P. 1



# OAR Box 1865 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



## Document

Number: 

# 171 ) VIII-A- 1

Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 12/3/2008 3:22:23 PM

Sheet 171 of 198P. 2



# « A'*w * 

# A-83-2 7
Frida y Januar y 13 , 198 9 VII-A- l



# Part V 

# Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc

y
4 0 CF R Part 6 0 Standard s o f Performanc e fo r Ne w Stationar y Sources ; Industrial-Commercia l Institutiona l Stea m Generatin g Units ; Propose d Revisio n o f Rul e an d Denia l o f Petition s fo r Reconsideratio nP. 7

161 0 Federa l Registe r / Vol

. 54 , No , 9 /

Friday , Januar y 13 , 198 9 / Propose d Rule s nitroge n oxide s emissio n limit s unde r § § 60.42b , 60.43b , an d 60.44b

. shal l submi t to th e Administrato r

th e performanc e tes t

dat afro mth e initia l performanc e tes t

an d th e performanc e evaluatio n o

f th e CEMS usin g th e applicabl e performanc e specification s in Appendi x B

. Th e owne r

o r operato r o f eac h affecte d facilit

y describe d in § § 60.44b(j ) o

r 60.44b(k ) shal l submi t

to th e Administrato r

th e maximumhea t inpu t capacit y dat afro

mth e demonstratio n o

f th e maximumhea t inpu t capacit y o

f th e affecte d facility

. **** * (e ) Fo r a n affecte d facilit

y tha t combust s residua l oi l an

d meet s th e criteri aunde

r 99 60.46b(e)(4) , 60.44b(j) , o r 60.44b(k) , the owne r o r operato r shal l maintai n records o

f the nitroge

n content o f th e residual oi l combuste d i n the affecte d facilit

y and calculate the average fue

l nitroge n contento

n a pe r calenda r quarte

r basis
. Th

e nitroge n contentshal l b e determined usin g AST M Metho d D3431-60
. Tes tMethod fo r Trac e Nitroge n in Liqui d Petroleu m Hydrocarbon

s (IBR—se

e 9 80.17) , o

r fue l suppliers
. I

f residual oi l blend s ar

e bein g combusted , fue

l nitrogen specification s ma y be
. prorate

d base d o n the ratio-o

f residual oU

s o f differen tnitroge n '
- conten tin th e fue

l blend
. 7

• • * ' » • (g ) Excep ta s provide d unde r 7 paragrap h (p ) o f thi s section , th e owne r an d operato r o

f a n affecte d facilit

y subjectt o th e nitroge

n oxide s standard s unde r 160.44 b shal l maintai n record s o f the followin g informatio

n foreac h stea

m generatin g uni

toperatin g day :

• • • • • (p ) Th e owne r o r operato r o

f a n affecte d facilit

y describe d i n 9 9 B9.44b(J ) o r 60.44b(k ) shal l maintain record s o f the followin g informatio

n fo r eac h stea

m generatin g uni

toperating day : (1 ) Calenda

r date
. (2 ) Th e numbe

r o f hour s o f operation , (q ) Th e owne r o

r operato r o f

a n affecte d facilit

y tha tmeets th e criteri a unde r 9 9 60.44b(j ) o

r 60.44bfk ) shal l submi tt o the Administrato r o n a quarterl y basis : (1 ) Result s o f an y nitroge n oxide s emissio n test s require

d durin g the quarter , (2) Th e annua

l capacit y facto r ove r the previou s twelv e months , (3 ) The averag e fue

l nitroge n content durin g the quarter

, i f residual oi l wa s fired; and
. (4 ) I f th e affecte d facilit

y meets the criteri adescribe d i n 9 60.44b(j) » ihe
. hour s o f operatio n durin

g th e quarte

r an d th e hour s o

f operatio n sinc e th e las t nitroge n oxide s emissio n test

. |F R Doc

. 89-70

0 File d 1-12-89 ; 8:4

5 am | BIUJN O COO C SMO-SO- M

4 0 CF R Part 6 0 (AO-fRL-3504-9 )
Standard s o f Performanc e fo r Ne w Stationar y Sources ; Industrtat CommarewHnstrtutJona J Stea m Generatin g Unit s
AOINCV : Environmenta

l Protection Agency (EPA)
. ACTION : Denia l o f petition s fo

r reconsideration. SUMMARY : Ne w source performanc e standard s (NSPS ) fo

r new , modified , and reconstructed industrial-commercial
institutiona

l stea m generatin g unit

s wit h hea tinpu tcapacitie s o f

mor e tha n 2 8 M W (10 0 millio n Btu/hour) [othe r tha n thos e subjectt

o Subpar tDa ) wer e promulgated o n Novembe r 25,198 6 (5 1 F R 42788)
. a s Subpar

tD b o f 4 0 CF R Par t 60
. Thes e standard * limite d emission s o f particulat e matter (PM

) fro m industrial
commai-dal-institutiona

l stea m ; generatin g unit s firing coal , wood'an d ; municipa l soli d wastelan d nitroge

n oxide s (NO J emission s from steam generatin g unit

s firin g natura l gas
. oi l coa l and wast e by-produc tfuels
. Additiona l standard s promulgate

d o n Decembe r 16.198 7 (52 P

R 47826) , (unite d emission s o f

sulfu r dioxid e (SOi ) fro

m industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit

s firin g coa l an d oil , an d P M emission s from units firin g oil
. Petition s requestin g reconsideratio n o f th e standard s o f

performanc

e promulgate

d o n Novembe r 25.1986 * wer e submitted t

o th e Agency i n Januar y 198 7 b y th e Counci l o f

Industria l Boile r Owners (CffiO)
. Utilit y Ai r Regulator y Grou p (UARG)
. an d the : owner s o f th e Willia

m H
. Zimme

r . Generating Statio n (Cincinnat i Ga s a V Electri c Company , Columbus an d Souther n Ohi o Electri c Company , an d th e Dayto n Powe r an d Ligh tCompany , referred t

o hereinafte r a s th e Zimme r owners)
. Petition s requestin g reconsideratio n o

f the standard s o f performanc

e promulgated o n Decembe r 18.1987 , wer e submitted t o th e Agency i n February
. March , and May1988
. b y CIBO , Hawaiia n Electri c Compan y (HECO L th e Zimme

r owners * an d th » . America n Paper Institut

e (API ) togethe r wit

h th e Nationa l Fores t

Product s Associatio n (NFPA)

. Th e issue s raise d b y thes e petitione r d o no t mee t th e criteri afo

r ' reconsideratio n o

f th e rul e a s se t

ou t i n sectio n 307(d)(7)(B ) o

f th e Clean Ai

r Ac t (CA A o r th e Act)

. Th e petitioner s neithe r raise d ne w objection s tha t wer e impractica l t o presen t

durin g th e specifie d commen t

perio d no r

presente d ne w materia l o

f centra l relevanc e t

o th e outcom e o

f th e rule

. Becaus e thes e petition s d o no t

provid e substantia l support fo r revising th

e standard s o

f performanc e promulgate d on Novembe r 25.1986 , an

d Decembe

r 18, 1987

. the

y ar e bein g denie d in today' s notice

. However , using hi s discretionar y authorit y t o reconsider an

d amen d a rule , th e Administrato r ha s decide d tha t sufficien treason exist s and , therefore , i s proposin g revision s t

o part s o f th e NO , rule
. (Th e rational e fo

r thi s decisio n i s explaine d mor

e full y in a separat

e Federa l Register notice. ) Thes e propose d revisions ar

e discusse d elsewher e i

n today' s Federa

l Register
. OA-rn : The denial o f

th e petition s t

o reconside r thes e standard s i s a final actio n unde

r section s 307(b)(1 ) and 307(d)(7)(B ) o f

th e CAA
. Revie w o

f th e denia l i s availabl e onl y b y the filin g o f t petitio n fo r revie w i n th e U & Cour

to f Appeal s for th e Distric

to f Columbi a withi n 6 0 day s o f

today' s publication , a

s provide d i n sectio n 307(b)(1)
. AOOWSSStS

. Docke tNos
. A-79-0 2 (PM

/ NO J and A-83-2 7 (SOi ) ar e availabl e fo r publi c inspectio n and copyin g betwee n 8*0

0 a jn
. an d 4:3

0 pjn. , Monda

y throug h Friday , a

tCentra l Docke t Section
. Sout

h Conferenc

e Center , Roo m 4
. Watersid e Mall
. 491 M Stree tSW.
. Washington
. D

C 20469
. A reasonabl e fe

e ma y b e charge

d fo r copying
. POfrPIMTMI R WsKNIMATIO M CONTACT : Fo r furthe r Informatio

n contac tMr
. Fre d Porte r [(919 ) 541-5251] , Standard s Developmen

tBranch , Emission Standard s Divisio n (MD-13)
. U A Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 27711
. SUmiMiMTAIt

V WrOWMATlOW

: Standards o

f performanc

e fo r P M an d NO , emission s from industrial
commercial-institutiona

l stea m generatin g unit s were promulgate

d o n November 25.196 6 (5 1 F

R 42768) , and fo

r SO i emission s o n December 16,198 7 (5 2 F R 47828)
. Subsequently , seve n groups petitione d th e Administrator pursuan tt o sectio n 307(d)(7)(B ) o

f th e CA A t o reconsider certai n requirement s o f thes e standards
. Thes e standard s o f

performanc

e implemen tsectio n 11 1 o

f the Clea n Air A

c A d in d st e co t w r en > In c st e c a st s en
n a ut i th t P N hi | i n T l t h r e a r d( e r n < i n C s i P ' P a b
P t l P d E a

# 1 P. 8

Federa l Registe r /

Vol
. 54 , No
. 9 /

Friday , Januar y 13 , 198 9 / Propose d Rule s 161 1

T S i n \c t ir e
!e d Ih e

)e r

ha t ! , i s \ s

se d

e <f a

. f

a s Al

da y

>o m

e e

na

n d

t fo r ;5 2 s tt o
;s e Ac tan d ar e base d o n th e

Administrator' s determinatio n tha t industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit s caus e o r contribut e significantl y t o ai r pollutio n whic h ma y reasonabl y b e anticipate d to endange r publi c healt h o r welfare
. Industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g units , a s a sourc e category , ar e th e secon d larges t stationar y sourc e o f

PM , NO, , an d SO i emission s fro

m fue l combustio n in.th e nation , rankin g onl y behin d electri c utilit y stea m generatin g units
. Further , the y wer e th e highes tranke d sourc e o f P M an d SO

j emission s an d th e secon d highes tranke d sourc e o f NO , emission s i n th e NSP S priorit y lis tadopte d i n 1980
. Th e standards , a s promulgated , reflec t th e Administrator' s determinatio n o f th e reductio n i n emission s (i.e. , PM , NO, , an d SOj ) achievabl e b y th e bes t demonstrate d syste m o f continuou s emissio n reductio n considerin g costs , nonai r qualit y healt h an d environmenta l impacts , an d energ y requirements
. [See CA A sectio n 111(a)(1)(C). ) Th e basi s fo r specifi c component s o f

th e standard s a s promulgate d wer e se tfort h i n th e preamble s t o th e final rule s (5 1 F R 4726 8 an d 5 2 F R 47826 ) an d th e variou s backgroun d document s referre d t o i n th e promulgatio n notice s an d containe d i n th e record
. I n certai n cases , specifi c percentag e reductio n requirement s wer e determine d t o b e unreasonable
. Emissio n limits , however , remai n applicable
. B y an d large , th e petition s submitte d b y th e partie s challeng e variou s individua l piece s o f

data , conclusion s mad e b y th e Agency , o r interpretation s o f th e data
. Fo r th e mos tpart , th e petition s simpl y restat e o r expan d o n issue s raise d an d considere d durin g th e commen tperio d o r presen tissue s tha t coul d hav e bee n raise d durin g th e commen tperiod
. T o th e exten ttha tne w issue s ar e raise d (e.g. , th e effec to f th e "ne w boile r survey " o n th e P M standards) , th e petitioners ' contention s ar e eithe r withou tmerit , o r eve n i f true , d o no taffec tth e outcom e o f th e rule
. Althoug h mos to f

th e contention s raise d i n th e petition s coul d b e rejecte d summarily , th e Agency , i n th e notic e below , ha s endeavore d t o provid e a comprehensiv e respons e t o th e contentions
. Thre e group s petitione d fo r reconsideratio n o f

th e promulgate d PM / NO , standards
. CIB O (Docke tNo
. A-79
- 02
. Docke tIte m VI-D-2 ) sough t reconsideratio n o n th e basi s tha tth e interrelationshi p wit h th e SO i standard s wa s no tconsidered , th e environmenta l an d economi c impact s o f th e standard s wer e overstated , ne w informatio n gathere d i n th e Agency' s ow n "Surve y o f Ne w Industria l Boile r Project s 1981
- 1984 " (referre d t o hereinafte r a s th e "ne w boile r survey" ) (Docke tNo
. A-83
- 27 , Ite m IV-A-4 ) wa s no tconsidered , an d certai n aspect s o f

th e Industria l Fue l Choic e Analysi s Mode l (IFCAM ) wer e no tvalid
. Th e Zimme r owner s (Docke tNo
. A-79-02 , Docke tIte m VI-D
6 ) petitione d fo r reconsideratio n o f th e PM/NO , standard s o n th e basi s tha t NO , limit s o n electri c utilit y auxiliar y stea m generatin g unit s ar e unreasonabl e an d distillat e oi l NO , standard s canno t b e achieved
. UAR G (Docke tNo
. A-79
- 02 , Docke tItem s VI-D- 1 an d IV-LM ) petitione d fo r reconsideratio n o n th e basi s tha tNO , limit s o n electri c utilit y auxiliar y stea m generatin g unit s ar e unreasonable
. Fiv e group s petitione d fo r reconsideratio n o f

th e promulgate d SO

» standards
. CIB O (Docke tNo
. A-83-27 , Ite m VI-A-1 ) petitione d o n th e basi s tha tth e standard s ar e inconsisten twit h th e 197 7 amendment s t o th e CAA , nationa l energ y polic y wa s no t considered , th e performanc e o f fluidized be d combustio n (FBC ) an d lim e spra y dryin g flu e ga s desulfurizatio n (FGD ) system s wa s no tdemonstrated , ne w informatio n o n wast e disposa l impact s wa s discovere d afte r th e commen t perio d closed , th e exemptio n fro m percen treductio n requirement s fo r noncontinenta l area s i s arbitrary , ne w analyse s mad e availabl e afte r proposa l - o f th e standar d (especiall y informatio n from th e "ne w boile r survey" ) wer e no t give n sufficien tconsideration , an d informa l vendo r statement s wer e use d t o suppor tth e requiremen tfo r 9 0 percen tSO*

, reduction. Th e Zimme r owner s (Docke tNo
. A-83-27 , Ite m VI
A-4 ) petitione d o n th e basi s tha tth e impact s o f

a 13 0 ng/ ) (0.3 0 lb/millio n Btu ) hea tinpu temissio n limi tfo r SO a o n tw o oil-fire d electri c utilit y auxiliar y stea m generatin g unit s a tth e Zimme r Statio n ar e unreasonable
. HEC O (Docke tNo
. A-83-27 , Ite m VI-A-5 ) requeste d reconsideratio n o n th e basi s tha tth e impact s o f

a 13 0 ng/

J (0.3 0 lb / millio n Btu ) hea tinpu temissio n limi tfo r SO i o n oil-fire d stea m generatin g unit s i n Hawai i ar e unreasonable
. AP I an d NFPA (Docke tNo
. A-83-27 , Ite m VI-A
6 ) sough treconsideration o n th e basi s tha tth e lac k o f

provision s fo r start-up , shutdown , an d malfunctio n i s unreasonable
. Th e nex tsectio n o f

today' s notic e discusse s th e conten to f eac h petitio n relativ e t o th e criteri a se tfort h i n sectio n 307(d)(7)(B ) o f

th e CA A fo r requirin g th e Administrato r t o conven e a proceedin g t o reconside r th e promulgate d standards
. Followin g tha t section , th e notic e addresse s th e technica l meri to

f eac h issu e raise d i

n th e petitions
. Thi s notic e i s organize d a s follows : I
. Revie w o f

Petition s for Reconsideratio n Unde r Sectio n 30 7 o f

th e Clea n Ai r Act
. A
. Criteri a fo r Reconsideratio n Unde r Sectio n 307
. B
. Summar y of

PM/NO , Reconsideratio n Petitions
. 1
. UARG
. 2

. Zimme rOwners

. 3
. CIBO
. C
. Summar y o f

SO , Reconsideratio n Petitions
. 1
. CIBO
. 2
. Zimme r Owners
. 3
. HECO
. 4
. API/NFPA
. II
. Petition s Submitte d Concernin g th e PM / NO , Standard s A
. Achievabilit y o f

th e PM/NO , Standards
. 1
. Achievabilit y o f

th e NO " Standard s b y Distillat e Oil-Fire d Electri c Utilit y Auxiliar y Stea m Generatin g Units
. 2
. Specia l Monitorin g Problem s Associate d wit h Electri c Utilit y Auxiliar y Stea m Generatin g Units
. B
. Interrelationshi p o f

PM/NO , an d SO , Standards
. 1
. Effec to f

SO J Contro l Technique s o n PM / NO,
. 2
. Achievabilit y o f

NO , Standard s b y Pulverize d Coal-Fire d Unit s Whe n Usin g Back-U p Fue l t o Mee tSO i Standards
. C
. Projecte d Environmenta l an d Economi c Impac t 1
. Overstatemen to f

Impacts
. 2
. Lega l Basi s fo r an d Economi c Impact s o f Control s o n Electri c Utilit y Auxiliar y Stea m Generatin g Units
. D
. "Ne w Boile r Survey"
. E
. IFCA M Nationa l Impact s Model
. III
. Petition s Submitte d Concernin g th e SO , Standard s A
. Lega l Basi s fo r Establishin g th e SO , Standards
. 1
. Consistenc y o f

SO , Standard s wit h Congressiona l Intent
. 2
. Impact s o f

th e SO , Standard s o n th e Nationa l Energ y Policy
. B
. Projecte d Economi c Impacts
. 1
. Cos tEffectivenes s o f a 13 0 SO , ng/ | (0.3 0 l b SOi/millio n Btu ) Hea tInputEmissio n Limi t o n Electri c Utilit y Auxiliar y Stea m Generatin g Unit s a tth e Zimme r Owners ' Generatin g Station
. Z
. Exemptio n fo r Noncontinenta l Areas
. 3
. Failur e t o Analyz e Economi c Impact s o n th e Pape r Industry
. 4
. Inadequat e Analysi s o f th e Economi c Impac to f

Start-up , Shutdown , an d Malfunctio n Provisions
. 5
. Lega l Requiremen tfo r Consideratio n o f Start-up , Shutdown , an d Malfunctio n Costs
. 6
. Availabilit y o f

13 0 n g SCs/ I (0.3 0 l b SO, / millio n Btu ) Oi l i n Hawaii'
. 7. Nee d fo r Ne w Oi l Transportatio n Syste m i n Hawaii
. 8
. Increase d Us e o f

Larg e Stea m Generatin g Unit s o r Ga s Turbin e Generator s in Hawaii
. 9
. Economi c Impact s o f Firin g Lo w Sulfu r O U i n th e Hawaiia n Oute r Islands
.P. 9

161 2 Federa l Registe r / Vol
. 54 , No
. 9 /

Friday , January 13 , 198 9 / Propose d Rule s

C

. Post-Proposa l Development s 1

. Ne w Docke t Material

. 2

. Analysi s o f Ih e "Ne w Buile r Si-rvey"

. 3

. Reevaluatio n o f SO , Emissio n Reductions

. 4

. Informatio n o n Impact s o f Wast e Disposal

. 5

. Abilit y o f FB C an d FG D Syste m t o Achiev e 90 Percen t SO 2 Reduction

. 6

. Us e o f Vendo r Statement s t o Suppor t 9 0 Percen t SO , Reduction

. IV
. Summar y I
. Revie w o

f Petition s fo

r Reconsideratio n Unde

r Sectio n 30

7 o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t A. Criteria

for Reconsideration

under Section 307 Revie w o f thes e petition s fo

r reconsideratio n wa s carrie d ou t according t

o the procedure

s o f sectio n 30 7 o f th e Clea n Air Act
. Sectio n :W(d)(7)(B ) provide s that : [ij f th e perso n raisin g a n objectio n ca n demonstrat e t o th e Administrato

r tha ti twa s impracticabl

e t o rais e suc h objectio n withi n (th e commen tperiod ) o r i f th e ground s fo r suc h objectio n aros e afte r th e perio d fo r publi c commen t(bu twithi n th e tim e specifie d fo r judicia l review ) an d i f suc h objectio n i s o f centra l relevanc e t o th e outcom e o f th e rule , Ih e Administrato

r shal l conven e a proceedin

g fo r reconsideratio

n o f th e rule
. . . . A s th e relevantHous e repor

texplains , th e purpos e o

f sectio n 307(d)(7)(B ) i s t

o provide the Agency a

n opportunit

y "t o pas s o n th e significanc e o

f th e [new ] material s and determine whethe r supplementar

y proceeding s ar

e calle d fo r o r not. " (Se e "Legislativ

e Histor y o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac tAmendment

s o f 1977, " Volum e 4 , p . 2790. ) Objection s ar

e o f centra l relevance onl y i f the y provid e substantia

l suppor t fo r th e argumen

ttha tthe standard s should b e revised. [Se e Denia l o f Petition t o Revis e NSP

S fo r Stationar

y Ga s Turbines , 4

5 F R 8185 3 (December 11,1980) ; Respons e t

o Petition fo

r Reconsideratio n and Fina l Amendments , NSP S fo r Petroleu m Dr y Cleaners
. 50 F

R 49022, (November 27,1985). ] Usin g the sectio n 307(d)(7)(B ) criteria , eac h o f th e seve n petition s wa s reviewe d t o determine whethe r materia l o f centra l relevanc e t

o th e rul e wa s presente d tha

t coul d no thav e been presente d durin g th e commen tperiod
. Fo

r reason s summarize

d belo w an

d detaile d late r in this notice , i

ti s apparen

ttha tnon e o f th e petition s present

s thi s kin d o f material
. I

n a separate notic e in today' s Federa l Register , however , the Administrato r i s exercisin g hi s

. discretionar

y authorit y t o propos e revise d rule s fo r monitorin

g NO , emissio n fro

m ver y lo w capacit

y facto r stea m generatin g units. 1 fl. Summary

of PM/NO_ Reconsideration

Petitions 1
. UAR G UAR G submitted a petitio n contendin g tha

tEP A di d notrespon d t

o th e specific s o

f argument

s i tha d mad e o n th e proposed rule
. Further

, UAR G supplemented this petitio n wit h argument s tha tn o standard s shoul d b e imposed o

n ver y lo w capacit

y facto r utilit y auxiliar y stea m generatin g units
. UAR G als o sough

tdeletio n o

f th e monitorin g requirement

s o n the ground

s tha tthe requirement

s canno tb e applie d readily t o unit s tha tar e use d infrequently
. Thes e argument

s do no tcompe l reconsideratio n unde

r sectio n 307
. First

, a claim tha

tEPA' s respons e t

o comment s wa s incomplet

e doe s not trigge r sectio n 30

7 reconsideration
. Second , the informatio

n provided i

n UARG' s "supplement " coul d hav e bee n provided durin

g th e commen tperiod
. Th e sam e i s tru

e o f the argument

s concerning monitoring
. UARG' s comment s ar e discusse d i

n Sectio n m below
. 2
. Zimme r Owner s Th e Zimme r owner s argue

d tha tEP A faile d t o addres s their comment

s o n th e proposed standards
. I

n a supplemen

t date d Jun e 29,1987, 7 month s afte

r the standard s wer e promulgated , th e Zimme r owner s argue

d tha tth e standard s shoul d no tapply t o utilit y auxiliar y unit s fo r lega l an d economi c reasons . A s the Zimme

r owner s themselve s seeme d t o recognize , thei r reconsideratio n comment s generall y repeate d and expande d o n argument

s raise d durin

g th e commen

tperiod
. Suc

h comment s d o no tcompe

l reconsideratio n unde

r sectio n 307
. Th e

1 Sectio n 4(d ) ot

th e Administrativ e Procedur e Ac t (APA)

. VS.C. 553(e)

. states
. "Eac h agenc y shal l giv e a n intereste d perso n th e righ t t o petitio n fo r issuance , amendmen t o r repea l o f a rule. " Althoug h Sectio n 4(d ) of th e AP A als o establishe s a righ t t o petitio n fo r administrativ e reconsideration , tha i provisio n almos

t certainl y doe

s no t appl y t o petition s fo r reconsideration o f regulation s that ar e promulgate d pursuan t t o th a rulemakin g provisian s of Sectio n 307(d ) of th e Clea n Ai r Act

. Se e sectio n 307(d)(l)(N)

. 4 2 U.S. G 7607(d)(l)tN)

. ("Th e provision s of sectio n 55 3 throug h 55 7 * * * of Titl e 5 o f th e Unite d State s Cod e shal l no t except a a expressl y provide d i n thi s subsection , appl y t o actio n 1 0 whic h thi s subsectio n applies.** ) I n an y event , th e criteri a fo r evaluatin g a petitio n fo r reconsideratio n unde r AP A ar e essentiall y th e sam e a s thos e fo r sectio n 307(d)(7HB ) petitions

. See Denia l o f Petition * t o Revis e NSP S fa r Stationar y Ga s Turbines

. 4

5 FR 81653-54

. an d decision s cite d therein

. Zimme r owners ' comment

s ar e discusse d i

n Sectio n II

I below
. 3
. CIB O CIB O argue d tha ttw o post-proposa

l development

s i n th e SO a proceeding compe l reconsideratio n o

f th e PM/NO , rul e unde r sectio n 307

. Th e tw o development

s were EPA' s proposa

l o f a n "interrelated " SO

a standar d afte r proposa l (bu tbefor e promulgation

) o f th e PM/NO , standard s an

d th e imminen t(in earl y 1987 ) completio n o

f a "ne w boile r survey " i

n the SO a rulemaking
. Thes e development

s d o no tcompe l reconsideratio n unde

r sectio n 30

7 becaus e the

y d o notconstitute informatio

n o f centra l relevanc e t

o th e outcome o f

th e PM/NO , rulemaking
. EP A ha s long recognized an

d take n int o accountthe interrelate d characte r o f th e PM/NO , an

d SO i rules
. CIBO' s argument , therefore , doe s no

tprovide ne w information
. Th

e only respec

ti n whic h th e argumen

tcould b e considere d ne w i s in CIBO' s conjectur e tha tthe NO , standar

d coul d b e violate d i

n stea m generatin g unit

s designe d fo

r firin g pulverize d coa

l (PC ) when using natura

l ga s o r oil
. A s explaine d belo w i n Sectio n III

, however , EP

A believe s tha

t complianc e wit

h th e NO , standard s ca

n b e readil y accomplishe d b y suc h units , and CIB O ha s provided no dat

a t o support-it s comments . CIBO' s comment s o n th e interrelationshi p o

f th e PM/NO , an d SO a rules ar e discusse d i

n Sectio n II I below
. CIBO' s claim s tha

tth e projection s o

f ne w unit s wer e to o hig

h and its conjecture s regardin

g the "ne w boile r survey " d o no tcompe

l reconsideration unde r sectio n 307
. A s explaine d in Sectio n II I below , ne w projections o f th e absolute numbe

r o f ne w an d replacemen

tstea m generating unit

s ar e informative , bu

tfa r less importan

ti n regulator y analysi s tha

n the relativ e balanc e betwee n cost s an d benefits
. Whe n decidin g whethe r o r no

tt o regulate , i ti s th e relative balanc e betwee n cost s an

d benefit s tha ti s o f primar y importanc

e rathe r tha n th e absolut e numbers
. However , eve n wit h lowe r projection s o

f th e numbe r o f ne w units , the emissio n reduction s achieve d b y the standard s ar

e significant
. Conjectur e regarding th e method s o f the "ne w boile r survey " i s als o nota basi s fo r mandator

y reconsideration absen t compelling indication s that.th e surve y method s affecte d th

e results
. CIBO' s critique s ar

e not , therefore , o

f centra l relevanc e t

o th e outcom e o

f th e rule
.P.1 0

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 54 , No

. 9 /

Friday , Januar y 13 , 198 9 / Propose d Rule s 161 3

C. Summary

of SCh Reconsideration Petitions 1

. CIB O CIB O argue d tha t

(1 ) th e S0 2 standard s ar e inconsisten t wit h th e 1977 amendment s to th e CAA , (2 ) nationa l energ y polic y wa s no t

considered , (3 ) EP A erroneousl y analyze d th e result s o f a"ne w boile r

survey, " (4) th e "ne w boile r survey " produce d importan t ne w information , (5 ) post-proposa l wast e disposa l informatio n showe d tha t flue ga s desulfurizatio n (FGD) o n coal-fire d unit s i s no t

cos t effective , (6) post

proposa l fluidize d be d combustio n (FBC ) an d spra y drye r

informatio n di d no t sho w tha t the y constitut e "demonstrate d technologies , (7 ) EP

A di d no t provid e notic e o f th e exten t

o f it s relianc e o n vendo r guarantees , an d (8 ) EP

A shoul d hav e extende d it s unanticipate d exemptio n fro

mpercen t reductio n requirement s fo

r noncontinenta l area s t o th e continenta l Unite d States

. CIB O argue d tha t

thes e post-proposa l development s compe l reconsideratio n unde r sectio n 307(d)(7)(B)

. Thi s i s no t

th e case
. Th e issue s o

f consistenc y with th e 197 7 amendment s t o th e CA A an d nationa l energ y polic y wer e raise d an d discusse d a t lengt h prio r to proposa l a s wel l a s durin g th e comment period

. [Se e e.g.
. "Backgroun d Informatio n Document " (BID) , Volum e 4. ] Suc h comments , therefore , d o no t compe l reconsideratio n unde r sectio n 307

. Concernin g th e analysi s o f th e "ne w boile r survey, " EP

A surveye d stea m generatin g uni t

sale s fro m198 1 t o 198

4 t o determin e wh y ne w stea mgeneratin g unit s ar e installed , wha t

percentag e o

f recen t sale s wer e fo

r replacement , ho w sale s migh

t b e relate d t o increase d cost , an d th e impac t

o f ne w unit s o n overal l SO 2 emissions

. Th e surve y wa s conducte d to respon d to CIB O comment s tha t

th e grea t majorit y o f ne w unit s replac e existin g unit s an d tha t th e NSP S woul d promp t

owner s t o dela y purchasin g replacemen t

units

. CIB O suggeste d tha t

EPA' s analysi s o

f th e "ne w boile r

survey " i s fault

y an d argue d tha t ha d EP A correctl y analyze d th e survey , th e outcom e of.th e rul e woul d hav e bee n different. 2 Again , thi s i s no t

th e case
. Th e finding s o f th e surve y indicat e tha t althoug h replacemen t

wa s th e primar

y reaso n fo r man y ne w units , aroughl y equa l numbe r

o f unit s ar e installe d fo

r

2 Tha tEP

A wa s goin g t o conduc tth e "ne w boile r survey " wa s note d i n th e Jun e 19,1988
. notic e o f propose d rulemakin g (5 1 F R 22384)
. Notic e o f

th a availabilit y o f

th e stud y wa s sen tt o al l commenter s i n Apri l 1987 , informin g the m tha tne w analyse s wer e bein g adde d to Docke tA-83-27
. ne w applications

. Th e surve y als o foun d tha t th e decisio n to buil d mos t o f thes e ne w applicatio n unit s wa s no t sensitiv e t o cos t increase s i

n th e rang e expecte d t o resul t fro mth e ne w rules

. Finding s fro mth e surve y als o indicate d tha t man y existin g unit s woul d continu e to b e use d alongsid e th e replacemen t units

. I n it s petition , CIB O hypothesize d tha t th e answer s receive d fro

mth e surve y migh t hav e bee n different

i f th e surve y ha d asked whethe r

th e uni t woul d b e buil t i f ai r pollutio n contro l equipmen t wer e required

. However , CIB O provide d n o detail s t o support

thi s conjecture

. Unsupporte d conjectur e doe s no t provid e abasi s fo

r reconsideratio n unde r sectio n 307

. A s discusse d in greate r detai l in Sectio n I

V below , th e amount , no t

th e origin , o

f cost s seem s relevan t to elasticit y o

f sale s a s a functio n o f costs

. Th e replacemen t

rat e ma y affec t th e numbe r

o f uni t sales , bu t in th e final analysis—an d absen t volume pric e decreases—the relationshi p betwee n contro l cost s an d absolut e emissio n reduction s i s more relevan t to standar d setting

. CIB O als o argue d that , apar t fro m costs , reliabilit y need s als o dete r ne w uni t installation i

f pollutio n contro l system s ar e les s reliabl e tha n productio n facilities

. O n Augus t 19,1988 , i t provide d EP

A with a"supplement " attachin g letter s attestin g t o th e nee d fo r high rate s o

f facilit y reliability

. Thi s argumen t doe s no t provid e abasi s fo

r reconsideratio n unde r

sectio n 307

. Th e genera l point—th e nee d fo r high stea m generatin g uni t

reliability—wa s raise d at th e tim e o

f proposa l an d addresse d durin g th e commen t

perio d [Se e e.g. , BID , Volum

e 4 (EPA-450/3-87-024)]

. Th e specifi c argumen t

tha t thi s need , like increase d costs , coul d dete r ne w installatio n coul d hav e bee n mad e a t tha t time

. Factore d int o th e analysi s wa s th e cos t o f backu p system s generall y use d b y industry to ensur e stea m ' supply

. Us e o

f suc h backu p system s shoul d assur e reliabl e operatio n an d shoul d no t

significantl y affec t installatio n rates

. Even i

f backu p system s di d affec t

installatio n rates , th e poin t remain s tha t

th e numbe r

o f ne w unit s an d replacemen t

unit s i s les s relevan t to standar d settin g tha n th e - relationshi p betwee n contro l cost s an d emissions

. CIB O argue d tha t

th e "ne w boile r survey, " properl y analyzed , supporte d it s clai mtha t

EP A overstate d emissio n reductions

. Fo r

reason s explaine d in Sectio n I V below , CIBO' s argumen t doe s no t provid e informatio n o

f centra l relevanc e to th e outcom e o f th e rul e compellin g reconsideratio n unde r sectio n 307

. Th e reasonablenes s o f th e rule , considerin g costs , i s not significantl y affecte d b

y th e tota l numbe r o f projecte d uni t

installation s sinc e smalle r

populatio n projection s woul d mea

n acorrespondin g reductio n o f contro l costs

. Furthermore , CIB O simpl y renew s acontentio n tha t wa s raise d an d discusse d durin g th e comment period

. (Se e e.g. , BID , Volum e 4. ) CIB O als o argue d tha t

apost-proposa l memorandum , whic h wa s prepare d fo r EP A an d discusse d th e disposa l o f sodium-scrubbin g waste , couple d wit h EPA' s "reliance " on sodium-scrubbing , show s th e "impracticability " o f th e rule—or , rather , tha t

th e rul e render s "impracticable " th e us e o

f coal-fire d stea mgeneratin g units

. Th e post

proposa l memorandu mnotes , amon g othe r things , tha t

severa l sodiu m scrubber s ar e locate d i

n area s wher e loca l rule s migh

t limi t th e availabilit y o

f som e scrubbin g wast e disposa l option s (Docket No

. A-83-27 , Docke t

Ite mIV-B

12)

. Th e issu e o

f scrubbe r wast e disposa l wa s raise d an d thoroughl y discusse d bot h prio r t o proposa l an d durin g th e commen t period

. (Se e e.g. , BID , Volum e 4. ) CIBO' s comment s o n th e post

proposa l memorandu md o no t compe l reconsideratio n unde r

sectio n 307

. Th e possibilit y tha t

som e source s ma

y b e limite d in thei r

disposa l option s doe s no t chang e th e outcom e o

f th e rule

. CIB O als o argue d tha t

post-proposa l memorand aprepare d fo

r EP A d o no t sho w tha t fluidize d be d combustio n (FBC ) an d lim e spra y dr y scrubber s ar e "demonstrated " technologies

. (Se e e.g. , Docke t No

. A-83-27 , Docket

Item s IV

B-1 8 an d IV-B-97. ) CIBO' s critiqu e o f th e post-proposa l memorand adoe s no t compe l reconsideratio n unde r sectio n 307

. Th e Agency' s conclusio n tha t FB C an d lim e spra y dryer s ar e "demonstrated " technologie s wa s explaine d prio r

t o proposa l an d agai n in respons e t

o publi c comment s [Se e e.g. , BID , Volum

e 4 ; 5 2 F R 47837 ; an d "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis " (EPA-450/3-86-005). ) Th e EPA' s conclusio n in th e fina

l rule , a s wel l a s a t proposal , wa s base d on th e judgmen t tha t tes t dat aan d othe r

factor s indicat e tha t hig h level s o f reliability ar e achievable

. Th e post-proposa l memoranda , whil e providin g additiona l support fo r thi s conclusion , wer e fa

r fro mit s sol e support

. Critique s o f th e memoranda , therefore , ar e no t centrall y relevan t to th e findin g tha t

thes e technologie s ar e demonstrate d fo r purpose s o

f Sectio n 11 1 o

f Th e CAA

. Th e meri t o f CIBO' s critique s i s discusse d in Sectio n I

V below

.P.1 1 

# T

161 4 Federa l Registe r / Vnl
. 54
. No
. 9 /

Friday , Januar y 13 , 198 9 / Propose d Rule s
CIB O argue d thatEP

A di d no tprovid e notic e o f th e "extent " o f

it s relianc e o n vendo r guarantee s wit h respec tt o th e demonstrate d statu s o f lim e spra y dryer s an d tha tEP

A improperl y relie d o n a guarante e tha twa s informa l an d unenforceable
. Thi s commen tdoe s no t constitut e centrall y relevan tne w informatio n compellin g reconsideratio n unde r sectio n 307
. A s CIBO' s commen t acknowledges , th e possibilit y tha tEP A migh trefe r to vendo r guarantee s wa s eviden tdurin g th e commen tperiod
. (Se e e.g. , "Summary o f

Regulator y Analysis." ) Moreover , a s i s discusse d i n Sectio n I V below , EPA' s determinatio n tha tlim e spra y drying.technolog y i s demonstrate d wa s base d o n engineerin g revie w o f

lim e spra y drye r designs , tes t data , an d othe r informatio n tha tindicat e tha tthi s technolog y i s demonstrated
. Th e vendo r guarantee s wer e merel y corroborativ e o f

thi s conclusion
. CIB O argue d tha tth e exemptio n fo r noncontinenta l area s fro m th e percen t reductio n requiremen tshoul d appl y t o al l area s wher e natura l ga s i s unavailable
. Th e commen ti s essentiall y a moo tpoin tTh e noncontinenta l exemptio n applie s i n practic e onl y t o unit s firin g ver y lo w sulfu r oil
. Th e final standard , i n fact , exempt s al l source s firin g ver y lo w sulfu r oi l fro m th e percen treductio n requirement , n o matte r wher e the y ar e located
. 2
. Zimme r Owner s Th e Zimme r owner s argue d tha t informatio n provide d i n thei r petitio n show s tha tus e o f

13 0 n g SOa/

J (0.3Q l b SOa/millio n Btu ) oi l i s no tcos teffectiv e i elativ e t o usin g a highe r sulfu r conten t ril
. Thi s commen tdoe s no tcompe l i -^consideratio n unde r sectio n 307
. Th e origina l exemptio n a tth e tim e o f proposa l wa s base d o n a hea tinpu t limitatio n o f

8 6 n g SOa/

J (0.2 0 l b SOa/ millio n Btu) , an d th e exemptio n i n th e fina l rul e wa s base d o n 13 0 n g SOa/ J (0.3 0 Ib/milho n Btu)
. Th e Zimme r owners ' concern s abou tth e cos t effectivenes s o f

variou s lo w sulfu r oil s coul d hav e bee n raise d durin g th e commen tperiod. Th e Zimme r owners ' commen ti s discusse d i n mor e detai l i n Sectio n I V below
. 3
. HEC O Th e fina l rule , unlik e th e proposal , exempte d oil-fire d unit s i n noncontinenta l area s fro m th e percen t reductio n requirement , bu tlimite d emission s t o th e equivalen to f 13 0 n g SOa/ J (0-3 0 lb
. SOa/miUio n Btu)
. HEC O argue d tha tn o notic e o f th e 0.3 0 requiremen twa s given , tha tth e emission s limi tshoul d b e raise d t o 21 0 n g SOa/ ) (0.5 0 l b SOa/millio n Btu } o n Oahu , an d thatn o limi tshoul d b n impose d elsewher e in Hawaii
. Thi s argumen tdoe s no tcompe l reconsideratio n unde r sectio n 307
. I ti s true , a s HEC O claims , tha tth e emissio n limi to f 13 0 n g SOa/

J (0.3 0 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) wa s develope d afte r (an d a s a resul tof ) th e commen tperiod. Th e Agenc y had
. however , establishe d a n 8 6 n g SOa/ J (0.2 0 l b SOa/millio n Btu ) limi t a s th e basi s fo r a percen treductio n exemption
. HECO' s objection s coul d hav e bee n raise d durin g th e commen t perio d becaus e it s objection s ar e base d o n th e cos tand/o r curren tunavailabilit y o f ver y lo w sulfu r oil , i.e. , the y appl y t o bot h th e propose d emissio n limi tan d th e fina l emissio n limit
. Further , th e standar d doe s no trequir e us e o f 13 0 n g SOi/ } (0.3 0 l b SO,/miUio n Btu ) oil
. bu t rathe r allow s th e owne r t o mee tthi s emissio n limi tb y whateve r mean s th e owne r chooses
. HECO' s comment s ar e discusse d i n mor e detai l i n Sectio n I V below
. 4
. API/NFP A AP I an d NFP

A argue d tha tne w post proposa l material s an d analyse s showe d tha tvariou s backu p strategie s fo r maintainin g complianc e durin g period s o f planne d an d unplanne d outage s (i.e. , start-ups , shutdowns , an d malfunctions ) ar e no tavailable
. Thi s commen tdoe s no tcompe l reconsideratio n unde r Sectio n 30 7 becaus e th e informatio n i n th e API / NFP A petition , includin g informatio n abou tdeman d charge s an d premium s fo r noninterruptibl e supplie s o f natura l gas , wa s addresse d i n response t o comment s o r coul d hav e bee n presente d durin g th e publi c commen tperiod
. Furthermore , a s discusse d i n Sectio n IV below , eve n upo n consideratio n o f th e informatio n containe d i n th e petition , EP A find s n o basi s fo r reconsideratio n o f th e rule
. II
. Petition s Submitte d Concernin g th e PM/NO , Standard s A. Achievability of

the PM/NQ, Standards 1
. Achievabilit y o f

NO , Standard s b y Distillat e Oil-Fire d Electri c Utilit y Auxiliar y Stea m Generatin g Unit s Petitioner's Comment: Th e Zimmer
. owner s commente d tha telectri c utilit y auxiliar y stea m generatin g unit s tha tfir e distillat e oi l canno tconsistentl y mee t th e NO , standar d o f

4 3 n g NO,/ } (0.1 0 l b NO,/millio n Btu ] hea tinpu t Agency Response: Electri c utilit y auxiliar y stea m generatin g unit s ar e larg e field-erecte d units
. Thes e unit s ar e characterize d b y lo w volumetri c hea t releas e rates , typicall y belo w 310400)/
. sec-m 3 (30,00 0 Btu/hou r ft 3 )
. Hea t releas e rat e i s on e o f

th e majo r factor s i n determinin g th e NO»-generatin g potentia l o

f a uni tfirin g distillat e oi l un d th e abilit y o f

contro l technique s l o limi t NO , emisstons
. Dat a sho w tha tNO , emission s increas e a s hea treleas e rate increases , al l othe r thing s bein g equal
. Emissio n tes tdat a availabl e fro m thre e distillat e oil-fire d stea m generatin g unit s employin g stage d combustio n demonstrat e thatNO , emission s ca n b e limite d t o 4 3 n g NO,/ J (0.1 0 l b NO, / millio n Btu ) o r belo w throug h th e us e o f thi s technique
. (Se e Docke tNo
. A-79-02 , Docke tItem s H-I-224
. II-A-9
. an d II-A
14. ) On e o f

th e unit s use d a stage d combustio n burne r whil e th e othe r unit s use d stage d combustio n air
. Thes e stea m generator s ar e package d unit s wit h volumetri c hea treleas e rate s o f 460,00 0 to 490.00 0 J/sec-m 3 (45,00 0 to 48,00 0 Btu/hour-ft 3 ) , whic h ar e highe r tha n thos e typica l fo r electri c utilit y auxiliar y units
. Sinc e th e hea treleas e rate s fo r electri c utilit y auxiliar y unit s ar e substantiall y belo w thos e o f th e teste d stea m generatin g units , NO , emission s ca n b e limite d t o 4 3 n g NO,/ ) (0.1 0 l b NO,/millio n Btu ) hea tinpu to r les s throug h th e us e o f

stage d combustio n whe n firin g distillat e oil
. Moreover , othe r NO , limitatio n techniques , suc h a s flu e ga s recirculation , ar e availabl e whic h hav e bee n show n t o b e capabl e o f limitin g NO , emission s t o 4 3 n g NO,/ } (0.1 0 l b NO,/millio n Btu ) o r les s i n distillat e oil-fire d stea m generatin g unit s wit h hea treleas e rate s u p t o 840,000) / sec-m 3 (82,00 0 Btu/hour-ft 3 )
. (Se e Docke tN a A-79-02 , Docke tItem s U-I
22 4 an d IV-B-23. ) Accordingly , ther e i s n o basi s fo r grantin g th e requestb y th e Zimme r owner s fo r a highe r NO , limi t 2
. Specia l Monitorin g Problem s Associate d wit h Electri c Utilit y Auxiliar y Stea m Generatin g Unit s Petitioner's Comment- UAR G contende d tha tth e monitorin g requirement s i n th e NO , standard s woul d b e difficult , if

no timpossible , fo r ver y lo w capacit y facto r stea m generatin g unit s t o meet . Specifically , th e petitione r claime d tha tfacilitie s suc h a s oil-fire d utilit y auxiliar y stea m generatin g unit s woul d no tb e abl e t o satisf y th e initia l performanc e tes t requiremen tt o b e complete d withi n 18 0 day s o f initia l start-u p becaus e a uni t tha toperate s onl y 2 o r 3 day s pe r month , fo r example , woul d tak e a n entir e yea r t o satisf

y thes e performanc e tes trequirements.
. Similarly , tiie petitione r claime d tha t th e 30-da y rollin g averag e complianc e tes tfo r thes e sam e unit s woul d no t produc e meaningfu l dat a becaus e i ti s unlikel y tha tenoug h dat a woul d b e

# T P.1 2

Federa l Registe r /

Vol
. 54 , No
. 9 /

Friday , Januar

y 13 , 198 9 /

Propose d Rule s 161 5
collecte d i

n 1 yea r t o calculate eve n on e 30-da y average . Agency's Response: Th

e Agenc y doe s no tagre e wit h th e petitioner' s contentio n tha

tth e NO , monitorin

g requirement

s canno tb e me

tb y ver y lo w capacit y facto r stea

m generating units
. Th e initia l performanc

e tes ti s base d o

n emission s dat

a collecte d durin

g th e firs t 3 0 operatin g day s followin g uni

tstart-u p (operatio n o

f a uni tfo r a singl e hou

r durin g a give n da

y qualifie s a s a

n operatin g day)
. U p t o 18 0 calendar day s ca n b e use d t

o collec tthes e 3

0 day s o f operatin g data
. Man

y ver y lo w capacit

y facto r unit

s ma y b e abl e t

o gather 3 0 day s o f dat a throug h collectio n o

f NO , emission s dat

a i n conjunctio n wit

h commercia

l acceptanc e testin g o

f th e uni tan d durin g norma l operating days
. I f insufficien

toperating day s occur durin g th e firs t18 0 calenda r days , th e owne r ca n operat e the uni tan d ven t stea m t o collec tth

e additiona

l NO , emission s dat

a necessary . I

f collectio n o f suc h dat a i s considere d infeasibl e fo r a n individua

l unit , th e owne r ca n appl

y t o the Administrato r fo

r relie f unde r § 60.8(b ) o f th e Genera l Provision s o

f 4 0 CF R Par t60
. Th e petitione r misunderstand s the mechanic s o f

ho w 30-da y rollin g average s ar

e calculate d in contendin g tha tinsufficien

tdat a woul d b e collecte d i n a yea r t o calculate 30-da

y averages . A 30-da y rollin g averag e i s calculate d a s th e averag e o

f al l dail y averag e dat

a collecte d durin

g th e previou s 3 0 eonsecutiv e stea

m generatin g uni t operatin g days
. Th e first30-da y averag e i s calculate d afte r initia

l uni tstart-u

p an d serve s a s th e initial performanc e test . Thereafter, a ne w 3t>da y rolling
average i s calculate d a tth e en d o f eac h ne w stea m generatin g uni toperating
day
. fl. Interrelationship of

PM/NO, and

SO* Standards 1
. Effec to f SO i Contro

l Techaique s o n PM/NO , Petitioner's Comment: CIB O state d tha tEP A proposed a stringen

t(9 0 percen treduction ) SO

tstandar d afte r proposa l o f th e PM/NO * NSPS
. bu

t ignore d economi c an d technica

l interrelationship s betwee n the propose d SO a standard s an

d the promulgate

d PM / NO , standards
. According t o the petitioner , al l o

f thes e combustio n product s (PM , NO, , an d SO» ) ar e criticall y interrelate d and
. therefore , shoul d nothav e bee n considere d unde r tw o separat

e NSPS
. The petitione r pointed outtha timplementation o f contro l technique s t o satisf

y th e SO * standard s wi

U affec tth e ceatro l technique s necessar y t o satisf y the PM / NO , standards , bot

h fro m a technica

l feasibilit y an d a cos tstandpoint
. Th

e petitione r als o state d tha

tn o opportunit

y wa s give n fo

r publi c commen to n the technica

l o r cos timpac

t o f th e SO a standard s o

n the PM/NO , standards
. Agency Response: Althoug h NSP S fo r PM/NO , an

d SO a wer e develope d i

n separat e regulator

y actions , potentia

l technica l o r economi c interrelationship s were considere d throughou tthe developmento

f regulations fo

r eac h pollutan tand fue l type . Fo r example , becaus e P M an d SO a emission s an

d contro l technologie s fo

r oil-fired unit

s ar e closel y interrelated , the P M and SO

a standard s fo

r oil were considere d i

n the sam e regulator

y action
. Relationship s betwee n th e us e o

f a fabri c filte r o

r electrostati c precipitato r (ESP ) t o reduc e P M emission s and a flu

e ga s desulfurizatio n (FGD

) syste m t o reduc e SO a emission s fro

m coal-fire d stea

m generating unit

s were als o identified , bu twere foun

d t o b e separable , an

d were therefor

e analyze d i

n separat e regulator y actions
. Possibl e interrelationship s betwee n NO , an d SO a contro l wer e als o considered , bu tno significantinterrelationship s were identified
. Further , whe n evaluatin g alternativ e SO a standard s fo

r coal-fire d units , th e Agenc y assume d tha tth e propose d P M an d NO , standard s wer e alread y in
. effec tan d tha

tne w unit

s were , constructe d and operate d t o compl y wit h them
. Thi s approac

h ensure d tiiat eve n minor technica l and cos t interrelationship s betwee n th e standard s fo

r PM , NO, , and SO

Y wer e implicitly considere d durin g th e cours e o f th e SO * rulemaking
. Accordingly , th e petitioner' s contentio n thatth e Agenc y di d no tconside r th e interrelationshi p betwee n the PM/NO , an

d SO t standard s i s incorrect
. Finally , durin

g th e commen

tperio d o n th e propose d SO

a standards , th

e publi c coul d hav e commented o n technica l an d economi c interrelationship s amon g th e PM , NO-, , an d SO a standards
. However , n o significan

tinterrelationship s wer e identifie d b y an y o f

th e commenters . Furthermore

, mer e conjunctur

e i s no ta basi s fo r grantin g a petitio n fo

r reconsideration
. Onl y on e specifi c interrelationshi p o

f the standard s wa s identifie d b y the petitioners and , a s i s explaine d below , i tdoe s notimpos e unreasonabl e impacts
. 2
. Achievabilit

y o f NO , Standard s b

y Pulverize d Coal-Fired Units Whe n Usin g Backu p Fue l t o MeetSO

a Standard s Petitioners Comment

A s a specifi c exampl e t o illustrat e th e PM/NO,/SO a interrelationship , CBB

O cite d a fielderecte d pulverized coa l (PC)-firec

l siu'.i m generatin g uni

tfirin g natura l ga s o r oi l a s a backu

p fuel
. Th e petitione r state d tha tfirin g backu p fuel s i n P C unit s will becom e mor

e frequen tan d prolonge

d tha n i n th e pas tbecaus e o

f FG D syste m reliabilit y problems , fue

l disruptions , an d fue l pric e variations
. According t

o th e petitioner , all P

C unit s ar e equippe d wit h ai r preheaters , whic

h typicall y delive r preheate d air a

t11 0 t o 16 0 " C (40 0 t o 60 0 °F ) fo r combustio n o

f bot h primar y an d backu p fuels
. Suc

h hig h ui r temperatures , whic

h increas e th

e formatio n o f therma l NO, , restric

tth e abilit y o f unit s wit h volumetri c heat releas e rate s belo w 720,00 0 J/sec-M 3 (70,00 0 Btu/hour-ft

3 ) t o mee tth e 4 3 n g NO,/ J (0.1 0 lb NO,/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu tNSP S fo r natura l ga s fo r distillate oi l combustion
. Sinc e using backu p fue l i s par to f the basi s for the SO

a standards , th

e petitione r state d tha

tthis requiremen

tmus tb e considere d i

n th e NO , standard s an

d th e necessar y relie

f mus tb e provided i

n th e for m o f a highe r NO , emissio n rat

e fo r P C unit s firing natura l ga s o r distillate oil wit

h ai r prehea t Agency Response: Coal-fire d stea m generatin g anita
. inherentl y hav e large r furnac e volume s tha

n oil
- an d natura l gas-fire d units wit

h equivalen tstea

m generatin g capacities
. Becaus e o f the lowe r heatreleas e rate s i

n thes e large

r furnace
- volumes , conversio n o

f atmospheric-nitroge

n t o NO , whil e firing backu p fuel s i n a field-erecte d PC-fire d stea m generatin g uni ti s lowe r tha n in a smaller , highe

r heatrelease rate stea

m generatin g uni

tdesigne d t

o fir e natura l ga s o r o9
. T o assur e tha

tprope r combustion condition s ar e achieve d t

o minimize NO , formation, a numbe r o f NO , reductio n technique s ar e available
. Thes e technique s includ e reducin g combustio n ah

* temperatur

e b y eithe r tota l o r partia l bypas s o f th e air preheater , an d using fhi

e ga s recirculation , overfir

e air ports , an

d lo w NO , burner

s t o fir e backu p fuels
. Dat

a fro m unit s employin g stage d combustio n burne r (SCB) o r stage d combustio n air technolog y indicat e tha tthes e control s ca n mee tthe 4 3 n g NO,/ } (0.1 0 l

b NO, / million Btu

) hea tinpu

tlimi twhe n firing natura l ga s o r oil i n unit s wit h hea t releas e rate s belo w 720,00 0 J/sec-m 8 (70,000 Btu/hour-ft 3 )
. I n addition , on e lo w NO , burne

r manufacture

r state d tha tNO , emission s ca n b e limite d t o 4 3 n g NOJ J (0.1 0 lb NO,/millio n Btu ) hea t inpu twhit e firin g natura l ga s i f th e uni t hea treleas e rat

e i s fes s tha

n 770.00 0 J / sec-m » (75.00

0 Btu/hour-ft

3 ; . (Se e Docke tNo
. A-79-02 , Docke

tIte m IV-E
14. )161 6 Federa l Registe r / Vol
. 54
. No
. 9 /

Friday
. Januar

y 13 , 198 9 /

Propose d Rule s ! P.1 3

Industria l field-erected unit

s hav e hea treleas e rate s wel l belo w thes e levels
. A surve

y o f suc h unit s installe d betwee n 198

2 an d 198 6 identifie d nine PC-fire d units
. (Se e Docke

tNo
. A-83-27 , Docke tItem s IV-J-4 , IV-J-5 , IV-J-7 , an d IV-J-9 , an d IV-J-42. ) Th

e hea treleas e rate s fo r thes e unit

s range d fro m 140,00 0 t o 245,00 0 J/sec-m 3 (13,50

0 t o 23,70 0 Btu / hour-ft

3 )
. Sinc e thes e hea

treleas e rate s ar e substantiall y belo w th

e uppe r limit s o f 720,00 0 t o 770,00 0 J/sec-m 3 (70,00

0 t o 75,00 0 Btu/hour-ft

3 ) identifie d above , NO , emission s ca

n b e reduce

d t o 4 3 n g NO,/ J (0.1 0 l b NO,/millio n Btu

) hea t inpu to r les s throug

h us e o f th e abov e NO , reduction technique s when firin g natura l ga s o r oil a s a backu

p fuel
. Accordingly , ther

e i s no basi s fo

r grantin g th e CIB O reques tfo

r a highe r NO , limi to r convenin g a proceedin g t o reconside r th

e interrelationshi p betwee n th e PM/NO , an

d SO a standards
. C. Projected

Environmental

and Economic Impacts 1
. Overstatemento

f Impact s Petitioner's Comment: EP A projected tha t72 5 ne w stea

m generatin g unit

s wit h hea tinpu tove r 2 9 M W (10 0 millio n Btu ) woul d b e buil

ti n the 5-yea

r period followin g proposal
. CIB

O state d tha

t thi s numbe

r i s to o hig

h (CIB O contende d tha t25 0 ne w unit

s ar e mor e likely , o f whic h 80 percen

tar e replacementunits ) and , a s a resul tth e projecte d economic , environmental , an

d energ y impact s associate d wit

h th a PM/NO , standard s ar e overstated
. The petitione r cite d the Agency' s ow n "ne

w boile r survey " t

o suppor tits contention
. The petitione r contende d tha

tthe surve

y show s tha

t th e numbe r o f "new " stea

m generatin g unit s a s oppose d t

o "replacement " unit

s wa s overestimated , tha

tpurchas e o

f replacemen

tunit s i s discretionary , and tha tth e impac to f th e standard s wil l b e t o furthe r reduce the numbe

r o f replacemen

tunit s durin g the perio d - modeled , give n the hig

h cos to f complying wit

h the standards
. Thus
. CIB O argue d tha tth e projected emissio n reduction s achieve d b

y th e standard s ar e significantly overestimated
. Agency's Response: A s explaine d in th e respons e t

o comment

s in th e SO a rulemakin g (se e e.g. , 5

2 F R 47826) , several factor

s sugges ttha

t198 4 estimate s o

f stea m generatin g uni

t populatio n an

d tota l "new " emission s were high
. Thes e estimate s o f ne w stea m generating unit

s wer e base d o n U.S
. Departmen

to f Energ y projection s mad e i n the late 1970's
. (Se e e.g. , BID , Volum e 4. ) A s th

e Agenc y explained , however , an

y change i

n the overal l balanc e betwee n the cost s an d benefit s and , henc e th

e reasonablenes s o

f th e standard , depend s o n th e relativ e change i n bot h cost s an

d benefits
. I

f EP A ha s overestimate d th

e numbe r o f ne w unit s subjectt

o the standard , the

n both th e cost s a s wel l a s th

e emissio n reduction s (i.e. , benefits ) o f the standar

d decrease
. EPA' s conclusio n a s t o th e standar d woul d remai

n vali d eve n i

f CIBO' s estimates , o

r lowe r ones , prove

d mor e accurate . Th e tota l numbe r o f ne w stea m generating unit

s and th e percentag e o

f thes e unit s tha tar e replacement

s wa s examine d i

n th e "ne w boile r survey. " Th e surve y result s sugges ttha

tabou t hal f o f all uni tinstallation s fro

m 198 1 t o 198 4 represente d replacement s o f existin g units
. However , fo r fou r reasons , th

e fac ttha ta significant numbe r o f ne w unit s ar e replacement

s fo r existin g unit

s doe s no tsuppor t CIBO' s claim s tha

tlower-than-projecte d emission s reduction compe l reconsideration
. First

, replacement capacit y ma y simply displac e existin g capacit y i n a n accountin g sense , bu

ti t represent s new capacit

y unde r sectio n 11 1 o f the Clea n Ai r Ac tTherefore , the petitioner' s exclusio n o

f replacement capacit y fro m it s calculation s o

f baselin e emission s increase s i s not warranted
. Second , the suggestio n tha t replacementshoul d notb e counte d becaus e i ti s discretionar

y and migh

tb e deferre d i s unfounded
. Deferrin

g replacementi s simply replacement displace d in tim

e t o a late r date
. Third , the "ne w boile r survey " results indicate tha tth e decisio n t

o instal l ne w stea m generatin g unit

s i s notsignificantl y cos t sensitiv e in the range o

f cos tincrease s anticipate d b y the Agency
. Fourth, wit h respectt o projecte d post-NSP S emissio n levels , man

y o f th e replace d unit

s ar e notretired bu

tcontinu e i n service
. 2
. Lega l Basi s for and Economi c Impact s o f Controls o

n Electri c Utilit

y Auxiliar y Stea m Generating Unit

s Petitioner's Comment: I n their petitions , UAR

G and the Zimme

r owner s argue

d tha tSubpar tD b shoul d no tappl y t o auxiliar y utilit y stea m generating unit

s tha tar e use d t o assis t in start-u p and shutdown o

f the mai n stea m generatin g uni

tbecaus e thes e unit s ar e notsignifican

tcontributors , operat e a tver y lo w capacit

y factors , us e oi l o r natura l gas , operat

e intermittently , an d ar e locate d in rura

l areas . The petitioners als o contende d tha tan y standard s fo

r PM/NO , woul d resul ti n excessiv e cos timpact

s o n electri c utilit

y auxiliar y stea m generating unit

s relative t o unit s operate d a

thighe r capacit y factors
. According t

o the petitioners , th

e standard s woul d als o hav e minima l impac to n reducin

g P M an d NO , emission s beyon d thos e achieve d b y curren tuni tdesigns
. Therefore , th

e petitioner s recommende

d tha tth e fina l standard s b e amended t

o eithe r (1 ) exemp tutilit

y auxiliar y stea m generatin g unit

s fro m the standards : (2

) adop ta capacit

y facto r cut-of

f fo r th e promulgate

d standard s an

d establis h differen tlevel s o f contro l fo r unit s tha t operat e a tver y lo w annua

l capacit y facto r levels , suc

h a s 1 0 percen

to r less ; o r (3) reduc

e th e burde n imposed b

y NO , monitorin

g requirement

s o n stea m generatin g unit

s tha toperat e a tver y lo w annua l capacit y factors. 3 Agency Response: A s th

e Agency
state d i n it s Jun e 19,1984 , proposed rul

e (4 9 F R 25156) , all stea

m generating unit

s wit h a hea tinpu tcapacit y greate r tha n 2 9 M W (10 0 million Btu/hour

) (othe r tha n thos e unit

s subjec tt o Subpar tDa ) wer e include d withi n the Subpar tD b rul e (5 1 F R 42794)
. Th

e Agenc y include d ver y lo w capacit

y facto r unit

s o n th e basi s tha tth e desig n o f thes e unit

s an d contro l technologie s fo

r emissio n reduction s ar

e similar , irrespectiv e o

f capacit y factor
. A s wa s note d in the fina l rule , "ther

e i s n o requiremen

ttha t each subcategor

y o f a liste d categor

y o r each individua

l source withi n a liste d categor y als o b e a significan

t contributor. " (Se e 5 1 F

R 42795 ; se e also 5 1 F R 42772. ) I

twa s thereb y determine

d tha tauxiliar y utilit y stea m generating unit s ar e subjec tt o Subpar tDb
. Th e Agency doe s no

tagree tha

tth e criteri a se tfort

h b y UAR G and the Zimme r owner s provid e a basi s fo r EP A t o subcategoriz e utilit

y auxiliar y stea m generatin g units
. N o doubtther e ar e multipl e base s upo

n whic h Subpar tD b stea m generating unit

s coul d b e subcategorized
. Criteri

a suc h a s ownershi p and/o r th

e existenc e o

f companio n bas e load unit s (i.e. , unit

s owne d b y utilities , o

r unit s auxiliar y t o bas e load units ) d o notsee m t o b e functionally useful
. A n exemptio n fo r rura l setting s i s inconsisten twit h th e concep to f sectio n 111 , whic

h contemplate s nationa

l standard s an

d doe s notdistinguis h amon g regions base d o n ai

r qualit y achieved
. Capacit

y factor, althoug

h relate d t

o th e leve l o f emissions , i s unsuitabl e a s a basi s fo r exemptio n fro

m all standard s wher

e emissio n contro

l remain s cos teffective : a s th e fina l rul e recognizes , however
.

* Th e Zimme r owne n als o contende d tha tsectio n 111(f ) bar s EP

A fro m determinin g tha tutilit y auxiliar y stea m generatin g unit s ar e withi n th e categor y o f

unit s sub|ec tt o Subpar tO b and
. simultaneously , i n regulatin g suc h units , sectio n 111(f ) require s tha tEP

A establis h a lis to f

majo r stationar y sourc e categorie s an d establis h deadline s fo r regulation
. Th e Zimme r owner s d o no texplai n thei r interpretatio n o f

sectio n 111(f)
. O n it s face , sectio n 111(f

) contain s n o suc h bar
. 

# IP.1 4

Federa l Registe r /

Vol
. 54 , No
. 9 /

Friday , Januar

y 13 , 198 9 /

Propose d Rule s 161 7 capacit y factor i s a

n appropriat

e criterion fo

r exemptio n wher

e emissio n contro l i s no tcos teffective
. A s discusse d i

n a separat

e rulemakin

g notic e published toda

y elsewher e i

n th e Federa l Register , th

e Administrator , unde r hi s discretionar

y authority , i s proposin g t o amen d th e NO , performanc

e testin g an

d monitorin

g requirement

s fo r stea m generating unit

s tha toperat e a tver y lo w annua

l capacit y factor s (les s tha n 1 0 percent ) an d tha t fire natura

l gas . distillate oil * o

r lo w nitroge n residua l oil (eithe r alon e o

r i n combination)
. Th

e propose d rul e impose s les s burdensome performanc e testin g an d monitorin

g requirement

s o n larg e stea m generatin g unit

s an d exempt s smal l stea m generating unit

s fro m th e NO , standards
. Th e Agency als o doe s no

tagree tha

t auxiliar y utilit y stea m generating unit

s shoul d b e exempte d fro

m th e performanc

e standard s fo

r P M an d NO , o n th e basi s tha

tminima l emissio n reductions wil l b e achieved
. Although
mos tauxiliar y utilit y unit s ma y b e designe d t

o fir e oil s wit h P M emissio n potential s o f

less tha n 4 3 ng/ ] (0.1 0 lb / million Btu

) an d ma y b e equippe d wit

h lo w NO , burners , th e performanc e standard s provid e a "cap* * t o assur e tha

t thes e unit s ar e operate d in

- a manner tha tminimize s emissions
- Establishmen t o f performanc

e standard s a s a "cap " t a limitfutur e emission s i s a vali d exercis e o f regulator y authority
. . D. "New BoilerSurvey" Consideratio n o f

Ne w Informatio

n Gathered I

n the "Ne w Boiler Survey. " Petitioner's Comments: CIB O state d tha tEP A recognised th e importanc e e £ stea m generatin g unitreplacementwhe n i tannounce d tha

ti tha d initiate d a "ne

w boile r survey " t

o gather informatio n regardin g th e impac

to f th e NSP S o a ne w stea m generating uni tconstruction , an d refurbishmen

t(5 1 F R 16586 ^ Th e petitione r contende d tha

tman y new * stea m generatin g unit

s ar * replacements fo r existin g unit

s an d in mos tcases , thes e ne w unit

s representdiscretionar

y expenditure s b

y uni towners . A

a a result, i f the costo f

a ne w uni

tis
. to o high , th e owne r wil l continu e to us e th e existin g uni tBecaus e existin g unit s frequentl y hav e highe

r emissio n rate s tha n ne w units , failur

e t o instal l ne w unit s wil l resul tin highe

r emissio n level s an d fewe r reduction s tha

n churne d b y th e Agency
. Th

e petitione r contende d tha tEP A shoul d recalculat

e th e ne t reductio n i n emission s fro m stea m generatin g uni treplacemen ti a it s analysi s an d modif

y the final ride t o encourag e economi c replacemento f highe r eajitting
. existin g units
. Agency Reponse: Tw o question s ar e relevan there : First

, wha ti s th e impac t o f th e PM/NO , standard s o

n the rat e o f stea m generating uni

tinstallations ; an

d second , wha

tar e th e implication s o

f th e "ne w boile r survey " fo

r th e PM/NO , rule
. Regardin

g th e firsto f

thes e questions , the "ne w boile r survey " wa s conducte d i

n respons e t

o publi c comment s o n the propose d SO

a standards
. I

tfocuse d o

n collectin g dat

a aboutthe reason s ne w unit s ar e installed , the exten tt

o whic h ne w unit

s ma y b e replacement

s fo r existin g units , an d the impac

to f ne w unit s o n overall SO a eraisssiorts
. Th

e surve y di d no t directly examin e PM/NO , emissions
. However , base d o n the surve y dat a and earlie r analyse s o

f th e cos to f

P M an d NO , contro

l techniques , th

e impac to f th e PM/NO i standard s o

n replacemen

t o f existin g stea

m generatin g unit

s i s considere d minima

l becaus e o f

the smal l cos to f th e PM/NO , standard s o n ne w units
. A s t o th e secon d question * EPA' s analysi s o f the "ne w boile r survey " result s confirm s th e nee d fo

r PM/NO-
. controls
. I tma y wel tb e true,, a s the petitione r contends , tha

tP M an d NO , emissio n rate s fo

r individua

l ne w units : wil l b e lower , eve n absen tan . NSPS
. tha n for existin g unit

s o i equa l siz e an d fue l us e patterns . However , th a leve l o f reductions fro

m individual units that woul d occu r in the absenc e o f a n NSP S i s les s tha n th e emissio n reduction s resultin g fro

m th e promulgate d standards
. The argumen

tthatNSPS-iaduca d delay s i n steam generatin g uni t replacementwi

B resul ti n highe r aggregat e eraissteo a i s ne tsupporte d b y analysis
. (Se e Docke tA-83-27
. Docke t Ite m IV-A-4. ) Base d o n uni

t replacemen

tdat a fro m th e "ne w boile r survey " an d theP

M an d NO , emissio n level s expecte d from existin g andNSPS
controued ne w stea m generatin g milts , aggregate , emissions , fro

m existin g an d ne w stea m generatin g unit

s a l facilitie s covere d b y th e surve

y wil tincreas e afte r installatio n o

f ne w unit s eve n wit h the NSPS
. For PM

. th e aggregat

e increas e wa s roughl

y 3 0 percen tretawve- t o th e leve l occurrin

g prior t o ne w uni t installation
. Fo

r NO* , th e aggregat

e emission s almos tdouble d Thi s resntt— highe r aggregat

e emission
- despit e tower emissio n rates , bo m mdrvMna l units—i s cause d primaril

y b y emiesio n increases
fro m ne w unit s installe d fo r ne w application s tha tsubstantiall y excee d th e emissio n reduction s fro

m faerfttfes

where replacements occurre d Adoptio n o f less , stringes temiesiof

tcontrol requirement * fo

r ne w units woul d resul t in eve n greate r mcrease s fa aggregat e P M an d NO , emissions
. A s a rusult
. promulgatio

n o f a n NSP S wit h stringtm t emissio n limit

s i s essentia l i

f aggregat e emission s o

f P M an d NO , ar e t o b e minimized
. E. IFCAM

National Impacts Model Validit y o f th e Mode l Petitioner's Comment: CIB O claime d tha tth e Industria

l Fue l Choic e Analysi s Mode l (IFCAM ) EP A used t o forecas t industria l stea m generating uni

tsale s ha s seriou s shortcomings
. Th e mode l i s base d o n historica

l dat a fro m a perio d o f chaoti c energ

y price s an

d larg e cos t differential s betwee n hig

h cos tfuel s (suc h a s natura

l ga s an d fue l oil ) an d lo w cos tfuel s (suc

h a s coa l an

d wast e fuels)
. Th e petitione r state d tha

tth e previou s behavio r o

f stea m generatin g uni towners in conservin g energ y an d switchin g fuel s woul d no

tb e repeate d toda y becaus e o

f th e larg e declin e o

f natura l ga s and fue

l oi l price s relativ e t

o thos e fo r coa l an d wast e fuels
. According t o th e petitioner , th e IFCA M mode l mus tb e revalidate d using th e stea m generatin g uni

tsale s results containe d i

n th e "ne w boile r survey " aa d energy price s fo r th

e period i n question , allowin g fo r appropriat e decisio n lea d times. Th

e petitione r state d tha tIh e IPCA

M mode) shoul d not b e use d fe i regulatory analyse s until thi s revalidation ha s bee n accomplished
. I f the IFCA M projection s canno tb e validate d tile petitione r state d tha tthe y mus tb e disregarde d an

d ne w dat a developed
. Agency Reponse: Th

e petitione r appears t o misunderstand th e desig n an d operatio n o

f IFCAM
. IFCA M i s simpl y a "feas tcost " economi c choic e mode l designe d t o ai d in examinin g the impac to f alternat e regulatory standard s o n ne w industria

l stea m generating units
. Ke y economi c parameter s (suc h a s the estimate d growt

h i n nationa l industria l energ y deman d an

d projecte d price s fo r coal , ott , an d natura

l gas ) ax e input s t o th e mode l an d reflec tprojecte d economi c condition s i

n th e future
. Fo

r eac h alternat e regulator

y standar d IFCA M use s th e projected fue

l price s an d tota l industria

l energ y deman d t o evaluate stea

m productio

n cost s fo r ne w industria l unit s spanning a rang

e o f sizes , capacit

y factors , an d fuels , an d the n select s th e stea

m generating uni

t an d fuel combinatio n wit

h th e lowes t after-ta x cost s ove r th

e usefu l lif e o f each unit
. The result

s o f thes e fue l choic e selection s fo

r eac h ne w stea

m generatin g uni

tar e the n adde d together t o estimat e th e total costs , emissions , an d fue l us e associate d wit

h th e alternat e regulator

y standard
.P.1 5

161 8 Federa l Registe r / Vol
. 54 , No
. 9 /

Friday , Januar

y 13 , 198 9 /

Propose d Rule s Consequently , th

e impact s o f alternat e regulator y standard s ar

e projected b

y IFCA M base d o

n th e inpu tvalue s fo

r projecte d fue l prices , projected industria l energ y demand , and specifie d regulator y requirements
. Th

e results obtaine d fro

m IFCAM

. therefore , ar

e not base d o n th e "past. " bu

tar e base d o n projections o

f th e "future. " III
. Petition s Submitte

d Concernin

g the SO : Standards A. Legal Basis for Establishing

the SOt Standards 1
. Consistency o

f th e SO a Standard s wit h Congressiona

l Inten t Petitioner's Comment: CIB O supplemente d it

s petitio n fo

r reconsideratio n wit

h contention s tha

t the SO a standar d i s inconsisten twit

h Congressiona

l inten ti n enactin g the 197 7 amendment

s t o the CAA
. Th e essenc e o f CIBO' s contention s i s tha t Congres s enacte d th

e sectio n 11 1 percen treduction requiremen

tt o ensur e tha tne w source s d o no tswitc h t o natura l ga s t o avoi d the applicatio n o

f contro l technology
. CIB

O contends , however , tha

tth e percentreduction requiremen

tinclude d i

n the SO a standar d wil l encourag e ne w source s t o switc h fro m coa l t o natura l gas . The result, therefore , i s t

o circumven

tthe statute . (Th

e Departmen

to f Commerc

e als o submitted comment

s o n thi s point. ) Agency Reponse: Th

e petitioner' s contention s tha

tthe SO a standar d i s inconsisten twit

h Congressiona

l intent ar e withou tmerit
. The petitione r misinterpret

s sectio n 111
. Followe d t

o

. their logica

l conclusions , thes e contention s mea

n tha tthe Agency shoul d hav e eithe r notadopte d an y percen treduction requiremen

tatall , o r adopte d a percen

treductio n requiremen

ttha tapplie d t

o al l fuel s (e.g.
. coal , oil , natura

l gas , wood , etc.)
. A n SO a standar d fo r fossi l fuel-fire

d stationar y source s withou

tan y percen t reduction requiremen

ti s inconsisten t wit h th e explici tlanguage o

f Sectio n 11 1 a s i twa s amended b y Congres s [se e CA A 111(a) , H.R

. Rep
. No
. 95-29 4 95t

h Cong. , 1s tSess
. 18 8 (1977 ) "Conferenc

e Report " reprinte

d i n "Legislativ

e Histor y o f the Clea n Ai r ActAmendment

s o f 1977" , Volum

e 4 , a t265 5 "Legislativ

e History"]
. I

f th e Agenc y ha d adopte d a

n SO a standar d including onl y a mas s emissio n limit

, source s coul d hav e avoide d th

e applicatio n o

f an y contro l technology simply b y burnin g oi l o r lo w sulfu r coal
. A n SO a standar d wit h a percen

t reduction requiremen

tapplie d t

o al l fuels , including fuel s suc

h a s natura

l gas . ver y lo w sulfu

r oil
. wood , etc. , ma

y als o b e inconsisten twit

h the explici t language o f sectio n 111 , whic

h require s th e Agenc y t o conside r costs . I

f the Agenc y ha d adopte d a

n SO a standar d applying th

e percen treduction requiremen

tt o all fuels , unreasonabl y hig h cost s woul d hav e bee n impose d o n a numbe r o f ne w source s firin

g fuel s suc h a s natura

l gas , ver y lo w sulfu

r oil
. wood , etc . EP A read s th

e percen treduction requiremen

tin sectio n 11 1 a s tempered b y the requiremen

ttha ttechnology b e th e "bes ttechnologica

l syste m o

f continuou s emissio n reductio n whic h (taking int

o consideratio n th e cos t ***)** * ha s bee n adequatel y demonstrated. " Thus , a percent reductio n requiremen

tnee d no tb e applie d t o certai n type s o

r classe s o

f source s i f the impact

s associate d wit

h imposing thi s requiremen

twoul d b e unreasonable
. Consequently , the . Agency made a thoroug

h analysi s o

f the potentia l impact s o f imposing th e percen treduction requiremen

to n variou s type s an

d classe s o

f sources . Base d o n thi s analysis , th e Agency include d exemption s fro

m the percen

t reduction requirementwhere the impact s o f imposing thi s requiremen t woul d hav e bee n unreasonable
. The fina l SO a standard , therefore , i s reasonabl e an d thi s approac h represents a reasonable wa y t

o harmoniz e th e twi n requirements o

f Sectio n 11 1 t

o includ e percentreduction requirement s an d t o conside r costs . Finally , eve n in th e absenc e o f th a - SO a standard , economi c factor s unrelated t

o the standards , such a s th e relative pric

e betwee n coal , oil , and natura l gas , ar e likel y t o hav e mor

e impac to n th e choic e o

f fue l fo r a ne w industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g uni

ttha n th e SO t standard
. 2
. Impact s o f the SO a Standar d o n th e Natura l Energ y Polic y Petitioner's Comment

CIB O claime d tha tth e SO a standar d i s inconsisten t wit h nationa l energ y policy in tha

ti t fail s t o encourage th

e us e o f coal , threaten s a balance d energ y supply , and reduce s the incentiv e fo

r companie s t

o develo p clea n coa l technologies
. (Th e Departmen

to f Energ y an d th e Departmen

to f Commerc

e als o submitted comment

s o n thi s point. ) Agency Response: The petitioner' s comment s ar e a repetitio n o

f comment s submitted t

o the Agenc

y durin g the publi c commen

tperio d followin g proposa l o f the SO a standards
. A tworst , a s discusse d i

n th e "Summar

y o f Regulator y Analysis, " th e proposal notic e (5 1 F

R 22384) , Volum

e 4 o f the Backgroun

d Informatio

n Documen tand th e promulgatio

n notic e (5

2 F R 47828)
. th

e SO a standar d wil l have onl

y a ver y small impac

to n th e overall mi

x o f fuel s consume d t

o satisf y nationa l energ y demands
. Thus , th

e standar d will no t caus e a significantchang e i n nationa l energ y supplie s no

r wil l i tthreate n nationa l energ y security
. T o illustrat

e thi s fact, unde

r the wors t cas e scenari o examine d b y th e Agency , abou t60 0 ne w coal- , oil
- o

r gas-fired industrial-commercial-institutiona l stea m generatin g unit

s ar e projected t

o b e sol d ove r the 5-yea

r period betwee n 198 6 an d 1990
. Thes e ne w unit

s wil l resul tin tota

l fue l consumptio n o

f roughl y 55 0 PJ/year (52

0 trillion Btu

/ year ) in 1990
. Eve

n i f all thi s energ

y consumptio n wer e satisfie d b y coal , i t woul d representless tha

n 3 percen

to f tota l United State s coal consumption i n 1988
. Similarly , i

f al l thi s energ

y consumption wer e satisfie d b y oil o r natura l gas , i twoul d represen

tless tha n 2 percen to r 3 percent, respectively , o f tota l oi l o r natura

l ga s consumption i

n 1988
. No tall thi s increase d energ y consumptio n in ne w industrial
commercial-institutiona

l stea m generatin g units , o

f course , wil l b e satisfie d b y a singl e fuel , suc h a s natura

l ga s o r oil
. Furthermore

, th e Agency' s projection s o

f sale s o f ne w stea m generatin g unit

s ar e quit e likel y t o b e overestimated , a s the petitione r ha s pointe d ou tConsequently , the impac to f th e SO , standar

d o n change s i

n the nationa l energ y mi x o f coal , oil , an

d natura l ga s wil l b e eve n les s significant
. tha n thes e figure

s migh tindicate
. Th e Agency acknowledge s tha tsom e fue l switchin g t

o natura l ga s ma y occur a s a resulto f

th e SO a standard
. A s discusse d in Volum

e 4 o f the Backgroun

d Informatio

n Documen

tan d the promulgatio

n notic e (52 F

R 47826) , thi s fue l switching , however , wil l b e small compare

d t o the amoun

to f fue l switchin g tha

ti s likel y t

o occu r a s a resulto f th e curren

tlo w pric e o f natura l gas . Th e impac to f th e SO a standar d o n th e difference i n cos tbetwee n firin g coal o r firing natura

l ga s i n a ne w stea

m generatin g uni

ti s smal l compare d t o th e impac to f curren tnatura l ga s prices
. Eve n i n th e absenc e o

f the SO a standard , wit

h curren tlo w natura

l ga s price s fe w ne w stea

m generating unit

s ar e likel y t o selec tcoa l ove r natura

l gas . Finally , a s als o discusse d i n th e proposa l notic e (5 1 F

R 22384) , Volum

e 4 o f th e Backgroun

d Informatio

n Document , an d the promulgatio

n notice , (5 2 F R 47826)
. i n developin g th e SO a standar d th e Agency recognized tha tth e standar d and
. i n particular

, the requirementt

o achiev e a 9 0 percen

t reduction in SO

a emissions , coul d hinder

# 1 P.1 6

Federa l Registe r /

Vol
. 54 , No
. 9 /

Friday , Januar

y 13 , 198 9 /

Propose d Rule s 161 9
the developmen to

f som e ne w clea n coa l technologies
. Th

e potentia l risk o f failur e tha tmigh tb e associate d wit

h usin g a ne w technology t

o achiev e suc

h a hig h percen treduction requiremen

t coul d b e sufficien

ti n som e case s t

o dete r the us e o

f tha ttechnology
. Ye

ti ti s onl y throug h ne w technologie s tha

t bette r and les s expensiv e mean s o f controlling SO

a emission s ca n b e developed
. Althoug h developmen to

f ne w technologie s shoul d b e encouraged , i ti s no treasonabl e t

o permi tth e us e o f ne w technologie s i

f us e o f thes e technologie s woul d lea d t

o SO a emission s grossl y ou

t o f balanc e wit

h wha temission s woul d hav e bee n i

f a conventiona

l technology ha d bee n used
. Thus , t

o encourag

e the developmen to

f ne w 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

tensur e tha t SO a emission s ar

e notgrossl y ou

to f balanc e wit

h whatthe

y woul d hav e bee n i f a conventiona

l technology had bee n used , provision s were included in the SO a standar d tha trequir e a 5 0 percen treduction in SO

a emission s fro

m ne w technologie s an

d limi tSO a emission s t

o 26 0 n g SOa/ J (0. 6 lb SOa

/ million Btu)
. Thi s percen

treduction requiremen

ti s lo w enoug

h t o substantiall y reduce th e risk o f failur e associate d wit

h achievin g it

, an d the 26 0 n g SOa/ J (0. 6 lb SO

a millio n Btu

) emissio n limi tensure s tha tSO t emission s fro

m a source using a ne w technolog y wil l notb e grossl y ou

to f balanc e wit

h wha tSO a emission s woul d hav e bee n i

f a conventiona

l technology ha d bee n used
. B. Projected

Economic Impacts 1
. CostEffectivenes s o

f a 130 n g SOa/ J (0.30 lb SOa/millio n Btu

) Hea tInpu t Emissio n Limi

to n Electri c Utilit

y Auxiliar y Stea m Generating Units a tth e Zimme r Owners ' Generatin

g Statio n Petitioner's Comment: The Zimme r owner s state d tha

tEP A di d notconside r th e ful l cost s associate d wit

h meeting a 13 0 n g SOa/ J (0.3 0 l b SOa/millio n Btu

) hea tinpu temissio n limi

tfo r it s tw o ver

y lo w capacit

y facto r auxiliar

y utilit y stea m generatin g units
. The petitione r state d tha tth e exemptio n fro

m the percen treduction requirementfo r oil
fire d unit s wit h a maximu

m annua l heat inpu tcapacit y o f 3 0 percen tand less wa s meaningles s when their ver y lo w capacit y auxiliar y unit s mus tals o mee t th e 13 0 n g SOa/ J (0.30 lb SOa/millio n Btu ) hea tinpu temissio n limit
. The petitione r contende d tha tthe ful l cost s of.meetin g a 13

0 n g SOa/ J (0.30 l b SOa/millio n Btu

) hea tinpu tstandar d a t it s tw o auxiliar

y unit s ar e grossl y disproportionat e t o th e benefits achieve d [i.e.
. M

g (tons ) o f SO a removed)
. Fo

r thes e units , eithe r ver

y lo w sulfu r oi l mus tb e burne

d in bot h the mai n uni tan d the auxiliar

y unit s o r a separat e oi l handling syste m mus tb e installe d fo

r the auxiliar

y units
. According t

o the petitioner , th

e separat e handlin g syste m woul d cos ta tota l o f $225,000/year , o

r $13.000/Mg ($11,800

/ ton) o f SO a removed , wherea s burnin g ver y lo w sulfu

r oi l in bot

h th e mai n uni t an d auxiliar y unit s woul d cos ta tota

l o f $190,000/year , or$ll,000/M g ($10,000 / ton) o f SO tremoved
. A s a resulto

f thes e unreasonabl e cos timpacts , the petitione r recommende

d tha tver y lo w capacit y facto r auxiliar

y unit s b e exclude d altogethe r fro

m regulatio n unde r Subpar tD b standards
. Agency Response: Th

e 13 0 n g SOa/ J (0.3 0 lb SOa/millio n Btu

) hea tinpu t emissio n limi

tfo r stea m generatin g unit

s exemp tfro

m the percentreduction requiremen

twa s establishe d base d o n a n assessmen to

f the emission s an

d cost s o f ver y lo w sulfu

r oils
. I n establishin g a

n NSPS , th

e Agenc y determine s the bes ttechnology available , considering'cost s an d othe r factors , fo r th e categor y o f source s affecte d b y the standard
. Thi s approac h doe s notmea

n tha tever y source affecte d b y th e standard s wil l incu r th e sam e cost s o

f compliance
. Some individua l facilitie s subjectt

o the standard s ma

y experienc e highe r cost . I n othe r words , in settin g standard s fo r ne w source s th

e Agency take s cost s int

o accountfo

r th e categor y o f source s considere d a s a whole , notcos tfo r ever y particula

r facilit y tha tmigh tb e affected
. Nevertheless , EP

A reexamine d the cos teffectivenes s o f

th e promulgate

d SO tstandar d base d o n the Zimme

r owners ' specifi c situatio n an d conclude d tha teve n i n thei r situatio n th e cost s ar e reasonable
. O f th e tw o compliance alternative s identifie d b y th e Zimme

r owners , th e lowe r cos talternativ e i s t o us e ver y lo w sulfu r oi l in bot

h the mai n stea m generatin g uni

t[whic h i s permitte

d t o fire oi l wit

h a n emissio n potentia

l o f 24 0 n g SOa/ J (0.5 5 lb SOa/millio n Btu) ] and the auxiliar

y units , whic

h ar e subjec tt

o thes e standards
. Base d o n the projected emissio n reductions fro

m onl y th e auxiliar y unit s [estimate d a

t1 7 Mg/yea r (1 9 tons/year)] , the petitione r estimate d tha tth e cos teffectivenes s o

f SO t reduction s woul d b e $11,000/Mg ($10,000/ton)
. However , i

ti s inappropriat

e t o exclud e th e emissio n benefit s o f using ver y lo w sulfu

r oi l in th e mai n units
. Whe

n thes e emissio n ' • reduction s ar

e included , th e cost effectivenes s leve l i s roughl y $3."00/Mu

, ($3,400/ton ) o

f SOa , whic h i s considere d reasonable
. Further , thes e calculation s ar

e base d o n a fue l premiu m tha tth e Zimme r owner s believ e ma

y exis tbetwee n 13

0 an d 24 0 n g SOr/ J (0.30 an d 0.5 5 l b SOa / million Btu

) oil o f si x cents pe

r gallon
. Base d o n a revie w o

f availabl e dat

a o n fue l sulfu r pric e premium

s i n th e area s surroundin

g th e Zimme r station , this premiu m appears overstated
. I

n fact, thi s revie w identified little , i f any , premiu m i n the pric e betwee n 13

0 an d 24 0 n g SOa/ J (0.30 an d 0.5 5 l b SOa / million Btu

) oils
. A s a result, th

e actua l cost-effectivenes s leve l coul d b e considerabl y lowe r tha

n th e valu e calculate d above
. 2
. Exemptio

n fo r Noncontinenta

l Area s Petitioner's Comment: CIB O contende d tha

tthe exemptio n o

f industria l stea m generating unit

s fro m th e 9 0 percen tSO a reduction requiremen

tin noncontinenta

l area s wa s arbitrary
. According t o th e petitioner , the Agenc

y provided this limited exemptio n du

e t o th e unavailabilit

y o f natura l ga s i n noncontinenta

l areas . Th

e petitione r argue d tha tth e distinctio n betwee n facilitie s i n continenta

l an d noncontinenta

l area s i s notsupportable , considerin g tha

tstea m generating uni

t owner s in som e area s o

f th e continenta

l United State s als o hav e difficultie s i n obtaining natura

l gas . Agency Response: Th

e petitioner' s contentio n i s a moo

tpoint
. Littl e o r n o coa l i s bume d in stea

m generating unit

s loade d in noncontinenta

l areas . Thus , the exemptio n fo

r noncontinenta

l area s i n the final rul

e applie s i n practice onl

y t o steam generating unit

s burnin g ver y lo w sulfur oil
. Th

e final standard , however , als o exempt

s al l stea m generatin g unit

s firing ver

y lo w sulfu

r oi l fro m the percen

treduction requiremen

t no matte r wher e the y ar e located
. I

n effect , therefore , th e exemptio n sough t b y CIB O ha s already bee n grante d i n the existin g rule
. T o exten d thi s exemptio n fo r oil-fired unit

s t o coal-fired unit

s in th e continenta

l Unite d States , woul d presentstatutor

y difficulties
. Congres s plainly intende d tha

tthe Agenc

y utiliz e percentag e reduction standard s wher e appropriat

e give n other statutor

y constraints , including th

e obligatio n t

o conside r cost s an

d other environmenta

l impacts
. 3
. Failur e t o Analyz e Economi

c Impact s o n th e Pape r Industr y Petitioner's Comment: API/NFP A ! state d tha twhen compare d t o th e seve n other majo

r steam-usin g industr

y groupsP.1 7

162 0 Federa l RegBte r / Vol
. 54
. No
. 3 /

Friday , January 13
. 198 9 / Propoae d Rirfee
examine d i a th e "Summar y o f Regulator y Analysis, " th e pape r industr y ranke d firstI n industria

l i generatin g uni

tfossi l fue

l consumption
. However
. EP

A performe

d economi c impac tanalyse s fo

r onl y si x o f

thes e industries , omitting an analyst s o f th e paper industry
. Accordin g t o tiie petitioner , suc

h a n analysi s o

f the pape r industr y woul d hav e reveale d importan t informatio

n abou tth e impac

to f th e standar d o n the paper industry
. Agency Response: Th e CCOHOSM C impact s analysi s o f

NSP S fo r industria

l stea m generatin g unit

s wa s conducte d i n tw o phases
. The first-phas e focose d o n majo r steam-usin g industries
. Usm g aggregat e economi c criteri a t o characteriz e eac h industr y selecte d fo r analysis , thi s phas e o

f the analysi s examine d th e potentia

l impac to f Mir e o n industr

y averag e steam coat s an d produc tprices , an d th e abilit

y o f th e industr y t o pas s increase d cost s forwar d t o th e consumer o

r t o absor b mcrease d cost s du e t e hig

h profitability
. Th e secon d phas e o

f the analysi s focuse d o n selecte d mrhmtrie

s considere d likel y t s experienc e d m mos s sever e economi c impacts
. Industrie s wer e selecte d fo

r thi s phas e o f

th e analysi s base d o n severa l cstieria : f » Result s fro m the firstphas e a

f th e analysi s indicate d furthe

r analysi s wa s appropriate ; (2) manufacturin g operation s withi n a

n industr y wer e considere d unusuall y steam-intensive : o r (3 ) the stea

m generatin g ma

tcapacit y withi n a n industr

y wa s characterize d b y unusually lo w utilisatio n factors
. Usin g mode l plant s an d mode

l firms representativ e o

f thes e fetind withi n eac h industr

y selecte d fa

r analysts , thi s phas e o f di e analysi s examine d th e potential impact

s a f NSPS o n produc t price s and profitabilit

y attb e plan tlew d and capital availability atth e fires lewe L Th e pah*an d pape r mdastrywa s an e o f the industrie s examine d tndwnTs t phas e o f thi s analysis
. Th e resume, however , indicate d tha

tth e potential impact s o f NSPS o n thi s industr

y wer e small and tha

tfurthe r analysi s o f

tins industr y wa s so twarrante d i n tite secon d phas e o f

thi s analysis
. Although a state r stea m consuming
- iadaslry
. asse t o f th e stea m ase d H

I the pulp an d pape r industr y fo r pulping , blenching , an d pape r mattin

g i s generate d ayrarraa g fuels , suc h a s blac k liquor an d wood , whic h ar e na tsubjec tto th e SC

% standards
. Combustio

n o f oi l andeea ti n th e pul p and pape r industr

y ma y contribut e les s tha n one-thir d o f th e tota l stea m requirements fo

r thi s industry
. There-fete , thepoteitaodhnpac t a f th e NSP S a n i price s i s I n addition , th

e firstphas e e f

th e analysi s als o inrikate d thai th e pul p an d paper industr

y wa s (pat

e pasntabte
. Pulp , paper , an d boar

d wer e produced at recor d leve b m *H**

X lsW , an d 1988
. Th e rate s o f after-ta x profi to n stockholder s equity , th a rate s o f after-ta x profiten total assets , an d th e after-ta x profit s per doBa r o f sale s wer e nea r o r exceede d th e averag e for ai l mannfketarin g plant s in 1964,1986
. and 1988
. A s a result , th e pul

p and pape r industr y wa s no tconsidere d on e o f thos e industrie s hfcel

y t e experienc e th a mea tsever e economi c impacts and
. therefore , thi s industr

y wa s no t examiae d i n the secon d phas e o f th e analysis
. In an y case , th e petitione r gav e n o indicatio n o f

ho w sac k a n analyst s woul d chang e th e outcom e o f th e standard
. Consequently , the Agenc y find s n o basi s fior nrontmU-irin g th e standards
. 4
. Inadequat

e Analysi s o f

th e Economi c Impac te f Start-Up , Shutdown , and Malfanctio n Provision s Petitioner's Comment: APl/NFP S als o contende d (ha

tstart-up . shutdown , an d malfunctio

n provision s ar

e neede d fior th e standard s becaus e method s o f complianc e with th e standard s durin g thes e period s ar

e no talway s availabl e o r ar e to o expensiv e fo

r man y ne w pape r industr

y facilities
. Th e petitione r contende d tha

tEP A ha d abandone d It

s earlie r positio n tha

temission s durin

g period s o f start-up , shutdown , o r malfunction woul d b e minimized b y relying o n spar e capacity
. The petitione r adde d tha tth e Agency no w relies e n (he abilit y o f unit s t o switc h t

o ver y lo w sulfn r ofl-ornatara

i ga s durin

g suc h periods
. Thnperrfrone

r state d tha

tman y paper mil h eanae tobtain
- natura l ga s and dia t 0.3 weigh tpoiceu l sutfu

i oil-i s no t psueH y availabl e t

n man y area s o ttn e ceanary , pantcsfaRy m Honcoosts r areas . Th e petitione r contende d tha tthe
lac k e f narara l ga s i n Ut e noamiit i nenta i Unite d State s wa s specificall y recognized in th e regulation s b y providing a

n exemptio n fro

m m e percen t reductio n requirementfer JnciBfle s i n thes e locations , ba

tma tth e teg-donna s flsri-h-maata ta r n a voi d seaso n agains t centinotaifa-eia-aastbet t gato r very-ha

w sutfa r fas t Accc*fdt***-g*

» th e * pape r mil s with acces s te natural ga s woul d sht a mea tcost s m

r eacku p supplies-of

natura l ga s i n «KCSS B o f

EP A assumption s becaus e th e gasuust s ma t wer e assume d wha

n < ~ regnhrthmadidnati demand dan-pe

a an d * fir m ga s sapehei , Mirn

y paaarnan a - woul d afc e inca r awcrssiw e csst s fer backup supplie s o f ver y lo w sarfu

r me t oil
. Th e petitione r estimate d tha tth e cos teffectivenes s o

f SO * removal whe

n usin g nenintemiptabr

e natura l ga s o r very lo w sulfur oi l a s a marfunctfo n backu p fue f ca n b e a s hig

h a s $17,380

/ M g (J l SJHtffoo), a ratio arhnos tte n time s mor

e tha n estimate d "whe

n developin g th e regulations. Agency Response: Th

e decisio n t

o limi tSO temission s durin

g period s o

f start-up . shutdown , an d malfunction wa s base d o n th

e availabilit

y o f severa l cost-effectiv e alternative s tha ta n affecte d facult

y ca n us e durin

g thes e periods
. Contrar

y t o th e petitioner' s assertion , usin g spac e FGD
- capacit y wa s no tabandone d a s a backup alternativ e and i s th e mos teconomicall y attractiv e optio n i n man

y situations
. I

ti s tru e tba t natura l ga a i s no tavailabl e everywhere
. Similasly
. ver

y lo w sulfu

r residual oi l ma y b e difficul

tt o obtai n in noacoasta i locations , althoug

h ver y lo w sulfu

r distillate oi l i s generall y availabl e throughou tth e Unite d States
. I

f neithe r o f thes e fuel s i s avadabi e a

ta specifi c location , alternative s suc

h a s liqui d
. petroleu m ga s (LPG

) o r spar e FG D module s coul d b e considere d Eac h alternativ e nee d natb e availafe-t o a t ever y potentia l locatio n o f

a ne w facility
. Taexoat s o f

span s FG D capacity , natura l gas . an d ver

y unrauna r oi l wer e analyze d prio r t o prnanhanlan a f th e standards
. Thes e case s wer e reexamined base d o n th e eentiaoefs ornaments . E n adanaoa
. us e o

f LP C wa s als o examined
. Whtr a duaan d chm-ge

s cite d b y the petitione r o

f $8.80 t o $11.40/t*nilio

o }f day/mont h (3 7 t o $12/millio a Btu/day / month ) ar e assume d fo

r noninterruptible natura l gas , m e coatesnotivenes s o f thi s optio n ranges Gra

m S34 W t

o *11^08/M g ($3,50 0 an d $KW0O/tan*
. Th e cost eaeca*eaess4-* f

afto f tneeme r options , howeaer , such -a* aatara tga s (whic h doe s no tcarr

y sac k aajhrlnman

d charges) , ver

y le w saifureU
. LPC
. e r space FG D capacity
. reaarins in the rang e o f $650 to $*W40aj!M

g ($50 0 to $4400/ion ) o f

SC « remeaed aa d i s considere d reasonablar Ia adnsmn

u mos tstea m osaa

j afants operateae—MJateas a asaaretia g mast s atlea s ma n fattcaaech y a a tha ti f <an e •m n maanncttena , tb e loa d ca n b a switche d team an a axn

tto another
. Acoasdhnjtodatacattectedi n th e "ne w lissh s m n si ; " eve r *

M peanu t\1m~ 8 8 ou to f 8S)<e f d»<naw«eal
- o r osi-fire

d unit s sol d betwee n U K an d I9M wer e instate d a taknt e wit

h muHlpl u stea m gunusaSn g starts.-Because o f

# w avaaanhv y a f

aaoKap-atean

tgeneratin g capacity , lauu

tplant s shaa M b e abt e t oP.1 8

Federa l Registe r /

Vol
. 54 , No
. 9 /

Friday , January 13 , 198 9 / Propose d Rule s 162 1
shif tstea m productio

n t o anothe r uni

t durin g period s o

f FG D malfunction
. I n vie w o f thi s variet

y o f start-up , shutdown , an

d malfunctio

n compliance options , individua

l plant s wil l b e abl e t

o economicall y contro

l SO a emission s durin g thes e periods
. 5
. Lega l Requiremen

tfo r Consideratio n o f Start-up , Shutdown , and Malfunction Cost s Petitioner's Comment: API/NFP A furthe r contende d tha

tthe court

s requir e consideratio n o

f start-up , shutdown , an

d malfunction costs , citing National Lime Association v. EPA. 62

7 F.2 d 41 6 (D C Circui t1980 ) (referre d t o hereinafter a s National Lime). According t

o th e petitioner , th e cost s o

f complying wit

h th e standard s durin

g period s o

f start-up , shutdown , and malfunctio n ar e unreasonabl y hig

h an d coul d b e avoide d wit h a provisio n fo

r a temporar

y varianc e durin

g start-up , shutdown , an

d malfunction conditions
. Agency Response: National Lime doe s notrequir e specia l start-up , shutdown , o r malfunctio

n provisions
. Rathe

r tha n specifyin g a particula

r requiremen

to r typ e o f analysi s t

o b e undertaken , th

e cour tin National

Lime require

d onl y tha tconsideratio n b e give n t o the achievabilit

y o f the standard s unde

r the anticipate d rang

e o f operating variables
. Th e petitione r correctl

y pointe d ou

ttha t analysi s o f th e achievabilit

y o f standard s unde

r the likel y rang

e o f condition s shoul d includ e a n assessmen t o f th e cos to f complianc e associate d wit h start-up , shutdown , and malfunction o

f FG D equipment

. A s discusse d above , the cost s o f severa l differen tstart-up , shutdown , and malfunction alternative s wer e analyzed
. Th e result s o f thi s analysi s indicat

e tha t th e impact s associate d wit

h limiting emission s durin

g start-up , shutdown , an d malfunctio

n ar e reasonable
. Thus , i t i s clea r tha

tthe Agency' s analysi s in adopting the standard s i s consisten t wit h National

Lime. 6
. Availabilit

y o f 13 0 n g SOa/ J (0.30 lb SOa/millio n Btu

) Oi l in-Hawaii 4 Petitioner's Comment: HEC O state d tha tth e uniqu e fue l suppl y an d electri c

* Followin g th e submitta l o f I U Petitio n fo r Reconsideratio n i n March , HEC O offere d t o provid e additiona l informatio n concernin g oi l shipment s an d oi l consumptio n o n th e Hawaiia n Island s t o suppor t it s contentio n tha toi l containin g les s tha n 0. 3 weigh tpercen tsulfu r wa s unavailabl e i n Hawaii
. N o suc h dat a wer e forthcomin g unti l Decembe r 19
. 1988
. som e 9 month s afte r submitta l o f th e Petitio n fo r Reconsideration
. Th e dat a covere d th e 1984
- 198 7 tim e period , an d muc h o f thi s informatio n coul d hav e bee n submitte d durin g th e commen t perio d followin g proposa l o f th e rul e i n lun e 1988 , an d certainl y th e informatio n coul d hav e bee n submitte d wit h th e Petitio n fo r Reconsideration
. generatio n situatio n i n Hawaii wa s no

t considere d i

n establishin g th

e 13 0 n g SOa/ J (0.30 l b SOa/millio n Btu

) emissio n limit
. HEC O contende d tha

tEP A shoul d broade n th e exemptio n t

o allo w source s o n Oah u t o bur n oil wit h a sulfu r content o f 0.5 weigh tpercen

to r less , whic

h HEC O currentl

y i s require

d b y local regulations t

o fire o n Oahu
. Th e tw o refinerie s locate d o n th e islan d o f Oah u purchas e crud

e oil s wit h lo w sulfu r contents that

, when blended , produc e lo w sulfu

r residua l oi l wit h 0. 5 weightpercen

tsulfu r o r less
. Thes e refineries canno tsupply all o f HECO' s needs , however , an d approximately 3 millio n barrel s o

f lo w sulfu r residua l oi l ar e importe d b y HEC O fro m the Wes t Coas to f the Unite d States , Singapore , an d othe r worldwid e sources . Meeting a sulfu

r specificatio n o

f 0. 5 weigh tpercen

tpermit s HEC O and th e tw o refinerie s o

n Oah u t o keep cost s dow n an d allow s HEC

O t o purchas e lo w sulfu r residua l oi l tha ti s competitiv e wit h lo w sulfu

r residua l oi l in th e continenta

l Unite d States
. Having t

o purchas e lo w sulfu

r residua l oi l wit h a sulfu r contento

f les s tha n 0.3 weigh t percen twoul d increas e HECO' s costs . Beside s th

e premiu m fo r thi s oil , ther

e woul d b e additiona

l cost s fo r segregate d storage , and the benefit

s woul d notb e wort h the costs . A s a result, th e promulgate

d standard s woul d effectivel y preclud e ne w Subpar tD b stea m generatin g unit

s o n Oahu
. Agency Response: HEC

O argues , i n effect , tha tthe exemptio n fro

m the 9 0 percen treductio n requiremen

tinclude d i n the final standar

d fo r steam , generatin g unit

s firing ver

y lo w sulfu

r oi l shoul d b e increase d from 13 0 n g SO./ J (0.30 lb SOa/millio n Btu

) t o 24 0 n g SO./ J (0.50 lb/millio n Btu

) sinc e firin

g oi l containin g les s tha

n 13 0 n g SO./ J (0.30 lb SOa/millio n Btu

) wil l increas e HECO' s costs . Th

e mer e fac ttha t complyin g wit

h thi s exemptio n fro

m the percen treductio n requiremen

twil l itsel f resul ti n som e increas e i n costs , i f HEC O decide s t o tak e advantag e o

f the exemption , i s nota sufficien tbasi s fo r reconsiderin g th e exemption
. Thi s exemptio n wa s notinclude d in th e standar d t o provid e a convenien tmean s fo r source s t

o avoi d th e percent reduction requiremen

to r fo r source s t

o avoi d experiencin g an

y increas e in cost s i n complying wit

h th e standard
.
HEC O neve r advise d th e Agenc y tha ti twa s havin g difficult y obtainin g th e dat a o r tha tI tactuall y intende d t o supplemen tit s petition
. Th e Agenc y ha t n o obligatio n t o dela y actio n o n th e Petition s fo r Reconsideratio n pendin g submittal , howeve r belated , o f

informatio n fro m petitioner s o r other * Nevertheless , th e response s se tfort h belo w d o addres s informatio n presente d i n HECO' s Decembe r 19.198 a submittal
. Th e exemptio n fro

m th e percen t reduction requiremen

tinclude d i n th e standar d fo r stea m generating unit

s firin g oil s o f less tha n 13 0 n g SOi/ J (0.30 l b SOa/millio n Btu

) wa s base d o

n a broa d weighin g o

f th e relativ e cost s an

d benefits o f percen treduction requirement

s compare

d t o firin g oil s o f variou s sulfu

r contents . Th

e cost s o f complying wit

h the standar

d wil l var y somewhatfro

m locatio n t

o location , an

d a tan y specifi c locatio n wil l depen d o n factors , suc

h a s loca l fue l prices , whic

h ar e uniqu e t o tha tlocation
. No

tever y stea m generating unit

, therefore , wil l find i tadvantageou s t

o compl y wit h th e standar d i n exactl y th

e same way . Som

e unit s ma y find i tadvantageou s t

o compl y wit h the standar

d b y meeting the percen

treduction requirement

, others ma y find i tadvantageou s t

o compl y wit h th e standar

d b y firin g ver y lo w sulfu r oils
. I n short , no tever y stea m generatin g uni

tsubjec tt o th e standar d wil l experienc e the sam e costs , no r i s ther e an y requiremen

ti n sectio n 11 1 o

f th e CA A tha tth e Agenc y tailo r th e standar d i n suc h a wa y tha

tn o source wil l experienc e highe

r cost s tha

n an y othe r source . I n the origina

l rulemaking, th

e Agenc y examine d a broa

d rang e o f cost s associate d wit

h th e standard
. (Se e e.g. , "Summar y o f Regulator

y Analysis." ) HECO' s contentio n tha

ti twil l experienc e increase d costs , o r fo r tha t matte r eve n tha

ti tma y experienc e higher tha n averag e costs , i

n complyin

g wit h the standar

d (o r exemption s fro

m th e standard ) woul d no

thave change

d th e outcom e o f

the rule and , therefore , doe s no tcompe

l reconsideration
. Despite thi s finding , however , th e Agency i s unaware o

f why an y HEC O facilit y woul d b e unabl e t

o tak e advantag e o

f the exemptio n fro

m th e percentreduction requirementfo r stea m generating unit

s firing oil s o

f les s tha n 13 0 n g SO./ J (0.3 0 l b SOa/million Btu

) i f i tchos e to , no r doe s HEC O sugges t otherwise
. First , Hawaii' s acces s t

o ver y lo w sulfu r oi l ma y wel l b e equa

l t o o r superio r t o tha to f man y area s o f th e continenta

l United States , wit

h its acces s t o waterborne shipment

s o f ver y lo w sulfu r fue l oil s fro m Indonesi a an

d California , tw o o

f th e larges tmarket

s o f ver y lo w sulfu

r residual oil i

n th e world
. Second , availabl e dat

a fro m the U.S
. Departmen

to f Energ y (DOE ) fo r th e year s 198 5 an d 198 8 (Docke tNo
. A-83
- 27 , DocketItems IV-I-3 , IV-I-5 , IV-I- 8 an d IV-I-7 ) indicat

e tha tabou t1 0 t o 2 0 percen to f the residual oil use d b

y HEC O in 198 5 an d 198 8 wa s 0.3 weigh t percen tsulfu r (or less ) wit

h th e balanc e being betwee n 0.3 an

d 0. 5 weigh tP.1 9

162 2 Federa l Registe r / Vol
. 54 , No
. 9 /

Friday , Januar

y 13 , 198 9 /

Propoae d Rule s

percen tsulfur
. Additiona

l dat a indicat e a significan

tpercentag e o

f th e residua l oil importe

d int o Hawaii (i.e. , fro

m outsid e th e Unite d States ] wa s les s tha

n 0. 3 weigh tpercen tsulfur : 7 percen

ti n 1985:1 5 percen

ti n 1986 : an

d 8 5 percent i n 1987
. Furthermore

, a s HEC O points ou

ti n its supplement, i

tcurrentl y import s oil fro m th e Wes tCoas to

f th e Unite d State s an d Singapore
. Base d o

n revie w o f DO E dat e fo r 198 7 (Docke tA-83-27
. Docke tIte m VI-B-9) , supplie s o

f residua l ei l containin g les s tha

n 0. 3 weigh tpercen

tsulfu r ar e currentl y availabl e in California
. Thes e residual oil s ar e refine d fro m Indonesian an d Australia n crud e oil s an d coul d b e shippe d t o Hawaii
. Handling requirement

s fo r thes e 0. 3 weigh t percen tsulfu r residua l oil s ar e similar t o thos e fo r highe r sulfu r conten tresidual oUs
. This indicate s tha

tresidua l oi l wit h less tha n 0. 3 weigh tpercentsiefu r i s availabl e in Hawaii, , ha s bee n use d b y HEC O in th e past , an d i s availabl e for impor tt o Hawaii
. Third, th e possibl e nee d fo r ne w handling facilitie s doe s no tdistinguis h HEC O fro m other stea

m generatin g uni

t owner s as d operators . I

n Hawaii , a s elsewher e i n th e Unite d States , dependin g o n th e typ e e f

oi l purchase d ( a matte r unde r m e owne r o r operator' s control) , th e os e o

f very le w sulfsroi l ma y require instauane n o f

dedicate d of

f handling and storag e facilitie s •atoagoid e o i o r i n plac e ef

, facilitie s handhn g highe r sulfu

r conten toil
. Finsay , HBC

O claim s tha

tth e increas e i n cost s associate d wit h complyin g wit

h th e exemptio n fro

m th e percen treductio n requirementmigh t resul ti n "peaLhscaiaj " th e us e o f ne w stea m generatin g writ

s a n Qahn
. HBCO , however , doe s no texplai n it s mtimiia j far thi s cham
. HHCOnm

y mean , a s i t suggest s wit

h respectt o th e oute r islands , tha tsource s ma

y coramu t diese l rathe r tha n staa m generatin g units
. Thi s decisiona l far th e sourc e operato r to make
. Th e nesan~ant y tha tsource s ma

y construc

tdiese l engine s tame r tiian steam generatin g unit s i s not . however , a basi s fa r modifying th e standard
. Fer ai l e f thcac reasons , antncreesei n the sulfur conten to

f nee d exempte d fson tth e percentredactio n requiremen t i s no twarrsatr d fa tHawaii
. 7
. Nee d for Ne w Oi ! Transportatio n Syste m i n Hawn-3

* Petilkmer's Comment

HEC O als o state d that , i n orde

r fa r neighboring
. Island s (hfauLKruiai.Mnlosal
. Lunar , an d Hawaii ) loos e ves y lewenifa* * residual faefoiia sa w inter-islan d transportatio n syste m (including vessel s and delivery , receiving , and storag e capacity ) woul d hav e t

o b e developed
. Currently , al l o

f the o d fire

d o n thes e island s i s importe

d in barge s o

r tankers
. Stea m generatin g unit

s o n th e neighborin

g island s fk e oi l wit

h a sulfur conten to f 2 weigh tpercento r leas , whic h doe s notrequir

e a heate d storag e o r distributio n system . Importin g waxy , ver y lo w sulfu

r residual oi l woul d requir e heate d barge s fo

r inter-islan d transportan d a heate d storag e an d distributio n syste m o n th e islands
. Coas t Guar d regulation s prohibi

thearing o f th e barge s use d fo

r inter-islan d transport , and cons*hnctm

g a~heete d storag e ifii

d distributio n syste m weal d b e uneconomical
. r-O&Oxanseaded
. therefore , tha

tth e Agenc y shoul d exemp tth e Hawaiia n ente r island s from th e SO * standard s a

H togethe r o r permi

t th e us e o f mediu m sulfu r ( 2 weigh t percent ) oi L Agency Response: Th e natur e o f th e lnter-ishn* d transportatio n syste m m Hawai i doe s no twarran

ta specia l exemptio n fo

r th e oate r islands
. Residua l oi ) capabl e o

f meetin g a

n SO » emissio n limite f

13»fl g SO*/

J (0.3 8 lb SOk/mdlw

n Btu ) cetd d b e obtaine d b y HBCO
. a s discusse d above
. Base d o n information received from th e Hawaiia n Departmen

to f Energ y (Docke tNo
. A
83-27 , DocketIte

m VW5-8) , theourren t- method fo r transporting restdue l oi l betwee n th e neighboring island s o f Hawa i » b y barge
. Thi s sam e syste m coin d b e use d t

o transpor

tvery tow SfffXH T Of f *&*R0R £ Ifi O fStMM M I f

0ll£p v modification s moeWwatleB s coul d includ e deanin g someo f th e barges , dedicatin g the m t o th e transpor

to f ver y row selle r an ; an d equippin g ne w stea m generatin g unit e wf m ae w o r converte d storag e -rnoc s dedicate d t o th e storag e o f ver y tow sulfu r oil
. Barg e transpor to f rue i on , fa r fro

m bein g anrqu

e t o Hawaii , i s pommo

n practice , throughou

ttfi e cuutmenta

x Unite d States
. The Coas tGuar d doe s no tprenror

tth e heatin g o f

oarge s transportin

g oil ; i tdoe s hav e specifi c barg e and heatin g syste m desig n requirements t o ensur e tha to d i s safel y shippe d (Docke tA-83-27
. Docke tRe m IV-B-Hf c Depending o n th e typ e o f

o d purchased , a matte r entirel y mister HECO' s contro l us e o

f ver y le w sane r residue! ei l am y reenir s oon8*n*a*ctiO R o f a heate d storag e am i disU-ruutto n system.TJkeneedfJa

r thi s typ e a f

sysavn . however , woul d b e aetKMaraBtiar e no w stea m generatin g tau

tlocate d i n H a watttiian fo r a simila r uni tlocate d i a th e continenta

l Unite d States
. '

< Therefore , a n exemptio n fro

m th e standar d fo r stea m generatin g unit

s locate d o n th e outer island s o

r a n increas e fro

m 13 0 n g SOi/ J (0.3 0 l b SO, / millio n Btu

) t o 86 7 n g SO»/ J (2. 0 l b SOa / millio n Btu

) i n the sulfu

r contento

f th e oil exempte d fro

m th e percen treductio n requiremen

tfo r the oute r island s based o n the nee d t

o mak e change s t

o the existin g inter-islan d transpor tsyste m o r th e cos to f constructing a heate d storag e an d distributio n syste m i s unwarranted
. 8
. Increase d Us e o

f Larg e Stea m Generating Unit

s o r Ga s Turbin

e Generator

s i n Hawaii Petitioner's Comment

HEC O former state d tha ti f i ti s require

d t o compl y wit h th a 13 0 n g SOj/ J (0.30 l b SO, / mdlio n Btu

) SO , limitation , i twoul d instal l ga s turbin

e generators o

r electri c utilit y stea m generating unit

s witi i hea t input s greate r tha

n 7 3 M W (25 0 million Bru/hour ) rather tha

n Subpar tD b units
. According t

o the petitioner , suc

h larg e utilit y stea m generatin g unit

s and ga s turbin e generator

s coul d compl

y wit h Subpart s D a o r G G b y using the 0. 5 weigh tpercentsulfu

r residua l oil a vadaU e o n Oeha
. Agency Response; Subpar tD b appne s t o stea m generatin g unit

s wit h a heat inpu tcapacit y greate r tiian 2

9 M W (10 8 mitnei tBtu/hour) , excep tfo

r electri c utilit y stea m generatin g unit

s covere d b

y Subpar tDe
. Indeed , th e petitione r coul d instal l electri c utilit

y stea m generatin g unit s m exces s o

f 7 3 M W (250 miftro

n Btu/hour ) hea tinpu to r a ga s turbin

e generato r and b e subjectt o Subpar tD a o r GG , respectituly. rather ma

n Subpar t Db
. Larg e electri c utilit

y steam . generatin g unit e o r ga s turbine geneiater s ca n comply wit h th e SO , requirements o

r Subpart s D a o r G G b y firing 6- 6 weigh tpercen

tsuffu r oil
. 9
. Economi c Impact

s o f Firin g Lo w Sulfu r Oi l fartth e Hawaiia n Oute r Island s Petitioner** Comment

HEC O note d tha tth e cos tdifferentia

l betwee n disuhatee d an d residual oi l make s the us e o f distifla W oi l in staa m generatin g unit s impracticabl e o n th e oute r island s compare d t o diese l engines
. Th e result, according t o HECO , i s tha tno on e wil l buil d steam generatin g units : father , the y m l bur n distillat e e d i n mor e efficien tdiese l engines
. Agenc y AeajMaso

* TheSO * staadnrd s merel y iian ^ th e aana r conten to f ot i tiiat ma y b e fired withoir

tmeetin g th e 9 0 percentreductio n requirementTh e standard s d o ne trequir

e ae w stea

m genesaaaguait s taking advantag e o f (hi s exemptio n t e ib e cBstrnat e on . but permi tne w stea m generatin g unit

s t o fire a*ar4«e-<rfeiLTJu*M»sro aligh t

# . 1 P.2 0

r~ • Federa l Registe r / Vol
. 54 , No
. 9 /

Friday , Januar

y 13 , 198 9 /

Propose d Rule s 162 3
fin d i tmor e economica

l t o mak e us e o f diese l engine s t

o produc e electricit

y doe s no tmak e th e standar d unreasonable
. A s state d earlier , the Agenc y believe s tha

tresidua l oil containing les s tha

n 13 0 n g SOi/ J (0.30 l b S0 2 /millio n Btu

) i s availabl e and ca

n b e supplie d t

o stea m generatin g unit

s i n Hawaii
. HECO

, however , alway s ha s th e option o f using distillate oil
. residua l oil , o r eve n crud

e oil , o r o f switchin g betwee n thes e fuels , base d o n its ow n assessmen to

f fue l costs , suppl

y uncertainties , an d othe r factors
. Furthermore

, i f transportation cost s o r us e o f ver y lo w sulfu

r contentoil i

n th e Hawaiian Island s become s to o expensive , HEC

O ma y wis h t o conside r partia l scrubbin g o f highe r sulfu r content oil t o achiev e the 13

0 ng/ J (0.3 0 Ib/SO , million Btu

) emissio n limit
. fl. Post-Proposal

Developments 1
. Ne w DocketMateria

l Petitioner's Comment- CIB O contende d tha

tEP A introduced ne w materia l int o the docke tand conducte d ne w analyse s o f

existin g dat

a afte r th e clos e o f the publi c commen

tperiod , and tha tthe publi c wa s no tgive n sufficient opportunit

y t o commen

to n thi s ne w material
. Agency Response: I

n the propose d SO , rulemaking o

f Jun e 19,1986
. EP

A state d tha tth e energ y pric e scenario s woul d b e update d betwee n proposa l an d promulgation t o determin e whethe r the costs , emissio n reductions, o r cos t effectivenes s o f

th e rul e woul d b e altere d significantly , and
. whe n completed , thi s informatio n woul d b e adde d t o th e docket
. (Se e 5 1 F

R 22387. ) O n Apri l 27,1987
. an d agai n o n Octobe r 30,1987 , a notic e o f documen t availabilit y wa s sen tt

o partie s wh o commente d o n tb e Jun

e 19,1986
. propose d rulemaking , informin g the m tha tne w material s an d analyse s wer e being adde d t

o th e docket
. Thes e notice s include d a listin g o

f mor e tha n tw o doze n ne w reports relate d t o th e rulemaking, which ca

n b e foun d i n DocketNo
. A-83-27
. Copie s o f fou r o f th e reports , including th e results o f th e "ne w boile r survey, " wer e attache d t o th e Apri l notic e an

d si x wer e attache d t o the Octobe r notice
. Non e o f th e petitioner s commented o n thes e ne w material s no

r di d the y submi t an y additional information
. Further , di e ne w analyse s showe d n o significant difference s fro

m the analyse s tha

tle d t o th e developmen to

f th e propose d standar d an d reaffirmed the reasonablenes s o f

th e fina l standard
. 2
. Analysi s o f the "Ne w Boile r Survey " Petitioner's Comment: CIB O objecte d t o a questio n i

n th e "ne w boile r survey " whic h asked , "Woul

d you r decisio n t

o build a ne w boile r change i f projected cost s t o produc e stea m increase d by : 10 , 20 , 30 , o r 5 0 percent? " The petitione r contende d tha

tthi s questio n wa s misleadin g becaus e i

tfaile d t o revea l the source o

f the increase d cos to

f meetin g th e 90 percen

tSO , emissio n reduction requirement

. The petitione r als o contende d tha

tthe questio n faile d t o addres s costs , other tha n incrementa

l stea m cost , tha

twoul d affec

tprojec t viability
. Th

e petitione r suggeste d tha t the questio n b e rephrased t o ask , "Woul d you r decisio n t

o instal l a coal
o r oil-fired boile r change i

f suc h boile r were subjectt

o a requiremen

t(1 ) tha t90 percen to f potentia l SO , emission s b e remove d o n a continuou s 30-da y averag e basi s (including start-u p an d shutdow n periods) , and (2

) tha tth e installatio n o

f lo w sulfu r fuel-firing capabilit y migh tnee d t o b e installe d fo

r period s o f FG D syste m malfunction? " Agency Response: The purpos e o f the "ne w boile r survey " wa s t o determine t o whatexten tne w stea m generatin g unit s ma y b e replacement

s fo r existin g unit s an d whatimpac

tthi s ma y hav e o n overal l SO

* emissions
. Thus , th e surve y focuse d o n the reason s motivatin g th e installatio n o

f ne w units , th e dispositio n o f existin g unit

s tha tma y b e replaced b y ne w units , an d th e overal l impac to f th e installatio n o

f ne w unit e o n SOf e emissions
. Th

e specifi c questio n o n cost s wa s include d i n th e surve y t o gaug e ho w sensitiv e decision s t o instal l ne w units , includin g thos e unit s tha t ma y replace existin g units , ma y b e t o potentia l increase s in costs . Th

e petitione r hypothesize d tha tth e answer s migh thav e bee n differen

ti f EP A ha d formulated it s questio n t o specif y tha t increase d cost s resulte d fro m pollutio n control
. I n determining th e cos to

f steam , pruden

tbusines s practice s woul d b e t o includ e al l th e cost s associate d wit h stea m production , includin g an y cost s associate d wit

h pollutio n contro l and stea m supply reliability. I ti s the majpntude , no tth e origin , o f cost s tha ti s relevan tt o th e elasticity o

f sale s a s a functio n o f costs . N o detail s o r data wer e provide d t o suppor

tCIBO' s conjecture
. Unsupporte

d conjectur

e n no ta n adequate basi s fo r reconsiderin g a rule
. 3
. Reevaluatio n o

f SO , Emissio n Reduction s Petitioner's Comment

CIB O als o contende d tha

tEP A fade d t o reevaraate SO , emissio n reductions in ligh to f th e dat a received fro

m tiie "ne w boile r survey " conducted afte r proposa l o f th e standards
. Specifically , th e petitione r contende d tha

tth e SO 2 emissio n rates use d b y EP A were to o hig

h and , a s a result , SO , emissio n reductions wer e overestimated
. Th

e petitione r als o contende d tha

tthe overal l emissio n rat

e gleane d fro

m th e surve y demonstrate s tha ta 1,10 0 n g SO,/ J (2. 5 l b SOi/millio n Btu ) heatinpu

tbaselin e fo

r ne w coal
fire d stea m generating unit

s i s unjustifiabl

y high
. Th

e petitione r als o contende d tha

tth e surve y demonstrate s tha tSO a emissio n rate s fo

r oil-fire d unit s were overestimated
. Th e petitione r state d tha twithou ta n accurat e estimat e o f emissio n reduction , EP

A cannotfulfil

l its statutor

y obligatio n unde

r the CA A t o accurately determine th e cos to f achievin g the emissio n reduction s tha t an y particula

r standar d wil l impose
. Agency Response: The Agenc y di d analyz e the impact

s o f th e SO , standard s usin g SO , emissio n rate s fro m th e "new boile r survey. " I n fact , fo r ever y analysi s o

f national impacts performe d b y EPA , bot h prior t o an d afte r proposa l o f th e standards , th e Agenc y include d regulator

y alternative s tha twer e essentiall y th e sam e a s d M emissio n rat

e indicate d b y the survey t o representbaselin e levels
. Becaus e the Agency analyze s th e incrementa l impact s o i eac h regulatory alternativ e ove r th e nex tles s stringen talternative , the designatio n o

f a particular emissio n leve l a a "baseline " rather tha

n a "regulator y alternative " ha s litti e practic e effec tTh e incrementa l difference s wn l b e th e sam e in eithe r case . Eac h o f th e Agency' s analyse s include d emissio n level s lowe r titan 1,10 0 n g SOt/ J (2. 3 B > Sft/milhe n Btu

) fo r coal-fire d unit

s an d 1.30 0 n g SO,/ J (a o l b SOk/millio n Btu

) fo r oil-fire d units
. For example , eac h analysi s include d a n alternativ e base d o n a n emissio n leve l o

f 62 0 n g SO , / J (l i l b SOi/milho n Btu

) an d 34 0 n g SO , f] (0. 8 l b SOi/nrilno n Btu

) fo r coat - and oil-fire d units , respectively
. Thes e emissio n level s ar e essentiall y the sam e a s thos e th e petitione r believe s ca n b e gleane d fro m the surve

y a s representativ e o

f baselin e emissio n tevels
. I n eac h analysis , th e impact s o f th e regulator y alternativ e eventuall y promulgate

d a s th e SO , standard s wer e analyse d relative to toss stringen t alternatives , includin g a n emissio n leve l essentiall y comparabl e fo th e "revise d baseline " leve l proposed b y th e petitioner
. I

n eac h instance , th e impact s o f the promulgate

d standard s wer e reasonabl e coatpare d to thi s "revise d baseline* * level
. Consequently , th e Agenc y di d analyz e th e impact

s o f theP.2 1

162 4 Federa l Registe r / Vol
. 54 , No
. 9 /

Friday , Januar y 13 , 198 9 / Propose d Rule s
standard s i

n ligh to f th e result s o f th e surve y an d foun d thos e impact

s t o b e reasonable
. 4
. Informatio

n o n Impact s o f Wast e Disposal Petitioner's Comment: CIB O argue d tha tpost-proposa

l information showe d tha tsignifican

twast e disposal problems woul d b e create d b

y th e SO , standards
. I tals o argue

d tha tmethod s use d i n som e area s fo

r disposin g o

f sodiu m scrubbe r wast e (i.e. , dee p wel l injection , us e o f line d disposa l sites ) ar

e notcos t effective , makin

g th e us e o f coal-fired stea m generating unit

s impracticable
. Agency Response: Stea

m generatin g unit s generall y d o no

toperat e in isolatio n fro

m other industria

l processes , bu

tar e mostofte

n par to f a large r industria

l manufacturin

g plan t tha titsel f often produce s substantia l quantitie s o

f waste s requirin

g disposal
. I n addition , coal-fire d stea m generatin g unit s generat e fl y as h a s wel l a s liqui d feedwate r and stea

m syste m "blow
down " wastes , which als o requir e disposal
. Thus , us e o

f SO , contro

l system s t o reduce SO * emission s fro m stea m generatin g unit

s ma y increas e th e volume o f waste s t o b e dispose d of

, bu t generall y doe s no tcreat

e a ne w proble

m (i.e. , a nee d t

o dispos e o

f waste s where no suc h nee d existe d before)
. I n area s wher e disposa l o f wast e stream s fro

m sodiu m FG D o r an y othe r FG D syste m i s considere d b y th e owne r o r operato r o

f a ne w stea

m generatin g uni tcovere d b y the NSP

S t o b e to o costly , th e owne r o r operato r coul d selec ta n alternativ e approac

h t o compl y wit h the NSPS
. A s discusse d throughou t volum e 4 o f

th e "Backgroun

d Informatio

n Document, " th e "SO , Contro l Technology Update s Report, " an d th e "Summar

y o f Regulator

y Analysis, " the SO , standard s ar e base d o n a wid e variet

y o f technique s for controlling o

r reducin g SO * emissions
. The type s o

f wast e produce

d b y FG D system s ar

e quit e different
. A s a resul t a stea m generatin g uni

towne r ca n selec tth e FG

D syste m bes tsuite d t o local wast e disposal requirements
. Sodiu m FG D systems , fo

r example , produc e a liqui d wast e requiring disposal
. Lim

e spra y dryin g system s an

d FBC systems , o n th e other hand , produc e a dr y wast e product

. The cos t impact s associate d wit

h eac h o f thes e SO j contro l technologies , includin g th e cost s o f wast e disposal , ar

e considere d reasonable
. Thus , on e ca n minimiz e problems associate d wit

h increase d wast e disposa l b y appropriat e selectio n o f th e SO , contro

l system . The NSP

S doe s notcreat

e a n insurmountable wast e disposal proble

m no r doe s i t mak e the us e o

f coal-fire d steam generatin g unit s impractical
. Finally , eve n thoug

h no ta basi s o

f the standard , i f the stea m generatin g uni

towne r o r operato r view s the cos to

f thes e contro

l technique s a s excessive , switchin g t o a n alternat e fuel , such a s natura

l ga s o r ver y lo w sulfu

r oil , whic h impose s no additional wast e disposa l requirements , i s a n option
. 5
. Abilit y o f FB C an d FG D System s t

o Achiev e 90 Percen

tSO , Reduction Petitioner's Comment: CIB O questione d the abilit

y o f FBC unit s t o achiev e 9 0 percen tSO , reduction , especiall y thos e unit

s experiencin g larg

e load swings
. I

n addition , the petitione r state d tha tne w informatio

n o n spra y drye r FG D system s doe s no tsuppor tth e abilit y o f thi s technology t

o mee tth e 90 percen tSO , reduction requirements
. Th e petitione r claime d tha

tEP A relie d o n switchin g t

o natura l gas , and tha

tsuc h relianc e violate d EPA' s dut y t o promulgat

e a standar

d tha ti s achievabl e fo

r coal
- and oil-fired units
. Agency Response: A s discusse d i n Volum e 4 o f the "Backgroun

d Informatio

n Document, " sufficientshort
ter m performanc

e tes tdat a exis tt o demonstrat

e tha tFBC technology i s capabl e o f

achievin g 9 0 percentSO , removal
. Short-ter

m dat a presente d in th e "Summar

y o f Regulator

y Analysis " sho w tha tsevera l FB C unit

s achieve d 9 0 percento r greate r SO

a control durin

g th e tes tperiods
. Longe

r ter m data (3 0 day s o r more ) als o demonstrat

e tha tFB C unit s care capabl e o f

achievin g greate r tha n 9 0 percentSO tremoval athig h reliability levels
. A 30-da y tes to n a bubblin g be d FB

C uni tburnin g hig h
. sulfur coa l showe d SO , removal efficiencie s averagin g 93. 5 percent . A 30
- da y tes tconducte d a

tanothe r sit e showe d a n averag e SO , removal o f 9 0 percentwit

h greate r tha

n 99 percent reliability. Durin

g a 67-da y perio d atthi s site , th e FB

C uni tha d a reliabilit

y o f 9 7 percent . I n addition , vendor s hav e consistentl y state d tha

tFB C unit

s ca n b e designe d t

o achiev e 9 0 percen

tSO , removal athig

h reliability levels
. Base d o n thes e data , EP

A believe s tha

tFB C ha s demonstrate d the abilit y t o meetth e 9 0 percentSO * reduction requirementi n th e promulgate

d standards
. I n respons e t

o th e petitioner' s commen tregardin g th e abilit y o f FBC unit s t o respon d t

o loa d swings , FB

C technology i s characterize d b y th e large therma l mas s o f the bed , whic

h in tur n limit s th e abilit

y o f FBC unit s t o adjust quickl y t o large variation s i n steam demand
. Thi s i s a characteristi c o f FB C technology tha

ti s unrelated t

o SO , removal. A s a resul tth

e owne r o f a facilit y wit h rapidl y changin g stea m demand s i s likel y t

o selec ta conventiona l stea m generating uni

tan d FG D system , rathe

r tha n a n FBC , du e t o thi s inheren

tcharacteristi c o

f FB C technology , whic

h limit s it s abilit y t o respon d t o larg e load swings
. Th e percentreduction and reliabilit y o f lim e spra y dryin g hav e als o bee n demonstrated , a s discusse d i n Volum e 4 o f the "Backgroun

d Informatio

n Document " an

d a s documented i

n th e "Summar y o f Regulator

y Analysis " an

d th e "SO , Contro

l Technology Updat

e Report. " Althoug

h fe w long-ter m (3 0 da y and longer

) dat a ar e availabl e t

o demonstrat

e hig h SO , remova

l levels , short-ter m test s indicat

e tha tlim e spra y dryin g system s ar

e capabl e o

f achieving percen treduction level s i

n exces s o

f 9 0 percent. Althoug

h mos tlim

e spra y dryer s toda y ar e operate d a

troughl y 7 0 percen treduction t

o compl y wit h th e lowe r percen

treduction requirement

s i n Subpar tD a an d in State permits , ther e i s no reaso n t

o believ e lim e spra

y dryer s canno tachiev e 9 0 percen

tSO , reductio

n whil e maintaining a hig

h degree o

f reliability
. I

n fact , thos e period s durin

g whic h hig h removal level s hav e bee n achieve d i

n percen treduction test s indicate tha

tlim e spra

y dryin g system s ar e capabl e o f

achievin g hig

h percent reduction level s wit

h hig h reliabilit

y levels
. I n addition , a s wit

h FBC technology , a vendo r ha s als o state d tha tlim e spra

y drye r FG D system s ca

n b e designe d t o achiev e 9 0 percen tSO , remova l a thig h reliability level s (Docke t No
. A-83-27
. DocketIte

m VI-D-5)
. Fo

r thes e reasons , EP

A believe s tha

tlim e spra y dryin g ha s demonstrated the abilit y t o mee tth e 9 0 percen

tSO , reduction requiremen

tin the promulgate

d standards
. (Se e 5

2 F R 47837. ) I n thi s connection , EP

A state d i n the promulgatio

n preambl e tha

ton e vendor' s guarante e tha

t9 5 percen t reliabilit y wa s achievabl e i

n industria

l application s wa s "consistent " wit h the result s o f 2 year s operation o

f a lim e spra y dryin g syste m o n a 13

2 M W (45 0 millio n Btu/hour

) heatinpu

tcoal-fire d stea m generating unit

. (Se e 5 2 F R 47837 ; se e als o Docke

tA-83-27 , Docke

tIte m IV-B-9. ) Thi s statementremain s true . Th e distinction s note d b y th e petitione r betwee n thi s applicatio n and industria l application s regardin

g remova l rate s an d loa d level s d o notinvalidat

e th e comparison
. The lowe r remova l rat e doe s no tmea n tha tEP A i s incorrec

ti n judgin g tha thighe r remova l rate s ca n b e achieve d in industria

l applications
. Likewise , difference s i

n load s d o no

t mea n tha tEPA' s judgmen

ti s mistake

n tha tloa d change s ca

n b e managed
. Th

e Agency' s us e o

f the comparison wa s fair
. The exampl e wa s notuse d a s direc t 

# I{ k •'*•• » v P.2 2

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 54

. No

. 9 /

Friday , Januar y 13

. 198 9 / Propose d Rule s 162 3

an d e t o

o lit y *n e 4

i e an d e 'da y

•ra y vin g :9 0
•7 0
t s i n r e i s •r s .tio n

" 8

m s i t. proo f

o f reliability

. I

t serve d a s auseful , bu t no t necessary , illustratio n tha t th e vendo r guarante e i

n questio n wa s realistic

. Moreover , th e Administrator' s determinatio n tha t

th e standar d wa s reasonabl e wa s no t

base d o n th e assumptio n tha t

fue l switchin g woul d occur
. 6

. Us e o f Vendo r Statement s to Suppor

t 90 Percen t SQ > Reductio n Petitioner's Comment: CIB O state d tha t informa l vendo r statement s ha d bee n use d to support

tha t assertio n tha t lim e spra y dryer s ca n achiev e a9 0 percen t SQ

. reduction

. Th e petitione r asserte d tha t

avendo r guarante e doe s no t reflec t "adequatel y demonstrated " performanc e becaus e th e standar d "mus t b e base d o n cost-effectiv e technologie s tha t

ca n b e successfull y an d reliabl y use d i n operatin g installations. " Th e petitione r als o state d tha t EP A di d no t provid e notic e o

f ho w muc h EP A relie d on vendo r

guarantee s in findin g tha t

lime spray dryer s ar e "demonstrated. " Agency Response: Data , analysis , an d engineerin g judgmen t

wer e use d t o establis h th e 9 0 percen t

SO i reductio n standard

. Th e vendo r

guarante e wa s use d merel y t o confir mth e regulator

y decisio n an d no t

a s th e sol e basi s fo

r th e standard

. Th e ter

m"adequatel y demonstrated " doe s no t

mea n "successfull y an d reliabl y use d i n operatin g installations. " A n "achievable " standar d nee d no t b e alread y routinel y achieve d i n th e industry

. [Se e National

Lime Association v. EPA, 62

7 F.2 d 41 6 (1980) ; Sierra Club v. Costle, 65 7 F.2 d 29 8 (1981) ; an d Portland

Cement Assn. v. Ruckelshaus. 48 6 F.2

d 37 5 (1973). ) Rather , t o b e achievable , th e standar d mus t b e achievabl e unde r

mos t advers e condition s tha t

ca n reasonabl y b e expecte d to occur
. (Se e National Lime, supra.) Th e vendo r

in questio n i s aleadin g spray drye r

FG D manufacturer , havin g installe d ove r

5 0 percen t

o f th e existin g units , an d i s areliabl e an d authoritativ e sourc e o f informatio n on dry FG

D systems

. Th e vendor' s statement s wer e onl y use d t o support

th e dat aan d engineerin g judgmen t

tha t serve d a s th e basi s o f th e standards

. CIBO' s criticism s o f suc h guarantee s ar e no t

"centrall y relevant " to th e outcom e o f rule

. I n fact , EPA' s determinatio n tha t

th e lime spra y technolog y wa s "demonstrated " wa s based , i n th e proposa l a s i

n th e I'inu l rule , o n th e dat ai

n th e record un d it s judgment tha t hig h level s o f performanc e an d reliability wer e achievable

. Th e Agenc y note d th e availabilit y o

f performanc e guarantee s at th e time o

f proposa l onl y a s additiona l suppor

t for, bu t no t th e basi s of

. it s position

. (Se e e.g. , BID , Volum e 4. ) IV

. Summar

y Th e issue s raise d i

n eac h petitio n an d discusse d i

n thi s notic e wer e carefull y considei°d ; however , onl y th e issu e concernin g cos t

impact s o

f th e NO , standar d on ver

y lo w capacit y facto r stea mgeneratin g unit s provide s abasi s fo r revisin g th e promulgate d standards

. A proposa l t o d o s o wil l b e mad e i n a separat e notice

. Th e othe r issue s raise d b y petitioner s d o no t

requir e o r

justif y reconsideratio n o

f th e promulgate d PM , SO, , o r NO , standard s unde r

Sectio n 307

. Date : Januar

y 6,1989

. Le e M

. Thomas , Administrator. (F R Doc

. 89-70 1 File

d 1-12-89 ; 8:4

5 am | BttUNQCOO S ssco-w- n

an ) , cke t o r e

. 1 e 3 0

• d '37 ; n le r ia l

b e

n h e
rec t 

# J