time s o r volume s ma y b e approve d b

y th e Administrato r whe n necessitatedb

y process variable s o r othe r factors . (4 ) Fo r Metho d5 , th e temperatur e o f th e sampl e ga s i nth e prob e an d filte r holde r i s monitore dan d i s maintaine da t 160° C (320°F) .

10 5P.1 1

(5 ) Fo r determinatio no f particulat e matte r emissions , th e oxyge no r carbo ndioxid e sampl e i s obtaine d simultaneousl y wit heac hru

no f Metho d 5 , Metho d 5 B o r Metho d 1 7 b y traversin g th e duc t a t th e sam e samplin g location . (6 ) Fo r eac hru

nusing Metho d 5 , Metho d 5 B o r Metho d 17 , th e emissio n rat e expresse d i

nnanogram s pe r joul e hea t inpu t i s determine d using : (i ) th e oxyge no r carbo ndioxid e measurement s an d particulat e matte r measurement s obtaine d unde r thi s section , (ii ) th e dr y

basi s F factor , an

d (iii ) th e dr y

basi s emissio nrat e calculatio nprocedur e containe d in Metho d 1 9 (Appendi xA) . (7 ) Metho d 9 i s use d fo r determinin g th e opacit y o f stac k emissions , (e ) T o determin e complianc e wit hth e emissio nlimit s fo r nitroge n oxide s require d unde r §60.44b , th e owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte d facilit y shal l conduc t th e performanc e tes t a s require d unde r §60. 8 usin g th e continuou s system

fo r monitorin g nitroge noxide s unde r §60.48(b) . (1 ) Fo r th e initia l complianc e test , nitroge noxide s fro m th e stea

m generatin g uni t ar e monitore d fo r 3 0 successiv e stea m generatin g uni t operatin g day s and th e 30-da y averag e emissio nrat e 1 s use d t o determin e complianc e wit hth e nitroge noxide s emissio nstandard s unde r §60.44b . Th e 30-da y averag e emissio nrat e i s calculate d a s th e averag e o f al l hourl y emission s dat a recorde d b y th e monitorin g system durin g th e 30-da y

tes t period . (2 ) Followin g th e dat e onwhic hth e initia l performanc e tes t i s complete d o r 1 s require d t o b e complete d unde r §60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r dat e come s first , th e owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte d facilit y

whic h

10 6p.1 ;

combust s coa l o r whic hcombust s residua l oi l having a nitroge nconten t greate r tha n0.3 0 weigh t percen t shal l determin e complianc e wit hth e nitroge noxide s emissio nstandard s unde r §60.44 bo na continuou s basi s throug hth e us e o f a 30-da y rollin g averag e emissio nrate . A new 30-da y rollin g averag e emissio nrat e i s calculate d eac hstea m generatin g uni t operatin g da y

a s th e averag e o f al l o f th e hourl y nitroge noxide s emissio n dat a fo r th e precedin g 3 0 stea m generatin g uni t operatin g days . (3 ) Followin g th e dat e o nwhic hth e initia l performanc e tes t i s complete do r i s require dt o b e complete dunde r §60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r dat e come s first , th e owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte d facilit y

whic hha s a hea t inpu t capacit y

greate r tha n7 3 M

W (25 0 millio nBtu/hour ) an d whic h combust s natura l gas , distillat e oil , o r residua l oi l havin g a nitroge n conten t o f 0.3 0 weigh t percen t o r les s shal l determin e complianc e wit hth e nitroge noxide s standard s unde r §60.44 bo na continuou s basi s throug hth e
us e o f a 30-da y

rollin g averag e emissio nrate . A ne w 30-da y rollin g averag e emissio nrat e 1 s calculate d eac hstea m generatin g uni t operatin g da y a s th e averag e o f al l o f th e hourl y nitroge noxid e emissio ndat a fo r th e precedin g 3 0 steam generatin g uni t operatin g days . (4 ) Followin g th e dat e onwhic hth e initia l performanc e tes t 1 s complete d o r require dt o b e complete d unde r §60. 8 o f thi s part , whicheve r dat e come s first , th e owne r o r operato r o f anaffecte d facilit y whic hha s a hea t inpu t capacit y

o f 7 3 M W (25 0 millio nBtu/hour ) o r les s an d whic h combust s natura l gas , distillat e oil , o r residua l oi l havin g a nitroge n conten t o f 0.3 0 weigh t percen t o r les s shal l upo nreques t determin e complianc e wit hth e nitroge noxide s standard s unde r §60.44 bthroug hth e us e

10 7P.1 3

o f a 30-da y

performanc e test . Durin g period s whe nperformanc e test s ar e no t requested , nitroge noxide s emission s dat a collecte d pursuan t t o §60.48b(g)(l ) o r §60.48b(g)(2 ) ar e used t o calculat e a 30-da y rollin g averag e emissio nrat e o na dail y

basi s an

d use d t o prepar e exces s emissio n reports , bu t wil l no t b e use d t o determin e complianc e wit hth e nitroge n oxide s emissio nstandards . A new 30-da y rollin g averag e emissio nrat e i s calculate d eac hstea

m generatin g uni t operatin g da y a s th e averag e o f al l o f th e hourl y

nitroge noxide s emissio ndat a fo r th e precedin g 3 0 stea m generatin g uni t operatin g days . (5 ) I f th e owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte d facilit y

whic hcombust s residua l oi l doe s no t sampl e an d analyz e th e residua l oi l fo r nitroge n content , a s specifie d i n§60.49b(e) , th e requirement s o f paragrap h(111 ) o f thi s sectio nappl y

an d th e provision s o f paragrap h(iv ) o f thi s sectio nar e inapplicable . (f ) T o determin e complianc e wit hth e emissio nlimi t fo r nitroge n oxide s require d b

y §60.44b(a)(4 ) fo r duc t burner s use d i ncombine d cycl e systems , th e owne r o r operato r o f anaffecte d facilit y shal l conduc t th e performanc e tes t require d unde r §60. 8 usin g th e nitroge noxide s an d oxyge n
measuremen t procedure s i n4 0 CF RPar t 6 0 Appendi xA , Metho d 20 . Durin g th e performanc e test , on e samplin g sit e shal l b e locate d a s clos e a s practicabl e t o th e exhaus t o f th e turbine , a s provide d b y sectio n6.1. 1 o f Metho d 20 . A
secon d samplin g sit e shal l b e locate d a t th e outle t t o th e steam generatin g unit . Measurement s o f nitroge noxide s an d oxyge nshal l b e take na t bot h samplin g site s durin g th e performanc e test . Th e nitroge noxide s emissio n rat e fro m th e combine d cycl e system shal l b e calculate d b y subtractin g th e

10 8P.1 4

nitroge noxide s emissio nrat e measure da t th e sampling sit e a t th e outle t fro m th e turbin e fro

m th e nitroge noxide s emissio nrat e measure d a t th e sampling sit e a t th e outle t fro m th e stea

m generatin g unit . §60.47 bEmissio nmonitorin g fo r sulfu r dioxide . (a ) Excep t a s provide d i nparagraph(b ) o f thi s section , th e owne r o r operato r o f a

naffecte dfacilit y

subjec t t o th e sulfu r dioxid e standard s unde r §60.42 bshal l install , calibrate , maintain , an d operat e continuou s emissio nmonitorin g system s (CEMS ) fo r measurin g sulfu r dioxid e concentrations an

deithe r oxyge n(0* ) o r carbo ndioxid e (C0~ ) concentration s
an dshal l recor d th e outpu t o f th e systems . Th e sulfu r dioxid e an deithe r oxyge no r carbo ndioxid e concentration s shal l bot hb e monitore d a t th e inle t
an d outle . o f th e sulfu r dioxid e contro l device . (b ) A s a

nalternativ e t o operatin g CEM S a s require d unde r paragrap h (a ) o f thi s section , anowne r o r operato r ma y elec t t o determin e th e averag e sulfu r dioxid e emission s an dpercen t reductio nby : (1 ) Collectin g coa l o r oi l sample s 1 nanas-fire d conditio na t th e inle t t o th e steam

generatin g uni t an

danalyzin g them

fo r sulfu r an

dhea t conten t accordin g t o Metho d 19 . Metho d 1 9 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 ncalculatin g th e averag e sulfu r dioxid e Inpu t rate , o r (2 ) Measurin g sulfu r dioxid e accordin g t o Metho d 6 B a t th e inle t o r outle t t o th e sulfu r dioxid e contro l system . A ninitia l stratificatio ntes t i s require d t o verif y

th e adequac y

o f th e Metho d 6 B samplin g location . Th e stratificatio ntes t shal l consis t o f thre e paire d run s o f a suitabl e sulfu r dioxid e an

d carbo ndioxid e measuremen t trai noperate d a t th e candidat e

10 9P.1 5

locatio nan

da secon

dsimila r trai noperate d accordin g t o th e procedure s i n Sectio n3. 2 an

d th e applicabl e procedure s inSectio n7 o f Performanc e Specificatio n2 . Metho d 6B , Metho d6A , o r a combinatio no f Method s 6 an d 3

o r Method s 6 C an

d 3 A ar e suitabl e measuremen t techniques . I f Metho d6 B i s
use d fo r th e secondtrain , sampling time an d time r operatio nma y

b e adjuste d fo r th e stratificatio ntes t a s long a s a nadequat e sampl e volume 1 s collected ; however , bot hsampling train s ar e t o be operate d similarly . Fo r th e locatio nt o be adequat e fo r Metho d6 B 24-hou r tests , th e mea no f th e absolut e differenc e betwee nth e thre e paire d run s mus t be les s tha n1 0 percent . (3 ) A dail y sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrate , EQ , shal l b e determine d usin g th e procedur e describe d inMetho d6A , Sectio n7.6. 2 (Equatio n6A-8 )

an dstate di nng/ J (lb/millio nBtu ) hea t input . (4 ) Th e mea n30-da y

emissio nrat e i s calculate d usin g th e dall y
measure dvalue s i nng/ J (lb/millio nBtu ) fo r 3 0 successiv e stea m generatin g uni t operatin g day s usin g equatio n19-2 0 o f Metho d 19 . (c ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f anaffecte dfacilit y shal l obtai n emissio ndat a fo r a t leas t 7 5 percen t o f th e operatin g hour s i na t leas t 2 2

ou t o f 3 0 successiv e boile r operatin g days . I f thi s minimu m dat a requiremen t i s no t me t wit ha singl e monitorin g system , th e owne r o r operato r o f th e affecte dfacilit y shal l supplemen t th e emissio ndat a wit h dat a collecte d wit hothe r monitorin g system s a s approve d b y th e Administrato r o r th e referenc e method s an dprocedure s a s describe d i n paragrap h(b ) o f thi s section .

11 0P.1 6

(d ) Th e 1-hour averag e sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrate s measure d b y th e CEM S require db

y paragraph(a ) o f thi s sectio nan d require d under§60.13(h ) i s expresse d inng/ J o r lb/millio nBt u hea t inpu t an d i s use d t o calculat e th e averag e emissio nrate s unde r §60.42b . Eac h1-hour averag e sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrat e mus t b e base d o nmor e tha n3 0 minute s o f stea m generatin g uni t operatio nan

dinclud e a t leas t 2 dat a point s wit heac hrepresentin g a 15-minut e period . Hourl y sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrate s ar e no t calculate d i f th e affecte dfacilit y i s operate dles s tha n3 0 minute s i na 1-hou r perio d

an dar e no t counte dtowar ddeterminatio no f a stea m generatin g uni t operatin g day . (e ) Th e procedure s under§60.1 3 shal l be'followe d fo r installation , evaluation , an

doperatio no f th e CEMS . (1 ) Al l CEM S shal l b e operate dinaccordanc e wit hth e applicabl e procedure s unde r Performanc e Specification s 1 , 2 , an d 3 (Appendi xB) . (2 ) Quarterl y

accurac y

determination s an

d dall y calibratio ndrif t test s shal l b e performe d1 naccordanc e wit hProcedur e 1 (Appendi xF) . (3 ) Fo r affecte dfacilitie s combustin g coa l o r oil , alon e o r in combinatio nwit hothe r fuels , th e spa nvalu e o f th e sulfu r dioxid e CEM S a t th e inle t t o th e sulfu r dioxid e contro l devic e 1 s 12 5 percen t o f th e maximu m estimate dhourl y

potentia l sulfu r dioxid e emission s o f th e fue l combusted , an d th e spa nvalu e o f th e CEM S a t th e outle t t o th e sulfu r dioxid e contro l devic e i s 5 0 percen t o f th e maximu m estimate d hourl y

potentia l sulfu r dioxid e emission s o f th e fue l combusted . §60.48 bEmissio nmonitorin g fo r particulat e matte r an dnitroge noxides .

Il lP.1 7

(a ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte dfacilit y

subjec t t o th e opacit y standar d unde r §60.43 bshal l install , calibrate , maintain , an d operat e a continuou s monitorin g syste m fo r measurin g th e opacit y o f emission s discharge dt o th e atmospher e an drecor d th e outpu t o f th e system . (b ) Excep t a s provide di nparagraph(g ) an

d (h ) o f thi s section , th e
owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte d facilit y

subjec t t o th e nitroge noxide s standar do f §60.44b(a ) shal l install , calibrate , maintain , an d operat e a continuou s monitorin g syste m fo r measurin g nitroge noxide s emission s discharge dt o th e atmospher e an d recor dth e outpu t o f th e system . (c ) Th e continuou s monitorin g system s require d unde r paragrap h(b ) o f thi s sectio nshal l b e operate d an ddat a recorde d durin g al l period s o f operatio no f th e affecte d facilit y excep t fo r continuou s monitorin g system breakdown s an

drepairs . Dat a i s recorde d durin g calibratio nchecks , an d

zer o an dspa nadjustments . (d ) Th e 1-hou r averag e nitroge noxide s emissio nrate s measure d b y th e continuou s nitroge noxide s monito r require d b y paragrap h(b ) o f thi s sectio n
an drequire d unde r §60.13(h ) shal l b e expresse d 1 nng/ J o r lb/mil l ionBt u hea t inpu t andshal l b e use d t o calculat e th e averag e emissio nrate s unde r §60.44b . Th e 1-hou r average s shal l b e calculate d usin g th e dat a point s require dunde r §60.13(b) . A t leas t 2 dat a point s must b e use d t o calculat e
eac h1-hou r average . (e ) Th e procedure s unde r §60.1 3 shal l b e followe d fo r Installation , evaluation , an

d operatio no f th e continuou s monitorin g systems .

11 2P. U

(1 ) Fo r affecte dfacilitie s combustin g coal , woo d o r municipal-typ e soli d waste , th e spanvalu e fo r a continuou s monitorin g syste m fo r measurin g opacit y shal l b e betwee n6 0 an d8 0 percent . (2 ) Fo r affecte dfacilitie s combustin g coal , oil , o r natura l gas , th e spanvalu e fo r nitroge noxide s i s determine d a s follows :

Spa nValue s fo r Fue l Nitroge nOxide s (PPM )
Natura l ga s 01 1 Coa l Mixture s 50 0 50 0 1,00 0 50 0 ( x+ y ) + l,000 z
where :

xi s th e fractio no f tota l hea t Inpu t derive d fro m natura l gas , y i s th e fractio no f tota l hea t inpu t derive d fro m oil , an d

z i s th e fractio no f tota l hea t inpu t derive dfro m coal . (3 ) Al l spa nvalue s compute d unde r paragraph(e)(2 ) o f thi s sectio n fo r combustin g mixture s o f regulate dfuel s ar e rounde d t o th e neares t 50 0 ppm . (f ) Whe nnitroge noxide s emissio ndat a ar e no t obtaine dbecaus e o f continuou s monitorin g system breakdowns , repairs , calibratio ncheck s an d

zer o an d spa nadjustments , emissio ndat a wil l b e obtaine db y usin g standb

y monitorin g systems , Metho d7 , Metho d 7A , o r othe r approve d referenc e methods t o provid e emissio ndat a fo r a minimu m o f 7 5 percen t o f th e operatin g hour s i neac hstea

m generatin g uni t operatin g day , I na t leas t 2 2 ou t o f 3 0 successiv e stea

m generatin g uni t operatin g days .

11 3P.1 9

(g ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte d facilit y

tha t ha s a hea t inpu t capacit y

o f 7 3 M W (25 0 millio nBtu/hour ) o r less , an d whic hha s a

n
annua l capacit y

facto r fo r residua l oi l having a nitroge nconten t o f 0.3 0 weigh t percen t o r less , natura l gas , distillat e oil , o r an y mixtur e o f thes e fuels , greate r tha n1 0 percen t (0.10 ) shall : (1 ) compl y

wit hth e provision s o f paragraph s (b) , (c) , (d) , (e)(2) , (e)(3) , an

d (f ) o f thi s section , o r (2 ) monito r stea

m generatin g uni t operatin g condition s an d predic t nitroge noxide s emissio nrate s a s specifie d i na pla nsubmitte d pursuan t t o §60.49b(c) . (h ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f a naffecte d facilit y

whic hi s subjec t t o th e nitroge noxide s standard s o f §60.44b(a)(4 ) i s no t require d t o instal l o r operat e a continuou s monitorin g syste m t o measure nitroge noxide s emissions . [Approve d b

y th e Offic e o f Managemen t an d Budge t unde r contro l numbe r 2060-0072] . §60.49 bReportin g and recordkeepin g requirements . (a ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f eac haffecte d facilit y shal l submi t notificatio no f th e dat e o f initia l startup , a s provide d b y §60.7 . Thi s notificatio nshal l Include : (1 ) th e desig nhea t Inpu t capacit y o f th e affecte d facilit y an d identificatio no f th e fuel s t o b e combuste d inth e affecte d facility , (2 ) i f applicable , a copy o f an y Federall y

enforceabl e requiremen t tha t limit s th e annua l capacit y facto r fo r an

y fue l o r mixtur e o f fuel s unde r §60.42b(d)(l) , §60.43(b)(a)(2) , §60.43b(a)(3)(111) , §60.43b(c)(2)(ii) , §60.43b(d)(2)(1ii) , §60.44b(c) , §60.44b(d) , §60.44b(e) , o r §60.45b(d) ,

11 4P.2 0

(3 ) th e annua l capacit y facto r a t whic hth e owne r o r operato r anticipate s operatin g th e facilit y base donal l fuel s fire d an d base d o

n
eac hindividua l fue l fired , and , (4 ) notificatio ntha t a nemergin g technolog y

wil l be use d fo r controllin g emission s o f sulfu r dioxide . Th e Administrato r wil l examin e the descriptio no f th e emergin g technology an dwil l determin e whethe r th e technolog y

qualifie s a s anemergin g technology . Inmakin g thi s determination , th e Administrato r ma y requir e th e owne r o r operato r o f th e affecte dfacilit y

t o submi t additiona l Informatio nconcernin g th e contro l device . Th e affecte dfacilit y i s subjec t t o th e provision s o f §60.42b(a ) unles s an

dunti l thi s determinatio ni s mad e b y th e Administrator . (b ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f eac haffecte d facilit y subjec t t o th e sulfu r dioxide , particulat e matte r an dnitroge noxide s emissio nlimit s unde r §60.42b , §60.43b , an

d §60.44b , shal l submi t t o th e Administrato r th e performanc e tes t dat a fro m th e Initia l performanc e tes t an d th e performanc e evaluatio no f th e CEM S usin g th e applicabl e performanc e specification s i n Appendi xB . (c ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f eac haffecte d facilit y subjec t t o th e nitroge noxide s standar d o f §60.44 bwh o seek s t o demonstrat e complianc e wit h thos e standard s throug hth e monitorin g o f stea m generatin g uni t operatin g condition s unde r th e provision s o f §60.48b(g)(2 ) shal l submi t t o th e Administrato r fo r approva l a pla ntha t identifie s th e operatin g condition s t o b e monitore dunde r §60.48b(g)(2 ) an dth e record s t o b e maintaine d unde r §60.49b(j) . Thi s pla nshal l b e submitte dt o th e Administrato r fo r approva l

11 5P.2 1

withi n36 0 day s o f th e initia l startupo f th e affecte d facility . Th e pla n shall : (1 ) identif y

th e specifi c operatin g condition s t o b e monitore dan dthe relationshi pbetwee nthes e operatin g condition s an d nitroge noxide s emissio n rate s (i.e. , ng/ J o r lbs/mi l Ho nBt uhea t input) . Stea m generatin g uni t operatin g condition s include , bu t ar e no t limite d to , th e degre e o f stage d combustio n(i.e. , th e rati o o f primar y ai r t o secondar y

and/o r tertiar y

air )

an d th e leve l o f exces s ai r (i.e. , flu e ga s oxyge nlevel) ; (2 ) includ e th e dat a an dInformatio ntha t th e owne r o r operato r use d t o identif y

th e relationshi p betwee nnitroge noxide s emissio nrate s an d thes e operatin g conditions ; (3 ) identif y

ho w thes e operatin g conditions , includin g stea m generatin g uni t load , wil l b e monitore dunde r §60.48b(g ) o nanhourl y basi s b y th e owne r o r operato r durin g th e perio d o f operatio no f th e affecte d facility ; th e qualit y

assuranc e procedure s o r practice s tha t wil l b e employe d t o ensur e tha t th e dat a generate d b y monitorin g thes e operatin g condition s wil l b e representativ e an daccurate ; an

d th e typ e an

d forma t o f th e record s o f thes e operatin g conditions , includin g stea m generatin g uni t load , tha t wil l b e maintaine db y th e owne r o r operato r unde r §60.49b(j) . I f th e pla n1 s approved , th e owne r o r operato r shal l maintai nrecord s
o f predicte dnitroge noxid e emissio nrate s and th e monitore d operatin g conditions , includin g stea m generatin g uni t load , identifie d i nth e plan . (d ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f anaffecte d facilit y shal l recor dan

d maintai nrecord s o f th e amount s o f eac hfue l combuste d durin g eac hda y an d calculat e th e annua l capacit y facto r individuall y

fo r coal , distillat e oil ,

11 6P.2 2

residua l oil , natura l gas , wood , an dmunicipal-typ e soli d wast e fo r eac h calenda r quarter . Th e annua l capacit y facto r i s determine d ona 12-mont h rollin g averag e basi s wit ha new annua l capacit y

facto r calculate d a t th e
en d o f eac hcalenda r month . (e ) Fo r affecte dfacilitie s that: (1 ) combus t residua l oi l havin g a nitroge nconten t o f 0. 3 weigh t percen t o r less ; (2 ) hav e hea t inpu t capacitie s o f 7 3 M

W (25 0 millio nBtu/hour ) o r less ; an d (3 ) monito r nitroge n oxide s emission s o r stea m generatin g uni t operatin g condition s unde r §60.48b(g) , th e owne r o r operato r shal l maintai nrecord s o f th e nitroge n conten t o f th e oi l combuste di nth e affecte d facilit y an d calculat e th e averag e fue l nitroge nconten t o na pe r calenda r quarte r basis . Th e nitroge n conten t shal l b e determine d using AST M Metho d D3431-80 , Tes t Metho d fo r Trac e Nitroge ni nLiqui dPetroleu m Hydrocarbon s (IBR- se e §60.17) , o r fue l specificatio ndat a obtaine d fro m fue l suppliers . I f residua l oi l blend s ar e bein g combusted , fue l nitroge nspecification s ma y b e prorate d base d o nth e rati o o f residua l oil s o f differen t nitroge nconten t 1nth e fue l blend . (f ) Fo r facilitie s subjec t t o th e opacit y standar d unde r §60.43b , th e
owne r o r operato r shal l maintai nrecord s o f opacity . (g ) Fo r facilitie s subjec t t o nitroge noxide s standard s unde r §60.44b , th e owne r o r operato r shal l maintai nrecord s o f th e followin g informatio n fo r eac hstea

m generatin g uni t operatin g day : (1 ) Calenda r date . (2 ) Th e averag e hourl y nitroge noxide s emissio nrate s (ng/ J o r lb/millio nBt uhea t input ) measure d o r predicted .

11 7P.2 3

(3 ) Th e 30-da y

averag e nitroge noxide s emissio nrate s (ng/ J o r lb/millio nBt u hea t input ) calculate d a t th e en d o f eac hstea

m generatin g uni t operatin g da y

fro m th e measure d o r predicte d hourl y nitroge noxid e emissio nrate s fo r th e precedin g 3 0 stea m generatin g uni t operatin g days . (4 ) Identificatio no f th e stea m generatin g uni t operatin g day s whe n th e calculate d 30-da y

averag e nitroge noxide s emissio nrate s ar e i nexces s
o f th e nitroge noxide s emission s standard s unde r §60.44b , wit hth e reason s fo r suc hexces s emission s a s wel l a s a descriptio no f correctiv e action s taken . (5 ) Identificatio no f th e stea m generatin g uni t operatin g day s fo r whic hpollutan t dat a hav e no t bee nobtained , Includin g reason s fo r no t obtainin g sufficien t dat a an d a descriptio no f correctiv e action s taken . (6 ) Identificatio no f th e time s whe nemissio ndat a hav e bee nexclude d fro m th e calculatio no f averag e emissio nrate s an d th e reason s fo r excludin g data . (7 ) Identificatio no f "F " facto r use d fo r calculations , metho d o f determination , an

d typ e o f fue l combusted . (8 ) Identificatio no f th e time s whe nth e pollutan t concentratio n exceede d ful l spa no f th e continuou s monitorin g system . (9 ) Descriptio no f an y modification s t o th e continuou s monitorin g system tha t coul d affec t th e abilit y o f th e continuou s monitorin g syste m t o compl y wit hPerformanc e Specification s 2 o r 3 . (10 ) Result s o f dail y CEM S drif t test s an

d quarterly

accurac y assessment s a s require d unde r Appendi xF , Procedur e 1 .

11 8P.2 4

(h ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f an y affecte d facilit y

1nan y categor y liste dbelo

w insubparagraph s (1 ) o r (2 ) o f thi s paragraphi s require d t o submi t exces s emissio nreport s fo r an y calenda r quarte r durin g whic hther e
ar e exces s emission s fro m th e affecte dfacility . I f ther e ar e n o exces s emission s durin g th e calenda r quarter , th e owne r o r operato r shal l submi t a repor t semiannuall y

statin g tha t n o exces s emission s occurre d durin g th e semiannua l reportin g period . (1 ) Any affecte dfacilit y

subjec t t o th e opacit y standard s unde r §60.43b(e ) o r t o th e operatin g paramete r monitorin g requirement s unde r §60.13(1)(1) . (2 ) Any affecte dfacilit y

tha t i s subjec t t o th e nitroge noxide s standar do f §60.44b , an dtha t (1 ) combust s natura l gas , distillat e oil , o r residua l oi l wit ha nitroge nconten t o f 0. 3 weigh t percen t o r less , o r (ii ) ha s a hea t Inpu t capacit y o f 7 3 M W (25 0 millio nBtu/hour ) o r les s an di s require dt o monito r nitroge noxide s emission s o na continuou s basi s unde r §60.48b(g)(l ) o r stea m generatin g uni t operatin g condition s unde r §60.48b(g)(2) . (3 ) Fo r th e purpos e o f §60.43b , exces s emission s ar e define d a s al l 6-minut e period s durin g whic hth e averag e opacit y exceed s th e opacit y standard s unde r §60.43b(f) . (4 ) Fo r purpose s o f §60.48b(g)(l) , exces s emission s ar e define d a s an y calculate d 30-da y

rollin g averag e nitroge noxide s emissio nrate , a s determine dunde r §60.46b(e) , whic hexceed s th e applicabl e emissio nlimit s i n §60.44b .

11 9P.2 5

(i ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f an y affecte d facilit y

subjec t t o th e continuou s monitorin g requirement s fo r nitroge noxide s unde r §60.48(b ) shal l submi t a quarterl y

repor t containin g th e informatio nrecorde d unde r paragraph(g ) o f thi s section . Al l quarterl y report s shal l be postmarke d b y th e 30t hda y

followin g th e en

d o f eac hcalenda r quarter . (j ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f an y affecte d facilit y

subjec t t o th e sulfu r dioxid e standard s unde r §60.42 bshal l submi t writte nreport 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 d b

y th e 30t hda y

followin g th e en

d o f eac hcalenda r quarter . (k ) Fo r eac haffecte d facilit y subjec t t o th e complianc e an d performanc e testin g requirement s o f §60.45 ban d th e reportin g requiremen t in paragrap h(j ) o f thi s section , th e followin g informatio nshal l b e reporte d t o th e Administrator : (1 ) Calenda r date s covere d i nth e reportin g period . (2 ) Eac h30-da y

averag e sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrat e (ng/ J o r lb/millio nBt u hea t Input ) measure d durin g th e reportin g period , endin g wit h th e las t 30-da y

perio d i nth e quarter ; reason s fo r noncomplianc e wit hth e emissio nstandards ; an d a descriptio no f correctiv e action s taken . (3 ) Eac h30-da y

averag e percen t reductio ni nsulfu r dioxid e emission s calculate d durin g th e reportin g period , endin g wit hth e las t 30-da y perio d i nth e quarter ; reason s fo r noncomplianc e wit hth e emissio nstandards ; an d a descriptio no f correctiv e action s taken . (4 ) Identificatio no f th e stea m generatin g uni t operatin g day s tha t

coa l o r oi l wa s combuste d an d fo r whic hsulfu r dioxid e o r diluen t (oxyge no r carbo ndioxide ) dat a hav e no t bee nobtaine d b y a napprove d metho d fo r a t

12 0P.2 6

leas t 7 5 percen t o f th e operatin g hour s i nth e stea

m generatin g uni t operatin g day ; justificatio nfo r no t obtainin g sufficien t data ; an d descriptio no f correctiv e actio ntaken . (5 ) Identificatio no f th e time s whe nemission s dat a hav e bee nexclude d fro m th e calculatio no f averag e emissio nrates ; justificatio nfo r excludin g data ; an d descriptio no f correctiv e actio ntake ni f dat a hav e bee nexclude d fo r period s othe r tha nthos e durin g whic hcoa l o r oi l wer e no t combuste di n th e stea m generatin g unit . (6 ) Identificatio no f "F " facto r use d fo r calculations , metho d o f determination , an

dtyp e o f fue l combusted . (7 ) Identificatio no f time s whe nhourl y average s hav e bee nobtaine d base do nmanua l samplin g methods . (8 ) Identificatio no f th e time s whe nth e pollutan t concentratio n exceede dful l spa no f th e CEMS . (9 ) Descriptio no f an y modification s t o th e CEM S tha t coul daffec t th e abilit y o f th e CEM S t o compl y wit hPerformanc e Specification s 2 o r 3 . (10 ) Result s o f dall y

CEM S drif t test s an

d quarterl y

accurac y assessment s a s require d unde r Appendi xF , Procedur e 1 . (11 ) Th e annua l capacit y facto r o f eac hfire da s provide d unde r paragrap h(d ) o f thi s section . (1 ) Fo r eac haffecte d facilit y subjec t t o th e complianc e an d performanc e testin g requirement s o f §60.45b(d ) an d th e reportin g requirement s o f paragrap h(j ) o f thi s section , th e followin g Informatio n shal l b e reporte dt o th e Administrator :

12 1P.2 7

(1 ) Calenda r date s whe nth e facilit y wa s i noperatio ndurin g th e reportin g period ; (2 ) Th e 24-hou r averag e sulfu r dioxid e emissio nrat e measure d fo r eac h stea m generatin g uni t operatin g da y durin g th e reportin g perio d tha t coa l o r oi l wa s combusted , endin g i nth e las t 24-hou r perio d i nth e quarter ; reason s fo r noncomplianc e wit hth e emissio nstandards ; an d a descriptio no f correctiv e action s taken ; (3. ) Identificatio no f th e stea m generatin g uni t operatin g day s tha t
coa l o r oi l wa s combuste d fo r whic hsulfu r dioxid e o r diluen t (oxyge no r carbo ndioxide ) dat a hav e no t bee nobtaine d b y a napprove d metho d fo r a t leas t 7 5 percen t o f th e operatin g hours ; justificatio nfo r no t obtainin g sufficien t data ; an

d criptio no f correctiv e actio ntaken . (4 ) Identificatio no f th e time s whe nemission s dat a hav e bee nexclude d fro m th e calculatio no f averag e emissio nrates ; justificatio nfo r excludin g data ; an d descriptio no f correctiv e actio ntake ni f dat a hav e bee nexclude d fo r period s othe r tha nthos e durin g whic hcoa l o r oi l wer e no t combuste d i n th e stea m generatin g unit . (5 ) Identificatio no f "F " facto r use d fo r calculations , metho d o f determination , an

d typ e o f fue l combusted . (6 ) Identificatio no f time s whe nhourl y average s hav e bee nobtaine d base d o nmanua l samplin g methods . (7 ) Identificatio no f th e time s whe nth e pollutan t concentratio n exceede d ful l spa no f th e CEMS . (8 ) Descriptio no f an y modification s t o th e CEM S whic hcoul d affec t th e abilit y

o f th e CEM S t o compl y wit hPerformanc e Specification s 2 o r 3 .

12 2P.2 8

(9 ) Result s o f dail y

CEM S drif t test s an

d quarterl y

accurac y assessment s a s require dunde r Appendi xF , Procedur e 1 . (m ) Fo r eac haffecte d facilit y subjec t t o th e sulfu r dioxid e standard s unde r §60.42 bfo r whic hth e minimu m amoun t o f dat a require d unde r §60.47b(f )

wer e no t obtaine ddurin g a calenda r quarter , th e followin g informatio ni s reporte dt o th e Administrato r i nadditio nt o tha t require d unde r paragraph (k ) o f thi s section : (1 ) Th e numbe r o f hourl y average s availabl e fo r outle t emissio nrate s
an dinle t emissio nrates . (2 ) Th e standar ddeviatio no f hourl y average s fo r outle t emissio n rate s an dinle t emissio nrates , a s determine d i nMetho d19 , Sectio n7 . (3 ) Th e lowe r confidenc e limi t fo r th e mea noutle t emissio nrat e an d th e uppe r confidenc e limi t fo r th e mea ninle t emissio nrate , a s calculate d i nMetho d19 , Sectio n7 . (4 ) Th e rati o o f th e lowe r confidenc e limi t fo r th e mea noutle t emissio nrat e an

dth e allowabl e emissio nrate , a s determine di nMetho d 19 , Sectio n7 . (n ) I f a percen t remova l efficienc y b y fue l pretreatmen t (i.e. , % R r ) i s use dt o determin e th e overal l percen t reductio n(i.e. , % R J unde r §60.45b , th e owne r o r operato r o f th e affecte d facilit y shal l submi t a signe dstatemen t wit hth e quarterl y report : (1 ) Indicatin g wha t remova l efficienc y b y fue l pretreatmen t (i.e. , % R £ ) wa s credite dfo r th e calenda r quater ; (2 ) Listin g th e quantity , hea t content , an ddat e eac hpretreate d fue l shipmen t wa s receive d durin g th e previou s calenda r quarter ; th e nam e an d

12 3P.2 9

locatio no f th e fue l pretreatmen t facility ; an d th e tota l quantit y

an dtota l hea t conten t o f al l fuel s receive da t th e affecte d facilit y durin g th e previou s calenda r quarter ; (3 ) Documentin g th e transpor t o f th e fue l fro m th e fue l pretreatmen t facilit y t o th e stea

m generatin g unit . (4 ) Includin g a signe dstatemen t fro m th e owne r o r operato r o f th e fue l pretreatmen t facilit y certifyin g tha t th e percen t remova l efficienc y achieve db

y fue l pretreatmen t wa s determine d i naccordanc e wit hth e provision s o f Metho d1 9 (Appendi xA ) an d listin g th e hea t conten t an d sulfu r conten t o f eac hfue l befor e an dafte r fue l pretreatment . (o ) Al l record s require dunde r thi s sectio nshal l b e maintaine d b y th e
owne r o r operato r o f th e affecte dfacilit y fo r a perio d o f 2 year s followin g th e dat e o f suc hrecord . (Approve db

y th e Offic e o f Managemen t an d Budge t unde r contro l numbe r 2060-0135. )

12 4P.3 0

4 . 4 0 CF RPar t 60 , Appendi xA , i s amende db y revisin g Metho d 1 9 t o
reada s follows :

METHO D 1 9 - DETERMINATION O F SULFURDIOXID E REMOVAL EFFICIENC YAND PARTICULAT E MATTER , SULFURDIOXIDE , AN D NITROGE N OXIDE S EMISSION

RATE S

1 . Applicabilit y

an dPrincipl e 1. 1 Applicability . Thi s metho di s applicabl e fo r (a ) determinin g particulat e matte r (PM) , sulfu r dioxid e (SO-) , an d nitroge noxide s (N

O ) emissio nrates ; (b ) determinin g sulfu r remova l efficiencie s o f fue l pretreatmen t an

dSO - contro l devices ; (c ) determinin g overal l reductio no f potentia l SO - emission s fro m stea m generatin g unit s o r othe r source s a s specifie dinapplicabl e regulations ; an d (d ) determinin g SO * rate s base do n fue l samplin g an

danalysi s procedures . 1. 2 Principle . 1.2. 1 Pollutan t emissio nrate s ar e determine d fro m concentration s o f PM , S0 2 , o r N0 X , an

doxyge n(0- ) o r carbo ndioxid e (CO- ) alon g wit hF factor s (ratio s o f combustio nga s volume s t o hea t inputs) . 1.2. 2 A noveral l SO - emissio nreductio nefficienc y i s compute d fro

m th e efficienc y

o f fue l pretreatmen t system s (optional ) an d th e efficienc y

o f SO - contro l devices . 1.2. 3 Th e sulfu r remova l efficienc y o f a fue l pretreatmen t syste m i s determine db

y fue l samplin g an

d analysi s o f th e sulfu r an d hea t content s o f th e fue l befor e an

d afte r th e pretreatmen t system .

12 5P.3 1

1.2. 4 Th e SO - remova l efficienc y o f a contro l devic e i s determine d b y measurin g th e SO - rate s befor e an d afte r th e contro l device . 1.2. 5 Th e inle t rate s t o S0 2 contro l system s an d whe nS0 2 contro l system s ar e no t used , SO - emissio nrate s t o th e atmospher e may be determine d b y fue l samplin g an

d analysi s (optional) . 2 . Emissio nRate s o f Particulat e Matter . Sulfu r Dioxide , an d Nitroge n Oxide s Selec t fro

m th e followin g section s th e applicabl e procedur e t o comput e th e PM , S0 2 , o r N0 Xemissio nrat e (E ) inng/ J (lb/millio nBtu) . Th e pollutan t concentratio nmus t b e inng/scm (Ib/scf ) an

d th e F facto r mus t b e inscm/ J (scf/millio nBtu) . I f th e pollutan t concentratio n(C ) i s no t in th e appropriat e units , us e th e followin g tabl e t o mak e th e prope r conversion : NOT E T O GP O TYPESETTER : Pleas e pu t thi s tabl e intw o column s immediatel y

followin g th e precedin g lin e o f text .

CONVERSIO N

FACTOR S FORCONCENTRATIO N

Fro m g/sc m mg/sc m lb/sc f pp m SO pp m NO * pp m SO ? pp m NO * T o

ng/scm ng/scm ng/scm ng/scm ng/scm lb/sc f lb/sc f Multipl y

b y

1 0 6 1 0 1 3 1.602x10 " 2.66x10 % 1.912x10 % 1.660x10" i 1.194x10" '

12 6P.3 2

A nF facto r i s th e rati o o f th e ga s volume o f th e product s o f combustio nt o th e hea t conten t o f th e fuel . Th e dr y F facto r (F J include s al l component s o f combustio nles s water , th e we t F facto r ( F ) include s al l component s o f combustion , an dth e carbo nF facto r (F J include s onl y carbo n dioxide . NOTE : Sinc e F factor s includ e wate r resultin g onl y fro m th e combustio no f hydroge n1nth e fuel , th e procedure s usin g F factor s ar e no t applicabl e fo r computin g E fro m stea m generatin g unit s wit hwe t scrubber s o r wit hothe r processe s tha t ad dwate r (e.g. , stea

m injection ) 2. 1 Oxygen-Base dF Factor , Dry Basis . Whe nmeasurement s ar e o na dr y basi s fo r bot h0 2 (X0 2d ) an dpollutan t (C^ ) concentrations , us e th e followin g equation :

E - C dF d[20.9/(20. 9 - %0 2 d ) ] Eq . 19- 1

2. 2 Oxygen-Base d F Factor , We t Basis . Whe nmeasurement s ar e ona we t basi s fo r bot h0 2 (%0 2w ) an d pollutan t (C w ) concentrations , us e eithe r o f th e following : 2.2. 1 I f th e moistur e fractio no f ambien t ai r (B J 1 s measured :

E - [C w F w 20.9]/[20.9(l-B wa ) - %0 2 w ] Eq . 19- 2

Instea do f actua l measurement , B ma y b e estimate d accordin g t o th e procedur e below . (NOTE : Th e estimate s ar e selecte d t o ensur e tha t negativ e
error s wil l no t b e large r tha n-1. 5 percent . However , positiv e errors , o r

12 7P.3 3

over-estimatio no f emissions , o f a s muc ha s 5 percen t ma y b e introduce d dependin g upo nth e geographi c locatio no f th e facilit y an d th e associate d rang e o f ambien t moisture) : 2.2.1. 1 B = 0.027 . Thi s valu e ma y b e use d a t an

y locatio na t al l W O times . 2.2.1. 2 B u a * Highes t monthl y averag e o f B.. . tha t occurre d withi nth e W o W d previou s calenda r yea r a t th e neares t Weathe r Servic e Station . Thi s valu e shal l b e determine dannuall y an d ma y b e use d a s a

nestimat e fo r th e entir e
curren t calenda r year . 2.2.1. 3 B - Highes t dail y averag e o f B tha t occurre d withi na calenda r mont ha t th e neares t Weathe r Servic e Station , calculate d fro m th e dat a fro m th e pas t 3 years . Thi s valu e shal l be compute d fo r eac hmont han d

ma y b e use da s anestimat e fo r th e curren t respectiv e calenda r month . 2.2. 2 I f th e moistur e fractio n( B ) o f th e effluen t ga s i s measured :

E - C w F d(20.9/[20.9(l-B ws ) - %0 2 w ] } Eq . 19- 3

2. 3 Oxygen-Base d F Factor , Dry/We t Basis . 2.3. 1 Whe nth e pollutan t concentratio n1 s measure d ona we t basi s (C J

an d0 - concentratio ni s measure d ona dr y basi s (%0 2 J , us e th e followin g equation :

E - [(C w F d )/(l-B ws )]/[20.9/(20. 9 - % 0 2 d ) ] Eq . 19- 4

12 8P.3 4

2.3. 2 Whe nth e pollutan t concentratio ni s measure d ona dr y basi s (C J

an dth e 0 2 concentratio n1 s measure d o na we t basi s (^vJ ' us e th e followin g equation :

E = [C dF d20.9]/[20. 9 - %0 2 v /(l-B w s ) ] Eq . 19- 5

2. 4 Carbo nDioxide-Base dF Factor , Dry Basis . Whe nmeasurement s ar e
o na dr y basi s fo r bot hCO - (%C0 2d ) an d pollutan t (C J concentrations , us e th e followin g equation :

E - C dF c (100/%C0 2d ) Eq . 19- 6

2. 5 Carbo nDioxide-Base d F Factor , We t Basis . Whe nmeasurement s ar e
o na we t basi s fo r bot hC0 2 (%C0 2w ) an d pollutan t ( C ) concentrations , us e th e followin g equation :

E = C w F c (100/%C0 2w ) Eq . 19- 7

2. 6 Carbo nDioxide-Base d F Factor , Dry/We t Basis . 2.6. 1 Whe nth e pollutan t concentratio ni s measure d o na we t basi s ( C ) W
an dCO - concentratio ni s measure dona dr y basi s (%C0 2 J , us e th e followin g equation :

E - [C w F c /(1-B ws ) ] (100/%C0 2d ) Eq . 19- 8

12 9P.3 5

2.6. 2 Whe nth e pollutan t concentratio ni s measure d ona dry basi s (C J

an d C0 2 concentratio ni s measure d o na we t basi s (%C0 2 ) , us e th e followin g equation :

E - C d(1-B WS ) F c (100/%C0 2w ) Eq . 19- 9

2. 7 Direct-Fire d Rehea t Fue l Burning . Th e effec t o f direct-fire d rehea t fue l burnin g (fo r th e purpos e o f raisin g th e temperatur e o f th e exhaus t effluen t fro

m we t scrubber s t o abov e th e moistur e dew-point ) o n emissio nrate s wil l be les s tha n+ 1. 0 percen t and , therefore , ma y be ignored . 2. 8 Combine d Cycle-Ga s Turbin e Systems . Fo r ga s turbine-steam generato r combine d cycl e systems , determin e th e emission s fro m th e stea

m generatin g uni t o r th e percen t reductio n1 npotentia l SO - emission s a s follows : 2.8. 1 Comput e th e emissio nrat e fro m th e stea

m generatin g uni t usin g th e followin g equation :

E b o ' E c o + <Y H b )(E c o - E g ) Eq . 19-1 0

where : E . = pollutan t emissio nrat e fro m th e stea

m generatin g unit , ng/ J (lb/millio nBtu) . E - pollutan t emissio nrat e i ncombine d effluent , ng/ J (lb/millio n Btu) .

13 0P.3 6

E = pollutan t rat e fro mga s turbine , ng/ J (lb/millio n Btu)
. H
. = hea t inpu t rat e t o th e stea mgeneratin g uni t fro mfuel s fire d i n th e stea m

generatin g unit , J/h r (millio n Btu/hr)
. H = hea t inpu t rat e t o ga s turbin e fro mal l fuel s fire d i n th e ga s turbine , J/h r (millio n Btu/hr)
. 2.8.1. 1 Us e th e tes t method s and procedure s sectio n o f Subpar t G G t o obtai n E„ „ and E„
. D o no t us e F wfactor s fo r determinin g E „ o r E„ rt . I f an c o g w 3 g c o S 0 2 contro l devic e i s used , measur e E afte r th e contro l device

. 2.8.1. 2 Suitabl e method s shal l b e use d t o determin e th e hea t inpu t rate s t o th e stea m

generatin g unit s (H^ ) an d th e ga s turbin e (HJ
. 2.8. 2 I f a contro l devic e i s used , comput e th e percen t o f potentia l SO

- emission s (%P ) usin g th e followin g equations :

E 

### b i " E 

### ci " Vb^c i " V Eq



### * 1!M 1

%P s - 10 0 ( 1 - E b Q /E b 1 ) Eq
. 19-1 2 where : E b i = pollutan t rat e fro mth e stea mgeneratin g unit , ng/ J (lb/millio n Btu )
E
. • pollutan t rat e i n combine d effluent , ng/ J (lb/millio n Btu)
.

Us e th e tes t method s and procedure s sectio n o f Subpar t G G t o obtai n E
. an d E
. D o no t us e F factor s fo r determinin g E o r E *.

13 1P.3 7

3 . F Factor s Us e a naverag e F facto r accordin g t o Sectio n3. 1 o r determin e a n applicabl e F facto r accordin g t o Sectio n3.2 . I f combine d fuel s ar e fired , prorat e th e applicabl e F factor s usin g th e procedur e i nSectio n3.3 . 3. 1 Averag e F Factors . Averag e F factor s (F d , F , o r F J fro m Tabl e 19- 1 ma y

b e used . NOT E T O GP O TYPESETTER : Pleas e pu t thi s tabl e i ntw o column s immediatel y

followin g th e precedin g lin e o f text .

TABL E 19-1 . F FACTOR S FORVARIOU S FUEL S 1

Fue l Typ e Coal : Anthracit e Bituminou s Lignit e Oil 3
Ga s Natura l Propan e Butan e Woo d Woo d Bar k Municipa l Soli d Wast e
Determine d (29.9 2 in . *

a t Hg ) F d dscm/ J

2.71x10" ! 2.63x10" £ 2.65x10" ' 2.47xl0" 7

2.43x10" ! 2.34x10" , 2.34x10" ' 2.48x10" ! 2.58x10" ' dsgf /

10°Bt u

10,10 0 9,78 0 9,86 0 9,19 0
8,71 0 8,71 0 8,71 0 9,24 0 9,60 0 Se e Sectio n3. 2

standar d conditions : F w wscm/ J

2.83x10" ? 2.86x10" , 3.21x10" ' 2.77X10' 7

2.85x10' ? 2.74x10" , 2.79x10" '

20° C (68°F ) wscf /

10°Bt u

10,54 0 10,64 0 11,95 0 10,32 0
10,61 0 10,20 0 10,39 0

an d 76 0 F c scm/ J

0.530x10" ? 0.484x10" , 0.513x10" ' 0.383xl0" 7

0.287x10" ? 0.321x10" ' 0.337x10" ' 0.492x10" ? 0.516x10" '

m m Hg 10°Bt u

1,97 0 1,80 0 1,91 0 1,42 0
1,04 0 1,19 0 1,25 0 1,83 0 1,92 0

•A s classifie d accordin g t o AST M D388-77 . Crude , residual , o r distillate .
13 2

### 3. 2 Determine dF Factors . I f the fue l burnedi s no t listedi n Tabl e 19- 1 o r i f the owne r o r operato r choose s t o determin e a nF facto r rathe r tha nus e the value s i

nTabl e 19-1 , us e the procedur e below : 3.2. 1 Equations . Us e the equation s below , a s appropriate , t o comput e the F factors :

F 

### d = K[ 

### < K 

### h d W)

+ (K 

### c a 

### > + 

### <K

### s W + 

### < K

### n*" ) " < K 

### o »)"/« V Eq . 19-1 3

F 

### w " K[(K 

### h w

W) + (K 

### c %C ) + (K 

### s reS) + (K 

### n yM)



### - (K 0 

### %0 ) + (1 ^ %H 2 

### 0)]/GCV w 

### Eq . 19-1 4

F 

### c a K(K 

### c c W/M Eq . 19-1 5

fNOTE : Omi t the %H 2 

### 0 ter m i nth e equation s fo r F w



### i f % H an d%0 includ e the unavailabl e hydroge nan doxyge ni

nth e for m o f H 2 

### 0. ] where : F d 

### , F , F - volume s o f combustio ncomponent s pe r uni t o f hea t content , scm/ J (scf/millio nBtu) . %H , %C , %S , %N , %0 , an

d%r\Ji - concentration s o f hydrogen , carbon , sulfur , nitrogen , oxygen , an dwate r fro

m a nultimat e analysi s
o f fuel , weigh t percent . GC V - gros s calorifi c valu e o f th e fue l consisten t wit hth e ultimat e analysis , kJ/kg (Btu/lb) . K= conversio nfactor , IO" 5 

### (kJ/J)/(% ) [IO 6 

### Btu/millio nBtu] . K h d

### - 22. 7 (scm/kg))[(3.6 4 (scf/lb)/(%) ]

13 3P.3 9

K

_= 9.5 7 (scm/kg)[(1.5 3 (scf/lb)/(%)] . K s = 3.5 4 (scm/kg ) [(0.5 7 (scf/lb)/(%)] . K n= 0.8 6 (scm/kg [0.1 4 (scf/lb)/(%)] . K Q = 2.8 5 (scm/kg ) [0.4 6 (scf/lb)/(%)] . K h w - 34.7 4 (scm/kg ) [(5.5 7 (scf/lb)/(%)] . K w - 1.3 0 (scm/kg ) [(0.2 1 (scf/lb)/(%)] . K c c - 2. 0 (scm/kg ) [(0.32 1 (scf/lb)/(%)] . 3.2. 2 Us e applicabl e sampling procedure s i nSectio n5.2. 1 o r 5.2. 2 t o obtai nsample s fo r analyses . 3.2. 3 Us e AST M

D3176-7 4 (incorporate d b y reference--se e §60.17 ) fo r ultimat e analysi s o f th e fuel . 3.2. 4 Us e applicabl e method s inSectio n5.2. 1 o r 5.2. 2 t o determin e th e hea t conten t o f soli d o r liqui d fuels . Fo r gaseou s fuels , us e AST M D1826-7 7 (IBR--se e §60.17 ) t o determin e th e hea t content . 3. 3 F Factor s fo r Combinatio no f Fuels . I f combination s o f fuel s ar e burned , us e th e followin g equations , a s applicabl e unles s otherwis e specifie d inapplicabl e subpart :

F d• !

_X kf d kEq . 19-1 6

n F w - Z X kF w kEq . 19-1 7

F c - £ X kF c kEq . 19-1 8

13 4P.4 0

where : X . = fractio no f tota l hea t inpu t fro m eac htyp e o f fue l k .
n= numbe r o f fuel s being burne di ncombination .

4 . Determinatio no f Averag e Pollutan t Rate s 4. 1 Averag e Pollutan t Rate s fro m Hourl y Values . Whe nhourl y

averag e pollutan t rate s (EJ , inle t o r outlet , ar e obtaine d (e.g. , CEM S values) , comput e th e averag e pollutan t rat e (E J fo r th e performanc e tes t perio d (e.g. , 3 0 days ) specifie di nth e applicabl e regulatio nusin g th e followin g equation :

E



### a " Wi&hi Eq . 19-1 9

wher e E . - averag e pollutan t rat e fo r th e specifie d performanc e tes t period ,

ng/ J (lb/millio nBtu) . E h» hourl y

averag e pollutant , ng/ J (lb/millio nBtu) . H - tota l numbe r o f operatin g hour s fo r whic hpollutan t rate s ar e determine di nth e performanc e tes t period .

4. 2 Averag e Pollutan t Rate s fro m Othe r tha nHourl y

Averages . Whe n pollutan t rate s ar e determine d fro m measure d value s representin g longe r tha n 1-hou r period s (e.g. , dail y fue l samplin g andanalyse s o r Metho d 6 B values) , o r whe npollutan t rate s ar e determine d fro m combination s o f 1-hou r an d longe r tha n1-hou r period s (e.g. , CEM S an d Metho d 6 B values) , comput e th e

13 5P.4 1

averag e pollutan t rat e (E J fo r th e performanc e tes t period (e.g. , 3 0 days ) a specifie d i

nth e applicabl e regulatio nusing th e following equation :

D D E
. [ I(n d EJ i ]/Zn d i Eq . 19-2 0 j= l a a J j» l a j

where : E d= averag e pollutan t rat e fo r eac hsampling period (e.g. , 24-h r Metho d 6 B sampl e o r 24-h r fue l sample ) o r fo r eac hfue l lo t (e.g. , amoun t o f fue l bunkered) , ng/ J (lb/millio nBtu) .
n . = numbe r o f operatin g hour s o f th e affecte d facilit y withi nth e performanc e tes t perio d fo r eac hE ddetermined . D - numbe r o f samplin g period s durin g th e performanc e tes t period .

5 . Determinatio no f Overal l Reductio ninPotentia l Sulfu r Dioxid e Emissio n 5. 1 Overal l Percen t Reduction . Comput e th e overal l percen t S0 - reductio n(%RJ usin g th e followin g equation :

%R Q - 10 0 [1. 0 - (1. 0 - %R f /100)(1. 0 - % R/100) ] Eq . 19-2 1 where : %R - a SO * remova l efficienc y fro m fue l pretreatment , percent . % R* S0 2 remova l efficienc y o f th e contro l device , percent . 5. 2 Pretreatmen t Remova l Efficienc y (Optional) . Comput e th e S0 2
remova l efficienc y

fro m fue l pretreatmen t (%R J fo r th e averagin g perio d

13 6P.4 2

(e.g. , 9 0 days ) a s specifie d 1 nth e applicabl e regulatio nusin g th e followin g equation :

%R f = 10 0 {1. 0 - [ Z (%S pj /GCV pj ) L pj ]/ [ £ («S rj /GCV rj ) L r j ] } Eq . 19-2 2 J XJ X
where : % S , % S =

• sulfu r conten t o f th e produc t an d raw fue l lots , respectively , dr y

basi s weigh t percent . GC V , GCV f - gros s calorifi c valu e fo r th e produc t an d raw fue l lots , respectively , dr y

basis , kg/k g (Btu/lb) . L , L f - weigh t o f th e produc t an d raw fue l lots , respectively , metri c to n(ton) , n- numbe r o f fue l lot s durin g th e averagin g period . NOTE : Incalculatin g %R r , includ e % S an d GC V value s fo r al l fue l lot s tha t ar e no t pretreate dan d ar e use d durin g th e averagin g period .

5.2. 1 Soli d Fossi l (Includin g Waste ) Fue l - Samplin g an d Analysis . NOTE : Fo r th e purpose s o f thi s method , raw fue l (coa l o r oil ) i s th e fue l delivere d t o th e desulfurizatlo n(pretreatment ) facility . Fo r oil , th e inpu t oi l t o th e oi l desulfurizatlo nproces s (e.g. , hydrotreatment ) i s considere dt o b e th e raw fuel . 5.2.1. 1 Sampl e Incremen t Collection . Us e AST M D2234-7 6 (IBR--se e §60.17) , Typ e I , Condition s A , B , o r C , an d systemati c spacing . A s use di n thi s method , systemati c spacin g i s intende d t o Includ e evenl y space d

13 7P.4 3

increment s intime o r increment s base d o nequa l weight s o f coa l passin g th e collectio narea . A s a minimum , determin e th e numbe r an d weigh t o f increment s require d pe r gros s sampl e representin g eac hcoa l lo t accordin g t o Tabl e 2 o r Paragraph7.1.5. 2 o f AST M D2234-76 . Collec t on e gros s sampl e fo r eac hlo t

o f raw coa l an d on e gros s sampl e fo r eac hlo t o f produc t coal . 5.2.1. 2 AST M

Lo t Size . Fo r th e purpos e o f Sectio n5. 2 (fue l pretreatment) , th e lo t siz e o f produc t coa l i s th e weigh t o f produc t coa l fro m on e typ e o f ra

w coal . Th e lo t siz e o f ra w coa l 1 s th e weigh t .o f ra w
coa l use dt o produc e on e lo t o f produc t coal . Typically , th e lo t siz e 1 s th e weigh t o f coa l processe dina 1-da y (24-hour ) period . I f mor e tha non e typ e o f coa l i s treate d an d produce d in1 day , the ngros s sample s mus t b e collecte dan

d analyze dfo r eac htyp e o f coal . A coa l lo t siz e equalin g th e 90-da y quarterl y

fue l quantit y

fo r a stea

m generatin g uni t ma y

b e use d i f representativ e samplin g ca nb e conducte dfo r eac hraw coa l an dproduc t coal , NOTE : Alternativ e definition s o f lo t size s ma y b e used , subjec t t o prio r approva l o f th e Administrator . 5.2.1. 3 Gros s Sampl e Analysis . Us e AST M D2013-7 2 t o prepar e th e sample , AST M

D3177-7 5 o r AST M

D4239-8 5 t o determin e sulfu r conten t (%S) , AST M D3173-7 3 t o determin e moistur e content , an d AST M D2015-7 7 o r AST M 03286-8 5 t o determin e gros s calorifi c valu e (GCV ) (al l method s cite d IBR--se e §60.17 ) ona dr y basi s fo r eac hgros s sample . 5.2. 2 Liqui dFossi l Fue l - Samplin g an dAnalysis . Se e NOT E unde r Sectio n5.2.1 .

13 8P.4 4

5.2.2. 1 Sampl e Collection . Follo w th e procedure s fo r continuou s sampling inAST M

D270-6 5 (Reapprove d 1975 ) (IBR--se e §60.17 ) fo r eac hgros s sampl e fro

m eac hfue l lot . 5.2.2. 2 Lo t Size . Fo r th e purpos e o f Sectio n5. 2 (fue l pretreatment) , th e lo t siz e o f a produc t oi l i s th e weigh t o f produc t oi l fro m on e pretreatmen t facilit y

an dintende d a s on e shipmen t (shi p load , barg e load , etc.) . Th e lo t siz e o f raw oi l i s th e weigh t o f eac hcrud e liqui d fue l typ e
use dt o produc e a lo t o f produc t oil . NOTE : Alternativ e definition s o f lo t size s ma y b e used , subjec t t o prio r approva l o f th e Administrator . 5.2.2. 3 Sampl e Analysis . Us e AST M D129-6 4 (Reapprove d1978) , AST M D1552-83 , o r AST M

D4057-8 1 t o determin e th e sulfu r conten t (%S ) an d AST M D240-7 6 (al l methods cite dIBR--se e §60.17 ) t o determin e th e GC V o f

eac hgros s sample . Thes e value s ma y b e assume d t o b e ona dr y basis . Th e
owne r o r operato r o f anaffecte d facilit y ma y elec t t o determin e th e GC V b y samplin g th e oi l combuste do nth e firs t stea m generatin g uni t operatin g da y
o f eac hcalenda r mont han dthe nusin g th e lowes t GC V valu e o f th e thre e GC V value s pe r quarte r fo r th e GC V o f al l oi l combuste d intha t calenda r quarter . 5.2. 3 Us e appropriat e procedures , subjec t t o th e approva l o f th e Administrator , t o determin e th e fractio no f tota l mas s inpu t derive d fro m
eac htyp e o f fuel . 5. 3 Contro l Devic e Remova l Efficiency . Comput e th e percen t remova l efficienc y

(%RJ o f th e contro l devic e usin g th e followin g equation :

13 9P.4 5

%R g = 10 0 [1. 0 - E a o /E a . ] Eq . 19-2 3 where : E , E | - averag e pollutan t rat e o f th e contro l device , outle t an d inlet , respectively , fo r th e performanc e tes t period , ng/ J (lb/millio nBtu) . 5.3. 1 Us e continuou s emissio nmonitorin g system s o r tes t methods , a s appropriate , t o determin e th e outle t SO - rate s and , 1 f appropriate , th e inle t S0 2 rates . Th e rate s ma y be determine d a s hourl y (E J o r othe r samplin g perio d average s (EJ . Then , comput e th e averag e pollutan t rate s fo r th e performanc e tes t perio d ( E an d E J usin g th e procedure s 1 n Sectio n4 . 5.3. 2 A s an alternative , as-fire d fue l samplin g an d analysi s ma y

b e
use d t o determin e inle t SO - rate s a s follows : 5.3.2. 1 Comput e th e averag e inle t S0 2 rat e (E d J fo r eac hsamplin g perio d usin g th e followin g equation :

E d i = K(%S/GCV ) Eq . 19-2 4

where :

E d i a avera 9 e inle t so ? rat e ^ o r eac n sam P lin 9 perio d d , ng/ J

(lb/millio nBtu ) % S • sulfu r conten t o f as-fire d fue l lot , dr y basis , weigh t percent . GCV - gros s calorifi c valu e o f th e fue l lo t consisten t wit hth e sulfu r analysis , kJ/k g (Btu/lb) .

K= 2xl0 7 [(kg)(ng)/(%)(J)]{2xl0 4 (lb)(Btu/(%))(millio nBtu) }

14 0P.4 6

Afte r calculatin g £.. us e th e procedure s inSectio n4. 2 t o determin e th e averag e inle t S0 2 rat e fo r th e performanc e tes t perio d( E ..) . 5.3.2. 2 Collec t th e fue l sample s fro m a locatio ninth e fue l handlin g system tha t provide s a sampl e representativ e o f th e fue l bunkere do r
consume ddurin g a stea m generatin g uni t operatin g day . Fo r th e purpos e o f as-fire dfue l samplin g unde r Sectio n5.3. 2 o r Sectio n6 , th e lo t siz e fo r coa l i s th e weigh t o f coa l bunkere do r consume d durin g eac hstea

m generatin g uni t operatin g day . Th e lo t siz e fo r oi l i s th e weigh t o f oi l supplie dt o th e "day " tan k o r consume ddurin g eac hstea m generatin g uni t operatin g day . Fo r reportin g an

dcalculatio npurposes , th e gros s sampl e shal l b e identifie dwit hth e calenda r da y onwhic hsamplin g began . Fo r stea m generatin g uni t operatin g day s whe na coal-fire d stea m generatin g uni t i s operate dwithou t coa l bein g adde dt o th e bunkers , th e coa l analysi s fro m th e previou s "a s bunkered " coa l sampl e shal l b e use dunti l coa l i s bunkere d again . Fo r stea

m generatin g uni t operatin g day s whe na noil-fire dstea

m generatin g uni t i s operate dwithou t oi l bein g adde dt o th e oi l "day " tank , th e oi l analysi s fro

m th e previou s da y

shal l b e use dunti l th e "day " tan k i s fille dagain . Alternativ e definition s o f fue l lo t siz e ma y b e used , subjec t t o prio r approva l o f th e Administrator . 5.3.2. 3 Us e AST M

procedure s specifie dinSectio n5.2. 1 o r 5.2. 2 t o determin e th e sulfu r content s (%S ) an dgros s calorifi c value s (GCV) .

14 1P.4 7

6 . Sulfu r Retentio nCredi t fo r Complianc e Fue l
I f fue l samplin g an

danalysi s procedure s i nSectio n5.2. 1 ar e being
use d t o determin e averag e SO - emissio nrate s ( E J t o th e atmospher e fro m a coal-fire d stea

m generatin g uni t whe nther e i s n o S0 2 contro l device , th e followin g equatio nma y b e use d t o adjus t th e emissio nrat e fo r sulfu r retentio ncredit s (n

o credit s ar e allowe d fo r oil-fire d systems ) (E d J fo r
eac hsamplin g perio dusin g th e followin g equation :

E d i - 0.9 7 K(%S/GCV ) Eq . 19-2 5

where :

E d 1 = avera 9 e i n l e t SO ? rat e fo r eac hsamplin g perio d d , ng/ J (lb/millio nBtu ) %S • sulfu r conten t o f as-fire d fue l lot , dr y basis , weigh t percent . GC V • gros s calorifi c valu e o f th e fue l lo t consisten t wit hth e sulfu r analysis , kJ/k g )Btu/lb) .

K= 2xl0 7 [(kg)(ng)/(%)(J)]{2xl0 4 (lb)(Btu/(%))(mill1o nBtu) }

Afte r calculatin g Ej. us e th e procedure s i nSectio n4- 2 t o determin e th e averag e SO - emissio nrat e t o th e atmospher e fo r th e performanc e tes t perio d

7 . Determinatio no f Complianc e Whe nMinimu m Dat a Requiremen t I s No t Me t 7. 1 Adjuste dEmissio nRate s an dContro l Devic e Remova l Efficiency . Whe nth e minimu

m dat a requiremen t i s no t met , th e Administrato r ma y us e th e

14 2P.4 8

followin g adjuste demissio nrate s o r contro l devic e remova l efficiencie s t o determin e complianc e wit hth e applicabl e standards . 7.1. 1 Emissio nRate . Complianc e wit hth e emissio nrat e standar d ma y b e determine db

y usin g th e lowe r confidenc e limi t o f th e emissio nrat e ( E * ) a s follows :

E art * - E a n- t - - - S nEq . 19-2 6 a o a o 0.9 5 o where : S - standar ddeviatio no f th e hourl y averag e emissio nrate s fo r
eac hperformanc e tes t period , ng/ J (lb/millio nBtu) . t - g c - value s show

ninTabl e 19- 2 fo r th e indicate d numbe r o f dat a point s n . 7.1. 2 Contro l Devic e Remova l Efficiency . Complianc e wit hth e overal l emissio nreductio n(%RJ ma y b e determine db

y usin g th e lowe r confidenc e limi t o f th e emissio nrat e ( E * ) an d th e uppe r confidenc e limi t o f th e inle t pollutan t rat e ( E <* ) i ncalculatin g th e contro l devic e remova l efficienc y

(% R ) a s follows :
% R g - 10 0 [1. 0 - E a o */E a 1 * ] Eq . 19-2 7

E a1 * " E a i + ^ S 1 E < - 19 " 2 8 where : S ^ » standar ddeviatio no f th e hourl y averag e Inle t pollutan t rate s fo r eac hperformanc e tes t period , ng/ J (lb/millio nBtu) .

14 3P.4 9

NOT E T O GP O TYPESETTER : Pleas e pu t thi s tabl e intw o column s immediatel y

following th e preceding lin e o f text .

TABL E 19-2 . VALUE S FO Rt Q g 5

n *

2 3 4 5 6 7 ^.9 5
6.3 1 2.4 2 2.3 5 2.1 3 2.0 2 1.9 4 n *

8 9 1 0 1 1 12-1 6 17-2 1 ^.9 5

1.8 9 1.8 6 1.8 3 1.8 1 1.7 7 1.7 3 n *

22-2 6 27-3 1 32-5 1 59-9 1 92-15 1 15 2 o r mor e l 0.9 5

1.7 1 1.7 0 1.6 8 1.6 7 1.6 6 1.6 5

* Th e value s o f thi s tabl e ar e correcte d fo r n- 1 degree s o f freedom . Us e nequa l t o th e numbe r (H ) o f hourl y averag e dat a points .
7. 2 Standar d Deviatio no f Hourl y Averag e Pollutan t Rates . Comput e the standar d deviatio n(S J o f th e hourl y averag e pollutan t rate s using th e followin g equation :

S e =-\/(l/H ) - (1/H r ) {-/ [ Z (E h j - E a ) 2 ]/( H - 1 ) } Eq . 19-2 9

" J X where : S - standar d deviatio no f th e hourl y averag e pollutan t rate s fo r eac h performanc e tes t period , ng/ J (lb/m1ll1o nBtu) . H = tota l number s o f hour s inth e performanc e tes t perio d (e.g. , 72 0 hour s fo r 30-da y

performanc e tes t period) . Equatio n19-2 9 ma y

be use d t o comput e th e standar d deviatio nfo r bot h th e outle t ( S ) and , i f applicable , inle t (S. ) pollutan t rates .

14 4