United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

Air Division

Technical Support Document

for

EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

for the

California State Implementation Plan

S outh Coast Air Quality Management District’s

Rule 114 6 .1

, E missions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Small Industrial, Institutional, and

Commercial Boiler s , Steam Generators and Process Heaters

Prepared by: Idalia Perez

June 20 1 11

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

Submitted Rule

S CAQMD R ule 1146 .1

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

 Adopted: September 5, 2008

 Submitted: July 20 , 20 10

 Determined complete : August 25, 2010

Previous Rule Submitta ls There are no outstanding submittals of Rule 1146

. 1.

SIP

- Approved Rule

 Adopted: May 1 3

, 1994

 Approved by EPA : September 6

, 1995 ( 6 0 FR 4 6 22 0 )

Rule Summar y Rule 1146 .1 limits NOx and CO emissions from boilers, steam generators and process heaters

with a tota l rated heat input larger than 2 MMBtu/hour and less than 5 MMBtu/hour.

As per Section (j) of Rule 2001, the provisions in Rule 1146 .1 applicable to NOx emissions do not apply to facilities subject to SCAQMD’s RECLAIM program.

Rule Amendments

Rule 1 146 .1 was amended to strengthen the NOx emission limits. Section (c)(2 ) has the new compliance limits and schedule. Section (c)( 3 ) contains an equation to calculate the emission

limits for dual fuel co

- fired combustion units. Section (c)( 6 ) states that cer tain units complying with the applicable BACT limit of 12 ppm can defer compliance with new limits until the unit’s burners are replaced. Section (c)(8) includes emission limit for units burning a mixture of biogas and natural gas.

Section (d) contains th e provisions related to compliance determination. Additional tests methods

were added to this section. Section (d)(6) was added to require compliance testing every five

years. Section (d)( 7 ) was added to require periodic measurements of NOx with portable

a nalyzers . Section (d)( 9 ) indicates that emissions that are determined to be in excess of the emission limits during a source test or a portable analyzer test are not to be considered violations if they are corrected within 72 hours or the unit is shutdown by the end of an operating cycle

.

The compliance schedule of the rule is contained in Section (e) . Section (e)(4) indicates that the Executive Officer can grant a time extension for compliance with NOx limits for units in health

facilities that can demon strate that they have received an extension of time to comply with seismic safety requirements from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development.

Other changes were ma de to the Rule language to improve clarity.

Effects on Emissions2

SCAQMD’s s taff report estimates that the amendments of Rule 1146 .1 will lead to a reduction of approximately 0 .2 9 tons per day of NOx emissions by 2015 (see page 3

- 1)

. This reflects an overall 71% reduction in NOx emissions from this source category.

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

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

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

Because the area regulated by the SCAQMD is designated nonattainment for the fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and designated and classified as extreme nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.305), Rule 1146.1 must ensure RACT. Additionally, the RACM requi rement in CAA section 172(c)(1) applies to this area.

Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate enforceability , RACT and RACM requirements include the following: Issues Relating to VOC Regulation, Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations (the "Blue Book"), US EPA, OAQPS (May 25, 1988). Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC and Other Rule Deficiencies , EPA Region IX (August 21, 2001, the “ Little Bluebook ” ). State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule , (the NOx Supplement) , 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992. Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule , 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007) Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Industrial, Instit utional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters , CARB (July 18, 1991)

. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ractbarc/boilers.pdf Alternative Control Techniques Document

-- NOx Emissions fro m Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers

, US EPA 45 3 /R

- 9 4

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

-- NOx Emissions from Utility Boilers , US

EPA 452/R

- 93

- 008 (March 1994). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/utboiler.pdf
Credible Evidence Revisions; Final Rule , 62 FR 8314 (February 24, 1997). State Implementation Pl ans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup and Shutdown from Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator

fo r Air and Radiation, September 20 , 1999.3

Discussion of RACT and RACM Criteria

Submitted Rule 1146 .1 is only applicable to sources that are not subject to RECLAIM, as per Table 1 in SCAQMD Rule 2001, which cover all major NOx sources. Thus, Rule 1146 .1 is not required to fulfill RACT r equirements. Even if RACT were required, we believe SCAQMD Rule

1146 .1 likely implements RACT for NOx emissions for reasons including:

- Emission limits in Rule 1146 .1 are more or as stringent to emission limits in

Sacramento Metro A ir Q uality M anagement D is trict ( SMAQMD ) Rule 411

, San Joaquin Valley Unified A ir P ollution C ontrol D istrict ( SJV U APCD ) Rule 430 7

, and Bay Area A ir Q uality M anagement D istrict ( BAAQMD ) Rule 9

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

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

. Rule

11 4 6 .1 requirements are comparable to the AC T.

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

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

demonstrates that Rule 11 4 6 .1 implements RACT.

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

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

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

PM 2.5 or Ozone NAAQS when considered coll ectively with other measures. Therefore, additional control measures may be required pursuant to CAA §172(c)(1) if both: (1) additional measures are reasonably available; and (2) additional reasonably available measures (considered collectively with other measures) will advance attainment in the area. As described above, we believe that the NOx emission limits in the submitted rule implement RACT for NOx. We

believe that this demonstration is sufficient to determine that the rule requires all measures that are “reasonably available” within the meaning of RACM under CAA § 172(c)(1). In separate rulemakings, EPA will take action on the State’s RACM demonstration for PM 2.5 and Ozone

based on an evaluation of the control measures submitted as a whole and their overall potential to advance the applicable attainment dates in the South Coast area

.

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

criteria that SIP rules must meet to be both enf orceable as a practical matter and within the statutory authority of the promulgating agency (see “Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency,” from J. Craig Potter, Thomas L. Adams Jr., Francis S. Blake) . S ome of t he criteria essential in practically enforceable rules include clear

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

, and inclusion

of record keeping requirements. We believe the submitted rule revisions adequately fulfill most of the relevant criteria identified above. Specifically, the Rule:4

is generally clear and has clear applicability ; includes adequate recordkeepi ng and other compliance provisions; has testing and compliance timeframes.

Some of the recent Rule 1146.1 revisions were designed to increase rule compliance after a four year emission testing study revealed a 41% noncompliance rate for units regulated b y the rule (see page 2

- 6 of the Staff Report). The requirements for periodic monitoring of NOx and CO with portable analyzers that were added to section (d) increase the frequency of monitoring of units subject to this rule to quarterly, with the required frequency dropping to semi

- annually if the unit is found to be in compliance for four consecutive emission checks. SCAQMD also added a provision (Section (d)(2)) prohibiting tuning or servicing of units before source testing. Although these two additions are designed to increase compliance, we are concerned with potential impacts to overall rule enforceability.

Section (d)( 7 ) was added to the Rule to incorporate requirements for periodic monitoring of NOx with portable analyzers. The language in (d)( 7 )(C) states:

An owner or operator shall not be considered in violation of the emissions limits of this rule or in permit conditions if the owner or operator complies with requirements specified in paragraph (d)(9). Any emission check conducted by District sta ff that finds excess

emissions is a violation.

Section (d)(9 ) states:

A source test specified under paragraph (d)(6) or an emission check conducted under the requirements specified in paragraph (d)(7) that finds emissions in excess of those allowed by

thi s rule or a permit condition shall not constitute a violation of this rule if the owner or operator corrects the problem and demonstrate (sic) compliance with another source test or emission check within 72 hours from the time the owner or operator knew of excess emissions, or reasonably should have known, or shut down the unit by the end of an operating cycle, whichever is sooner.

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

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

... For the purpose of submitting compliance certifications or establishing whether or not a person has violated or is in violation of any standard in this part, the plan must not preclude the use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or information, relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test or procedure had been performed.

and 52.12(c) :
For purposes of Federal enforcement, the following test procedures and methods shall be used, provided that for the purpose of establishing whether or not a person has violated or is in violation of any provi sion of the plan, nothing in this part shall preclude the use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or information, relevant to whether a source5

would have been in compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance

or c ompliance test procedures or methods had been performed.

Prohibitory rules for other nonattainment areas do not include language that exempts testing results to be used for compliance determinations. For example, Ventura County Air Pollution

Control Distr ict Rule 74.15.1 , which covers similar sources requires compliance testing not less than every 24 months. Rule 74.15.1 does not include language excluding compliance testing from being used to show violations. Consistent with EPA guidance, Rule 74.15.1 Se ction F .1

states that

“Failure to comply with any provision of this rule shall constitute a violation of this rule. ”

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

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

the above

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

and language in (d)(7 )(C):

“Any emission check conducted by District staff that finds excess emissions is a violation”

act as a back

- stop, not

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

we support t he District’s effort to increase compliance with the emissions li mits of the Rule, sections (d)(7 ) and (d)( 9 ) conflict with CAA section 110(a) and the credible evidence Rule. SCAQMD should eliminate language in section (d)( 9 ) that restricts use of source t est data to verify rule compliance , although SCAQMD may of course exercise discretion in declining to pursue enforcement in specific circumstances

. To the extent that portable analyzer tests required by section (d)(7 ) are an additional (rather than a repla cement) requirement beyond the testing normally appropriate for affected sources, we understand that it may not be appropriate to pursue enforcement for every failed portable analyzer test. However, the rule should also be consistent

with national credible evidence policy and should establish reasonable limits on the number and/or frequency of failed portable analyzer tests. Therefore, SCAQMD should also revise section (d)( 9 ) to clarify the consequences of failed portable analyzer tests. For example, this section could be revised to require that any source that fails a portable analyzer test perform appropriate maintenance and retest within 72 hours, and that failure of 2 monthly tests within 6

months constitutes a violation of the rule. Here too, SCAQMD m ay also choose to exercise

enforcement discretion.

Discussion of Relaxation Criteria

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

with the on

- going process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS6

are met, and the submitted SIP revi sion is more stringent than the rule previously approved into

the SIP

.

Rule Deficiencies Section (d)( 7 ) and Section (d)( 9 ) preclude the use of both source test data and portable analyzers test results from being used to prove a violation of the emission s tandard. This

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

Suggested Rule Improvements EPA recommends that the SCAQMD make the following improvements in the next revision of

Rule 1146 .1 , a lthough they are not currently the basis for rule disapproval

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

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

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

This seems to contradict section (d)( 9 )

“A source test specified under paragraph (d)(6) or an emission check conducted under the requirements specified in paragrap h (d)(7) that finds emissions in excess of those allowed by this rule or a permit condition shall not constitute a violation of this

rule...”

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

whole rule.

2. Section (d)(2 ) states:

“All emission determinations shall be made in the as

- found operating condition, except no compliance determination shall be established during unit start up, shutdown, or under breakdown conditions. Start up or shutdown intervals shall not last l onger than is necessary to reach stable temperatures. In no case shall the start up or shutdown interval last longer than six hours or the time specified in the permit to operate, whichever is less.

Start

- ups and shutdowns shall not last longer than is nec essary to reach stable conditions. An compliance determination as specified in paragraph (d)(6) shall be conducted at least 250 operating hours, or at least thirty days subsequent to the tuning or servicing of any unit, unless it is an unscheduled repair.”

To improve clarity and enforceability of this provision, we recommend adding a definition for “unscheduled repair”, “ as

- found operating conditions ” and “breakdown

conditions” into the Rule. The definition for “breakdown” should follow EPA Excess

Emission Guidance (September 20, 1999) . Please also consider requiring records needed to demonstrate unscheduled repairs

.

Recommendation

EPA staff recommend s limited approval

, limited disapproval of S CAQM D submitted R ule

11 4 6 .1 for incorporation into the Californ ia Applicable SIP

.7

Attachments

1. Submitted Rule 114 6 .1 (Clean Copy)

2. Submitted Rule 114 6 .1 (Strikeout Copy)

3. Final Staff Report, Proposed Amended Rule 1146.1

– Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Small Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boiler Steam G enerators, and Process Heaters, by R. Calungcagin, August 2008.

4. SIP

- approved version of Rule 114 6 .1