# PEeHAN

5528-B Hempstead Way Springfield, VA 22151
703-81.3-6700 telephone 703-813-6729 facsimile

3622 Lyckan Parkway Suite 2002 Durham, NC 27707
919-493-3144 telephone 919-493-3182 facsimile

P.O. Box 1575 Shingle Springs, CA 95682
530-672-0441 telephone &. facsimile 

### CONTROL MEASURE DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT ANALYSIS OF OZONE TRANSPORT COMMISSION MODEL RULES

Prepared for:
Ozone Transport Commission 444 N. Capitol Street, NW Suite 638 Washington, DC 20001

Prepared by:
B.H. Pechan &. Associates, Inc. 5528-B Hempstead Way Springfield, VA 22151

March 31, 2001

Pechan Rpt. No. 01.02.001/9408.000

### DISCLAIMER

This report was preparedby E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. under contract to the Ozone Transport Commission. This documentis a product ofE.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., and does not reflect views ofthe Ozone Transport Commission or member States.

## CONTENTS

Page 

### TABLES

................................................................ vii FIGURES

................................................................ ix ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

......................................... xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

.................................................. xiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

.......................................................... 1 CHAPTER II VOC MODEL RULE ANALYSIS METHODS

.................................... 3 A. 

### EXISTING STATE RULES

............................................ 3 B. 

### CONSUMER PRODUCTS RULE

....................................... 3 1. 

### ModelRule Summary

............................................ 3 2. Analysis Methods

................................................ 7 3. Cost Estimates

.................................................. 8 C. PORTABLE FUEL CONTAINER RULE

................................. 8 1. 

### Model Rule Summary

............................................ 8 2. Analysis Methods

................................................ 9 3. Cost Estimates

................................................. 13 D. AIM COATINGS RULE

............................................. 14 1. 

### Model Rule Summary

........................................... 14 2. Analysis Methods

............................................... 14 3. Cost Estimates

................................................. 15 E. MOBILE EQUIPMENTREPAIR AND REFINISHING RULE

.............. 15 1. 

### Model Rule Summary

........................................... 15 2. Analysis Methods

............................................... 16 3. Cost Estimates

................................................. 17 F. SOLVENT CLEANING OPERATIONS RULE

........................... 17 1. 

### Model Rule Summary

........................................... 17 2. Analysis Methods

............................................... 18 3. Cost Estimates

................................................. 19 G. SUMMARy

....................................................... 20 CHAPTER III NOx 

### MODEL RULE ANALYSIS METHODS

.................................... 23 A. 

### MODEL RULE SUMMARY

.......................................... 23 B. 

### ANALYSIS METHOD

............................................... 23 1. 

### DataBase And Sources Used InTheAnalysis

........................ 23 2. Existing State Rules

............................................ 25

111

## CONTENTS (continued)

Page 

### C. METHODS APPLIED TO ESTIMATE RULE BENEFITS

.................. 25 1. 

### Exception

..................................................... 34 2. Sample Calculation

............................................. 34 D. CEMENT INDUSTRYANALySIS

..................................... 35 CHAPTER IV EXPECTED 2005/2007 

### MODEL RULE EMISSION BENEFITS

.................... 37 A. 

### SEVERE OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA SUMMARIES

............... 37 B. 

### WITHIN 100 KM SUMMARIES

....................................... 38 C. OTR-WIDE RESULTS

.............................................. 39 D. SUMMARy

....................................................... 40 E. VOC MODEL RULE BENEFIT SAMPLE CALCULATION

................. 40 CHAPTERV AIM COATINGS MARKET SURVEY

......................................... 55 A. 

### SURVEY INSTRUMENTAND METHODS

............................. 55 1. 

### How DidWe Identifythe CoatingManufacturers that Distribute these Products in the OTR?

............................................ 55 2. What DataWere Obtainedfrom Survey Respondents?

................. 56 B. FINDINGS

........................................................ 57 1. 

### Are ProductsAvailable thatMeet the Limits?

........................ 57 2. How do OTC AIM SurveyResults Compare to California Results?

....... 57 CHAPTERVI DIESELFUEL SAMPLING PLAN

............................................ 65 A. 

### BACKGROUND

................................................... 65 B. 

### OTC STATES DIESELFUELDISTRIBUTION

.......................... 66 C. DIESELFUELREGULATIONS

...................................... 69 D. FUELREGULATIONS IN OTHER STATES

............................ 71 1. 

### Georgia Gasoline

............................................... 71 2. Texas Low Emission Diesel

....................................... 71 3. Arizona

- Cleaner Burning Gasoline

................................ 72 4. California Diesel Fuel Regulations

................................. 73 E. CONCLUSIONS

................................................... 75 CHAPTERVII CAVEATS AND UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THEANALYSIS

.......... 77 REFERENCES

........................................................... 79

IV

## CONTENTS (continued)

Page 

### APPENDIXA METHODS FOR ESTIMATING PORTABLE FUEL CONTAINER EMISSIONS

...... A-I APPENDIXB SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES AFFECTED BY THE NOx 

### MODEL RULE

..... B-1 APPENDIXC NOx 

### MODEL RULE CONTROL COST SUMMARIES

........................... C-l

vvi

## TABLES

Page
ES-1 OTC Model Rule EstimatedBenefits for Severe Ozone NonattainmentAreas

. xiv II-I OTC State VOC Regulations for the Model Rule Categories

.................. 4 II-2 Comparison ofOTC and California Emission Estimates

.................... 11 II-3 Summary of 1996 Refueling Emissions for the OTC States, andPercent Contribution for NonroadEquipment Categories

............... 12 II-4 Estimated Sales Price for Portable Gas Containers

....................... 13 II-5 Cost ofCompliance with Portable Gas Container Rule

..................... 13 II-6 OTC VOC Model Rule Analysis Assumptions: Emission Factors, Percentage Reductions, Day-of-Week Factors, and SeasonalityFactors

................. 21 III-1 NOx Model Rule Summary

........................................... 24 1II-2 Connecticut NOx RACT Regulations Summary

........................... 26 1II-3 District ofColumbia NOx RACT Regulations Summary

.................... 27 1II-4 Delaware NOx RACT Regulations Summary

............................. 28 1II-5 Massachusetts NOx RACT Regulations Summary

......................... 29 1II-6 Maryland NOx RACT Regulations Summary

............................. 30 1II-7 New Jersey NOx RACT Regulations Summary

........................... 31 III-8 NewYork NOx RACT Regulations Summary

............................. 32 III-9 New Hampshire NOx RACT Regulations Summary

....................... 33 III-lO United States Cement Company 1998 Clinker Capacities by State in the OTC States

.................................................. 36 IV-! OTC Model Rule EstimatedBenefitsfor Severe Ozone NonattainmentAreas

.. 42 IV-2 Model Rule Benefits for NonattainmentAreas by Countyfor 2005 and 2007

... 43 IV-3 NonattainmentArea NOx Model Rule Benefits for Affected Sourcesby Source Type and Size

............................................... 44 IV-4 CountyAssignments for Analyzing Emission Reduction Benefits within 100 km ofNonattainmentAreas

................................. 45 IV-5 NonattainmentAreaModel Rule Benefits with 100 km Radius Areas Included

. 46 IV-6 OTC-wide Model Rule Benefits by State for 2005 and 2007

................. 47 IV-7 OTC-wide Model Rule Benefits for Affected Sources by Source Type and Size for 2005 and 2007

.............................................. 48 V-I List ofAIM SurveyRespondents

...................................... 58 V-2 Example ofData Requested

.......................................... 59 V-3 Summary ofthe National Rule and Selected OTC Model Rule VOC Limits byAIM Category

......................................... 60 V-4 Summary ofNumber ofCompliant and Non-Compliant Products by AIM Category

..................................................... 61 V-5 VOC Contentby AIM Category

....................................... 62 V-6 Percent CompliantAIM Products for OTC Comparedto 1998ARB SurveyData 63

VllVlll

## FIGURES

Page ES-l OTC VOC Model Rule Benefits by State within the OTR for 2005

............ xv ES-2 OTC NOx Model Rule Benefits by State within the OTR for 2005

...........xvii ES-3 EstimatedReductions from Six OTC Model Rules in 2005

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii IV-1 NonattainmentArea NOx Model Rule Benefits by Source Type and Size

...... 49 IV-2 OTC Severe Ozone NonattainmentAreas and Nearby Counties within 100 km

. 50 IV-3 OTC Severe Ozone NonattainmentAreas andExpectedVOC Model Rule- Associated Reductions

............................................... 51 IV-4 OTC VOC Model Rule Benefits by State within the OTRfor 2005

............ 52 IV-5 OTC NOx Model Rule Benefits by State within the OTRfor 2005

............ 53 IV-6 EstimatedReductions from Six OTC Model Rules in 2005

.................. 54 VI-I Highway Diesel FuelDistribution Chain

................................ 66 VI-2 Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADD)

................... 67

IXx

## ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AIM 

### ARB BEA Btus CAA CBG CE E-GAS EGU EIC EPA FIRE gil HAP km lbs/yr/person lbs/capita MACT MERR MOU NAAQS NET96 NOx NPCA OTC OTR PADD PM ppm pSI RACT RE RP RVP SCAQMD SCC SCM SICs SIP STAPPAI ALAPCO TNRCC tpd VOC architectural andindustrialmaintenance Air Resources Board Bureau ofEconomic Analysis British thermal units CleanAirAct Cleaner Burning Gasoline controlefficiency Economic GrowthAnalysis System electricity generating unit emission inventory code U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Factor Information Retrieval grams per liter hazardous air pollutant kilometers pounds per yearper person pounds per capita maximum achievable controltechnology mobile equipment repair and refinishing Memorandum ofUnderstanding NationalAmbientAir Quality Standards 1996 National EmissionTrends Inventory nitrogen oxides National Paint and CoatingsAssociation Ozone Transport Commission Ozone TransportRegion PetroleumAdministration for Defense Districts particulate matter parts per million pounds per square inch reasonably available control technology rule effectiveness rule penetration Reidvapor pressure South CoastAir QualityManagementDistrict Source Classification Code Suggested ControlMeasure Standard Industrial Classifications State Implementation Plan State and TerritorialAir Pollution Program Administrators/ Association ofLocalAir Pollution Control Officials Texas NaturalResource Conservation Commission tons per day volatile organic compound

XlXll

## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The States ofthe Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) are considering adopting additional control measures as part oftheir attainment and maintenance plans for the health-based Federal ozone standard. The analyses in this report provide estimates ofthe emissionreductions and associated costs for adopting five volatile organic compound (VOC) model rules and one nitrogen oxides (NOJ model rule throughout the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). The VOC modelrules have the potential to reduce emissions from consumer products, portable fuel containers, architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings, mobile equipmentrefinishing and repair operations, and solvent cleaning operations. The NOx modelrule has the potentialto reduce emissions from stationary internalcombustion engines, gas turbines, industrialboilers, and cementkilns. This NOx model rule will yield additionalreductions for smaller NOx sources that are not regulated under current regional or Federal NOx programs. The analysis for this study assesses additional emission reductions from OTC model rules takinginto account the expected emissions reduction from current Federal and State

.regulations and State Implementation Plan (SIP) assumptions; this ensures no double

counting. Populationbased emissionfactors were used for the four VOC source category model rules. The portable fuel container analysis was done for residential and commercial usage using housing andbusiness indicators.
The NOx modelrule analysis presentedin this report is the product ofan extensive review ofavailable data and a review process with the OTC States during the project period. This was importantbecause previous regulatory efforts have focused on NOx sources that are larger than those affectedbythe OTC NOx modelrule.
Table ES-l summarizes the expected model rule emission reductions for the three severe ozone nonattainment areas inthe Northeast OTR: the Baltimore, Maryland area; the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton area; and the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island-Southwest Connecticut area. The emission reductions listedin this table are either for 2005 or 2007, depending on the area's attainment date. Figure ES-l shows the OTC VOC modelrule expected 2005 emission reductions by State. The largest estimatedVOC emission reductions are in the most populous States

­ Pennsylvania and New York. Emission reduction estimates for each State are proportional to population: those areas with regulation already in place will show smaller reductions. Since these rules will yield additionalreductions beyond 2005, those States having 2007 attainment dates will report higher emissionreductions for SIP accountingpurposes.

xln

### Table ES-1 OTe Model Rule Estimated Benefits for Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas**~** ,..... <: Nonattainment Area Attainment Date Model Rule 2005/2007 Benefit (tpd) EPA Shortfall (tpd) NOx VOC NOx VOC Baltimore, MD 2005 NOx Model Rule Consumer Products Portable Fuel Containers AIM Coatings Mobile Equipment Refinishing Solvent Cleaning Operations Total 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 4 2 8 0 0 13 0 13 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD 2005 NOx Model Rule Consumer Products 6 0 0 9 Portable Fuel Containers 0 5 AIM Coatings Mobile Equipment Refinishing Solvent Cleaning Operations Total 0 0 0 6 19 6 20 59 3 62 New York-No New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT 2007 NOx Model Rule Consumer Products Portable Fuel Containers 22 0 0 0 26 25 AIM Coatings Mobile Equipment Refinishing Solvent Cleaning Operations Total 0 0 0 22 42 20 7 120 7 85

NOTES: Emission benefits estimates in this table are provided as integervalues. Any emission benefit of less than 0.5 tpd is listed as a zero in this table. Totals may not equal the sum ofthe individual rule benefits because of rounding.Figure ES-1 OTe voe Model Rule Benefits by State within the OTR for 2005 (in tons per day)**135~--------------------------------------------------~** 120**+I------------------------------------------------~** 105

90 1 t

## 75ll------------------------------------~**~** 60**+I--------------------------------~**
45 1 [}]I------l
30 +1------l

15+1-------1



## o +r----r-" o 0**~** .0 ;;\ lJ.. fl} 0**~** 0 0**ov~** 0

## 0~**~r§- ~~** **~fl}~** §**~ ~0**  -.\0"**~ ~~**  0" 

### o.ff' i$-fl}**~ ~** **",~Cj ~Cj**  '::,0**~ _~flj** **,~ f.,.~** **\~cs**

## o~~ r..e;.'lf

## "::,..~~**_~flj** o·**~ ~**  0 C:>" 00**~0 ~**  

## o v 

### d­

## cP**~. ~flj**  x-.flj**~0 ~**  .r:;:.<::' 0**f.,.~** oc}**~'l>'0~ ~0~** **~0 "!};.~** **~ ~** **Q~** 

## m Portable Fuel Containers []Solvent Cleaning Operations D Mobile Equipment Refinishing mAIM Coatings 8 Consumer ProductsFigure ES-2 provides a similar display for the NOx modelrule. The biggest NOx model rule-associated emission reductions are expectedin New York, followed by those in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Figure ES-3 summarizes the expectedvoe and NOx emission reductions from the OTe model rules for the different geographic areas that have been examinedin this analysis. The total emission reductions in the three severe ozone nonattainment areas for all ofthe model rules combined in 2005 are 180 tons voeper day and 32 NOx tons per day (tpd). Expanding the analysis area to counties within 100 kilometers (km) ofthese three severe ozone nonattainment areas provides an additional 168 tpdin voe emission benefits, and another 11 tpdin NOx emission reductions. OTR-wide model rule benefits total 533 voe tpd and 65 NOx tpd in 2005.

XVI

### Figure ES-2 OTC NOx Model Rule Benefits by State within the OTRfor 2005 (in tons per day)**18+1----------------------------------------------------~ 16+1--------------------------------------------------~** **14+1----------------------------------------------------~** 12+1----------------------------------------------------

10**+I------------------------------------------------~ 8+1----------------------------------------------~** 

6**+I------------------------~**
4 +1--------1

2 +1--------1



## o +I----r-
..... BNOx Model Rule

# 20r---------------------~~~~~--------------~

:>< ;5. ,....**~ ~,fb­** 

### ~~~0**~fb-~**

## o 

# #**.~0 ~fb-**  0**~o ~** **.~fb­**

### 0~v**~~0 ~,><$'**  _

# ~fb-~**~,>g ~** **A0~ ~** **~~I?} ~fb-~** **~~ ~'7j** 

## ~. f))v

## ~~ ')0--- 4.0**~<ff.** 0,g

### ~r§**..s.~C>J rI;-~**  

## c.,o 9 

## cP

_

# ~fb-cfjJ**~I?} ~0~** **~0~ £)0~** **o~** &**~** 

## <F ·cr**~. ~0** **~~**

## ~o~ <j{3

### Figure ES-3 Estimated Reductions from Six OTe Model Rules in 2005 (in tons per day) 

# 600 500 400**~** 

# S: 300 200 100**o~** 

# Shortfalls in 3 NAAs 100 km 

# aVOC .NOx

Total Reductions NAAs plus OTR-Wide

## CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

The OTC was formed by Congress through the CleanAir Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 to help coordinate controlplans for reducing ground-level ozone in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic States. Since its inception, OTC has focused on a number oftasks, including: assessing the nature and magnitude ofthe ozone problem in the region, evaluating potential control approaches, and recommendingregional control measures. Twelve States and the District ofColumbia are representedin the OTC.
OTC States continue to workindividually and collectively to ensure attainment and maintenance ofthe NationalAmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS). This includes identifying any remaining control measures that may be necessary to attain and maintain the one-hour NAAQS, as well as to startreducing eight-hour average ozone levels. Six States (Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, andPennsylvania) in particular are focusing on additional control measures as a part oftheir one-hour attainment demonstrations. However, all States willbenefitfrom additionalemission reductions ofozone precursors for purposes ofmaintaining the one-hour standard.
The analysis in this reportprovides estimates ofthe emission reductions and associated costs for adopting five VOC model rules and one NOx modelrule throughout the Northeast OTR. The VOC model rules have the potential to reduce emissions from consumer products, portable fuel containers, AIM coatings, mobile equipment refinishing andrepair operations, and solvent cleaningoperations. The NOx modelrule has the potential to reduce emissions from stationaryinternal combustion engines, gas turbines, industrialboilers, and cementkilns. This NOx model rule will yield additional reductions for smaller NOx sources that are not covered under current regional NOx programs. Chapter II describes the methods used to estimate the emission benefits ofthe VOC model rules. This chapter delineates the existing OTC State regulations that affect VOC emissions from the model rule source categories. Ithas separate sections that describe analysis methods for each ofthe individualVOC modelrules.
NOx modelrule analysis methods are described in Chapter III. Existing State regulations affecting NOx emissions from industrial boilers, internalcombustion engines, gas turbines, and cementkilns are presentedin the first section ofthis chapter. This chapter also describes the data bases that were developed and appliedin this analysis, and the methods usedto estimate model rule benefits. Chapter IVpresents estimates ofthe expected 2005/2007 model rule emissionbenefits. Estimated emissionbenefits are presentedfirst for the three severe ozone nonattainment areas within the Northeast OTR. These are the areas for whichthe U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) has estimated emission shortfalls. Because the modelrules may not achieve all ofthe neededVOC and NOx emission reductions to meet these shortfalls,
1the analysis also examines the expected emission benefits within 100 km ofthese severe ozone nonattainment areas. ChapterV provides the results ofan AIM coatings market survey, which was performed to investigate the availability ofAIM coatings that complywith the VOC limits ofthe OTC Model Rule. ChapterVI is the diesel fuel sampling plan. Caveats and uncertainties associated with this analysis are described in ChapterVII.

2

## CHAPTER II VOC MODEL RULE ANALYSIS METHODS

Base andfuture year VOC emission estimates for the consumer products rule, the AIM coatings rule, the mobile equipmentrefinishing and repair rule, and the solvent cleaning rule use per capita emission factors. U.S. Census Bureau 1996 

### County Population Estimates were used to estimate 1996VOC emissions for these States (Census, 2000). The July 1, 1996 population estimates were used for each OTC State. The U.S. Census Bureau released these population estimates to the public inMarch 2000. They contain revisions of estimates from previous years and the results ofspecial censuses and test censuses conductedby the U.S. Census Bureau.
The Economic GrowthAnalysis System (E-GAS) model was run to obtain specific growthfactors for both the nonattainment areas andremaining counties in a State. These growth factors were then applied to 1996 population to project county-levelpopulations for 2005 and 2007. 

### A. EXISTING STATE RULES
Table II-I summarizes OTC State VOC regulations for four ofthe source categories whose emissions are potentially affected by the OTC draft modelVOC rules. Ifno regulation is listedinTable II-I, then the future VOC emissions from that source category are limited by the applicable Federal rule. There are no State regulations that affect portable fuel containerVOC emissions, so this source category is not included in the table. 

### B. CONSUMER PRODUCTS RULE
1. Model Rule Summary
The Federalconsumer product rule became effective in December 1998 (63FR48819, 1998). Itregulates 24product categories representing 48 percent ofthe consumer products inventory, nationally, and reduces VOC emissions from those product categories by 20 percent. Over one-halfofthe inventory is unregulatedin the OTR. In order to capture additional emission reductions from this sector, the OTC is developing a modelrule for this source category. The OTC modelrule regulates approximately 80 consumer product categories, and uses more stringentVOC contentlimits than the Federalrule. Some ofthe limits are currentlyin effect in California, and are known to be technologically feasible; others have future effective dates. The proposed compliance date for the modelrule limits is January 1, 2005. Manufacturers are to ensure compliance with the limits byreformulating

3

### ..,.. Table 11-1 eTC State vec Regulations for the Model Rule Categories

State Consumer Products AIM Coating Solvent Cleaning Operations Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing Connecticut nfa nfa

- MERR sources can opt in to a general permit which requires the use of HVLP sprayers, electrostatic equipment, or other application methods guaranteed to achieve at least 65% transfer efficiency. Closed applicator cleaning devices and work practices minimizing solvent losses are also required. 

### vac limits are not specified, but total 

### vac emissions are limited to 5 tpy (facilities constructedf modified after 1998) or major source thresholds (facilities constructedfmodified through 1998). Many eligible sources have opted into the general permit.

- No previous SIP credit has

been requested for this permitting program. nfa

District of Columbia nfa nfa nfa nfa Maine nfa nfa nfa nfa Delaware nfa

-­ nfa

---­ - Regulation #24, Section 33

- Effective May 31, 1995

- Standards for cold cleaning,

open top vapor degreasing, and conveyorized degreasing - Regulation #24, Section11

- Effective April 1, 1996

- This rule sets limits on



### vac content ofthe coatings



### -vac limits similar to

National Rule01 Table 11-1 (continued)

State Consumer Products AIM Coating Solvent Cleaning Operations Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing Maryland n/a n/a

- CaMAR 26.11.19.09

- Final State Implementation

Plan (SIP) rule was effective in 1997

- After May 15, 1996, a person

may not use any vac degreasing material that has a vapor pressure greater than 1 millimeter mercury at 20° C.

- The use ofany halogenated substance that is a vac is prohibited.

- The use ofvac degreasing

material is prohibited, unless the vapor degreaser is equipped with a condenser or a pollution control device with an overall control efficiency ofat least 90% - CaMAR 26.11.19.23

- Final SIP rule was effective

in 1997

- The rule establishes

standards for vehicle refinishing based on VOC content ofcoatings

- Requires both the use of

HVLP spray guns and enclosures for cleaning spray guns and lines

- This rule sets a vac limit

for precoat coatings, which is not included in the National Rule

Massachusetts

- 310 CMR 7.25 (12)

- Effective 1995

- vac limits similar to NY/NJ

Rule and National Rule

- National Rule covers more

product categories than the MA Rule

- Provision in MA Rule stating

that EPA vac limits will override MA vac limits - 310 CMR 7.25 (11)

- Effective 1995

- vac limits similar to NJ Rule

- National Rules covers more AIM

Coatings categories than the MA Rule

- For some categories, the MA Rule

has more stringent vac limits than the National Rule, and vice versa

- Provision in MA Rule stating that

EPA vac limits will override MA vac limits - EPA's Compliance Technical Guideline

- Effective early 1980s - 310 CMR 7.18 (28)

- Effective 1995

- vac limits similar to

National Rule

- HVLP guns and enclosed

gun cleaning requirements or equivalent.

I
New Hampshire n/a n/a n/a nLa

--­Table 11-1 (continued)**~** State Consumer Products AIM Coating Solvent Cleaning Op_erations Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing New Jersey
- Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 24

- Effective 1995

- Rule covers entire State

- VOC limits similar to National

Rule

- Provision in NJ Rule stating

that EPA VOC limits will override NJ VOC limits - Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 23

- Effective 1989

- Rule covers entire State

- VOC limits similar to National Rule

and NY Rule

- National Rules covers more AIM

Coatings categories than the NJ Rule

- For some categories, the NJ Rule

has more stringent VOC limits than the National Rule, and vice versa - Title 7, Chapter 27 Subchapter 16

- EPA's Compliance Technical

Guideline effective 1986 n/a

New York - 6 NYCRR Part 235

- Effective 1996 (last amended)

- Rule covers entire State

- VOC limits similarto National

Rule

- National Rule covers more

product categories than the NY Rule - 6 NYCRR Part 205

- Effective 1989

- Rule covers only NYC metropolitan

area

- VOC limits similar to National Rule

- National Rules covers more AIM

Coatings categories than the NY Rule

- For some categories, the NY Rule

has more stringent VOC limits than the National Rule, and vice versa - 6 NYCRR Part 226

- Effective in the NYC

metropolitan area for 1990 and 1996

- This rule implements good

housekeeping procedures for surface cleaning operations

- In 1999, the NYC

metropolitan area will be subjectto the NESHAP for Solvent Cleaning (40 CFR 63,460, Subpart T, Vol. 59, No. 231) - 6 NYCRR Part 228

- Effective 1990 for the NYC

metropolitan area/LOCMA

- In 1996, the entire State

will be effected by the National Rule

Pennsylvania n/a n/a

- Section 129.63

- Section 129.75 adopted Oegreasing Operations November 24, 1999, effective November 27, 1999 Rhode Island

- Regulation #31

- Effective 1994

(last amended 1996)

- VOC limits similar to National

Rule - Regulation #33

- Effective 1996

- VOC limits similar to NJ Rule

- National Rules covers more AIM

Coatings categories than the RI Rule

- For some categories, the RI Rule

has more stringent VOC limits than the National Rule, and vice versa - EPA's Compliance Technical Guideline-Effective 1979

- Organic Solvent Cleaning

NESHAP-Effective 1996 - Regulation #30

- Effective 1994

(last amended 1996)

- VOC limits similar to

National Rule

- HVLP guns and enclosed

gun cleaning requirements or equivalent Vermont n/a n/a n/a n/a Virqinia n/a

--­ n/a n/a

- n/a
NOTE: Portable fuel containers are not included in this table because they are not currently regulated by any OTe States.products and substitutingproducts with compliantproducts that are already on the market. The OTC model rule contains requirements for approximately 80product categories. Examples include aerosol adhesives, floor wax strippers, dry cleaningfluids, and general purpose cleaners. It also contains administrative requirements for labeling, reporting, code-dating, and a "mostrestrictive limit" scenario. There is a reporting requirement, such that manufacturers may be required to submit information to the State upon written notice.
A CaliforniaAir Resources Board (ARB) test method wouldbe primarily used to demonstrate compliance. Alternative acceptedtest methods are also allowed. Enforcement with the productVOC contentlimits and other requirements would be performed on a State-by-State basis. Ifcomplying with the VOC contentlimits becomes difficult, flexibility options are provided for in the draft model rule. These include an innovative product exemption (e.g., a non-compliantproductwith a delivery system thatputs itin compliance with the limits); variances; exemptions; an alternative controlplan; and a provision that allows products to be sold that are manufactured before the rule applicability date. 

### 2. Analysis Methods
The VOC emissionreductions in 2005 and 2007 attributable to the EPAfinal rule regulating consumer products were estimated using the EPA guidance thatwas issued June 22, 1995 (Seitz, 1995a). At that time, development ofa Federalconsumer products rule was stillin progress. The purpose ofthe Seitz memo was to provide guidance concerning credit that could be takenin rate-of-progress plans for reductions associated with the consumer products rule.
The memorandum saidthat the States were allowed to take creditfor a 20 percent reduction from the national consumerproducts rule. Based on EPA's study, baseline emissions from the categories coveredbythis rule (i.e., a subset ofall consumerproducts) were estimatedto be approximately 3.9 pounds per capita annually. A 20 percent reduction would be about 0.8 pounds per capita annually. A control efficiency (CE) of 14.2 percentwas developed from the 20 percent reduction anticipatedfrom the Federal regulation. A rule effectiveness (RE) value of 100 percentwas applied because anyFederal rule would require allproducts to comply. A rule penetration (RP) value of48.6 percent was appliedin the analysis because VOC contentlimits only apply to that portion ofthe potentially affected products.
The equation for computing the VOC emission factor for consumer products after controlby the National/FederalRule is listedbelow:
Post-control emission factor

## =Pre-control emissionfactor [l-CE(RP)(RE)] Post-control emission factor 

## =7.84 pounds per capita (lbs/capita) [1-(.2)(1.00)(0.486)]


## =7.06Ibs/capita

7The OTC modelrule requires manufacturers ofparticular products to reformulate them to meetVOC limits. The VOC limits in the model rule are basedon rules adopted or under consideration byARB. Consumer product emission reductions for the OTC model rule are estimated to be 14.2 percent ofthe total consumer product inventory ofthe nationalrule reduction. These estimatedreductions were based oninformation in the ARB staffreport and surveys (ARB, 1989; 1999a). Recent information can be found on the ARB website 

### Consumer Products Program section (http://www.arb.ca.gov/consprod/consprod.htm). A rule penetrationvalue of 100 percentis appliedfor the OTC model rule because the estimated 14.2 percent controlefficiency accounts for the percentage ofaffected projects. Rule effectiveness is 100 percent because compliance is via product reformulation.
The credit for the OTC model rule affecting consumerproducts relative to the National Rule was computed as shown below:
Post OTC model rule controlemissionfactor 

## =7.06lbs/capita [1-(0.142)(1.00)(1.00)]


## =6.06lbs/capita 

### 3. Cost Estimates
ARB has estimated the cost oftheir rule to be $800 per ton (ARB, 1999a). Since the OTC modelrule emission limits are based on California's, this value shouldbe approximate costs that would be incurred to meet the same limits in the OTC States. However, because compliance costs are spread over a larger portion ofsales in the OTC than in California, costs incurredbymanufacturers are expected to be lower than $800 per ton. 

### C. PORTABLE FUEL CONTAINER RULE
1. Model Rule Summary
This draft model rule addresses VOC emissions from portable fuel containers. The rule specifies performance standards for portable fuel containers and/or spouts which are intended to reduce emissions from storage, transport andrefueling activities. The rule states that anyportable fuel container and/or spout mustprovide the following:

• only one opening for both filling andpouring; • an automatic shut-offto prevent overfill duringrefueling; • automatic closing and sealingofthe container and/or spoutwhen not dispensing fuel; • a fuel flow rate and fill level as specified in the rule; • a permeationrate ofless than or equal to 0.4 grams per gallon per day; and • a warrantyby the manufacturer as specified in the rule. The draft modelrule applies to anyperson or entitywho will sell, supply, offer for sale or manufacture for sale portable fuel containers and/or spouts on or after January 1, 2003. Manufacturers ofportable fuel containers are required to verify compliance through testing and record-keeping. The rule also specifies administrative and labeling requirements. The rule affects allportable fuel containers and/or spouts except:

8• containers with a capacity ofless than or equal to one quart; • rapid refueling devices with capacities greater than or equal to four gallons; • safety cans andportable marine fuel tanks that operate in conjunction with outboard engines; and • products which resultin cumulative VOC emissions below those ofa representative container and/or spout. 

### 2. Analysis Methods
Base case emissions were calculatedby accounting for emissions from five different components related to gas container use, includingpermeation, diurnal, transport-spillage, spillage andvapor displacement emissions for two sectors: residential and commercial. Emission estimation methodologies for portable fuel containers were obtainedfrom ARB's Mailout MSC 99-25, "Public Meeting to ConsiderApproval ofCA's Portable GasolineContainerEmissions Inventory," (ARB, 1999b). The estimated portable fuel container population and usage data for both residential and commercial sectors were developed using surveyinformation collectedbyARB. Emission rates were based on tests conducted byARB and EPAfor various portable fuel container activities.
To estimate permeation, diurnal, and transport-spillage emissions, the number of portable fuel containers for both residential and commercial sectors was used as activity data. Spillage andvapor displacement emissions are estimated using data on the population ofnonroad equipment assumedtobe refueled withportable fuel containers. The method for estimating activity data for each ofthese is discussedbelow. The number ofresidential containers in the OTRwas estimated using the number of housing units as anindicator. Occupiedhousing units by countywere obtainedfor the year 1990 from the U.S. Census Bureau (Census, 1999). These data were then grown to 1996 using the change in U.S. Census Bureau estimates ofcounty-levelpopulation estimates between 1990 and 1996. The 1996 occupied housing units by countywere thenprojectedto the years 2005 and 2007 usingpopulation as anindicator. Growth factors correspondingto the change in populationbetween 1996 and 2005, as well as between 1996 and 2007 were obtained from the E-GAS model. The expected number ofcontainers per household, the portable gas can material, amount offuel stored and storage condition (open/closed) were based on the ARB survey results. The number ofportable fuel containers usedbycommercial businesses was estimated using the number ofestablishments expectedto have atleast one gas can. The number of establishments for 1996 was taken from the Dun 

### &BradstreetMarketplace3.0 Database. Establishment data for all counties withinthe OTRwere compiled for the following Standard Industrial Classifications (SICs), which are the establishments mostlikely to own and use portable gasoline containers:

• 01

- Agricultural Crops • 02

- Agricultural Livestock • 07

- Agricultural Service (except 074 and 075) • 08

- Forestry • 15, 16, 17

- Construction • 55

- Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations
9• 75

- Automotive Repair, Services and Parking Establishment data were then projected from 1996 to 2005 and 2007 using employment projections from the U.S. Department ofLabor's Bureau ofLabor Statistics (BLS, 1999). Employmentprojections were only available for the years 1998 and 2008. Employmentin 2005 and 2007 was estimated using linearinterpolation. Growth factors were developed for all ofthe above SIC codes, and then weightedbased on the number ofestablishments within each SIC. A weighted growth factor was then applied to the number oftotal establishments per countyin all ofthe above SIC codes. The expected number of containers per commercial business, the portable gas can material, amount offuel stored, and storage condition (open/closed) were obtainedfrom the ARB survey results. Spillage andvapor displacement emissions are estimated using data on the population ofnonroad equipment assumed to be refueled with gas cans. Data on the characteristics of nonroad engines were used as the activity (e.g., amount offuel consumedper day, fuel tank size). The calculations only account for equipmentlikely to be refueledwith a gas can, insteadofat the pump. Dailyfuel consumption estimates by countywere obtained from EPA's NONROAD model for the years 1996 and 2007 (EPA, 2000a). Fuel consumption estimates for 2005 were estimatedby applying an average annual rate ofchange eachyear from 1996 to 2007.
Baseline emissions for permeation, diurnal, transport-spillage, spillage and vapor displacement emissions were then calculated for the years 1996, 2005 and 2007. Emission estimateswere calculated using the emission rates and equations developed byARB. For the vapor displacement emission factor, an average Reidvaporpressure (RVP) of7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) and an average temperature of88°F were assumed. These values were based on RVP and temperature values used to estimate highwayvehicle emissions in the Philadelphia, P A SIP.
Table 11-2 compares the emissions estimates calculatedfor the OTC to those calculated for California. The region ofNew York, New Jersey and Connecticutwas selectedfor the comparison since they have similar residentialhousingunit and commercialbusiness populations to California. The emission estimates for permeation, diurnal, andtransportspillage for both the residential and commercial sectors are similar to those estimatedfor California. Spillage andrefueling vapor displacement are estimatedfor both residential and commercial simultaneously using combined fuel consumption data calculated from the NONROAD model. The emissionestimates for spillage andvapor displacementfor NY, NJ, and CT are significantly higher than the emission estimates producedfor California. This is due to higher fuel consumption estimates producedby the NONROAD model comparedto fuel consumptionfrom ARB's Off-Highway Emissions Estimate Model (OFFROAD).

10Table 11-2 Comparison of OTC and California Emission Estimates

Residential Emissions Commercial Emissions Total by Emissions

(tons per day [tpdD (tpd) Type (tpd) CT, NJ, NY CA CT, NJ, NY CA CT, NJ, NY CA Population 10,812,566 11 ,390,000 193,928 84,712 Emission Type Permeation 6.6 6.8 1.0 0.4 7.6 7.2 Diurnal 57.4 59.1 10.1 5.2 67.5 64.3 Transport-Spillage 3.1 3.2 6.1 2.6 9.2 5.8 Spillage 27.7 6.9 Refuel Vapor Displace 7.6 2.3 Total 67,2 69.1 17.1 8,2 119.6 86.5 The OTC modelrule requires manufacturers to comply with the requirements by January 1, 2003. Rule penetration can be assessed through sales and container turnover as consumers buy new compliant fuel containers to replace existingones. California conducted anindustry surveyonportable fuel container sales, and determined thatthere is a five-year turnover rate for fuel containers. For the purpose ofthis analysis, the OTC chose to assume a more conservative ten-year turnover rate, with 100 percent rule penetrationbyJanuary 1, 2013.
For the purposes ofthis analysis, a constantrate ofturnover was assumed (i.e., every year after 2003, 1110 ofthe totalfuel containers wouldbe replaced, until all are replacedby 2013). Therefore, the emissionbenefits were calculatedfor July of2005 and 2007, 2-112 and 4-112 years, respectively, from the compliance date. The number ofreplaced units was assumedto be 0.25 and 0.45 ofthe total number ofcontainers in the base year of 1996.
ARB has identified gasoline containers as a potentially significant source ofVOC emissions during the ozone season. Emissionestimates for the five evaporative components (permeation, diurnal, transport-spillage, spillage and vapor displacement emissions) need to be allocated to a specific Source Classification Code (SCC) for reporting in the inventory. 

### Spillage and 

### vapor displacement emissions occur during the refueling ofsome nonroad equipmentwith gas cans. Spillage emissions result whenfuel is spilled during the refuelingprocess, andvapor displacement emissions result when new liquid added to a fuel tank displaces fuel vapors alreadypresentin the tank. EPA's NONROAD model calculates spillage and vapor displacement emissions (in addition to diurnal emissions from fuel present in the equipment tank). Therefore, ifa State is using NONROAD to develop their emissioninventory, evaporative VOC emissions for spillage and vapor displacement during nonroad equipment refueling with gas cans is already taken into account. Ifa State then added emission estimates for these components developed usingARB's methodto their nonroadinventory, double countingofrefueling emissions may occur. For States not using EPA's NONROAD model, the SCC-level estimates that were generatedfor this analysis using the ARB methodology can be used directly.

11Ifa State developed VOC exhaust emission estimates for specific nonroad SCC's using a methodbesides the NONROAD model, potential overlapping SCCs reporting exhaust and refueling emissions would need to be identified. In these cases, the evaporative VOC componentwould need to be added to the exhaustVOC component to estimate totalVOC emissions. The NONROAD model automatically adds the exhaust and evaporative VOC emissions together to estimate totalVOC.
Diurnal andpermeation emissions associated with the fuel present in stored gas cans, and transport-spillage emissions associated with refueling ofa gas can at the gasoline pump are not modeledinNONROAD. These emissions result during gas can storage and transport and are not tied directly to nonroad equipment. An EPA SCC is not available for gas container evaporative emissions. In the absence ofan existing SCC, the diurnal, permeation, andtransport-spillage emissions could be reported under nonroad equipment SCCs basedon the contribution ofnonroad categories to refueling emissions. Table 11-3 shows the VOC refueling emission estimates calculated for the OTR for this analysis using ARB methods. The percentage contribution for each nonroad categoryis also presented. For some categories, the percent contributionis less than 1 percent. When assigning the remaining non-refueling emissions to SCCs, these categories couldbe ignored. States could also evaluate the refueling emissions for their own State and calculate their own refueling emissions distribution. IfEPA's NONROAD model is used, the NONROAD model refueling estimates could also be used to calculate the appropriate allocationpercentages.

Table 11-3 Summary of 1996 Refueling Emissions for the OTC States, and Percent Contribution for Nonroad Equipment Categories



### see see Description Spillage Emissions (tpd) Vapor Displacement

Emissions (tpd) Total Refueling Emissions (tpd) % Refueling

Total 2260001xxx 2-stroke gasoline recreational 0.197 0.163 0.360 0% 2260003xxx 2-stroke gasoline industrial 0.000 0.001 0.001 0% 2260004xxx 2-stroke gasoline lawn and garden 24.114 1.601 25.715 28% 2260006xxx 2-stroke gasoline light commercial 0.189 0.049 0.237 0% 2260007xxx 2-stroke gasoline logging 5.834 0.427 6.260 7% 2265001xxx 4-stroke gasoline recreational 0.021 0.043 0.064 0% 2265003xxx 4-stroke gasoline industrial 0.097 0.503 0.601 1% 2265004xxx 4-stroke gasoline lawn and garden 34.683 13.374 48.057 53% 2265006xxx 4-stroke gasoline light commercial 6.389 2.119 8.509 9% 2265007xxx 4-stroke gasoline logging 0.041 0.014 0.054 0% 2282xxxxxx Gasoline recreational marine 0.184 0.493 0.677 1% Total 71.8 18.8 90.5 100%
ARB accounts for gasoline container diurnal, permeation and transport-spillage emissions under a separate emission inventorycode (EIC). ARB's EIC system is comparable to EPA's SCC reporting system. Calculations for estimating these three components are modeledin their OFFROAD model, which also estimates the nonroad equipment spillage and vapor displacement emissions. Since the emissions from a


### 12particular gas can couldpotentiallybe associated with multiple nonroad equipment types, especiallyfor residential uses, ARB decided to create a separate ErC for gasoline containers.
Additionalinformation about the ARB emission estimation methods for portable fuel containers is providedinAppendixA. 3. Cost Estimates
Sales prices ofportable fuel containers were based on the ARB staffreport (ARB, 1999c). The ARB report includes both average sales prices ofexistingportable fuel containers and estimates ofsales prices for containers which meet the draft model rule performance specifications. Costs varybased on container size. These cost estimates are presentedinTable II-4.

Table 11-4 Estimated Sales Price for Portable Gas Containers

Estimated Unit Cost of Incremental Average Unit Cost Containerwhich Meets Cost to Size of Container Percent ofTotal of Container Rule Specifications Meet Rule (gallons) Containers (1998 $) (1998 $) Requirements

1 - 1.5 39% $2.62 $9.00 $6.38 2 - 2.5 36% $3.79 $12.00 $8.21

5-6 25% $7.44 $18.00 $10.56
The annual gas canpopulation turnover and the estimated sales prices for each container are used to calculate the incrementalcost ofthe draft model rule on an annual basis. The totalVOC reductions for 2007 and the annualincrementalcost were used to calculate the cost ofcompliance in dollars per ton. Table II-5 presents the cost of compliance in 1998 dollars.

Table 11-5 Cost of Compliance with Portable Gas Container Rule

Estimate of Containers Sold in Incremental Cost VOC Reductions Cost of Compliance OTR Annually ($/year) (tons/year) ($/ton) 2,282,330 $18,452,882 31,752 581

13

### D. AIM COATINGS RULE
1. Model Rule Summary
The OTC Model Rule for AIM Coatings (AIM OTC Model Rule) requires manufacturers to reformulate coatings to meet specifiedVOC contentlimits, which are specified in grams per liter. The VOC content limits containedin the AIM OTC Model Rule are based on the Suggested ControlMeasure (SCM) adoptedbyARB, and the State andTerritorialAir Pollution ProgramAdministrators/Association ofLocalAir Pollution Control Officials (STAPPAIALAPCO) modelrule for AIM Coatings.
All products manufacturedfor sale or use within an OTC State after January 1, 2005 would need to comply with the VOC content limits in the AIM OTC Model Rule. A provision allows products to be sold that are manufacturedbefore the rule applicability date. Testing to demonstrate compliance will primarilybe done in accordance with EPA Method 24, although alternative test methods maybe allowed. 

### 2. Analysis Methods
Emissions for 1996 were estimated using an emissionfactor of6.7 lbs/capita/yr, appliedto county-levelpopulations. The emission factor of6.7 lbs/capita/yr represents a combinedvalue for architectural coatings, traffic markings, andtwo subcategories of industrial maintenance coatings, including high-performance maintenance and other specialpurpose coatings. These emission factor values were obtained from EPA guidance (EPA, 1991).
In 1985, the New York Department ofEnvironmental Conservation performed an AIM surveyin the New York Metropolitan area, andused the survey results to derive an emission factor of3.1Ibs/capita. This VOC emission factor is lower than the national emission factor, inpart, because ofthe highpopulation densityin NewYork City. This 3.1 lbs/capitaVOC emission factor was used to estimate baseline andFederalrule emission rates for New York counties within the New York ozone nonattainment area. Ozone season daily emissions were estimatedby dividing annual emission estimatesby 365 days peryear. The emission generating activityis estimatedto occur 7 days per week during the ozone season. A seasonalityfactor of 1.3 is applied to this source categoryto reflect higher ozone season activity for coating applications. A 1.3 factor means that average daily emissions are multipliedby 1.3 to estimate ozone season daily emissions.
For 2005 and 2007, the NationalRule is estimated to yieldVOC reductions of20 percent. This value is consistentwith policyissuedbyEPA (Seitz, 1995b), which recommends that States claim a 20 percent emission reduction credit for this rule. For this analysis, a 20 percent control effectiveness was assumed, which seemsjustifiable given thatwater-borne coating technology is resultinginproducts withVOC contents wellbelow the NationalRule limits. Rule penetration and rule effectiveness values are both 100 percentfor this source category, reflecting the compliance and distributionpractices ofthis industry.

14The equation for computing the VOC emission for AIM coatings after controlbythe National/FederalRule is listed below: Post-controlemission factor

## =Pre-controlemission factor [1-CE(RP)(RE)] Post-control emission factor

## =6.7lbs/capita [1-(.2)(1.00)(1.00)]


## =5.36 lbs/capita The AIM Coatings modelrule is estimated to provide a 31 percentVOC emissions reduction from the National/Federal Rule. This reduction was computed usinginformation from data provided by the Industry Insights Surveyfor the National Paints and Coatings Association (Industry Insights, 1993). This same data setwas usedin the regulatory negotiation process by EPA and stakeholders when the Federal architectural coatings rule was established. OTC model rule emission reductions were computed on a constant solids basis. The credit for the OTC model rule affectingAIM coatings relative to the National/ Federal Rule was computed as shown below:
Post OTC model rule controlfactor 

## =5.36lbs/capita [1-(0.31)(1.00)(1.00)]


## =3.7 lbs/capita
A survey ofmanufacturers in the OTRis presently being conducted to investigate the availability ofAIM coatings that are compliantwith the VOC limits ofthe AIM OTC Model Rule. Once final survey results are compiled and analyzed, this information maybe used to refine the estimatedAIM coatings rule benefits. Preliminary surveyfindings to date are summarizedin ChapterV ofthis report. 

### 3. Cost Estimates
A cost of$6,400 per ton ofVOC reducedwas estimatedbased onARB's SCM cost analysis. This average cost-effectiveness was weightedby emissionreductions across all the proposedlimits. Details on the assumptions used for ARB's cost analysis are provided in the "StaffReport for the Proposed Suggested ControlMeasure for Architectural Coatings," (ARB, 2000a). 

### E. MOBILE EQUIPMENT REPAIR AND REFINISHING RULE


### 1. Model Rule Summary
The OTC has developed a model rule that addresses VOC emissions from mobile equipment repair and refinishing operations. The rule includes VOC limits for paints used in the industry that are consistentwith the Federallimits for mobile equipment refinishing materials. The rule also establishes requirements for usingimproved transfer efficiency application equipment and enclosed spray gun cleaning, andrequires minimaltraining.
In addition to requiring that refinishing materials meet the FederalVOC limits, the modelrule proposes a number ofpollutionpreventioninitiatives. For example, the coating application requirements specify usingimproved transfer efficiency sprayequipment such

15as high volume-low pressure (HVLP) equipment. Using higher transfer efficiency equipmentwould reduce paint use and consequentlyreduce painting-related emissions. Reduced "overspray" from painting operations wouldreduce the frequency ofbooth filter replacement andrelated disposal and replacement costs, making operations more economical for the facility owners. Operators wouldbe required to use spray gun cleaning equipment that minimizes solventloss. While commercially available spray gun cleaners are desirable, the proposal would allow other containers for spray gun cleaning to be used, as long as the container is closed when not in use. Operators would be required to complete minimum training in proper use ofequipment and materials, and maintain a record ofthe training. The training requirement could be met through attendingformalized training centers or through information providedby paint and equipment representatives during routine shop visits. 

### 2. Analysis Methods
The 1996 emissions for mobile equipment repair and refinishing were estimated using a per capita emission factor of2.3 poundsVOC per capita peryear. This emission factor was obtainedfrom 1991 EPA guidance (EPA, 1991). The National Rule promulgatedin 1998 called for VOC limits that have beenincorporated into the OTC modelrule. Similar limits are alreadyinplace in some OTC States (e.g., PARule 129.75). EPAestimated a 37 percent reduction for the National Rule (Seitz, 1994). Because this rule affects manufacturers, a 100 percent rule-effectiveness is used, which assumes thatinstructions onhow to apply the coatings are followed. In addition, rule penetrationis 100 percent because the rule affects all sources within the category. Ozone season daily emissions were estimatedby dividing annualemission estimates by 365, and assuming 5 days per week of operation. The 5 days perweek assumption is applied by multiplying average daily emissions by 7/5. The equation for computing the VOC emission factor for mobile equipment repair and refinishing after controlby the National/Federal Rule is listedbelow: Post-control emission factor 

## =Pre-controlemission factor [l-CE(RP)(RE)] Post-control emission factor

## =2.30 Ibs/capita [1-(.37)(1.00)(1.00)]


## = 1.45 Ibs/capita
Incremental to the National Rule, the OTC modelrule requires the use ofhigh transfer-efficiencypainting methods (e.g., high volume low pressure spray guns), and controls on emissions from equipment (e.g., spray gun) cleaning, housekeeping activities (e.g., use ofsealed containers for clean-up rags), and operator training. Anincremental controleffectiveness of38 percentwas estimated for the OTC modelrule relative to the NationalRule. This estimate includes a 35 percentreduction from the use ofhigh transferefficiency spray guns and another 3 percent from the use ofenclosed spray gun cleaners. The creditfor the OTC model rule affecting mobile equipment refinishing and repair relative to the National Rule was computed as shown below:

16Post OTC model rule control emission factor 

## = 1.45 Ibs/capita [1-(.38)(1.00)(1.00)]


## =0.90 Ibs/capita
In addition, the State ofMarylandhad SIP rules inplace by 1996 that affected all serious and severe nonattainment area counties, which containlimits and requirements comparable to the NationalRule and the OTC model rule. As such, the per capita emission factor for these counties was adjusted for 1996, as well as for the 2005 and 2007 base cases. Therefore, no OTC modelrule emission benefits were estimated for these Maryland counties. The State ofDelaware had a rule for mobile equipment repair andrefinishingin place in 1997 that affected all counties in that State. This Delaware rule containsVOC limits that are the same as those in the OTC model rule, but the operating requirements were different. Therefore, the additional requirements in the OTC model rule will yield VOC benefits. 

### 3. Cost Estimates
A cost of$1,534 per ton ofVOC reduced was estimatedbased on the use ofHVLP spray guns and a gun cleaning system, as estimated for Pennsylvania for Rule 129.75. 

### F. SOLVENT CLEANING OPERATIONS RULE
1. Model Rule Summary
The Solvent Cleaning Operations draft modelrule establishes hardware and operating requirements and alternative compliance options for vapor cleaning machines used to clean metalparts. These requirements are based on the Federal maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standardfor chlorinated solventvapor degreasers. The requirements implementhigher levels oftechnology than required under most existing State requirements, based on EPA's ControlTechnique Guidance. The cold cleaner solvent volatility provisions are basedon regulatoryprograms in place in several States, including Maryland andIllinois. Vapor cleaning machines are generally usedin manufacturing operations to clean soils, including grease, oil, waxes, andthe like, from parts where the highest level ofcleanliness is necessary. Such manufacturing operations include the electronics industry andhigh quality metal machining and finishing operations. Typically, these machines have used VOC andhazardous airpollutant (HAP) solvents, but as the MACT standardis implemented, there are indications thatVOC/HAP solvents are being replaced with nonHAP VOCs. The proposed requirements would apply to operators ofvapor cleaning machines with a solvent surface area greater than one square foot.
In contrast, cold cleaners are usedless frequently in manufacturing operations. They are more typically usedin automobile repair and maintenance facilities, andinindustrial maintenance shops. Itis estimated thatin excess of50 percent ofcold cleaning units are in automotive maintenance facilities. These units are either small remote reservoir machines or smallimmersion cleaning machines. The machines are usefulin removing heavy soils where extreme cleanliness is not required.

17The cold cleaner provisions would primarily affect small business and solvent suppliers. Most ofthe cold cleaning machines are provided to users through contract with regional and national companies. The machine providers would be responsible for assuring that the cold cleaner solvent meets the volatilitylimit. In other cases, the users and solvent providers would have to assure that the solvent meets the required limit. Alllimits would apply only to cold cleaners containing greater than one liter ofsolvent. Overall, the requirements would apply only to cold cleaners and vapor cleaning machines cleaning metalparts. Exemptions wouldbe provided in situations where safety concerns result from using low volatility cold cleaning solvents. 

### 2. Analysis Methods
Emissions for 1996 were estimated using per capita emission factors for the different solvent cleaningcategories as follows:
Cold Cleaning

• Automotive Repair

- 2.5 pounds per year per person (lbs/yr/person); and • Manufacturing

- 1.1Ibs/yr/person.
These emission factors were taken from 1991 EPAprocedures guidance (EPA, 1991). Ozone season daily emissions were estimatedby dividing annual emission estimates by 365, and assuming 5 operating days per week. The 5 days per week assumptionis applied by multiplying average daily emissions by 7/5.
A MACT standardis in place that controls HAPs from this category. For this analysis, the VOC emission reductions due to the Federal standard are assumed to be minimal to negligible (e.g., most ofthe HAPs covered are not considered to be VOC).
The OTC model rule establishes hardware and operatingrequirements for specified vapor cleaning machines, as well as solvent volatilitylimits and operatingpractices for cold cleaners. An incremental controleffectiveness of66 percent was estimated for the OTC model rule relative to the base case. This value is based on: (1) a previous estimate made by the State ofMarylandfor the emission reduction benefits oftheir solvent cleaningrule (mentionedbelow) and claimedin their SIP; and (2) an assessment made byPechan ofthe impacts that lower vapor pressure limits will have in reducing the use ofpetroleum distillate solvents (e.g., mineral spirits). Rule penetration and rule effectiveness values are both 100 percentfor this source category, because there are a small number offirms that supply the affected solvents, so a high level ofcompliance is expected.
Comments received on the control effectiveness estimates above include concerns on the use ofRP and RE values of 100percent. The 66 percent control effectiveness reflects anticipated emission reductions from the cold cleaningportion ofthe source categorywhich will be gainedfrom the lower volatilityrequirements (i.e., the minimal additional emission benefits for vapor degreasers and from cold cleaning operating requirements were not factored in). Further, based on previous experience with this source category, exempt cold cleaners (containingless than 1 liter ofsolvent) are believed to contribute a negligible amount ofthe total emissions.
18Another commentwas on the incorporation ofthe effects ofexisting requirements (e.g., CTG) into the base case emission factors. As described in the following paragraphs, the effects ofexisting state rules were factored in to the base case emission factors shown in Table II-6. Further, since the CTG only included operating requirements for cold cleaners, the emission reductions attributable to it are thought to be small.
The equation for computingthe VOC emission factor for solvent cleaning after control bythe OTC model rule is listedbelow:
Post-control emission factor

## =Pre-control emission factor [l-CE(RP)(RE)] Post-control emission factor

## =3.6Ibs/capita [1-(0.66)(1.00)(1.00)]


## = 1.2 lbs/capita The credits for rules affecting solvent cleaning differed by geographic area according to local surveys thathave been performed to quantify emissions, and when and where State regulations have already been implemented.
Pechan examined 1989 EPA solvent consumption data, which many States based their 1990 emission estimates on. These data showedthat mineral spirits made up 56 percent of the VOC solvents (petroleum distillate solvents, such as mineral spirits, willbe phased out based on their vaporpressure ofabout 40 millimeters mercury). There will also be additional smaller emission reductions associatedwith the phase outofother highvapor pressure VOC solvents (e.g., alcohols, ketones) andwith the operatingrequirements for bothcold cleaning and vapor degreasing. These smaller reductions could net another 10 to 30 percent reductions basedon the 1989 EPA solvent consumption data. Since itis not known whatproducts solvent suppliers will use in the OTC to replace the popular petroleum distillate-basedproducts, there is some uncertainty as to the upper end ofthe controleffectiveness estimate. For example, aqueous solvents may still contain small amounts ofVOC that can be emitted during drag out from the solventtank. However, 66 percent appears to be a reasonable estimate for an overallcontrol efficiency for the model rule.
In addition, the States ofMaryland andDelaware had SIP rules inplace by 1996 that apply to all serious and severe nonattainment area counties, and requires the same vapor pressure limits (i.e., 1 millimeter mercury) as the OTC model rule. The State ofDelaware has a rule for solvent cleaning operations in place in 1993 that affects all Delaware counties. This rule is not specific to any category, but applies to all solvent degreasing equipment, andhas no vapor pressure limit. For Maryland, the per capita emission factor for nonattainment area counties was adjustedby 66 percent for 1996, as well as for 2005 and 2007 base case. Therefore, no emission benefits were estimated for these Maryland areas. 

### 3. Cost Estimates
A cost effectiveness of$1,400 per ton ofVOC reducedwas estimatedbasedon the South CoastAir QualityManagement District's (SCAQMD's) cost analysis for their solvent cleaning rule (Rule 1122) (SCAQMD, 1997). These costs correspond to the capital costs for aqueous cleaning technologies for batch-loaded cold cleaners (e.g., heatedbaths, dryers, rinse tanks, and skimmers). According to SCAQMD staff(Leibel, 1999), costs for the auto
19repair (service station) industry, which constitutes a large fraction ofthis source category, will be close to zero based on what has occurred to date in the South Coast ofCalifornia. 

### G. SUMMARY
Table II-6 summarizes the voe emission factors usedin the voe model rules analyses for all ofthe affected categories exceptportable fuel containers. Portable fuel container emission estimation methods are more complex, and are summarized earlier in this chapter. Table II-6lists VOC emission factors for a baseline case (whichis typical of 1996 emission rates in most areas), National/Federal Rule emission factors, and OTe model rule emission factors. This indicates areas within the OTC where baseline, and National/ FederalRule emission factors are expected to differ from the norm. The day-of-week and seasonalityfactors listedinTable II-6 are usedto provide a best estimate ofozone seasonweekday emissions.

20

### Table 11-6 OTe voe Model Rule Analysis Assumptions: Emission Factors, Percentage Reductions, Day-ot-Week Factors, and Seasonality Factors

Nationall Percent Baseline Federal Rule Reduction OTC Model Percent

(1990) (EIIP) (EIIP from Rule Reduction (OTC Day-ofEmission Emission 1990 Emission Model Rule Week Seasonality Model Rule Factor Factor Baselinel Factor from EIIPl Factor Factor
Mobile Equipment Repair & Refinishing 2.3 1.45 1.2

- DE only 37% 0.9 38% 7/5

AIM Coatings 6.7 5.36 20% 3.7 31% 7/7 1.3 3.1

- NYC only 3.1

- NYC only N/A

- NYC only 2.14

- NYC only

Solvent Cleaning 3.6 3.6 Various 1.2 66% 7/5
1.44

- NJ

only 1.44

- NJ only 1.2

- NYC only 2.16

- DE NC'

3.16

- DE

K&S"

Consumer Products 7.84 7.06 20% (assumes 48.6% rule penetration) 6.06 14.2% 7/7

NOTES: VOC emission factors are in pounds per capita per year. Unless otherwise noted, emission and other factors are for all OTC counties included in the analysis. 'Delaware New Castle County only. "Delaware Kent and Sussex Counties only.



### 21

### 22

## CHAPTER III NOx 

## MODEL RULE ANALYSIS METHODS

A. MODEL RULE SUMMARY
The NOx Model Rule affects NOx emissions from industrial boiler, stationary combustion turbine, cement kiln, andinternalcombustion engine sources in the OTC. This model rule is intended to address the one-hour ozone standardNOx emission shortfalls identifiedbyEPA and to make progress towards reducing eight-hour ozone levels. The rule is intended to achieve NOx reductions from stationarypoint sources that are not expected to be regulatedby either the EPANOx SIP Call or Phase III ofthe OTC NOx Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOD). The modelrule proposes to reduce NOx emissions from many sources ranging in size from large to very small. These sources are numerous, and most emit high levels ofNOx on a per-hour or per-unit ofenergy basis. Affected sources include: (1) boilers that are used to heatinstitutional, commercial, andlarge residentialbuilding complexes, andfor heat andpower inindustrial applications; (2) smallto large internal combustion engines that can be used as stand-alone power generation units and atpipeline compressor stations; (3) turbines that are typically used as on-site backup electricpower generators; and (4) cement kilns.
NOx emission reductions are achievedbyestablishing NOx emission rate limits or requirements for percentage NOx reductions for source categories based on size (i.e., number ofBritish thermal units [Btus] perhourheatinput). Table III-1 summarizes the OTC NOx Model Rule andprovides the emission rates and size cut-offs. 

### B. ANALYSIS METHOD
1. Data Base And Sources Used In The Analysis
The point source emission inventory that serves as the starting point for Pechan's analysis is version 3.12 ofEPA's 1996 NationalEmissionTrends Inventory (NET96). This nationalinventory contains process specific emission estimates for allpoint sources in the United States. State data from the NET96 inventory were providedto the Statesfor review and comment. Emission inventory updates were provided by Delaware, the District ofColumbia, New Jersey, NewYork, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. These States suppliedPechanwith new emissioninventories that were used to replace the EPA data. In addition, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, andVirginiaprovided additionalinformation about their point source inventories thatincluded updates to emissions, additional capacityinformation, identification ofsources affectedby the NOx SIP Call or OTC MOU, and case-by-case reasonably available control technology (RACT) limits (where applicable). The database

23

### Table 111-1 NOx 

### Model Rule Summary

Percent NO. Applicability Reduction Source Category Threshold Emission Rate Limit Required Industrial Boilers MMBtu/hr heat input Ibs/MMBtu heat input Smallest 5-50 None Tune-up Only Small 50-100 Gas-fired: 0.10 Ibs 50% Oil, Coal-fired: 0.30 Ibs Large 100-250 Gas-fired: 0.10 Ibs 50% Oil, Coal-fired: 0.20 Ibs Largest >250· Gas-fired: 0.171bs 50% Oil, Coal-fired: 0.17 Ibs Stationary Combustion Turbines·· Simple Cycle: Gas-fired without oil back-up Gas-fired with oil back-up Oil-fired Combined or Regenerative Cycle: Gas-fired without oil back-up
Gas-fired with oil back-up Oil-fired Stationary IC Engines Spark-ignited Rich Burn Spark-ignited Lean Burn Compression Ignition Diesel Fuel Compression Ignition Dual-fuel Landfill Gas or Digester Gas Cement Kilns Long Dry Long Wet Preheater 1 Preheater 2 MMBtu/hr heat input
>25
>25 >25
>25
>25 >25 ppm dry volume corrected to 15% oxygen

Ibs/MWhr 2.2 55 2.2 On Gas: 55 3.0 On Oil: 75 3.0 75
1.3 42 1.3 On Gas: 42 2.0 On Oil: 65 2.0 65
>200 hp >200-2000 hp

.:=.2000 hp >200 hp >200 hp >200 hp tons/hr 12 10 16 22 g/bhp-hr 1.5 1.5 80% 1.5 90% 2.3 2.3 2.0
Control Options: Low NOxburners installed and operating, or Mid-kiln firing utilized when operating, or 30% NOx emission reduction achieved, or equivalent or greater NOx removal efficiency.

NOTES: ·Onlyfor boilers not subject to EPA's NOx SIP Call. **Emergency generators and load shaving units would not be subject to these requirements unless the combined potential NOx emissions ofall emission units at a facility exceed the major source threshold for the specific nonattainment area.



### 24was then modified by excluding the source types that are not subject to the regulation under the OTC draft model rule. The SCCs that were determined to be affected by the NOx Model Rule are listedinAppendix B.
An evaluation ofthe updated emissioninventory showed that several data records had missing emission factors and design capacities. These data elements are requiredfor this analysis, since they are used to determine ifandhow a source is affectedby the model rule. Missing emission factors were obtainedby SCC from EPA's Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) Data System (Version 6.23). Emissionfactors were set to the RACT emission limits for sources determined to be affected by State RACT requirements. Missing design capacities (applicability thresholds) were calculated using the emission factors and tpd NOx emission estimates assuming 24-hourper day operation. The NOx SIP Call affected sources were identified using the EPA NOx SIP Call data base, information suppliedby the States, and where necessary, calculated design capacities. This was necessary, since it is assumed that the model rule does not apply to units affected by the NOx SIP Call. 

### 2. Existing State Rules
State regulations affecting stationary source non-electricity generating unit (EGU) NOx emissions were researched and summarizedin Tables 111-2 through 111-9. State regulation summaries were prepared for Connecticut, Delaware, District ofColumbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York. The States ofMaine, Rhode Island, Vermont, andVirginia were not examinedfor the purposes ofthis analysis. Pennsylvania regulations were examinedbut determined to be a case-by-case situation. The focus was on States that are in, or near, the three severe ozone nonattainment areas in the Northeast OTR.
In severalcases, State rules are expressed in units that differ from those units used to express model rule emissionlimits inTable 111-1. For these cases, conversion factors were applied as follows:
Gas Turbines

- Natural Gas (lbsIMMBtu) 

### * 250

## =Gas Turbines

- Natural Gas (ppm) Gas Turbines

- Oil (lbsIMMBtu) 

### * 272

## =Gas Turbines

- Oil (ppm)
Note that Tables 111-2 through 111-9 are organized using a common format for each State to efficientlyinclude the State-by-State differences inthese regulations inthe NOx modelrule analysis. In some instances, this organization may seem to over simplify the source categories and size limitations that differ from State-to-State. This structure matches the organization ofthe emission databases being usedin the analysis. 

### C. METHODS APPLIED TO ESTIMATE RULE BENEFITS
The 1996 NOx emission estimates were projectedto 2005 and 2007 using the expected NOx SIP Callemission controllevels, where applicable (e.g., 60 percent NOx controlfor industrialboilers), and SIC code based growthfactors (BEA, 1995). The emissions benefits ofthe model rule were then estimatedby comparingthe actual source emissionlimits with the limits imposedby adoption ofthe model rule. The least stringent ofthe emissionlimit, or the percentage reduction was used to estimate the rule benefits at each unit.

25Table 111-2 Connecticut NOx RACT Regulations Summary

State 10 NonattainmentArea Pod nox Pod Name Emission Limits by Size Units Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 09 50 Gas Turbines

- Jet Fuel 55.00 55.00 244.80 244.80 ppm 24 Gas Turbines

- Natural Gas 75.00 75.00 225.00 225.00 ppm 23 Gas Turbines

- Oil 55.00 55.00 244.80 244.80 ppm 14 ICI Boilers

- Coal/Cyclone 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 Ibs/MMBtu I 12 ICI Boilers

- Coal/FBC 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Ibs/MMBtu 13 ICI Boilers

- Coal/Stoker 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Ibs/MMBtu 11 ICI Boilers

- CoallWall-face wet bottom 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Ibs/MMBtu

.ICI Boilers

- CoallWall-face dry bottom 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Ibs/MMBtu ICI Boilers

- Coal-tangential-dry bottom 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 Ibs/MMBtu 42 ICI Boilers

- Coke NL NL NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 16 ICI Boilers

- Distillate Oil 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Ibs/MMBtu 45 ICI Boilers

- Liquid Waste NL NL NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 43 ICI Boilers

- LPG 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Ibs/MMBtu 20 ICI Boilers

- MSW/Stoker 0.20 0.20 0.20 NL Ibs/MMBtu 17 ICI Boilers

- Natural Gas 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Ibs/MMBtu 41 ICI Boilers

- Process Gas 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Ibs/MMBtu 15 ICI Boilers

- Residual Oil 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Ibs/MMBtu 18 ICI Boilers

- Wood/Bark/Stoker NL NL NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 22 Internal Combustion Engines

- Gas-Rich Burn 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 g/bhp-hr Internal Combustion Engines

- Gas-Lean Burn 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 g/bhp-hr 21 Internal Combustion Engines

- Oil 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 g/bhp-hr 46 IC Engines

- Gas Diesel LPG 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 g/bhp-hr t-:> 0":>

NOTES: For boilers, Size 1 =? 250 MMBtu/hour, Size 2 = 100-250 MMBtu/hour, Size 3 = 50-100 MMBtu/hour, Size 4 = 5-50 MMBtu/hour For turbines, Size 1 =?250 MMBtu/hour, Size 2 = 100-250 MMBtu/hour, Size 3 = 25-100 MMBtu/hour, Size 4 = 5-25 MMBtu/hour For IC engines, Size 1 = ? 4,400 hp, Size 2 = 2,000-4,400 hp, Size 3 = 500-2,000 hp, Size 4 = 200-500 hp NL

### =No Limit The gas turbine regulations listed above apply to simple cycle turbines only. CT State regulations should be consulted for information about applicable emission limits for combined cycle.Table 111-3 District of Columbia NOx RACT Regulations Summary

State 10 NonattainmentArea Pod_nox Pod Name Emission Limits by Size Units Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 11 50 Gas Turbines

- Jet Fuel 75.00 75.00 NL NL ppm 23 Gas Turbines

- Oil 75.00 75.00 NL NL ppm 13 ICI Boilers

- Coal/Stoker 0.43 0.43 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu ICI Boilers

- CoallWall-face dry bottom 0.43 0.43 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu ICI Boilers

- Coal-tangential-dry bottom

--­ 0.43 0.43 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu

-­
NOTES: For boilers, Size 1

### =**~** 250 MMBtu/hour, Size 2

### =100-250 MMBtu/hour, Size 3

### =50-100 MMBtu/hour, Size 4

### =5-50 MMBtu/hour For turbines, Size 1

### =**~** 250 MMBtu/hour, Size 2

### =100-250 MMBtu/hour, Size 3

### =25-100 MMBtu/hour, Size 4

### =5-25 MMBtu/hour For IC engines, Size 1

### =**~** 4,400 hp, Size 2

### =2,000-4,400 hp, Size 3

### =500-2,000 hp, Size 4

### =200-500 hp NL

### =No Limit t>:l -.:JTable 111-4 Delaware NOx RACT Regulations Summary

State 10 NonattainmentArea Pod_nox Pod Name Emission Limits by Size Units Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 10 50 Gas Turbines

- Jet Fuel 88.00 88.00 88.00 88.00 ppm 24

.Gas Turbines

- Natural Gas 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 ppm 23 Gas Turbines

- Oil 88.00 88.00 88.00 88.00 ppm 13 ICI Boilers

- Coal/Stoker 0.40 0.40 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 11 ICI Boilers

- CoallWall-face dry bottom 0.38 0.38 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu ICI Boilers

- Coal-tangential-dry bottom 0.38 0.38 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 16 ICI Boilers

- Distillate Oil 0.25 0.25 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 43 ICI Boilers

- LPG 0.25 0.25 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 17 ICI Boilers

- Natural Gas 0.25 0.25 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 41 ICI Boilers

- Process Gas 0.25 0.25 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 15 ICI Boilers

- Residual Oil 0.25 0.25 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu**~** 00

NOTES: For boilers, Size 1

### =::: 250 MMBtu/hour, Size 2

### =100-250 MMBtu/hour, Size 3

### =50-100 MMBtu/hour, Size 4

### =5-50 MMBtu/hour For turbines, Size 1

### =::: 250 MMBtu/hour, Size 2

### =100-250 MMBtu/hour, Size 3

### =25-100 MMBtu/hour, Size 4

### =5-25 MMBtu/hour For IC engines, Size 1

### =::: 4,400 hp, Size 2

### =2,000-4,400 hp, Size 3

### =500-2,000 hp, Size 4

### =200-500 hp NL = No LimitTable 111-5 Massachusetts NOx RACT Regulations Summary

State 10 NonattainmentArea Pod_nox Pod Name Emission Limits by Size Units Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 25 50 Gas Turbines

- Jet Fuel 100.00 100.00 100.00 NL ppm 24 Gas Turbines

- Natural Gas 65.00 65.00 65.00 NL ppm 23 Gas Turbines

- Oil 100.00 100.00 100.00 NL ppm 14 ICI Boilers

- Coal/Cyclone NL NL NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 13 Coal Stoker 0.33 0.33 0.43 NL Ibs/MMBtu 11 ICI Boilers

- CoallWall-face wet bottom NL NL NL NL Ibs/MMBtu ICI Boilers

- CoallWall-face dry bottom 0.45 0.45 0.43 NL Ibs/MMBtu ICI Boilers

- Coal-tangential-dry bottom 0.38 0.38 0.43 NL Ibs/MMBtu 16 ICI Boilers

- Distillate Oil 0.30 0.30 0.12 NL Ibs/MMBtu 43 ICI Boilers

- LPG 0.30 0.30 0.30 NL Ibs/MMBtu 17 ICI Boilers

- Natural Gas 0.20 0.20 0.10 NL Ibs/MMBtu 41 ICI Boilers

- Process Gas 0.20 0.20 0.10 NL Ibs/MMBtu 15 ICI Boilers

- Residual Oil 0.28 0.30 0.30 NL Ibs/MMBtu 22 Internal Combustion Engines

- Gas-Rich Burn 1.50 1.50 1.50 NL g/bhp-hr Internal Combustion Engines

- Gas-Lean Burn 3.00 3.00 3.00 NL g/bhp-hr 21 Internal Combustion Engines

- Oil 9.00 9.00 9.00 NL g/bhp-hr 46 IC Engines

- Gas, Diesel, LPG

--_. ----­ - - 9.00 9.00

- 9.00

_. NL g/bhp-hr I'V co

NOTES: For boilers, Size 1

### =:::: 250 MMBtu/hour, Size 2

### =100-250 MMBtu/hour, Size 3

### =50-100 MMBtu/hour, Size 4

### =5-50 MMBtu/hour For turbines, Size 1

### =:::: 250 MMBtu/hour, Size 2

### =100-250 MMBtu/hour, Size 3

### =25-100 MMBtu/hour, Size 4

### =5-25 MMBtu/hour For IC engines, Size 1

### =:::: 4,400 hp, Size 2

### =2,000-4,400 hp, Size 3

### =500-2,000 hp, Size 4

### =200-500 hp NL

### =No LimitTable 111-6 Maryland NOx RAeT Regulations Summary

State 10 NonattainmentArea Pod_nox Pod Name Emission Limits by Size Units Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 24 14 ICI Boilers

- Coal/Cyclone 0.70* 0.50 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu I 11 ICI Boilers

- CoallWall-face wet bottom 0.70* 0.50 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu ' ICI Boilers

- CoallWall-face dry bottom 0.70* 0.50 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu ICI Boilers

- Coal-tangential-dry bottom 0.70* 0.50 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 16 ICI Boilers

- Distillate Oil 0.70* 0.25 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 17 ICI Boilers

- Natural Gas 0.70* 0.20 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 41 ICI Boilers

- Process Gas 0.70* 0.20 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 15 ICI Boilers

- Residual Oil 0.70* 0.25 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu


### 2:5 NOTES: For boilers, Size 1

### =.:: 250 MMBtu/hour, Size 2

### =100-250 MMBtu/hour, Size 3

### = 50-100 MMBtu/hour, Size 4

### = 5-50 MMBtu/hour For turbines, Size 1

### =.:: 250 MMBtu/hour, Size 2

### =100-250 MMBtu/hour, Size 3

### = 25-100 MMBtu/hour, Size 4

### = 5-25 MMBtu/hour For Ie engines, Size 1

### =.:: 4,400 hp, Size 2

### = 2,000-4,400 hp, Size 3

### = 500-2,000 hp, Size 4

### = 200-500 hp NL

### =No Limit but subject to combustion optimization requirements *Non EGUs limited to: 0.70 Ibs/MMBtu during ozone season; and 0.99 during non-ozone season Regulations apply to person who owns or operates an installation that causes emissions of NOx and is located at premises that have total potential to emit: > 25 tons in Nonattainment Area 0720 (Baltimore, MD) and 6161 (Philadelphia- Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD) > 50 tons in Nonattainment Area 8842 (Washington, DC-MD-VA) > 100 tons in NonattainmentAreas 3805 (Kent & Queen Anne's Co, MD) and remainder ofState of MarylandTable 111-7 New Jersey NOx RACT Regulations Summary

State 10 34 NonattainmentArea Pod_nox 50 24 23 14 11

16 43 17 41 15 22

21 46 Pod Name Gas Turbines

- Jet Fuel Gas Turbines

- Natural Gas Gas Turbines

- Oil ICI Boilers

- Coal/Cyclone ICI Boilers

- CoallWall-face wet bottom ICI Boilers

- CoallWall-face dry bottom ICI Boilers

- Coal-tangential-dry bottom ICI Boilers

- Distillate Oil ICI Boilers

- LPG ICI Boilers

- Natural Gas ICI Boilers

- Process Gas ICI Boilers

- Residual Oil Internal Combustion Engines

- Gas-Rich Burn Internal Combustion Engines

- Gas-Lean Burn Internal Combustion Engines

- Oil IC Engines

- Gas, Diesel, LPG Emission Limits by Size Units ppm ppm ppm Ibs/MMBtu Ibs/MMBtu Ibs/MMBtu Ibs/MMBtu Ibs/MMBtu Ibs/MMBtu Ibs/MMBtu Ibs/MMBtu Ibs/MMBtu g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr Size 1 108.80 50.00 108.80

0.55 1.00 0.45 0.38 0.28 0.20 0.20 NL 0.28 1.50 2.50 8.00 NL Size 2 108.80 50.00 108.80

0.55 1.00 0.45 0.38 0.28 0.20 0.20 NL 0.28 1.50 2.50 8.00 NL Size 3 108.80 50.00 108.80

0.55 1.00 0.43 0.38 0.12 NL 0.10 NL 0.30 1.50 2.50 8.00 NL Size 4 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL w 

## "'"'

NOTES: For boilers, Size 1

### =**~** 250 MMBtu/hour, Size 2

### =100-250 MMBtu/hour, Size 3

### =50-100 MMBtu/hour, Size 4

### =5-50 MMBtu/hour For turbines, Size 1

### =**~** 250 MMBtu/hour, Size 2

### =100-250 MMBtu/hour, Size 3

### =25-100 MMBtu/hour, Size 4

### =5-25 MMBtu/hour For IC engines, Size 1

### = 4,400 hp, Size 2

### =2,000-4,400 hp, Size 3

### =500-2,000 hp, Size 4

### =200-500 hp NL = No LimitTable 111-8 New York NOx RACT Regulations Summary

State ID NonattainmentArea Pod_nox Pod Name Emission Limits by Size Units Size 1 Size 2 Size 3 Size 4 36 50 Gas Turbines

- Jet Fuel 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 ppm 24 Gas Turbines

- Natural Gas 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 ppm 23 Gas Turbines

- Oil 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 ppm 14 ICI Boilers

- Coal/Cyclone 0.60 NL NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 12 ICI Boilers

- Coal/FBC 0.50 0.50 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 13 ICI Boilers

- Coal/Stoker 0.30 0.30 NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 11 ICI Boilers

- CoallWall-face wet bottom 1.00 NL NL NL Ibs/MMBtu ICI Boilers

- CoallWall-face dry bottom 0.45 NL NL NL Ibs/MMBtu ICI Boilers

- Coal-tangential-dry bottom 0.42 NL NL NL Ibs/MMBtu 16 ICI Boilers

- Distillate Oil 0.25 0.30 0.12 NL Ibs/MMBtu 17 ICI Boilers

- Natural Gas 0.20 0.20 0.10 NL Ibs/MMBtu 41 ICI Boilers

- Process Gas 0.20 0.20 0.10 NL Ibs/MMBtu 15 ICI Boilers

- Residual Oil 0.25 0.30 0.30 NL Ibs/MMBtu 22 Internal Combustion Engines

- Gas-Rich Burn 2.00 2.00 2.00 NL g/bhp-hr Internal Combustion Engines

- Gas-Lean Burn 3.00 3.00 3.00 NL g/bhp-hr 21 Internal Combustion Engines

- Oil 9.00 9.00 9.00 NL g/bhp-hr New York City 22 Internal Combustion Engines

- Gas-Rich Burn 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 g/bhp-hr Internal Combustion Engines

- Gas-Lean Burn 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 g/bhp-hr 21 Internal Combustion Engines

- Oil 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 g/bhp-hr W t-:l

NOTES: For boilers, Size 1

### =**~** 250 MMBtu/hour, Size 2

### =100-250 MMBtu/hour, Size 3

### =50-100 MMBtu/hour, Size 4 

### =5-50 MMBtu/hour For turbines, Size 1

### =**~** 250 MMBtu/hour, Size 2

### =100-250 MMBtu/hour, Size 3

### =25-100 MMBtu/hour, Size 4

### =5-25 MMBtu/hour For IC engines, Size 1

### =**~** 4,400 hp, Size 2 = 2,000-4,400 hp, Size 3

### =500-2,000 hp, Size 4

### =200-500 hp NL

### =No Limit The gas turbine regulations above apply to simple cycle turbines only. NY State regulations should be consulted for information about applicable emission limits for combined cycle.Table 111-9 New Hampshire NOx RACT Regulations Summary

State 10 33 NonattainmentArea Pod_nox 50 24 23 14 13 11

16 17 15 22

21 46 Pod Name Gas Turbines

- Jet Fuel Gas Turbines

- Natural Gas Gas Turbines

- Oil ICI Boilers

- Coal/Cyclone ICI Boilers

- Coal/Stoker ICI Boilers

- CoallWall-face wet bottom ICI Boilers

- CoallWall-face dry bottom ICI Boilers

- Coal-tangential-dry bottom ICI Boilers

- Distillate Oil ICI Boilers

- Natural Gas ICI Boilers

- Residual Oil Internal Combustion Engines

- Gas-Rich Burn Internal Combustion Engines

- Gas-Lean Burn Internal Combustion Engines

- Oil IC Engines

- Gas, Diesel, LPG Emission Limits by Size Units ppm ppm ppm Ibs/MMBtu Ibs/MMBtu Ibs/MMBtu Ibs/MMBtu Ibs/MMBtu Ibs/MMBtu Ibs/MMBtu Ibs/MMBtu g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr g/bhp-hr Size 1 75.00 55.00 75.00

0.92 0.30 1.00 0.50 0.38 0.25 0.10 0.30 1.50 2.50 8.00 8.00 Size 2 75.00 55.00 75.00

0.92 0.30 1.00 0.50 0.38 0.25 0.10 0.30

1.50 2.50 8.00 8.00 Size 3 75.00 55.00 75.00 NL 0.30 NL 0.50 0.38 0.12 0.10 0.30

1.50 2.50 8.00 8.00 Size 4 75.00 55.00 75.00 NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL w w

NOTES: For boilers, Size 1

### =**~** 250 MMBtu/hour, Size 2

### =100-250 MMBtu/hour, Size 3

### = 50-100 MMBtu/hour, Size 4

### = 5-50 MMBtu/hour For turbines, Size 1

### =**~** 250 MMBtu/hour, Size 2

### =100-250 MMBtu/hour, Size 3

### = 25-100 MMBtu/hour, Size 4

### = 5-25 MMBtu/hour For IC engines, Size 1

### =**~** 4,400 hp, Size 2

### = 2,000-4,400 hp, Size 3

### = 500-2,000 hp, Size 4

### = 200-500 hp NL = No Limit

### 1. Exception Many aspects ofthe OTC modelrule are alreadyincorporatedinto the Delaware NOx RACT rule. Delaware opted to apply the model rule to fuel switching sources, andlimits the emission rate to O.llbs NO)MMBtu for sources firing gaseous fuel and 0.2 lbs NO)MMBtu for sources firing distillate oil. This requirement does not apply to fuel burning equipment with a rated heat input capacityofless than 100 MMBtulhr and any source that is equipped withlow NOx burner technology. Therefore, the Delaware rule applies only to three units (with design capacityof 165 MMBtulhr) at Sun Company Inc. Because these three units switch to natural gas during the ozone season, the Delaware rule limits the emission rate to O.llbs NOx MMBtu for these three units. 

### 2. Sample Calculation
The sample calculationbelow shows how emissions benefits were calculatedfor an example affected unit. The example shown is for a larger oil-fired boiler source in Coos County, New Hampshire. Benefits are estimatedfor both 2005 and 2007, assumingfull implementation ofthe rule in 2005. Italics are used to indicate the variable names. Inputs provided in 1996 Emission Inventory are as follows:

• fipsst-fipscnty-plantid-pointid-stackid-segment

## =33-007-0001-012-912-01 

### • SCC

## = 10200401

- External Combustion Boiler; Industrial; Residual Oil; Grade 6 Oil 

### • SIC

## =2611 • Design Capacity

## = 155 MMBtulhr

- "Large" (see Table III-I) • 1996 Ozone Season Daily NOx Emission

## =nox_96

## =0.61 tpd • New Hampshire RACT Limit

## =ractlimit

## =0.3lbslMMBtu (for Size 2, ICI BoilersResidual OilinTable 1II-9) • OTC Model Rule Limit

## =mrlimit

## =0.2 IbslMMBtu OR 50 percent NOx reduced Step 1 - Calculate 2005 and 2007 Emissions:
Emissions are grown from 1996 to 2005 and 2007 using Bureau ofEconomicAnalysis (BEA) Activity Factors, which are basedon State and 2-digit SIC codes.

• 1996 BEAActivity (grow96) 

## =290.5 • 2005 BEAActivity (grow05) 

## =326.4 • 2007 BEAActivity (grow07) 

## =333.8 2005 Ozone SeasonDaily NOx (nox_OS) 

## = nox_96

### * (grow05 / grow96) 

## =0.61 

### * (326.4/290.5)

## =0.685 tpd
2007 Ozone SeasonDaily NOx (nox_07) 

## = nox_96

### * (grow07 / grow96)

## =0.61 

### * (333.8/290.5)

## =0.701 tpd Step 2 - Calculate Model Rule Benefit

34The controlefficiency applied is calculated from the model rule emissionlimit and the emission factor (or RACT limit). Applied Control Efficiency (nox_ce) = 1 - (mrlimit / ractlimit) = 1 - (0.2 I0.3) = 0.33 or 33% (Because 33% is less than 50%, the emission rate limit of0.2 IbslMMBtu (a 33 percent reduction) is applied.) 2005 Model Rule Ozone SeasonDaily NOx 

### (nox_05rule) 

## = nox_05 *(l-nox_ce) 

## =0.685 *(1-0.33) 

## =0.457 tpd 2005 Model Rule Benefit 

### (nox_05diff) 

## = twx_05 * nox_ce = 0.685 * 0.33 = 0.228 tpd
2007 Model Rule Ozone Season Daily NOx 

### (nox_07rule) 

## = nox_07 *(1-nox_ce) 

## =0.701 *(1-0.33) 

## =0.467 tpd 2007 Model Rule Benefit 

### (nox_07diff) 

## = nox_07* nox_ce

## =0.701 * 0.33 

## =0.234 tpd 

### D. CEMENT INDUSTRY ANALYSIS
As part ofthe model rule analysis, Pechaninvestigatedwhether there were cement kilns in the Northeast OTRthat were not affected bythe NOx SIP Call, either because they were outside the NOx SIP Call area, or within the SIP Call area, butbelow the size cutoffs established for NOx SIP Call rule applicability. This analysis was performedby comparing a recent EPA-sponsored studyofthe cement industry with the information in the NET96 data base (EC/R, 2000a). Table III-10 summarizes the State-levelinformation about cementkilns and clinker capacity from the EPA study. Itwas found that all cementkilns within the SIP Call area are affected by the NOx SIP Call. There is one cementplant (in Maine) that is outside the NOx SIP Call area, butinside the Northeast OTR. Therefore, the portion ofthe OTC NOx model rule affecting NOx emissions from cementkilns is expected to provide limited NOx reductions withinthe OTC States.

35Table 111-10 United States Cement Company 1998 Clinker Capacities by State* in the OTC States

Clinker State (1000 tons per year) Number of Facilities Number of Kilns Pennsylvania 6,809 10 21 New York 2,745 3 4 Maryland 1,719 3 7 Maine 392 There are no clinker producing plants in the following States: District of Columbia Connecticut Massachusetts Vermont New Jersey Delaware Rhode Island New Hampshire Virginia (Northern Virginia portion)

NOTE: -Includes gray and white plants.

SOURCE: EC/R, 2000a.

36

# CHAPTER IV EXPECTED 

## 2005/2007 MODEL RULE EMISSION BENEFITS

This chapter describes the results ofthe emission benefit calculations for the OTC States. For the purposes ofthis report, the emission reduction benefits have been calculated and characterized as follows: (1) emission reduction benefits within the three identified nonattainment areas (Baltimore, Philadelphia, and NewYork); (2) emission reductionbenefits from nonattainment areas plus nearby counties generallywithin 100 km ofthe nonattainment areas; and (3) emission reductionbenefits for all counties located in the OTR (OTR-wide). Emission benefit calculations were performed as describedin Chapters II and III. 

### A. SEVERE OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA SUMMARIES
Table IV-1 summarizes the nonattainment area-level analysis ofemission benefits by model rule for the Baltimore, Maryland area, Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton area, and NewYork-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, New York-Connecticut ozone nonattainment area. The emission reductions listedin this table are either for 2005, or 2007, depending on the area's attainment date. Attainment dates are 2005 for Baltimore andPhiladelphiaWilmington-Trenton, and 2007 for New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island. Expected emission reductions from the VOC model rules in the three severe ozone nonattainment areas range from 13 tpdinthe Baltimore area to 59 tpd in PhiladelphiaWilmington-Trenton, to 120 tpd in New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island. The two primary factors that affect the estimatedVOC model rule emission reductions inTable IV-1 are the populations in the respective areas, and the extent to which some ofthe model rule affected source categories are alreadyregulated by States beyond current Federal requirements.
The NOx modelrule-associated emission reductions shown inTable IV-1 range from 5 tpdin the Baltimore area to 6 tpdinPhiladelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, to 22 tpdin New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island. As expected, NOx model rule reductions are greatestin the areas whichhave stationaryNOx sources in the size ranges to which the rule applies.
Table IV-2 provides county-level emissionbenefit estimates for the OTC model rules for the three severe ozone nonattainment areas. This table shows thatfor the Baltimore ozone nonattainment area, most ofthe NOx model rule benefitis expectedto occur in Baltimore City and Howard County. Negligible NOx emission reductions are expected in the other Baltimore area nonattainment counties. TheAIM coatings rule provides the most VOC reductionbenefits in the Baltimore area (greater than that ofthe other four VOC rules combined). This occurs in partbecause mobile equipment refinishing and solvent cleaning operations rules have no estimatedbenefitinthe Baltimore area.

37Maryland rules alreadyreduce VOC emissions to the limits containedin the OTC model rules.
Forthe Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton nonattainment area, the solvent cleaning andAIM coating rules have the most significantVOC emission reductionbenefits. The NOx model rules primarily affect industrialboiler and reciprocatinginternalcombustion engine emissions in this area. For the New York City nonattainment area, model rule emission benefits are fairly evenly spread throughout the nonattainment area. The only exception to this is for the solventcleaning operations rule, whichhas no expected benefit in the New York counties because ofthe VOC emissionlimits already in-place in that area. For industrial boilers in the three severe ozone nonattainment areas, Table IV-3 shows that the expected NOx benefitis 6.4 tpd for units between 100 and 250 million Btuper hour, and 0.8 tpdfor units that are between 50 and 100 million Btuper hour. Thus, more than 80 percent ofthe emission benefit ofthe industrial boiler rule in the severe nonattainment areas is expectedto be from units in the size range of 100 to 250 million Btu.
Most ofthe benefit associated withthe NOx model rule affecting gas turbines is found inthe New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Islandnonattainment area. The severe ozone nonattainment area emissionbenefit ofthe internal combustion engine modelrule is 16 tpdfor engines 2,000 hp or above, and 3.4 tpd for engines between 200 and 2,000 hp. As with gas turbines, most ofthis emission benefitis expected inthe New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island ozone nonattainment area. No emission benefit from the gas turbine rule was found inthe Baltimore area. The model rule affecting cementkilns does not affect any sources in the three severe ozone nonattainment areas ofthe Northeast OTR. Figure IV-1 illustrates the expectedNOx emission reductions in eachofthe three severe ozone nonattainment areas organizedbythe source categories affectedby NOx model rules. Cementkilns are not reflected in this figure because no emission reductions are expected 

### in these areas from the modelrule affecting that source category. 

### B. WITHIN 100 KM SUMMARIES
Emissionreductionbenefits were assessed for nonattainment areas plus nearby counties generally within 100km ofeach ofthe nonattainment areas. EPA's Guidance for Implementation ofthe One-Hour Ozone andPre-existing PM lO NAAQS (December, 1997) states that "an areain nonattainment ofthe one-hour NAAQS should be allowed to take credit for emissions reductions obtainedfrom sources outside the designated nonattainment area for the post-1999 rate ofprogress requirement

...the geographic area for substitution ofVOC emissionreductions remains at 100 km from the nonattainment area and the geographic area for substitution ofNOx reductions remains at 200 km from the nonattainment area." Figure IV-2 shows which counties within 100 km ofeach ofthe three nonattainment areas were usedfor the purposes ofthis analysis. The respective

38county assignments are showninTable IV-4. Table IV-5lists the nonattainment area model rule benefits with the 100 km radius areas included.
For the Baltimore, MD ozone nonattainment area, the large additionalVOC emission benefitfrom including counties within a 100 km radius occurs because this radius captures the additional benefits ofthe model rules in the MetropolitanWashington area. The 100 km radius surroundingthe Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton ozone nonattainment area adds 6 Marylandcounties, 1 Delaware county, 10 Pennsylvania counties, and 2 northwest New Jersey counties, andprovides an additional 35 VOC tpd and 1 NOx tpd ofemission reductions.
A 100 km radius around the NewYork City ozone nonattainment area includes parts ofNortheast Pennsylvania, Northwest New Jersey, Southern New York State, and all of Connecticut and Rhode Island, andprovides an additional 58 tpd VOC reduction and 6 tpd NOx ' Figure IV-3 shows the expectedcounty-level VOC emission benefits in tpd in the 100 km radius counties. These estimatedVOC emission reductions are for the five VOC model rules combined. Including these counties in the analysis would gain an additional 6 tons NOx and 51 tons VOC for the Baltimore nonattainment area, 7 tons NOx and 94 tons VOC in Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, and an additional 28 tons NOx and 178 tons VOC in the New York area. 

### C. OTR-WIDE RESULTS
State summaries ofOTC model rule emission benefits are presented in Table IV-6. The emissionbenefits listedfor Virginiajustinclude the Virginia counties in the Washington, DC area (NorthernVirginia). Benefit estimates for all other States include the entire State. Figure IV-4 shows the OTC VOC model rule expected 2005 emission reductions by State. The largestestimatedVOC emission reductions are in the most populous States

­ Pennsylvania and New York. The height ofthe bars in Figure IV-4 for each State are proportional to population, withless-than-proportional reductions in State and sub-State areas thathave regulations in-place that approach the stringency ofthe OTC model rules. Figure IV-5 provides a similar displayfor the NOx model rule. The biggestNOx model rule-associated emission reductions are expected in New York, followed by those in New Jersey andPennsylvania.
Table IV-7 shows the expected State-level emissionbenefits ofthe OTC NOx model rules by source category. Forindustrialboilers, the States with the biggest emission benefits include Pennsylvania, New York, and Maine. Maine shows a significant emission benefitfor large boilers because this State is not includedin the NOx SIP Call area. The vast majority ofthe emission benefits ofthis rule are expectedfor boilers larger than 100 million Btu.

39The State-level gas turbine results indicate that the expected emission reductions of this modelrule willbe observedin, and around, the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area. The expectedemission reduction associated with that rule in areas outside the New York and Philadelphia nonattainment areas is only expected to be 0.8 NOx tpd. Total NOx emission reductions in 2005 for internal combustion engines larger than 2,000 hp for this rule amount to 23.5 tpd. New York and New Jersey accountfor 18.8 tpd. 

### D. SUMMARY Figure IV-6 summarizes the expectedVOC and NOx emission reductions from the OTC model rules for the different geographic areas that have been examined in this analysis. The total emission reductions in the three severe ozone nonattainment areas for all ofthe model rules combined in 2005 are 180 tons VOC per day and 32 NOx tpd. Expanding the analysis area to counties within 100 km ofthese three severe ozone nonattainment areas provides an additional 168 tpd inVOC emission benefits, and another 11 tpdinNOx emission reductions. OTR-wide modelrule benefits total 533 VOC tpd and 65 NOx tpdin 2005. 

### E. VOC MODEL RULE BENEFIT SAMPLE CALCULATION
This section provides a sample calculation ofthe VOC modelrule benefits for one ofthe VOC rules. This example is providedfor Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, whichis in the Pittsburgh-BeaverValley, Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area. The sample calculation shown is for the MERR rule. VOC emissions for this source category are estimated using a per capita emission factor. The equation for estimatingbaseline (1996) emissions is listedbelow:

BaselineVOC emissions (annual)

## =1996 countypopulation 

### * lbs VOC per capita emissionfactor
Baseline VOC emissions (annual) 

## =(1,292,741) 

### * 2.30 lbs VOC per capita 

## =2,973,304lbs/year
= 1,486 tons/year The conversion from annualtons to ozone season daily tons for MERRis made by dividing annual emissions by the number ofdays per year (365), and then multiplyingthis productby 7/5, which is the ratio ofthe 

### total number ofdays in a week (7) to the number of days during a week whenMERRfacilities are expected to be operating (5). The 7/5 ratio converts the average daily emissions to an ozone seasonweekday equivalent.
ForAllegheny County, Pennsylvania, then, baseline ozone seasonweekday emissions are:Baseline VOC 

### = (1,486 tons 365 days) 

## * 7 days/week 

## = 5.67 tpd year year 5 weekdays/week
For the 2005 analysis, MERRemissions inAllegheny County, Pennsylvania are based on the expectedpopulation in thatyear. This 2005 populationis estimatedby multiplying the 1996 population by the EGAS 4.0 model growth factor (1996 to 2005) for western
40Pennsylvania. This growth factor is 1.0428. Multiplying this growth factor by the 1996 population for Allegheny Countyyields a population estimate of 1,348,329 for 2005.
In 2005, without any additional OTC rules, VOC emissions inAllegheny County are estimated using the national rule VOC emission factor of 1.45 lbs/capita.
Nationalrule 2005 VOC (annual)

## =2005 countypopulation 

### * lbs VOC per capita emission factor
Nationalrule 2005 VOC (annual) 

## =(1,348,329) 

### * (1.45 lbs VOC per capita) 

## = 1,955,077 lbs/yr 

## =978 tons/yr The conversion from annualVOC tons to ozone season weekday tons is performedfor 2005 using the same methods shown above for 1996.


### Nationalrule 

### 2005

# vac (tpd) = 

### (978 tons 

### + 365 days)* 

### 7 days/week 

## =3.73 tpd year year 5 weekdays/week
TheAllegheny County, PennsylvaniaVOC emissions with the OTC modelrule applied are estimated for 2005 using an emission factor of0.91bs VOC per capita.
Model rule 2005 VOC (annual) 

## =(1,348,329) (0.9Ibs VOC per capita)


## = 1,213,496 lbs/yr


## =607 tons/yr 

### Model rule 

### 2005

# vac (tpd) = 

### (607 tons 

### +365 days)* 

### 7 days/week 

### =2.31 tpd year year 5 weekdays/week
So, the Allegheny County, PennsylvaniaVOC emission benefitfor the MERR model rule is estimated as the nationalrule 2005 VOC ozone season daily emissions minus the model rule 2005 VOC ozone season daily emissions. This emission reduction is shown below:

Nationalrule 2005 VOC (tpd)

- Modelrule 2005 VOC (tpd)

### =Modelrule associated emissionreduction (tpd) 3.73 tpd

- 2.31 tpd

### = 1.41 tpd

41

### Table IV-1 OTe Model Rule Estimated Benefits for Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas



# ..,. I>:> Nonattainment Area Attainment Date Model Rule 2005/2007 Benefit (tpd) EPA Shortfall (tpd) NOx VOC NOx VOC Baltimore, MD 2005 NOx Model Rule 5 0 I Consumer Products 0 4 Portable Fuel Containers 0 2 AIM Coatings 0 8 Mobile Equipment Refinishing 0 0 Solvent Cleaning Operations 0 0 Total 5 13 0 13 Philadelphia-Wilmington­ 2005 NOx Model Rule 6 0 Trenton,PA-NJ-DE-MD Consumer Products 0 9 Portable Fuel Containers 0 5 AIM Coatings 0 19 Mobile Equipment Refinishing 0 6 Solvent Cleaning Operations 0 20 Total 6 59 3 62 New York-No New Jersey-Long 2007 NOx Model Rule 22 0 Island,NY-NJ-CT Consumer Products 0 26 Portable Fuel Containers 0 25 AIM Coatings 0 42 Mobile Equipment Refinishing 0 20 Solvent Cleaning Operations 0 7 Total 22 120 7 85**-~-** - --­ - -­ --­

NOTES: Emission benefits estimates in this table are provided as integer values. Any emission benefit of less than 0.5 tpd is listed as a zero in this table. Totals may not equal the sum of the individual rule benefits because of rounding.Table IV-2 Model Rule Benefits for Nonattainment Areas by County for 2005 and 2007

NonattainmentArea· Attainment Date NOx Model Rule Consumer Products Model Rule Benefitfor 2005 (tons/day) Mobile Solvent AIM Equipment Cleaning Coatings Refinishing Operations Portable i Fuel i TOTAL Containers i VOC NOx Model Rule Consumer Products Model Rule Benefitfor 2007 (tons/day) Mobile Solvent AIM Equipment Cleaning Coatings Refinishing Operations Portable I Fuel i Containers i TOTAL VOC County State NOx VOC VOC VOC VOC VOC NOx VOC VOC VOC VOC VOC Baltimore, MD ·2005
Anne Arundel Co Baltimore Co Carroll Co Harford Co Howard Co Baltimore Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland 0.D1 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.52 1.20 4.74 0.68 1.05 0.21 0.31 0.33 0.99 3.57 1047 2.27 0045 0.66 0.71 2.13 7.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0043 0.63 0.15 0.18 0.24 0.44 2.08 I I 2.58 3.96 0.82 1.15 1.28 3.55 13.35 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.64 1.23 4.88 0.69 1.07 0.21 0.31 0.33 1.00 3.62 1049 2.30 0046 0.67 0.72 2.16 7.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 1.15 0.28 0.33 0044 0.80 3.77 I 2.96 4.52 0.95 1.31 1049 3.96 15.19 Phiiadelphia.Wllmington·Trenton,PA.NJ. DE·MD ·2005



### ..... CiJ Kent Co New Castle Co Cecil Co Bunington Co Camden Co Cumbenand Co GloucesterCo Mercer Co Salem Co Bucks Co ChesterCo Delaware Co Montgomery Co Philadelphia Co Delaware Delaware Maryland New Jersey NewJersey NewJersey NewJersey NewJersey NewJersey Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.29 0.07 0.80 0.01 1.05 1.02 0.00 0046 0.89 0.30 0.59 5.84 0.17 0.68 0.11 0.60 0.72 0.20 0.35 0047 0.09 0.83 0.59 0.78 1.02 2.11 8.72 0.38 1046 0.24 1.29 1.56 0.44 0.75 1.02 0.20 1.79 1.26 1.69 2.19 4.54 18.82 0.07 0.29 0.00 0046 0.56 0.16 0.27 0.36 0.07 0.64 0045 0.60 0.78 1.62 6.34 0048 0.91 0.00 0.20 0.24 0.07 0.12 0.16 0.03 2.78 1.97 2.63 3042 7.07 20.08 0043 0.13 0.06 0.33 0.38 0.09 0.19 0.27 0.05 0.56 0.39 0.45 0.78 0.93 5.04 I I 1.53 3047 0042 2.88 3.47 0.95 1.68 2.29 0045 6.60 4.66 6.16 8.19 16.28 59.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.30 0.08 0.82 0.01 1.09 1.05 0.00 0047 0.91 0.31 0.61 6.00 0.18 0.68 0.11 0.60 0.73 0.20 0.35 0048 0.09 0.84 0.59 0.79 1.03 2.12 8.80 0.38 1.48 0.25 1.30 1.57 0044 0.76 1.03 0.20 1.80 1.27 1.70 2.21 4.58 18.98 0.07 0.29 0.00 0046 0.56 0.16 0.27 0.37 0.07 0.64 0045 0.61 0.79 1.63 6.38 0048 0.92 0.00 0.20 0.24 0.07 0.12 0.16 0.03 2.81 1.98 2.65 3044 7.13 20.25 0.78 0.23 0.11 0.59 0.69 0.16 0.34 0049 0.10 1.02 0.70 0.82 lAO 1.69 9.10 I 1.89 3.60 0.47 3.16 3.80 1.03 1.84 2.52 0.50 7.11 5.00 6.57 8.87 17.16 63.52 I
I

NewYork·N. NewJersey·Long tsland,NY· NJ-CT ·2007
Fairfield Co Bergen Co Essex Co Hudson Co Hunterdon Co Middlesex Co Monmouth Co Morris Co Ocean Co Passaic Co Somerset Co Sussex Co Union Co Bronx Co Kings Co Nassau Co NewYork Co Orange Co Queens Co Richmond Co Rockland Co Suffolk Co Westchester Co Connecticut NewJersey NewJersey NewJersey NewJersey NewJersey New Jersey New Jersey New Jersey New Jersey NewJersey NewJersey NewJersey NewYork New York New York New York New York New York New York New York New York New York 0.20 0045 0.74 0.93 0.60 1.17 0.36 0.28 DAD 0.21 0.93 0.05 1.24 0.57 5.97 0.61 1.98 0.12 1.84 0.51 0047 1.60 0.18 21.40 1.19 1.21 1.08 0.79 0.17 1.00 0.84 0.64 0.68 0.69 0.39 0.20 0.71 1.70 3.24 1.86 2.19 0046 2.82 0.57 DAD 1.93 1.28 26.02 2.56 2.61 2.33 1.70 0.37 2.16 1.82 1.38 1047 1048 0.83 0043 1.53 2.12 4.04 2.32 2.73 0.58 3.51 0.71 0049 2041 1.59 41.19 0.91 0.93 0.83 0.61 0.13 0.77 0.65 0049 0.52 0.53 0.30 0.16 0.55 1.31 2.50 1043 1.69 0.36 2.17 0044 0.31 1049 0.99 20.07 3.99 0041 0.36 0.26 0.06 0.34 0.28 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.07 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.81 0.93 0.84 0.51 0.34 0.12 0.58 0.54 0049 DAD 0.34 0.28 0.12 0.37 0.60 1.23 1.04 1.18 0.24 1.16 0.26 0.21 1.26 0.84 13.87 I 9.58 6.00 5.11 3.70 0.84 4.86 4.13 3.23 3.29 3.27 1.92 0.97 3040 5.74 11.01 6.65 7.79 1.64 9.66 1.98 1041 7.10 4.70 107.96 0.20 0046 0.77 0.96 0.61 1.20 0.36 0.29 0041 0.22 0.96 0.05 1.28 0.58 6.08 0.63 2.03 0.12 1.88 0.52 0048 1.64 0.18 21.90 1.20 1.22 1.09 0.80 0.17 1.01 0.85 0.65 0.69 0.69 0.39 0.20 0.72 1.72 3.27 1.87 2.21 0.47 2.84 0.57 DAD 1.95 1.29 26.26 2.58 2.64 2.35 1.72 0.37 2.18 1.83 lAO 1048 1049 0.84 0044 1.55 2.14 4.08 2.34 2.76 0.58 3.55 0.72 0.50 2043 1.61 41.57 0.92 0.94 0.84 0.61 0.13 0.78 0.65 0.50 0.53 0.53 0.30 0.16 0.55 1.32 2.52 1044 1.70 0.36 2.19 0044 0.31 1.50 0.99 20.22 4.02 0041 0.37 0.27 0.06 0.34 0.29 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.07 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.87 1.67 1.52 0.92 0.61 0.21 1.05 0.97 0.89 0.71 0.61 0.50 0.21 0.66 1.09 2.24 1.88 2.14 0.44 2.10 0047 0.39 2.28 1.52 25.09 I I I I I I i I I I I I lOAD 6.73 5.56 4.00 0.94 5.37 4.60 3.65 3.84 3.57 2.16 1.07 3.72 6.27 12.10 7.54 8.81 1.85 10.68 2.20 1.59 8.17 SAl 120.01Table IV-3 Nonattainment Area NOx Model Rule Benefits forAffected Sources by Source Type and Size Industrial Boilers

Nonattainment Area Attainment Date >250 MMBtu/hr 200512007 Numberof Baseline Model Affected NOx Rule NOx Sources (tpd) (tpd) NOx Benefit

(tpd) 100-250 MMBtu/hr 2005/2007 Number of Baseline Model Affected NOx Rule NOx Sources (tpd) (tpd) NOx Benefit (tpd) 50-100 MMBtu/hr 2005/2007 Number of Baseline Model Rule Affected NOx NOx Sources (tpd) (tpd) NOx Benefit

(tpd) Total Benefit**~** Baltimore, MD 2005 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 2.6 1.4 1.2 3 0.4 0.3 0.0 1.3Philadelphia-WilmingtonTrenton,PA-NJ-DE-MD 2005 2 0.6 0.3 0.3 14 4.0 2.1 2.0 4 0.8 0.5 0.3 2.5 New York-No New Jersey-Long Island.NY-NJ-CT 2007 4 0.7 0.3 0.3 42 7.4 4.2 3.2 16 2.5 1.9 0.6 4.1

Total 6 1.3 0.6 0.6 74 14.0 7.7 6.4 23 3.7 2.8 0.8 7.8

Ie Engines

Nonattainment Area Attainment Date Numberof Affected Sources >2000 HP 2005/2007 Baseline Model

NOx Rule NOx (tpd) (tpd) NOx Benefit (tpd) Numberof Affected Sources 200-2000 HP 2005/2007 Baseline Model

NOx Rule NOx (tpd) (tpd) NOx Benefit (tpd) Total Benefit**~** 

## *"" *"" Baltimore, MDPhiladelphia-WilmingtonTrenton,PA-NJ-DE-MD 2005

2005 9

39 4.6

4.6 2.2

2.0 2.4

2.6 3

24 2.1

0.7 1.0

0.3 1.1

0.4 3.5

3.0
New York-No New Jersey-Long Island,NY-NJ-CT 2007 164 23.9 10.5 13.4 95 4.3 1.4 2.9 16.3

Total 212 33.2 14.8 18.4 122 7.1 2.7 4.4 22.8

Turbines >250 MMBtu/hr 200512007

Nonattainment Area Attainment Date Number of Affected Sources Baseline NOx (tpd) Model Rule NOx

(tpd) NOx Benefit (tpd)

Baltimore, MD 2005 0 0 0 0.0Philadelphia-WilmingtonTrenton,PA-NJ-DE-MD 2005 16 1.1 0.7 0.3 New York-No New Jersey-Long Island,NY-NJ-CT 2007 35 4.6 3.1 1.5

Total 51 5.7 3.9 1.8L 

### Table IV-4 County Assignments for Analyzing Emission Reduction Benefits within 100 km of Nonattainment Areas

Baltimore VA MD DC Arlington Calvert Fairfax Charles Loudoun Frederick Prince William Montgomery Stafford Prince Georges St. Mary's Washington Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton MD DE PA Caroline Sussex Adams Dorchester Berks Kent Cumberland Queen Annes Dauphin Talbot Lancaster Wicomico Lebanon Lehigh Northampton Schuylkill York New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island PA NJ NY Carbon Warren Columbia Lackawanna Delaware Luzerne Duchess Monroe Greene Pike Orange Wayne Putnam Sullivan Ulster NJ Atlantic Cape May

CT RI Hartford Kent Litchfield Newport Middlesex Providence New Haven Washington New London Tolland Windham

45--- ------- NonattainmentArea Baltimore, MD

Philadelphia-WilmingtonTrenton,PA-NJ-DE-MD

,j::.. en

New York-No New Jersey-Long Island,NY-NJ-CT Table IV-5 NonattainmentArea Model Rule Benefits with 100 KM Radius Areas Included

Attainment Date 2005

2005

2007 Model Rule NOx Model Rule Consumer Products Portable Fuel Containers AIM Coatings Mobile Equipment Refinishing Solvent Cleaning Operations Total NOx Model Rule Consumer Products Portable Fuel Containers AIM Coatings Mobile Equipment Refinishing Solvent Cleaning Operations Total NOx Model Rule Consumer Products Portable Fuel Containers AIM Coatings Mobile Equipment Refinishing Solvent Cleaning Operations Total NonattainmentArea 2005/2007 Benefit (tpd)

NOx

5 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 22 0 0 0 0 0 22 

## voe 0 4 2 8 0 0 13 0 9 5 19 6 20 59 0 26 25 42 20 7 120 NAA PLUS Additional 100 KM AREA2005/2007 Benefit (tpd) NOx

6 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 28 0 0 0 0 0 28 

## voe 0 10 6 21 3 11 51 0 13 8 29 10 34 94 0 33 33 57 26 30 178 EPA Shortfall (tpd) NOx

0

3

7

NOTES: Emission benefits estimates in this table are provided as integervalues. Any emission benefit of less than 0.5 tpd is listed as a zero in this table. Totals may not equal the sum ofthe individual rule benefits because of rounding. 

## voe

13

62

85-- --------- ------ - - --- -- Table IV-6 OTC-wide Model Rule Benefits by State for 2005 and 2007
Model Rule Benefit for 2005 (tons/day) Model Rule Benefit for 2007 (tons/day) Mobile Solvent Portable Mobile Solvent Portable NOx Model Consumer AIM Equipment Cleaning Fuel TOTAL NOxModel Consumer AIM Equipment Cleaning Fuel TOTAL Rule Products Coatings Refinishing Operations Containers VOC Rule Products Coatings Refinishing Operations Containers VOC
State NOx voe voe voe voe voe NOx voe voe voe voe voe Connecticut 4 5 10 4 15 3 36 4 5 10 4 16 5 39 Delaware 0 1 2 0 2 1 7 0 1 2 0 2 2 7 DC 0 1 2 1 3 0 6 0 1 2 1 3 0 6 Maine 7 2 4 1 6 1 14 7 2 4 1 6 2 15 Maryland 6 7 16 1 3 4 32 6 8 16 1 3 8 36 Massachusetts 9 19 7 29 5 67 3 3 9 19 7 29 9 72 New Hampshire 4 2 4 1 6 1 13 4 2 4 1 6 2 14 New Jersey 11 11 25 9 4 7 56 12 12 25 9 4 12 61 New York 19 26 40 20 31 13 130 20 26 41 20 31 23 141 Pennsylvania 11 17 37 13 58 10 135 11 17 37 13 58 18 144 Rhode Island 1 1 3 1 5 1 11 1 1 3 1 5 1 11 Vermont 0 1 2 1 3 1 7 0 1 2 1 3 1 7 Northern Virginia 2 3 5 2 9 2 20 2 >+::­ 3 6 2 9 3 22 -l Total 68 85 168 60 172 48 533 70 86 170 60 173 87 575

NOTES: Emission benefits estimates in this table are provided as integer values. Anyemission benefit of less than 0.5 tpd is listed as a zero in this table. Totals may not equal the sum ofthe individual rule benefits because of rounding.Table IV-7 OTC-Wide Model Rule Benefits for Affected Sources by Source Type and Size for 2005 and 2007

Industrial Boilers >250 MMBtu/hr**~N~u-m7b-e-ro~f~~2700~5~N~O=x~~2~0~07~NO~x** 100-250 MMBtu/hr Number of 2005 NOx 2007 NOx 50-100 MMBtu/hr Number of 2005 NOx 2007 NOx Affected Benefit Benefit Affected Benefit Benefit Affected Benefit Benefit State Sources (tpd) (tpd) Sources (tpd) (tpd) Sources (tpd) (tpd)
09 Connecticut 0.3 0.3 2 0.4 0.4 5 0.4 0.4 10 Delaware o 0.0 0.0 3 0.4 0.4 o 0.0 0.0 11 DC 7 0.0 0.0 12 0.1 0.1 o 0.0 0.0 23 Maine 20 3.5 3.6 18 1.7 1.7 9 0.1 0.1 24 Maryland o 0.0 0.0 22 1.3 1.3 4 0.0 0.0 25 Massachusetts 3 0.1 0.1 53 2.6 2.6 3 0.1 0.1 33 New Hampshire 2 0.0 0.0 11 1.1 1.1 o 0.0 0.0 34 New Jersey 1 0.0 0.0 41 1.9 2.0 o 0.0 0.0 36 New York 8 0.4 0.4 47 5.8 5.9 19 0.7 0.7 42 Pennsylvania 4 1.4 1.4 31 8.0 8.3 10 0.8 0.8 44 Rhode Island o 0.0 0.0 5 0.7 0.7 6 0.1 0.1 50 Vermont o 0.0 0.0 o 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 51 Virginia o 0.0 0.0 3 1.2 1.2 o 0.0 0.0

46 5.7 5.9 248 25.1 25.7 57 2.1 2.1 IC Engines >2000 HP 200-2000 HP Number of 2005 NOx 2007 NOx Number of 2005 NOx 2007 NOx Affected Benefit Benefit Affected Benefit Benefit State Sources (tpd) (tpd) Sources (tpd) (tpd)
09 Connecticut 2 1.3 1.4 21 1.3 1.4 10 Delaware o 0.0 0.0 o 0.0 0.0 11 DC o 0.0 0.0 o 0.0 0.0 23 Maine o 0.0 0.0 o 0.0 0.0 24 Maryland 13 2.6 2.7 18 1.7 1.7 25 Massachusetts o 0.0 0.0 o 0.0 0.0 33 New Hampshire 44 1.7 1.8 31 0.7 0.7 34 New Jersey 164 6.4 6.5 106 1.9 1.9 36 New York 52 10.0 10.3 23 1.8 1.9 42 Pennsylvania 5 0.6 0.6 o 0.0 0.0 44 Rhode Island 6 0.3 0.4 2 0.3 0.3 50 Vermont o 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.1 51 Virginia 6 0.5 0.5 o 0.0 0.0

292 23.5 24.1 203 7.B B.O Turbines >25 MMBtu/hr Number of 2005 NOx 2007 NOx Affected Benefit Benefit State Sources (tpd) (tpd)
09 Connecticut 2 0.6 0.6 10 Delaware o 0.0 0.0 11 DC o 0.0 0.0 23 Maine o 0.0 0.0 24 Maryland o 0.0 0.0 25 Massachusetts 9 0.1 0.1 33 New Hampshire o 0.0 0.0 34 New Jersey 43 1.2 1.2 36 New York 9 0.6 0.6 42 Pennsylvania o 0.0 0.0 44 Rhode Island 2 0.0 0.0 50 Vermont 0.0 0.0 51 Virginia o 0.0 0.0

66 2.5 2.6 Cement Kilns Number of 2005 NOx 2007 NOx Affected Benefit Benefit State _S::.o::.u:.:r.::c::.es:.....

__(>.:tp.::d:.<)

__....l:(t.!:.pd;:l),--­
23 Maine 1.6 1.6 48

### Figure IV-1 NonattainmentArea NOx Model Rule Benefits by Source Type and Size

16 DSmall III Medium • Large
14

# ~ Industrial BoilersLarge

- >250 MMBtu/hr 121 Medium

- 100

- 250 MMBtu/hr >; Small

- 50

- 100 MMBtu/hr
C'CI "C 

# - Turbines

­ U) I: 0 10 

# - - U) 

# - 00: IC Engines- CI) 

# *'" I: Large

- >2000 HP \.0 CI) m 8 >< 0 

### z**~** ::s 0:: 6 G) "C 0 :2: 4

2

....--------1



## o Baltimore Baltimore Baltimore Industrial Boilers Turbines IC Engines[This page intentionallyleftblank.]

### Figure IV-2 OTC Severe Ozone NonattainmentAreas and Nearby Counties Within 100 km

01 o



### , Dotted lines represent 100 km radius around respective NonattainmentAreas. Yellow: Baltimore Area Blue: Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Area Green: NewYork-North New Jersey-Long Island Area

### Figure IV-3 OTC Severe Ozone NonattainmentAreas and Expected

# voe (tons per day) Model Rule-Associated Reductions

Ol i-' IJ,

Yellow: Baltimore Area Blue: Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Area Green: NewYork-North New Jersey-Long Island AreaFigure IV-4 OTC VOC Model Rule Benefits by State within the OTRfor 2005 (in tons per day)**135~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ 120+1----------------------------------------------~**  

### 105t l

--------------------------------------­**90+1----------------------------------------------~**
75**+I------------------------------------------------~**

01 t--:)**60+1------------------------------~ 45+1------------------------------~**  

### 30 I I}}I-I----------1


### 15 I II



## o+!--------..,........ ,,0 .1'\.0**~** .•0 A 

# * 0**~** .Ib­ 

# .0­ &-0 

### J-**~\~0 '~0-**  

### #'**~1t'** s§**~ ~0**  ..J,.0'**0-~ ~0-<;:l**  0"**.~**

### ~0**~,» o~** **r"\~** ':::....:Y'

### ~**~0-~** (5:'V'

### {:'~**~)0 0~**  

# $ e>Cj

### ~rb-~**..s.~C8** 

## o v 

### & 

## cP qflf 

# x-. flf**~0 ~** **~~ o~** **~<::** _""f(j:**~** '"**~0 ~** **~0** .C}**~'** 

### ..;;;.0**o~ ~"** **~ Q~**  Ell Portable Fuel Containers []Solvent Cleaning Operations [JMobile Equipment Refinishing BAlM Coatings []Consumer Products[This page intentionallyleftblank.]

### Figure IV-5 OTe NOx Model Rule Benefits by State within the OTRfor 2005 (in tons per day)**20~------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ 18+1--------------------------------------------------~** **16+1--------------------------------------------------~ 14+1--------------------------------------------------~** **12+1----------------------------------------------------~ 10+1--------------------------------------------~**  8**+I----------------------------------------------------~** 6 +1-----------------------

4 +1----------1

2 +1----------1



## o +!------r-...,j BNOx Model Rule

01 CJ.:)



### o -.t**~1) .~ro**  1)<::' ,z;.-!P

.f,..ro**~1)** 0**~o ~** **.~1)** 

### 0&-CJ

### ~~ro**'::,.,.~~ ~~**  _",-1)<:'\

# ~~g**~ ~ro-\** **~ ~fl}**  

## ':!:!.f**~,fj ~~&j** **~<::' ~flf** 

# ~. f])-CJ

# ~~ ')10 ...l..0**~cf,** 0,g £>10<::'

### o~ rt;.<::­ 

### cP <::)'" 

## cP

# ~# *-<-'"

# ~**~0-'1!** .c}

### d- 

## , <F**~~ ~ro** 

### ~0{S"**Q~**

### Figure IV-6 Estimated Reductions from Six OTC Model Rules in 2005 (in tons per day) 

# 600 500 400

>f>. 01 

# 300 200 100

0--+""1

........... 

# Shortfalls in 3 NAAs 100 km 

# -voe .NOx

Total Reductions NAAs plus OTR-Wide

## CHAPTER V AIM COATINGS MARKET SURVEY

This section presents results ofanAIM coatings market surveyfor the OTR. Starting in December 2000, Pechan conducted a surveyto investigate the availability ofAIM coatings that are compliantwith the VOC limits ofthe OTC Model Rule for AIM Coatings. 

### A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND METHODS
We focused information gathering efforts on eleven product categories for which new VOC limits were proposedinARB's SCM. These coatingcategories include:

• Flat Coatings • Non-Flat Coatings (except high gloss) • Lacquers (including sanding sealers) • IndustrialMaintenance Coatings • Multi-Color Coatings • Primers, Sealers, and Undercoaters • QuickDryEnamels • QuickDryPrimers, Sealers, and Undercoaters • Stains • Swimming Pool Repair andMaintenance Coatings • Wood Waterproofing Sealers These coating categories account for about 80 percent ofthe total emissions in California (ARB, 2000a), andin the rest ofthe nation. We concentrated survey efforts on manufacturers offlat, non-flat, andindustrialmaintenance coatings, which are the three largestcategories. Major national manufacturers were also selected for the smaller categories. 

### 1. How Did We Identify the Coating Manufacturers that Distribute these Products in the OTR?
Basedoninformation received from ARB concerning their 1998AIM survey, we identifiedthe top 31 national manufacturers for the above categories (ARB, 1999d). Using sales data compiled byARB andreleasedto the OTC under a data confidentiality agreement, a prioritizedlist ofcompanies was developed. Mr. Bob Nelson ofthe National Paint and CoatingsAssociation (NPCA) also provided assistance in identifying regional (i.e., OTR) AIM coating manufacturers that were notincludedinARB's survey. Once a target list ofcompanies was developed, surveyletters were sent to the appropriate contacts, requesting data concerning their AIM products. Table V-I presents a list of companies contacted, andindicates which companies responded to the survey.

55

### 2. What Data Were Obtained from Survey Respondents?
Data elements requested for each productincluded: product name; VOC content (VOC actual andVOC regulatory); percent solids by weight; percent solids by volume; density; and performance information. Companies generallyprovided this informationby sending material safety data sheets and/or product information sheets. Some companies requested that the necessary information be accessedvia their companyweb site. In addition to the above data elements, Pechan also requested any available sales data for the OTR states, which were ensured to be kept confidential. Table V-2 shows examples ofthe data obtainedfrom the survey respondents.
Once the productinformation was obtained, we categorized each product into one of the elevenAIM categories. This categorization was performed based on the product name as well as performance information. Manufacturers ofmulti-color coatings did not provide any product data for this AIM category.


### a. VOC Actual and VOC Regulatory Content
Most companies suppliedVOC contentinpounds ofVOC per gallon ofcoating, which we then converted to grams ofVOC per liter ofcoating. This will enable comparison to the OTC AIM Model Rule limits, which are expressedin gil. BothVOC actual content and VOC regulatory content were requested. The majority ofthe companies providedVOC regulatory content. VOC actual contentis the weight ofall volatile materials less the weight ofwater and less the weight ofexempt compounds per the entire volume ofthe coating (ARB, 1999d). VOC actual may also be referred to as the VOC ofthe material. VOC regulatory content, also known as VOC ofthe coating, is the VOC contentlimit or standard codified in architectural coating regulations. VOC regulatory contentis the ratio ofthe weight of VOCs per a given volume ofpaint (e.g., gallon orliter) with water and exemptVOCs subtractedfrom both the numerator (weight) and denominator (volume). Formulas for both VOC actual and VOC regulatory are presentedbelow. (Total Weight of Volatiles

- Weight of Water

- Weight ofExempt VOCs) VOC Actual = -'------'='----'-------=--..!..-------'='---'------"---­ Total Weight of Coating (Total Weight of Volatiles

- Weight of Water

- Weight ofExempt VOCs) VOCRegulatory 

### = (Total Volume of Coating

- Volume of Water

- Volume ofExempt VOCs) ExpressingVOC content on a regulatory basis provides an equivalentbasis for comparing the pollutingportion ofsolvent-borne and water-borne coatings. In addition, VOC contentlimits codified in AIM regulations are commonly expressed as VOC regulatory. As such, to compare the VOC content ofthe survey product data with the limits required by the modelrule, the VOC content shouldbe on a VOC regulatory basis. Eighteen ofthe 31 AIM coating manufacturers contactedprovidedPechan with the data requested. The productinformation for each companywas enteredinto a data base to enable further analysis. None ofthe companies contactedwere able to provide sales data for the OTR States.
56

### B. FINDINGS
1. Are Products Available that Meet the Limits?
A listing ofthe National Rule andthe OTC Model Rule VOC limits byAIM categoryis provided in Table V-3. Basedon the initial survey data collected, individual products are available that meet OTC AIM Model Rule limits. Ideally, one would use data on the volume ofcoatings sold, in conjunction with VOC content data, to estimate potential emission reductions for eachAIM category. Because we did not receive sales data, a more qualitative analysis was performed. TableV-4 provides a summaryofthe number ofcompliant and non-compliantproducts by AIM category. We compared the product's VOC regulatory contentwith the VOC limits ofthe National Rule andthe OTC AIM Model Rule. When averaged across all categories, the percentage ofproducts compliantwith the OTC AIM Model Rule is 39 percent. Table V-5 presents a summaryofthe average VOC content, expressed on a regulatory basis, as well as the range ofVOC content amongproducts includedineachAIM category. Note that there are some coating categories thatinclude no-VOC products, as indicatedby ranges startingwith zero. 

### 2. How do OTC AIM Survey Results Compare to California Results?
Table V-6 presents the percentcompliantproducts by categoryin the OTR according to the OTC survey, for both the NationalAIM Rule and the OTC AIM Model Rule. These compliance percentages are comparedto product data for California according to ARB's 1998 survey. Compliance is determinedby comparing reportedVOC regulatory contentper productto category-specificVOC emission limits required byeach rule. It shouldbe noted that some products may comply with the NationalAIM Rule through alternative compliance options. The percentage ofcompliantproducts varies per category, but the results show that compliantproducts are presentin the OTC, to an extent comparable to thatin California. In some cases the product data inthe OTR States show a greater degree ofcompliance thanthe 1998 California product data (e.g., non-flat, industrial maintenance). Possibly, this is a result ofnew compliantproductformulations being recentlyintroduced. For some categories the percent ofcompliantproducts is greaterin California. This maybe a result ofAIM coatingrules alreadyin place in California (i.e., SCAQMD Rule 1113) prior to proposal ofARB's revised SCM.

57Table V-1 List ofAIM Survey Respondents

Company Name Responded to Survey? ACE Hardware Corporation No AMERON Performance Coatings and Finishes Group Yes Amteco, Inc No Behr Process Corporation Yes Benjamin Moore & Co. Yes Bruning Paints No Cabot Stains Yes California Products Corporation Yes Carboline Company Yes Deft, Inc Yes Duron Paint & Wallcoverings Yes Fine Paints of Europe Yes Gaco Western, Inc. Yes ICI Paints NA Yes INSL-X Products Corporation No International Paints, Inc. No Lord Corporation No MABruder and Sons, Inc. Yes Masterchem Industries, Inc Yes Multicolor Specialties, Inc. No PPG Industries Yes Rust-Oleum Yes Sherwin-Williams Co. Yes Spraylet Corporation No Textured Coatings ofAmerica Yes The Flood Company No The Valspar Corporation No TNEMEC CO. Inc. Yes TruServ Manufacturing No United Gilsonite Laboratories No W. Zinsser & Co. No Yenkin-Majestic Paint Corporation No

5801**~** 

### Table V-2 Example of Data Requested

Company

Name Product Name Coating Name Coating Category Regulatory VOC Limit (R) Units Weight/gal % Volume Solids % Weight Solids Performance Information Sherwin­**~illiams** Co. f6.-100 Exterior Latex Flat Coatings 1 149 gIl 10.9 31 48 Fade resistant, chalk resistant, blister resistant Sherwin­**~illiams** Co. LowTemp 35 Exterior Latex Satin Finish Non-flat Coatings (except high gloss) 2 102 gIl 10.3 35 47 Recommended for use on primed metal down to a surface and air emperature of35 degrees Fahrenheit California Products Corporation**~ilbur** &Williams Lacrylic 7110 Clear Solvent Finish Lacquers (including sanding "ealers) 3 680 gIl 7 12.1 17.7 non-yellowing, water, alkali, weak acids, and detergents resistant, abrasion resistant, prevents oxidation and discoloration Sherwin­**~illiams** Co. Epo-Plex Multi-Mil Water Based Epoxy Industrial Maintenance Coatings 4 240 gIl 10.6 41 55 Moisture resistant, abrasion, chemical and impact resistant Rust-Oleum 6710 Polyurethane Clear Sealer Sealers 6 574 gIl 8 34 40 improves finishes resistance to hydraulic fluids, solvents, and chemical staining

...I i

Sherwin­**~illiams** Co. A-100 Exterior Oil Wood Primer Primers and Undercoaters 6 325 gIl 11.6 58 76 Resistance to peeling and blistering, resistance to fading and chalking outstanding durability ICI Paints NA ULTRA-HIDE Latex Low Lustre Interior Wall &Trim Enamel Quick-Dry Enamels 7 163 gIl 10.9 40 54 Quick dry, block resistant, washable, non-yellowing, low odor, low VOC, adhesion and moisture resistant Benjamin Moore &Co. Fresh Start@XID Penetrating Alkyd Primer 100 Quick-Dry Primers, Sealers and Undercoaters 8 350 gIl 13.0 66 Fast drying, mildew resistant

Sherwin­**~illiamsCo.** Woodscapes Ext. Polyurethane SemiTransparent Stain Stains 9 473 gIl 8.5 8 11 Mildew resistant

California Products Corporation Wilbur &Williams RUBBERCOAT Chlorinated Rubber Swimming Pool Paint Swimming Pool Repair and Maintenance Coatings 10 599 gIl 11.2 38 68 Durable, continuous film minimizes**~eepagelosses** [Textured Coatings of lAmerica Tex-Cote RainStopper 120

-­ -­ - --­**~ood** Waterproofing Sealers 11 600 gIl 6.79 10.23 11.83**~ilane** treatment to repel water and**~alt** for masonry, concrete and limestone

------­

### Table V-3 Summary ofthe National Rule and Selected aTC Model Rule vac Limits by AIM Category

Coating Name National Rule VOC Limit (gil) OTC Model Rule VOC Limit (gil) Flat Coatings 250 100 Non-flat Coatings (except high gloss) 380 150 Lacquers (including sanding sealers) 680 550 Industrial Maintenance Coatings 450 2501 Multi-Color Coatings 580 250 Sealers 400 200 Primers and Undercoaters 350 200 Quick-Dry Enamels 450 250 Quick-Dry Primers, Sealers and Undercoaters 450 200 Stains 550 250 Swimming Pool Repair and Maintenance Coatings 2



### - 340 Wood Waterproofing Sealers 600 250

NOTES: 10TC model rule has an implementation option of 340 gIl for specialty industrial maintenance coatings. 2The National AIM Rule does not specify a VOC content limit for this category.

60

### Table V-4 Summary of Number of Compliant and Non-Compliant Products by AIM Category

Coating Name # of Products Compliantwith National Rule # of Products Non-Compliant with National Rule1 # of Products Compliantwith

Model Rule # of Products Non-Compliant with Model Rule Total # of Products Flat Coatings 108 12 45 75 120 Non-Flat Coatings (except high gloss) 196 14 88 122 210 Lacquers (including sanding sealers) 12 0 10 2 12 Industrial Maintenance Coatings (250 gIl) 270 19 131 158 289 Industrial Maintenance Coatings (340 gIl) Not applicable Not applicable 200 89 289 Multi-Color Coatings 0 0 0 0 0 Sealers 21 8 14 15 29 Primers and Undercoaters 180 52 87 145 232 Quick-Dry Enamels 22 3 12 13 25 Quick-Dry Primers, Sealers, Undercoaters 57 5 14 48 62

Stains 76 3 22 57 79 Swimming Pool Repair and Maintenance Coatings 0 0 0 1 1

Wood Waterproofing Sealers 20 0 1 19 20 % Totals 89% 11% 39%2 61%2 1,079

NOTES: 1Compliance as defined by meeting emission limit; some products comply with National AIM Rule through alternative compliance options. 2Total compliance percentages calculated by comparing all industrial maintenance coatings to 250 gIl limit.

61

### Table V-5 VOC Content 

### by AIM Category

Coating Name Average of VOC Content (gIl) Range of VOC Content (g/l)1 Flat Coatings 144 0-440 Non-Flat Coatings (except high gloss) 208 0-448 Lacquers (including sanding sealers) 522 285

- 680 Industrial Maintenance Coatings 263 0-635 Multi-Color Coatings 0 0 Sealers 265 0-680 Primers and Undercoaters 265 0-820 Quick-Dry Enamels 333 151

- 541 Quick-Dry Primers, Sealers, Undercoaters 321 0-508 Stains 359 102

- 690 Swimming Pool Repair and Maintenance Coatings 599 599 Wood Waterproofing Sealers 377 0-600

NOTE: 1For categories with a range starting with 0, this reflects the availability of no-VOe products within a category.



### 62

### Table V-6 Percent Compliant AIM Products for OTC Compared to 1998 ARB Survey Data

Coating Name Flat Coatings Non-Flat Coatings (except high gloss) Lacquers (including sanding sealers) Industrial Maintenance Coatings (250 gIl) Industrial Maintenance Coatings (340 gIl) Multi-Color Coatings Sealers3 Primers and Undercoaters, Sealers4 Quick-Dry Enamels Quick-Dry Primers, Sealers, Undercoaters Stains Swimming Pool Repair and Maintenance National OTC States % Compliant 90% 93% 100% 93% Not applicable N/A2 72% 78% 88% 92% 96% Not applicable AIM Rule1 California % Compliant 96% 97% 86% 83% Not applicable 100% 64% 80% 87% 62% 87% 100% OTC AIM OTC States % Compliant 38% 42% 83% 45% 69% N/N 48% 38% 48% 23% 28% 0% Model Rule California % Compliant 44% 40% 33% 37% 41% 50% 40% 50% 1% 14% 31% 0% Wood Waterproofing Sealers 100% 80% 5% 80% m c.o

NOTES: 'Compliance as defined by meeting emission limit; some products comply with National AIM Rule through alternative compliance options. 2N/A

### =not available. 3California's compliance percentages do not accountfor all sealers included in CARB's survey, since some sealers were reported under the primers, undercoaters, and sealers category. 'For CARB's 1998 survey, manufacturers included sealers in the primers, undercoaters, and sealers category, so product information for sealers is included in the CARB's compliance percentages.64

## CHAPTER VI DIESEL FUEL SAMPLING PLAN

During the OTC States' modelrule evaluationprocess, the primary regional motor vehicle control measure that was consideredwas to require raising the average cetane number ofmotor vehicle diesel fuel to 50 during the ozone season. While the OTC States decided not to proceed with a model rule to increase cetane in diesel fuels, there was interestin knowing more about the potentialcompliance and enforcement issues associated with a regional diesel fuel strategy. This chapter provides some background information about diesel fuel regulatory issues, the diesel fuel distribution system in the OTC States, and makes recommendations about a diesel fuel samplingplan for the region. 

### A. BACKGROUND
Diesel fuels are made mainlyfrom straight-run refinery components

- hydrocarbons derived directly from the distillation ofcrude oil. Two main hydrocarbon fractions are used to make diesel fuels

- the middle distillates, or gas oils, and the residual oils. To these are added small quantities ofcomponents from other refining processes, such as catcracking andhydro treating. High-speed diesel engines used in road vehicles run on distillate fuel from gas oil, while low-speed diesel engines used in ships and electric generators use heavy residual fuel oil. Diesel fuels are usually blends because the pattern offuel demand does not match the output ofa simple distillation refinery, and more complex refining patterns have to be used. Also, there is competition betweenproducts because fractions yielding diesel fuels are also used to make domestic andindustrialheating oils and aviation fuel. Diesel fuel properties are highly dependent on the type ofcrude oil from which the diesel fuel is refined (Faiz, 1996).
The relationship among fuel characteristics, engine performance, and exhaust emissions is complex, and there is often a trade-offbetween measures to control one pollutant, and its effect on others. Dieselengines generally tolerate a wide range in fuel characteristics and quality. Thus, fuel properties tend to have a minorinfluence on emissions compared with the influence ofengine design and operating conditions. Nevertheless, the quality and composition ofdiesel fuel can have important effects on pollutant emissions. Studies ofthe effects offuel on diesel emissions indicate that the fuel variables having the mostimportant effects on emissions are sulfur content, cetane number, and the fraction ofaromatic hydrocarbons containedin the fuel. Cetane number and aromatic hydrocarbon content are themselves closely related

- fuels with high cetane tend to have low aromatic hydrocarbon content, and vice versa. Other fuel properties such as density, back-end volatility andviscosity, also affect emissions, but usually to a much lesser extent. In addition, use offuel additives mayhave a significant impact on emissions.

65

### B. OTC STATES DIESEL FUEL DISTRIBUTION
There are a number oflinks in the highway diesel fuel distribution chain, which runs from the fuel source (i.e., refinery orimporter) to the final dispensing location. Figure VI-I displays the potentialconnections in the distribution system, and presents estimates ofthe national number offacilities at eachpointin the chain (OTe-specific informationwas not available). Although mosthighway diesel fuel is transportedfrom refineries to storage tanks at bulk terminals via the pipeline system, some fuel is transported directly from the refinery rack to the final location via tank truck. In some cases, highway diesel fuel is transported to a terminal or to a pipeline connectionbybarge or marine tanker. This methodis used for imports from foreign countries, for example. In cases where pipeline service is limited, fuel is also shippedto the terminalbyrail car. 

### Figure VI-1 Highway Diesel Fuel Distribution Chain

t \ I I Barge

## ~m t I I,

# ~~



# r**~50,000** Tank-Wagons

Truck Stops Fleets (commercial, Stations federal/statellocal 127 On-Highway Diesel Refineries**~5,000** 

# /**~50,000** Diesel Service**~1350** Bulk Terminals

>100,000 Centrally-fueled 12,000Transport**Truck~ ~7,000**  Fuel Oil Dealers**~10,000** BulkPlants

»100,000 governments) Farm Tanks
From the bulk terminal storage tanks, fuel can either be trucked directlyto the final dispensing location or transferredby tank truck to bulk plants for later transfer to the final destination. Tank trucks are the largest capacityvehicles carrying dieselfuel to final destinations; tanks wagons are smaller capacityvehicles that are used to deliver fuel to smaller retailers, fleet operators, and other customers. Tanks wagons typically have a number oftank compartments to deliver several different fuels on a single delivery route.
66In the OTC States, a significant amount ofhighway diesel fuel originates from nonOTC region sources. Figure VI-2 displays the PetroleumAdministration for Defense Districts (PADD) for which the Department ofEnergy collects dieselfuel production data. All the refineries locatedin PADD I, which covers the Atlantic coast region thatincludes the OTC States, produce only 18 percent ofPADD I highway diesel demand (EPA, 2000b). 

### Figure VI-2 Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADD)

Modeling conducted for EPA's recenthighway diesel fuel regulations suggests that three PADD I refineries will produce about 135,000 barrels per day ofthe newlyrequired low-sulfur (15 parts per million [ppm]) diesel. Because highway diesel demandin PADD I is approximately 820,000 barrels per day, EPAforecasts about 82 percent oftotalhighway diesel fuel willbe importedfrom PADD III, via the Colonial and Plantation pipelines, and through foreign imports (EPA, 2000b).
There are two key diesel distribution factors in the OTC region that have implications for the design ofa diesel samplingplan. First, much ofthe OTC's highway diesel fuel is supplied from non-OTC region refineries. Second, the fuel distribution system that handles highway diesel fuel is also used to distribute other products, some ofwhich contain a high sulfur content. Sulfur contamination ofhighway diesel fuel from mixing ofsuch products can occur at eachlink in the distribution system, andis cumulative. Ofall ofthe links in the distribution system, the pipeline system has the greatestpotentialfor mixing ofhighway diesel with high sulfurproducts. The most significant opportunity for mixing duringpipeline shipment results from the commonpractice ofsequentially shipping different products through the same line with no physical separationbetween the products.

67There are also significantconcerns related to limiting sulfur contamination in the other links in the distribution chain. These concerns include the potentialfor contamination of low-sulfurhighway diesel fuel when itis putinto a stationary storage tank, transferline, vehicle tank compartment, or delivery line thatpreviouslyheldhigh-sulfur products. Due to existingcontamination concerns, most marine vessel tank compartments usedto transport highway dieselfuel are already dedicatedfor this specific fuel, andthere is an increasing trend toward such dedication (EPA, 2000b). Sulfur contamination can also result from leakingvalves or from the addition offuel additives that have a high sulfur content. The extent to which such product mixingis acceptable, depends on the maximum allowable sulfur content ofthe highway diesel fuel, the sulfur level ofthe fuel as itleaves the refinery, andthe sulfur content ofthe highest sulfurproduct that shares the distribution system with the highway diesel fuel. The highest sulfur productpresenting a concernfor highway diesel fuel is off-highway diesel fuel, whichhas a maximum sulfur contentof5,000 ppm and averages approximately 3,000 ppm sulfur. EPA's current sulfur cap for highway dieselfuel is 500 ppm with actual sulfurlevels averaging approximately 340 ppm. This currentlyrepresents a 1 to 10 ratio ofthe maximum allowable sulfur content ofhighway dieselfuel to the highest sulfur content ofotherproducts in the distribution chain. This ratio provides anindication ofthe demonstrated ability ofthe current distribution system to limit sulfur contaminationinhighway dieselfuel.
EPAestimates that, in practice, its new sulfur regulations will resultinhighway diesel fuel leavingthe refinery with an average sulfurconcentration ofapproximately 7 ppm (EPA,2000b). This translates into atleast a 11500 ratio ofthe maximum allowable sulfur contaminationinhighway diesel fuel to the highest sulfurlevelin a product thathighway diesel fuel might come into contactwithin the distribution chain. This ratio is 50 times the current ratio, andindicates that sulfur contaminationwillbe a much greaterissue withthe new EPAregulations. The OTe will needto consider this sulfur contamination issue before setting more stringent standards ifit is interestedin doing so. Iffuture sulfur standards are implementedfor non-highway diesel fuel, or ifthe new EPAregulations resultin the development ofa separate highway diesel distribution system, then itwill be easier to ensure compliance with a more stringent sulfur cap throughout the distribution chain. However, EPA's regulatory impact analysis assumes that the existing distribution system willbe able to accommodate the new diesel fuel, and that a separate highway diesel system will not be developed as a result ofthe new standards (EPA, 2000b).
The current highway diesel distribution chainhas two majorimplications for a future OTeregion samplingplan: (1) highway diesel fuel samplingcannotbe conducted at the refinery levelbecause manyrefineries supplying the OTe States are not locatedinthe region; and (2) for any more stringent sulfur standards that the OTe may choose to implement, service stations and other final dispensing locations represent the only link in the chainwhere samplingcan ensure thatthe fuel burnedinhighway diesel engines is achieving these standards.
To address test variability concerns, EPAincluded a downstream tolerance of2 ppm to the 15 ppm sulfur standard. Downstream ofthe refinery tank inwhich itwas blended, all diesel fuel testing at 17 ppm orless will be consideredto be in compliance with the EPA standard. The purpose ofincluding this tolerance factor is to reflect measurement
68variability. The standards do not, however, provide a measurement tolerance for refineries. The EPA does not anticipate that distributors will necessarily test for fuel sulfur content after each opportunity for contamination, but rather willrely onprocedures set up to minimize the contamination, and obtaining fuel sufficientlybelow the standard to accommodate the increase in sulfur content from the contamination (EPA, 2000b). 

## c. DIESEL FUEL REGULATIONS
Dieselfuels in the OTC region are currently regulatedby National standards. These national EPA standards, which have beenin effect since October 1, 1993, apply only to fuel usedinhighway diesel engines. The regulations preclude anyone from producing, supplying, dispensing, transporting, or introducing into commerce highway diesel fuel that contains more than 500 ppm sulfur. The existing standards also protect against a rise in the fuel's aromatics content by setting a minimum cetane index of40, or, alternatively, a maximum aromatics level of35 volume percent. As a result ofthese diesel fuel standards, EPAestimates that the current average sulfur level in PADD I highway diesel fuel is approximately 340 ppm (EPA, 2000b). Dieselfuel sold for use in non-highway applications has average sulfur levels ofapproximately 3,300 ppm. The Federal Government also currentlyimposes an excise tax ofapproximately 24 cents per gallon on diesel fuel that is used on highways. Diesel fuel for off-highway use, such as home heating or construction, is not taxed. Certain entities, such as State and local governments, are exemptfrom payingtax on dieselfuel they use on highways. In order to improve uponpast enforcement ofdiesel fuel tax collection, the Omnibus Budget ReconciliationAct of 1993 moved the tax collection pointfrom the wholesale levelto the point ofremoval from bulk terminal storage. In addition, EPA and the InternalRevenue Service agreed to require that all tax-exempt diesel fuel (both low- andhigh-sulfur) removed from a terminal after September 1994 be dyedred. Under this taxing system, the partythathas contractedwith the terminal operator to store fuel in a terminalis liable for the diesel fuel taxwhen the fuel is removed from the terminal. Ifthis fuel is subsequently sold for a tax-free use, the Internal Revenue Service is to refund the tax. EPArecentlypromulgated regulations controlling emissions from heavy-dutyhighway vehicles (66 FR 5001, 2001). These regulations are expected to reduce particulate matter and NOx emissions from heavy-duty engines by 90 and 95 percent below current standard levels, respectively. The new standards are basedonthe use ofhigh-efficiency catalytic exhaust emissioncontrol devices or comparably effective advanced technologies. Because these devices are damagedby sulfur, the EPAregulations require reductions in the level of sulfur in highway dieselfuel beginningin mid-2006. With some exceptions, the EPAregulations mandate that refiners andimporters of highway diesel fuel reduce the sulfur content ofthis fuel to 15 ppm by June 1, 2006. The regulations incorporate the following exceptions: (1) refiners/importers canproduce a maximum of20 percent oftheirhighway diesel fuel at the current 500 ppm standard between June 1, 2006 andMay 31,2010, with the remainder meeting the 15 ppm specification; and (2) companies that meet the definition of"smallrefiner" can continue to produce 500 ppm highway diesel fuel untilMay 31, 2010, provided that the smallrefiner certifies that ample supplies of 15 ppm highway diesel fuel willbe available inits PADD

69from other suppliers. By May 31, 2010, all highway diesel fuel must meet the 15 ppm sulfur mandate, and all exceptions to the general rule will expire.
In addition, a refiner orimporter may generate sulfur credits for the earlyintroduction of 15 ppm highway diesel fuel or for producinglimporting more than 80 percent ofits production at the 15 ppm standard. These sulfur credits may be bought and soldby refiners andimporters. As a result, a refiner that does not meet the 80 percentproduction mandate maypurchase another refiner's credits to come into compliance with the mandate. All credits mustbe usedbyMay 31, 2010.
As part ofthe new diesel fuel sulfur program, EPAidentifiedboth the sampling methods and the test methods that will be usedin determining compliance at all points in the distribution system. The new highway diesel sulfur regulations adopt the sampling methods that are usedfor EPA's Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfurrule (65 FR 6797, 2000). These sampling methods are ASTM D 4057-95 (manual sampling) and D 4177-95 (automatic sampling from pipelines/in-line blending). The designated compliance test method is called "Test Method for Total Sulfur in LiquidAromatic Hydrocarbons andTheir Derivativesby Oxidative Combustion and Electrochemical Detection," orASTM D 6428-99. This test method would be the one that EPAwould utilize inits ownlaboratoryin order to determine whether a given sample taken at anypoint in the distribution system is in compliance with the appropriate diesel sulfur standard. EPA also allows the use of alternative test methods as long as they are correlatedto EPA's designated test method. Although the final regulations provide thatthe primary determinant ofcompliance with the standards willbe the approvedregulatory test methods, other information may also be used under the rule. Such other information could include test results using nondesignated test methods. Under the rule, evidence from the non-regulatory test method could be used to establish the diesel fuel's sulfurlevel that wouldhave resultedifthe regulatory test methodhadbeenconducted. Similarly, absent sulfur test results using the regulation method, commercial documents asserting the sulfur level ofdieselfuel or additive couldbe used as some evidence ofthe product's sulfur levelifithadbeen tested using the regulatory method. EPAis requiring that refiners andimporters provide information on commercial product transfer documents thatidentifies dieselfuel distributedfor use in motor vehicles andthat states that the fuel complies with the 15 ppm sulfur standard. Ifa violation ofthe rule is detected throughrandom testing or other means, allparties in the distribution chain for that location are presumedliable for the violation. Ifa violation is detected at a retail outlet, for example, the diesel marketer, transporter, supplier, andrefiner are all deemedliable. The rule identifies severaltypes ofevidence that can serve to defend against liability:

• The violation was not causedbythe person or the person's employee or agent;

• Product transfer documents account for the fuel and/or additive found to be in violation andindicate that the violatingproductwas in compliance with the applicable requirements whenit was under the person's control; and

• A quality assurance sampling and testing program was conducted.

70A quality assurance sampling and testingprogram entails periodic sampling and testing to ensure that the highway diesel fuel or additive the person sold, dispensed, supplied, stored, or transported, meets the applicable sulfur standards. Although a quality assurance sampling and testingprogram is not requiredby the final rule, such a program will strengthen the defense to an alleged violation ofthe regulation. 

### D. FUEL REGULATIONS IN OTHER STATES
1. Georgia Gasoline Georgia has a 2-phasedprogram for counties in and around the Atlanta ozone nonattainment area that requires lower sulfur gasoline than is required by Federal regulations. Gasoline sold in a 25 county area is regulatedbyphase 1 requirements that began in 1999. The volume-weighted average sulfur content ofgasoline is limitedto 150 ppm during the ozone season. There are 25 Georgia counties subject to this gasoline regulationin 1999.
Phase 2 requirements set to achieve additional reductions in gasoline-powered vehicle exhaustwill go into effect onApril 1, 2003. To achieve this, the volume-weighted average sulfur content ofgasoline will be limited to 30 ppm byweight and a 150 ppm gallon cap. This fuel will be required year-round and is consistentwith the recentEPAproposalfor a national sulfur controlprogram. The area subject to this Georgia gasoline regulationin 2003 will include the 25 counties affected bythe phase 1 requirements, plus 20 additional counties. 

### 2. Texas Low Emission Diesel
Texas willrequire low-emission diesel fuel Statewide for on-road use. In addition, Texas'srevisions to its low-emission diesel rules will require low-emission diesel fuel for both on-road and non-road use in the eight counties inthe Houston-Galveston area ozone nonattainment area, the four counties ofthe Dallas-Ft. Worth ozone nonattainment area, the three counties ofthe Beaumont-PortArthur ozone nonattainment area, and 95 additional central and eastern Texas counties.
To complywith the State low-emission diesel regulations, diesel fuel producers and importers must ensure thatthe diesel fuel delivered to the low-emission diesel fuel zone meets the specifications in the Texas rules. These rules require that, beginningMay 1, 2002, diesel fuel producedfor delivery and ultimate sale to the consumerin the affected area shall not exceed 500 ppm sulfur, must containless than 100 percentbyvolume of aromatic hydrocarbons, and must have a cetane number of48 or greater. In addition, these rules will require that the sulfur contentin the diesel fuel supplied to the Dallas-Ft. Worth, Beaumont-PortArthur, and Houston-Galveston area ozone nonattainment areas and 95 central and eastern Texas counties be reduced to 15 ppm sulfur beginningJune 1, 2006. Also, these rules require diesel fuel producers andimporters who provide fuel to the affected areas to register with the Texas NaturalResource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) andprovide quarterly status reports.

71The Texas rules will restrictthe registration, reporting, and testing requirements of these programs to those persons who have direct control over changes in fuel content; i.e., those persons who produce or import fuel into the State. If a new Federal diesel fuel sulfur rule is adopted that covers the areas inTexas that are affectedby this rule, and the Federalrule is at least as stringent as these rules, then the commission may consider compliance with the national rule equally effective and may repeal the State sulfur requirements for diesel fuel. Regarding compliance, Texas rules require allparties in the distribution chain to maintain copies or records ofproduct transfer documents for a minimum oftwo years. Eachparty in the distribution chain is required to comply with the rules, and, as with any rule, is subject to enforcement action for a violation. The TNRCC will enforce the requirements after the compliance date and will take appropriate action for noncompliance situations.
No statistical-based samplingis plannedin Texas. The primary compliance mechanisms are quarterlyreports that diesel fuel suppliers are required to provide to the TNRCC, andTNRCC Regional Office inspections. Regional office enforcementis expected to be via random sampling. 

### 3. Arizona - Cleaner Burning Gasoline
TheArizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline (CBG) program was adopted bythe Arizona State Legislature to respond to EPA's classification ofthe PhoenixMetropolitan area as a serious nonattainment area for both carbon monoxide and ozone. Implementation and enforcementofthe Arizona CBG beganin the PhoenixMetropolitan area onMay 1, 1999. Arizona receives all ofits gasoline supplyfrom two basic sources: the Westpipeline suppliers (primarily Southern California refiners) and the East pipeline suppliers (predominately GulfCoast refiners). The Westpipeline runs from Southern Californiato Yuma and then to Phoenix. The Eastpipeline runs from EIPaso, Texas to Tucson, and then to Phoenix. Ofthe approximately 1.5 billion gallons ofArizona CBG that are piped or transported to, and consumedwithin, the CBG CoveredArea each year, roughly 70 percent comes from the Westpipeline and 30 percent comes from the Eastpipeline. Arizona CBG can technicallybe anyone ofthe following types, or formulations, of gasoline:
Federal Phase 2 Reformulated Gasoline, or FederalPhase 2 Reformulated Gasoline is a basicformulation thatis producedin such a way (as regulatedby the FederalEPA) as to limitthe quantity orlevels ofthose compounds and characteristics ofgasoline thatlead to poor emissions. All FederalPhase 2 Reformulated Gasoline mustpass the Federal Complex Model for use within a controlled area. CARB (CaliforniaAir Resources Board) Phase 2 is a formulation thatis currently being used throughout California. Itis formulated in such a way as to further limit various parameters ofa gasoline blendwhich leads to a greater emissions reduction from motor vehicles. CARB Phase 2 gasoline is viewed as superior to other types of
72reformulated gasolines, including Federal Phase 2, and is consideredthe "cleanest burning" gasoline formulation available to date. Predictive Model Formulations, or PM gasoline, are very similar to CARB Phase 2 gasoline, but differ in thatthe refineris given leeway to deviate from the limits imposed on each compound or characteristic ofCARB Phase 2, while the resultant emissions reduction meets the required emission expectations ofthe California Predictive Model.
The Arizona CBG program comprehensivelytracks every shipment ofgasoline, by batch, to and sold within the CBG CoveredArea from the refinery gate and to the retail outlets within the CBG CoveredArea. Itis thejob ofthe Arizona DepartmentofWeights andMeasures, in consultationwith the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality, to enforce the Arizona CBG rule (ACC, Title 20, Chapter 2, Article 7). This is accomplishedby: (1) tracking the production and distribution ofCBG into and throughout the CBG CoveredArea; (2) monitoringfuel quality compliance at the retail end; (3) reviewing RFG SurveyAssociation "surveys" yearround; and (4) performing quality assurance "audits" throughout the CBG distribution system from refineries to oxygenate blending facilities. 

### 4. California Diesel Fuel Regulations
ARB adopted dieselfuel regulations in 1988. These regulations are estimated to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 82 percent, particulate matter (PM) emissions by 25 percent, and NOx emissions by 7 percent (ARB, 2001). California diesel fuel also reduces emissions ofseveral toxic pollutants, includingpolynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. These regulations took effect in 1993, the same year as the current Federal dieselfuel regulations. The Federal dieselrule, however, only reduces PM emissions by 5 percent and does not reduce NOx emissions.



### a. Diesel Fuel Standards
There are two principalcomponents ofCalifornia's highway diesel fuel standards: (1) the fuel's maximum sulfur content is set at 0.05 percent (this is the same level as the currentFederal standards); and (2) the fuel's aromatic hydrocarbon content is capped at 10 percent, whichis about one-thirdthe level ofpre-1993 diesel fuel (ARB, 1997). A proportionofthe total dieselfuel volume produced by "smallrefiners" is exempt from the aromatic hydrocarbon contentlimit.
Unlike the refineries in the OTC States, California's refineries normallyproduce sufficient amounts ofdiesel fuel to meetin-State**d~mand.** However, diesel fuel can be importedinto the State as long as it meetsARB's requirements. If a refineryis unable to produce sufficient diesel due to circumstances beyondits control, it canrequest a temporary variance from ARB to produce or import diesel that does not meetARB's standards.
The aromatic hydrocarbon standards canbe met through dieselfuel that exceeds the 10 percent aromatic limitifthe fuel formulation meets requirements specifiedbyARB. These requirements specify that the producer/importer certifyeach alternative fuel
73formulation withARB. This certification requires that exhaust emissions testing using the fuel formulation results in NOx emissions, PM emissions, and the soluble organic fraction ofPM emissions that are equivalent or less than those resultingfrom emissions tests using ARB's reference fuel. In addition, the producer/importer must specify the following limits that the alternative fuel must meet:

• an alternative aromatic hydrocarbon limit; • a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon limit; • a nitrogen content limit; and • a minimum cetane number. The producer/importer must also identify all ofthe fuel additives and their concentrations in the alternative fuel. Actual concentrations must not be less than those specifiedfor the alternative fuel formulation (except for an additive demonstratedbythe applicantto have the sole effect ofincreasing the cetane number). 

### b. Testing and Recordkeeping Requirements
ARB's regulations require thatproducers/importers sample and test each highway diesel final blendproduced/shipment importedfor aromatic hydrocarbon content using ASTM D-5186-96. Producers/importers are required to maintain records on these samples for a period oftwo years from the date ofthe sampling. When producers selVsupply nonhighway dieselfuel with an aromatic hydrocarbon content exceeding the ARB's standard, they must maintain records for two years that demonstrate that the fuel was nothighway diesel fuel. Producers/importers are required to provide these records to ARB within 20 days ofa writtenrequest. Producerslimporters that fail to provide these records, are presumedto have sold diesel fuel blends that violate the regulations.


### c. Compliance/Enforcement
The diesel fuel regulations state thatARB mayperform any sampling and testing neededto determine compliance with the standards, and that they can require that special samples be drawn and tested at any time. ARB has specified the use ofASTM Test MethodD 2622-94 to identify compliance with the diesel fuel sulfur contentlimits. ARB has specified the use ofASTM D 5186-96 to identify compliance with the diesel fuel aromatic hydrocarbonlimits.
Discussions withARB compliance division staffindicate thatARB does not utilize a statistical-basedmethodfor compliance testing (Lum, 2001). Instead, ARB develops a random testing schedule at the beginning for each calendaryear. This schedule places more emphasis on the Southern California areabecause ofthe severity ofthe airpollution problem in this region. ARB indicates that they also respond to reports of"suspicious activity" and target facilities that have had a poor compliance record in the past. ARB compliance personnel also indicate that statistical samplingis not usedfor reformulated gasoline standardcompliance testing.

74

### E. CONCLUSIONS
The RFG SurveyAssociation is a not for profittrade association. Its members include refiners, importers, andblenders ofreformulated, or cleaner burning, gasolines. The association's mission is to efficiently and effectively design andimplement compliance surveyprograms for government orindustry. This association currentlyperforms the compliance programs for the Federal Reformulated Gasoline program andArizona's CBG program, among others. Itis recommended that the OTC States use this organization to develop a compliance program/sampling program for any regional diesel fuel program that itwants to implement. The RFG SurveyAssociation can design a samplingplan, but it would needto know whether the regionalprogram affects on-road, or non-road diesel (or both) andwhat diesel characteristics are being regulated (sulfur, cetane, aromatics, etc.).
A diesel fuel samplingplan would be expected to differ from a gasoline samplingplan in that there are fewer retail stations that sell diesel. On the other hand, diesel canbe storedin tanks at commercialfacilities, farms, and residences because the fuel is much less volatile than gasoline. However, the 1999 Federalregulations affecting fuel storage tanks will make it much less likely with time that smallfuel users will have their own tanks (because ofliability issues). Itis expected that any sampling plan designedby the RFG SurveyAssociation wouldbe basedon the primary samplingbeing at the point of consumption (retail sites).



### 7576

## CHAPTER VII CAVEATS AND UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ANALYSIS

The VOC model rule analysis uses per capitaVOC emission factors to estimate current andfuture year emissions from model rule affected source categories in the OTC States. This methodwas chosen in order to produce straightforward emission estimates and to have calculation methods that are consistent throughout the study region. These estimates may differ from those that have been made bythe individual States andpublishedin SIPs. EPA guidance allows States some discretionin the VOC emission estimation factors, per employee emission factors, and State or local surveys. State inventories that usedper employee emission factors, or surveys to estimate VOC emissions, may not match those presentedin this report. The NOx modelrule analysis presentedin this reportis the product ofan extensive data exchange andreview process during the projectperiod among the OTC States and Pechan. This data exchange, andthe resulting 1996 NOx emissions database, has greatly improved our ability to identify the NOx sources, and associated emissions, that are likely to be affected by the NOx modelrules. Some uncertainties in NOx emissionbenefit estimates still exist; for example, consistent assumptions were used where design capacities were not available for specific sources. NOx control efficiency estimates associatedwith source category-control strategy combinations are represented as point estimates.



### 7778

# REFERENCES

ARB, 1997: CaliforniaAir Resources Board, "The California Diesel Fuel Regulations, Title 13, California Code ofRegulations, Sections 2281 and 2282," June 4, 1997. ARB, 1999a: CaliforniaAir Resources Board, "Initial Statement ofReasons for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation," Stationary Source Division, September 1999. ARB, 1999b: CaliforniaAir Resources Board, "PublicMeeting to ConsiderApproval ofCA's Portable Gasoline-Container Emissions Inventory," MailoutMSC 99-25, Mobile Source Control Division, September 1999. ARB, 1999c: CaliforniaAir Resources Board, "Initial Statement ofReason for Proposed Rule MakingPublic Hearing to Consider the Adoption ofPortable Fuel Container Spillage Control Regulations." August 6, 1999. ARB, 1999d: CaliforniaAir Resources Board, "1998Architectural Coatings Survey, Final Report," September 1999. ARB, 2000a: CaliforniaAir Resources Board, "StaffReport for the Proposed Suggested ControlMeasure for Architectural Coatings, Volume 

### II, Technical Support Document, Section

### VIII, Economic Impacts," June 2000. ARB, 2000b: CaliforniaAir Resources Board, "ProposedDetermination ofReasonably Available ControlTechnology and BestAvailable Retrofit ControlTechnology for Stationary Spark-Ignited Internal CombustionEngines," SSD, July 2000. ARB, 2001: CaliforniaAir Resources Board, "California Diesel Fuel, Fact Sheet," downloaded from http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/dieselldieselfs.pdf. October 6, 2000. BEA, 1995: BureauofEconomic Analysis, "Regional State Projections ofEconomicActivity and Population to 2045," U.S. DepartmentofCommerce, Washington, DC, July 1995. BLS, 1999: Bureau ofLabor Statistics, 

### Economic andEmploymentProjections, 1998-2008. U.S. Department ofLabor, November 30, 1999. Census, 1990: U.S. Census Bureau, 

### 1990 Census ofPopulation andHousing, Summary Tape File 1 (STF-1), April 1, 1990. Census, 2000: U.S. Census Bureau, Documentation toAccompany July 1, 1999 Population Estimates for Counties, http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/ co_99_8.html, March 9, 2000.

79

## REFERENCES (continued)

Connecticut, 2000: Regulations ofConnecticut State Agencies, Section 22a-174-22, "Control ofNitrogen Oxides Emissions," July 2000. Delaware, 1993: Delaware State Regulation 12, "ControlofNitrogen Oxides Emissions," November 1993. EC,2000: European Commission, "Reference Document on BestAvailable Techniques in the Cement and Lime Manufacturing Industries," IntegratedPollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), World Trade Center, Sevilla, Spain, March 2000. EC/R,2000a: EC/R Inc., "NOx ControlTechnologies for the Cement Industry," ChapelHill, NC, prepared for the U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 19, 2000. EC/R, 2000b: EC/R Inc., "Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, Updated Information on NOx Emissions and ControlTechniques," prepared for the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, ResearchTriangle Park, NC, August 29, 2000. EPA, 1991: U.s. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, "Procedures for the Development of Emission Inventories for CarbonMonoxide and Precursors ofOzone," Office ofAir QualityPlanning and Standards, EPA 450/4-91-016, May 1991. EPA, 1994: U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, "Alternative ControlTechniques Document

- NOx Emissions from CementManufacturing," Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, (EPA-4531R-94-004), March 1994. EPA, 1995: U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, "Summary ofState NOx RACT Rules: FinalReport," ResearchTriangle Park, NC, September 1995. EPA, 1999a: U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, "Development ofEmission Budget Inventories for RegionalTransport NOx SIP Call," Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, May 1999. EPA, 1999b: U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, "Development ofEmission Budget Inventories for Regional TransportNOx SIP Call, TechnicalAmendmentVersion," Office ofAir QualityPlanning and Standards, A-96-56:X-B-11, December 1999. EPA,2000a: U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, "NONROAD Model, BetaVersion," Office ofTransportation andAir Quality, AnnArbor, MI, June 2000.

80

## REFERENCES (continued)

EPA,2000b: 

### u.s. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, "RegulatoryImpactAnalysis: HeavyDuty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway DieselFuel Sulfur Control Requirements," Office ofTransportation andAir Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, EPA 420-R-00-026, December 2000. EPA, 2001: U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, "Economic GrowthAnalysis System: Version 4.0 Reference Manual, Final Draft," Office ofAir QualityPlanning and Standards, ResearchTriangle Park, NC, January 26,2001. Faiz, 1996: A. Faiz, "Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Standards and Technologies for Controlling Emissions," The World Bank, Washington, DC, 1996. 63FR48819, 1998: 

### Federal Register, "NationalVolatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products," FinalRule, Vol. 63, No. 176, September 11, 1998.
65 FR 6797, 2000: 

### Federal Register, "Control ofAir Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur ControlRequirements," February 10, 2000.
66 FR 5001, 2001: 

### Federal Register, "Control ofAir Pollutionfrom New MotorVehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine andVehicle Standards and HighwayDiesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements," January 18, 2001. Industry Insights, 1993: Industry Insights, Inc., "Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Surface Coatings VOC Emission Inventory Survey," conducted for the National Paint and CoatingsAssociationin cooperation with the AIM Reg-Neg Industry Caucus, May 1993. Leibel, 1999: T. Leibel, South CoastAir QualityManagement District, personal communicationwith S. Roe, E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., October 15, 1999. Lum, 2001: D. Lum, CaliforniaAir Resources Board, Compliance Division, personal communicationwithAndy Bollman, E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., March 13, 2001. Maryland, 2000: Code ofMaryland 26, Section 11, Chapter 09.08, "Control ofNOx Emissions for Major Stationary Sources," http:209.15.49.5/26/26.11.09.08.htm, 2000. NESCAUM,2000: Northeast States for CoordinatedAir Use Management, "Status Report on NOx Controls for Gas Turbines, Cement Kilns, Industrial Boilers, Internal Combustion Engines, Technologies & CostEffectiveness," December 2000.
New Hampshire, 2000: New Hampshire Code ofAdministrative Rules, PARTEnv-A 1211, "Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)," 2000.

81

## REFERENCES (continued)

New Jersey, 1993: New JerseyAdministrative Code, Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 19, "Control and Prohibition ofAir Pollution From Oxides ofNitrogen," December 1993.
New York, 1998: New York State ImplementationPlan for Ozone, "Meetingthe Statewide Oxides ofNitrogen (NOx) Budget Requirements Containedin the NOx SIP Call," NYSDEC Air Resources, October 1998. OTAG, 1996: Ozone TransportAssessment Group, Assessment ofControlTechnologies for Reducing Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Non-Utility Point Sources and MajorArea Sources," OTAG Policy Paper, ControlTechnologies and Options Workgroup, February 27, 1996. Pechan,2000: E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., "NOx Emissions Control Costs for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines in the NOx SIP Call States," preparedfor the U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, Office ofAir QualityPlanning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 11, 2000. Pennsylvania, 1998: Commonwealth ofPennsylvania, Pennsylvania Code, Title 25. Environmental Protection, DepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection, Chapters 121­ 143, Air Resources, current through 28 Pa.B. 4776, September 19, 1998. SCAQMD, 1997: South CoastAir Quality Management District, "Final StaffReportfor ProposedAmendments to Rule 1122

- SolventDegreasers," June 6, 1997. SCAQMD, 1999: South CoastAir Quality Management District, BoardMeeting: Amendment ofRule 1171

- Solvent Cleaning Operations, October 8, 1999. Seitz, 1994: John S. Seitz, "Creditfor the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for Reductions from the Architectural and IndustrialMaintenance (AIM) Coating Rule and the Autobody Refinishing Rule," Office ofAir QualityPlanning and Standards, U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, November 29, 1994. Seitz, 1995a: John S. Seitz, "Regulatory Schedule for Consumer and Commercial Products under Section 183(e) ofthe CleanAirAct," Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, ResearchTriangle Park, NC, Memorandum to EPARegional Offices, June 22, 1995. Seitz, 1995b: John S. Seitz, "Creditfor the 15 PercentRate-of-Progress Plans for Reductions from the Architectural and IndustrialMaintenance (AIM) Coating Rule," Office ofAir QualityPlanning and Standards, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, ResearchTriangle Park, NC, Memorandum to EPARegional Offices, March 22, 1995.

82

## REFERENCES (continued)

STAPPAIALAPCO, 1994: State and TerritorialAir Pollution Program Administrators/Association ofLocalAir Pollution Control Officials, "Controlling Nitrogen Oxides Under the CleanAirAct: A Menu ofOptions," July 1994. TNRCC, 2000: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, "Chapter 114

- Control ofAir Pollution from Motor Vehicles," Austin, Texas, December 2000.

83

### 84

## APPENDIX A METHODS FOR ESTIMATING PORTABLE FUEL CONTAINER EMISSIONS

### AppendixA Methods for EstimatingPortableFuel ContainerEmissions
This appendix describes how the information in the California Air Resources Board's Mail-Out MSC 99-25 can be used to estimate portable fuel container emissions in the OTC States. Most ofthe text and equations in this appendix are taken directly from MSC 99-25. 

### Introduction Gas-can emissions rates for various emissions modes (e.g., evaporation, permeation, etc.) occurring during typical usage are determined using diurnal evaporative and gravimetric test methods. The survey of population and usage are combined with the emissions test results to produce the inventory. This inventory will be used in estimating other inventories, such as those of past and future years, and for other purposes involving planning or air-quality modeling. The gas-can surveys and emissions test methods are discussed in the following sections. 

### A. Residential-Gas Cans.
1. Surveys. Residential-gas-can information can be solicited by mail from randomly selected OTC State households and directly from various agency staff.
Gas-can emissions are a function ofthe can material (i.e., plastic or metal) and the storage conditions. Gas cans are stored in either an "open" or a "closed" condition. An open condition, or system, exists when a can is stored with an open breathing (vent) hole and/or an uncapped main-filler opening or nozzle. A closed system exists when the vent hole is closed and the main-filler opening or spout is capped.
A sample result ofan OTC State residential-gas-can-survey is presented in Table 1. 

### Table 1: Residential-Gas-Can-Survey Results (sample)
Percentage of Households with at Least One Gas Can Number-of-Gas-Cans per Household Percentage of Plastic-Gas Cans/Metal-Gas Cans Weighted Average Gas Can Capacity (gal.) Percentage of Gas Cans Stored With Fuel Weighted Average Stored Fuel Volume (% ofTotal Capacity) Percentage of Plastic-Gas Cans Stored Open/Closed 46% 

### 1.8 76%/24%

2.34 70% 49% 23%/53%



### -A-I

­

### Percentage of Metal-Gas Cans Stored Open/Closed 

### 11%/13% Percentage ofAll Gas Cans Stored Open/Closed 

### 34%/66%

2. Population. The residential-gas-can population is calculated as follows:

POPR 

# = (N)(A)(CountR) (Eq. 1)

where: 

### POPR 

# = Statewide Residential-Gas-Can Population 

## N 

# = Number of Occupied-Housing Units in OTC State (say 

### 11,127,621 on Jan. 

### 1,2000) 

### A 

# = Percentage of Households with Gas Cans 

### (46%) CountR 

# = Average Number of Residential-Gas Cans per Household (Le., 1.8) Substituting the appropriate values into Equation 1 yields a statewide population of 

### 9,213,670 residential-gas cans for the 

### 2000 calendaryear. 

### 3. Population-Growth Rate. The 

### 1990-2000 housing unit data from the OTC State Department of Finance can be used to estimate future gas-can growth rates until the 

### 2010 calendar year. These projected growth rates will be normalized to the 

### 1990 calendar year. The housing unit data can be used to extrapolate values offuture annual housing units in OTC State until the 

### 2010 calendar year.



### 4. Emissions. Gas-can emissions are classified by five different emission processes: a) Permeation; b) Diurnal; c) Transport; d) Spillage; and, e) Vapor Displacement During Equipment Refueling.

- A-2­

### a) Permeation Emissions.
Permeation emissions are produced afterfuel has been stored long enough in a can for fuel molecules to infiltrate and saturate the can material.
An average daily permeation-emission rate can be derived from test data obtained from several plastic-gas cans and metal-gas cans. Each gas can is sealed with a metal-filled epoxy and an overcoat ofa non-permeable two-part epoxy resin. Additionally, any plastic caps and plugs are replaced with metal ones whenever possible. Also, all secondary vents are plugged with brass fittings and coated with sealant. Lastly, the gas cans are leak checked and reworked as necessary. The gas cans are filled with certification test fuel (Le., reformulated gasoline), and subjected to a diurnal-variable temperature profile in a sealed housing for evaporative determination unit (SHED). This temperature profile is the same as is currently required for on-highway motor-vehicleevaporative emissions testing (ozone episode days). Gravimetric measurements are made ofthe gas cans after each 24-hourtest period. The average daily permeation rate from a plastic-gas can (closed system) is calculated as grams per gallon per day (g/gal-day). A permeation-emission rate for metal-gas cans is determined with similar test methods as g/gal-day. Statewide residential-gas-can-permeation emissions are computed as follows:

HCPR 

# = L 

### [ (PoPR)(S)(EFp)(BR)(SizeR)(Level) ] (Eq.2)

where: HCPR 

# = Permeation Emissions in tons per day (tpd) POPR 

# = Statewide Residential-Gas-Can Population EFp 

# = Appropriate Permeation-Emission Factor (g/galday) S 

# = Percentage of Gas Cans Stored with Fuel (70%) BR 

# = Percentage of Cans Stored in Closed Condition with respect to Material (Plastic 53%; Metal 13%) SizeR 

# = Weighted Average Capacity of Residential-Gas Cans (2.34 gal.) Level 

# = Weighted Average Amount of Stored Fuel (49%) Substituting the appropriate values into Equation 2, summing the resultant products, and converting grams to tons (Le., 9.08(105) 

### grams perton), produces a statewide total of residential-plastic-gas-can-permeation emissions. Similarly, a permeation-emissions total for residential-metal-gas-cans can be determined.

- A-3

­

### b) Diurnal Emissions.
Diurnal emissions result when stored fuel vapors escape to the outside ofa gas can through any possible openings while the gas can is subjected to the daily cycle of increasing and decreasing ambient temperatures. Diurnal emissions are dependent on the closed- or open-storage condition ofa gas can. Accordingly, emissions rates are determined for both conditions. Closed-System. Plastic-gas-can test data are gathered from, say, several 2-gallon-Bounce, and five-gallon, size gas cans. These gas cans are filled with certification-test fuel to one-half ofthe total capacity. One-half ofthe gas-can capacity approximates the weighted average ofstored fuel volume of49%. The cans are subjected to a diurnalvariable temperature profile in a shed. An average diurnal-emission rate is first calculated using each individual gas-can average daily-emission rate. The averagedaily plastic-gas-can permeation rate is then subtracted from that value to yield the resultant diurnal-emission rate for plastic, closed-system gas cans as g/gal-day. Similar diurnal-SHED tests ofseveral metal-gas cans can be performed. Open-System. Plastic-gas-can test data are gathered from several five-gallon, and 2­ gallon-B-ounce, size gas cans. Each gas can is weighed, filled with test fuel to various fractions oftheirtotal capacities, and weighed again. The gas cans are then stored with open vent and breathing holes. Each gas can is weighed after each subsequent 24-hour period for sixteen consecutive days. The average diurnal-emission rate over the test period can be measured as g/day. Note that this diurnal-emission rate is applicable for both plastic- and metal-gas cans that are stored in an open condition.
Diurnal emissions from both open- and c1osed-system-residential-gas cans are calculated as follows:
(Eq.3)

where: HCDR 

### = Diurnal Emissions (tpd) for Residential-Gas Cans with respect to Storage Condition (Open or Closed) and Material (Plastic or Metal) POPR 

### = Statewide Residential-Gas-Can Population S 

### = Percentage of Gas-Can Population Stored with Fuel (70%) EFD 

### = Appropriate Diurnal-Emission Factorwith respect to Storage Condition and Material (g/gal-day or g/day) BR 

### = Percentage of Gas-Can Population with respect to Storage Condition and Material

- A-4­SizeR 

# = Weighted Average Capacity of Residential-Gas Cans (2.34 gal.) Level 

# = Weighted Average Amount of Stored Fuel (49%)
Substituting the appropriate values into Equation 3, and performing the conversion to tons, yields a statewide total residential-gas-can-diurnal emission amount in 

### tpd for the 2000 calendar year. c) Transport-Spillage Emissions. Transport-spillage emissions arise when fuel escapes (e.g., spills, etc.) from gas cans that are in transit. The transport-emission-spillage factor can be determined from data provided by the U. S. EPA's fuel transport spillage survey of hydrocarbon losses from lawn and garden equipment. Analysis ofthis data revealed that the emission rates for a gas can (Le., pump-to-pump losses) were 

### 23.0 grams per gascan-refill-at-the-pump (g/refill) for a closed system, and 

### 32.5 

### g/refill for an open system. Residential-transport-spillage emissions are determined as:
(Eq.4)

where: HCTR 

# = Residential-Gas-Can-Transport-Spillage Emissions (tpd) POPR 

# = Statewide Residential-Gas-Can Population S 

# = Percentage of Gas Cans Stored with Fuel (70%) RefiliR 

# = Average Number of Residential-Gas-Cans-PumpRefills per Day per Can ( refill/day from survey) EFT 

# = Transport-Emission Factorwith respect to Storage Condition (g/refill) BR 

# = Percentage of Gas Cans with respect to Storage Condition and Material Substituting the appropriate values into Equation 4, and converting grams to tons, yields a statewide total residential-gas-can-transport-spillage emission value in 

### tpd. B. Commercial-Gas Cans.
1. Surveys. Commercial-gas can usage and storage information can be solicited by agency staff directly from various statewide businesses. Targeted businesses may include

- A-5

­

### agricultural, automotive club and tow services, service stations, lawn and garden maintenance services, general contractors, and construction and rental yards. The results of a sample commercial-gas-can-survey may be as follows: 

### Table 2: Commercial-Gas-Can-Survey Results (Sample) Percentage of Businesses with at Least One Gas Can 80% Gas Cans per Businesses 6.9 Weighted Average Gas Can Capacity (gal.) 3.43 Percentage of Plastic-Gas Cans/Metal-Gas Cans 72%/28% Percentage of Plastic-Gas Cans Stored Open/Closed 39%/33% Percentage of Metal-Gas Cans Stored Open/Closed 10%/18% Percentage ofAll Gas Cans Stored Open/Closed 49%/51%



### 2. Population. The populations ofcommercial-gas cans held by businesses can be determined using the InfoUSA database. Specific businesses that are expected to utilize gas cans in their normal operations are identified within various industrial classifications (e.g., agricultural services, general building services, etc.). Summing up the individual populations ofeach business group gives an estimate ofthe total statewide population of businesses using gas cans. The commercial-gas-can population is calculated as follows:

POPe 

### = (Ne )( Countd (Eq.5)



### = Statewide Commercial-Gas-Can Population 

# = Number ofOccupied Businesses in OTC State 

# = Average Number of Gas Cans per Business (6.9) where:



### 3. Emissions. a) Permeation Emissions. Permeation-emission rates for commercial-gas cans are assumed to be the same as those for residential-gas cans Statewide commercial-gas-can-permeation emissions are computed as follows:

- A-6­(Eq.6)

where: HCpc 

# = Permeation Emissions (tpd) Popc 

# = Statewide Commercial-Gas-Can Population EFp 

# = Appropriate Permeation-Emission Factor (g/gal-day) S 

# = Percentage of Gas Cans Stored with Fuel (70% for Residential Survey) Bc 

# = Percentage ofApplicable Gas Cans Stored in Closed Condition Sizec 

# = Weighted Average Capacity of Commercial-Gas Cans (3.43 gal) Level 

# = Weighted Average Amount of Stored Fuel (49% from Residential Survey) Substituting the appropriate values into Equation 6, summing the resultant products, and converting grams to tons, gives a commercial-gas-can statewide permeationemissions total in 

### tpd for plastic-gas cans and for metal-gas cans. b) Diurnal Emissions.
Diurnal-emissions rates for commercial-gas cans are expected to be the same as for residential-gas cans. The amount ofdiurnal emissions from both open- and closed-system commercial-gas cans is calculated as follows:
(Eq.7)

where: HCDC 

# = Diurnal Emissions (tpd) for Commercial-Gas Cans with respect to Storage Condition (Open or Closed) and Material (Plastic or Metal) Popc 

# = Statewide Commercial-Gas-Can Population EFD 

# = Appropriate Diurnal-Emission Factorwith respect to Storage Condition and Material (g/gal-day or g/day) S 

# = Percentage of Gas Cans Stored with Fuel (70% from Residential Survey) Bc 

# = Percentage of Gas Cans with respect to Storage Condition and Material

- A-7

­

### Sizec 

# = Weighted Average Capacity of Commercial-Gas Cans (3.43 gal.) Level 

# = Weighted Average Amount of Stored Fuel (49% from Residential Survey) Substituting the appropriate values into Equation 7, and converting grams to tons, yields commercial-gas-can-diurnal-emission values. c) Transport-Spillage Emissions. Transport-Spillage emissions factors for commercial-gas cans are expected to be the same as those for residential-gas cans: 23.0 g/refill per can for a closed system, and 32.5 g/refill per can for an open system. The frequency ofgas-can refills at the pump for lawn-and-garden equipment is expected to be differentthan for all ofthe othertypes of commercial equipment. This is due to the higher level ofactivity for commercial lawn-and-garden equipment; hence, this equipment is expected to be refueled more often than is other commercial equipment. Accordingly, the frequency of average commerciallawn-and-garden-equipment gas-can refills at the pump is derived from the U. S. EPA's fuel transport spillage survey of hydrocarbon losses from lawn and garden equipment data.
The 2000-calendar-yearfrequency of non-Iawn-and-garden-equipment commercial-gascan refills at the pump is derived as follows:

Refillc (Eq.8) 

### = [ (L 

### Fuel) 

# l

(Sizec)(POPNON)(S)

where: Refillc 

# = Average Number of Non-Lawn-and-Garden Equipment Commercial-Gas-Cans Pump Refills per Day per Can (refill/day) Fuel 

### = Non-Lawn-and-Garden Equipment Fuel Consumption (gal/day) for 2000 Sizec 

# = Weighted Average Capacity of CommercialGas Cans (3.43 gal/can-refill) POPNON 

### = Statewide Commercial-Gas-Can Population with respect to Non-Lawn-and-Garden Businesses 

## S 

# = Percentage of Gas Cans Stored with Fuel (70% from Residential Survey)
The commercial-transport-spillage emissions are determine as:



### - A-8­(Eq.9)

where: HCTC 

### = Commercial-Gas-Can-Transport-Spillage Emissions (tpd) Popc 

### = Statewide Commercial-Gas-Can Population S 

### = Percentage of Gas Cans Stored with Fuel (70% from Residential Survey) Bc 

### = Percentage of Gas Cans with respect to Storage Condition and Material Refillc 

### = Average Number of Gas-Cans Pump Refills per Day per Can EFTc 

### = Transport-Spillage Emission Factor (g/refill) with respect to Storage Condition


### C. Spillage Emissions During Equipment Refueling. Spillage emissions are produced when fuel is dispensed from a gas can to an equipment/vehicle fuel tank, another gas can, etc., and fails to either be delivered into the intended reservoir orto remain inside the reservoir. Spillage data provided by the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEl) in conjunction with the U. S. EPA's NEVES report1 indicate that the spillage-emission rate for equipment refills from a gas can is 17 grams per refill per equipment unit. This estimate assumes that every refill results in a replenishment ofthe fuel tank's entire capacity. The spillage-emission rate is applied to only equipment orvehicles that are typically fueled from a gas can (e.g., lawn care equipment, sometimes recreational equipment, etc.), and nottypically from a pump. The amount ofdaily spillage emissions from all applicable residential- and commercialgas cans is calculated as follows:
(Eq. 10) HCs 

# = L

# {[(FUel)(SPill~ (con)} (Tank) 

# J

where: HCs 

### = Daily Spillage Emission from All Gas Cans (tpd) Fuel 

### = Applicable EquipmenWehicie Type Fuel Consumption (gal/day) Spill 

### = Spillage-Emission Rate per Refill ofGas CanRefueled EquipmenWehicies (17 g/refill)

1"Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study

- Report," U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1991.

- A-9

­

### Tank 

# =Applicable EquipmenWehicle Fuel-Tank Capacity (gal/refill) Con 

# = Frequency of Refuels (per day) with respect to EquipmenWehicie (none, always, orfraction of always)


### D. Refueling-Vapor Displacement.
The refueling-displacement-vapor emissions result when fuel vapor is displaced from equipment and vehicle fuel tanks, gas cans, etc., by fuel dispensed from gas cans. The NEVES report of refueling emissions presented a formula to compute the refuelingvapor-displacement-emission factor. This formula is:

DISP 

### = [-5.909 + (0.0884)(TD) + (0.485)(RVP)] (Eq. 11)

where: DISP 

# = Daily Spillage-Emission Rate for All Gas Cans (g/gal) TD 

# = Temperature CF) ofthe Dispensed Fuel (ambient temperature) RVP 

# = Reid Vapor Pressure of Dispensed Fuel (psi)
The amount ofdaily refueling vapor-displacement emissions from all applicable residential-and commercial-gas cans is calculated as follows:



### HCDlsp 

# = l: 

### {(DISP)(FUel)(COn)} (Eq. 12)

where: HCD1SP 

### = Total Refueling-Vapor-Displacement Emissions from All Gas Cans (tpd) DISP 

### = Refueling Vapor Displacement Emission Rate (4.52 g/gal) Fuel 

### = Applicable EquipmenWehicie Type Fuel Consumptions (gal/day) Con 

# = Frequency of Refuels (per day) with respect to EquipmenWehicie (none, always, orfraction of always)

As with the spillage-emission-factor calculation, the vapor-displacement-emission rate is applied only to equipment orvehicles that are typically fueled from a gas can, and not from a pump dispenser.

- A-IO

­

### Summary of Results.
Table 3 can be used to estimate the total emissions:



### Table 3: Statewide Gas-Can Emissions for 2000 CalendarYear
Emission Residential Commercial Total by

Type Emissions Emissions Emission Type (tpd) (tpd) (tpd)



### Permeation Diurnal Transport-Spillage Spillage Refueling-Vapor Displ.
Subtotal: 

### Total: 

### XX.X

-A-U

­- A-12

­

## APPENDIX B SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES AFFECTED BY THE NOx 

## MODEL RULEAppendix B Source Classification Codes affected bythe NOx model rule

Source Type SCC SCC Description

Cement Kilns 30500606 30500706 30500622 30500623 Stationary Combustion Turbines 20100101 20100201 20100801 20100901 20101001 20101302 20200101 20200103 20200201 20200203 20200701 20200705 20200901 20201011 20201013 20201601 t;d 20201701 , 

### ,.... 20300102 20300202 20300203 20300701 20300801 20300901 Industrial Boilers 10200060 10200101 10200102 10200104 10200107 10200117 10200201 10200202 10200203 10200204 10200205 10200206 10200210 10200212 10200213 10200217 10200218 10200221 10200222 10200223 10200224 10200225 Industrial Processes; Mineral Products; Cement Manufacturing (Dry Process); Kilns Industrial Processes; Mineral Products; Cement Manufacturing (Wet Process); Kilns Industrial Processes; Mineral Products; Cement Manufacturing (Dry Process); Preheater Kiln Industrial Processes; Mineral Products; Cement Manufacturing (Dry Process); Preheater/Precalciner Kiln
Internal Combustion Engines; Electric Generation; Distillate Oil (Diesel); Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Electric Generation; Natural Gas; Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Electric Generation; Landfill Gas; Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Electric Generation; Kerosene/Naphtha (Jet Fuel); Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Electric Generation; Geysers/Geothermal; Steam Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Electric Generation; Liquid Waste; Waste Oil

- Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Distillate Oil (Diesel); Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Distillate Oil (Diesel); Turbine: Cogeneration Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Natural Gas; Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Natural Gas; Turbine: Cogeneration Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Process Gas; Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Process Gas; Refinery Gas: Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Kerosene/Naphtha (Jet Fuel); Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG); Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG); Turbine: Cogeneration Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Methanol; Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Gasoline; Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Commercial/Institutional; Distillate Oil (Diesel); Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Commercial/Institutional; Natural Gas; Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Commercial/Institutional; Natural Gas; Turbine: Cogeneration Internal Combustion Engines; Commercial/Institutional; Digester Gas; Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Commerciailinstitutional; Landfill Gas; Turbine Internal Combustion Engines; Commercial/Institutional; Kerosene/Naphtha (Jet Fuel); Turbine: JP-4
Ext Comb Boilers

- Industrial;Not Classified ?: assumed as bituminous coal External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Anthracite Coal; Pulverized Coal External Combustion Boilers Industrial Anthracite Coal> 100 mmBtu Stoker (Old NAPAP) External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Anthracite Coal; Traveling Grate (Overfeed) Stoker External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Anthracite Coal; Hand-fired External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Anthracite Coal; Fluidized Bed Boiler Burning Anthracite-Culm Fuel External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Pulverized Coal: Wet Bottom External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Cyclone Furnace External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Spreader Stoker External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Overfeed Stoker External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Underfeed Stoker External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Overfeed Stoker" External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom (Tangential) External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Wet Slurry External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combustion: Bubbling Bed (Bituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combustion: Circulating Bed (Bitum. Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Pulverized Coal: Wet Bottom (Subbituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom (Subbituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Cyclone Furnace (Subbituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Spreader Stoker (Subbituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Traveling Grate (Overfeed) Stoker (Subbituminous Coal)Appendix B Source Classification Codes affected by the NOx model rule

Source Type SCC SCC Description

Industrial Boilers

td , l\:) 10200226 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom Tangential (Subbituminous Coal) 10200300 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Lignite; Pulverized Coal: Wet Bottom 10200301 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Lignite; Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom, Wall Fired 10200302 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Lignite; Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom, Tangential Fired 10200303 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Lignite; Cyclone Furnace 10200304 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Lignite; Traveling Grate (Overfeed) Stoker 10200306 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Lignite; Spreader Stoker 10200401 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Residual Oil; Grade 6 Oil 10200402 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Residual Oil; 10-100 Million Btu/hr ** 10200403 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Residual Oil; < 10 Million BtU/hr ** 10200404 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Residual Oil; Grade 5 Oil 10200406 External Combustion Boilers Industrial Residual Oil ?? 10200501 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Distillate Oil; Grades 1 and 2 Oil 10200502 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Distillate Oil; 10-100 Million Btu/hr ** 10200503 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Distillate Oil; < 10 Million Btu/hr ** 10200504 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Distillate Oil; Grade 4 Oil 10200601 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Natural Gas; > 100 Million BtU/hr 10200602 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Natural Gas; 10-100 Million Btu/hr 10200603 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Natural Gas; < 10 Million Btu/hr 10200699 Ext Comb Boilers

- Industrial;Not Classified 10200701 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Process Gas; Petroleum Refinery Gas 10200702 External Combustion Boilers Industrial Process Gas ?? 10200704 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Process Gas; Blast Furnace Gas 10200707 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Process Gas; Coke Oven Gas 10200799 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Process Gas; Other: Specify in Comments 10200801 External Combustion Boilers Industrial Process Gas ?? 10200802 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Coke; All Boiler Sizes 10200901 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Wood/Bark Waste; Bark-fired Boiler (> 50,000 Lb Steam) 10200902 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Wood/Bark Waste; Wood/Bark-fired Boiler (> 50,000 Lb Steam) 10200903 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Wood/Bark Waste; Wood-fired Boiler (> 50,000 Lb Steam) 10200904 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Wood/Bark Waste; Bark-fired Boiler « 50,000 Lb Steam) 10200905 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Wood/Bark Waste; Wood/Bark-fired Boiler « 50,000 Lb Steam) 10200906 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Wood/Bark Waste; Wood-fired Boiler « 50,000 Lb Steam) 10200910 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Wood/Bark Waste; Fuel cell/Dutch oven boilers 10200911 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Wood/Bark Waste; Stoker boilers 10200912 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Wood/Bark Waste; Fluidized bed combustion boiler 10201001 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG); Butane 10201002 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG); Propane 10201003 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG); Butane/Propane Mixture: Specify Percent Butane in Comments 10201101 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Bagasse; All Boiler Sizes 10201201 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Solid Waste; Specify Waste Material in Comments 10201202 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Solid Waste; Refuse Derived Fuel 10201301 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Liquid Waste; Specify Waste Material in Comments 10201302 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Liquid Waste; Waste Oil 10201401 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; CO Boiler; Natural Gas 10201402 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; CO Boiler; Process Gas 10201403 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; CO Boiler; Distillate Oil 10201404 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; CO Boiler; Residual Oil 10201601 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Methanol; Industrial Boiler 10201701 External Combustion Boilers; Industrial; Gasoline; Industrial Boiler 10299997 Ext Comb Boilers

- Industrial;Not ClassifiedAppendix B Source Classification Codes affected by the NOx model rule

Source Type SCC SCC Description

Commercial/Institutional Boiler 10300101 10300102 10300103 10300203 10300205 10300206 10300207 10300208 10300209 10300211 10300214 10300216 10300217 10300218 10300221 10300222 10300223 10300224 10300225 10300226 10300300 td , 10300305 CoJ 10300306 10300307 10300309 10300401 10300402 10300403 10300404 10300501 10300502 10300503 10300504 10300601 10300602 10300603 10300701 10300799 10300811 10300901 10300902 10300903 10300910 10300911 10300912 10301001 10301002 10301003 10301201 10301202 10301301 10301302 External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Anthracite Coal; Pulverized Coal Extemal Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Anthracite Coal; Traveling Grate (Overfeed) Stoker External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Anthracite Coal; Hand-fired External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Cyclone Furnace (Bituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Pulverized Coal: Wet Bottom (Bituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom (Bituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Overfeed Stoker (Bituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Underfeed Stoker (Bituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Spreader Stoker (Bituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Overfeed Stoker" External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/SubbituminousCoal; Hand-fired (Bituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Commerciailinstitutional; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom (Tangential) (Bituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combustion: Bubbling Bed (Bituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combustion: Circulating Bed (Bitum. Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Pulverized Coal: Wet Bottom (Subbituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom (Subbituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Cyclone Furnace (Subbituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Spreader Stoker (Subbituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Traveling Grate (Overfeed) Stoker (Subbituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal; Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom Tangential (Subbituminous Coal) External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Lignite; Pulverized Coal: Wet Bottom External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Lignite; Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom, Wall Fired External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Lignite; Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom, Tangential Fired External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Lignite; Traveling Grate (Overfeed) Stoker External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Lignite; Spreader Stoker External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Residual Oil; Grade 6 Oil External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Residual Oil; 10-100 Million Btu/hr" External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Residual Oil; < 10 Million Btu/hr" External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Residual Oil; Grade 5 Oil External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Distillate Oil; Grades 1 and 2 Oil External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Distillate Oil; 10-100 Million Btu/hr" External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Distillate Oil; < 10 Million Btu/hr" External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Distillate Oil; Grade 4 Oil External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Natural Gas; > 100 Million Btu/hr External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Natural Gas; 10-100 Million Btu/hr External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Natural Gas; < 10 Million Btu/hr External Combustion Boilers; Commerciailinstitutional; Process Gas; POTW Digester Gas-fired Boiler External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Process Gas; Other Not Classified Extemal Combustion Boilers; Commerciailinstitutional; Landfill Gas; Landfill Gas External Combustion Boilers; Commerciailinstitutional; Wood/Bark Waste; Bark-fired Boiler External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Wood/Bark Waste; Wood/Bark-fired Boiler External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Wood/Bark Waste; Wood-fired Boiler External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Wood/Bark Waste; Fuel cell/Dutch oven boilers External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Wood/Bark Waste; Stoker boilers External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Wood/Bark Waste; Fluidized bed combustion boilers External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG); Butane External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG); Propane External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG); Butane/Propane Mixture: Specify Percent Butane in Comments External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Solid Waste; Specify Waste Material in Comments External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Solid Waste; Refuse Derived Fuel External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Liquid Waste; Specify Waste Material in Comments External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Liquid Waste; Waste OilAppendix B Source Classification Codes affected bythe NOx model rule

Source Type SCC SCC Description

Stationary Internal Combustion Engines 10301303 20100102 20100202 20100702 20100802 20100902 20200102 20200104 20200202 20200204 20200252 20200253 20200254 20200255 20200256 20200301 20200401 20200402 20200403 20200501 20200702 Cd 20200706**~** 20200902 20201001 20201002 20201012 20201014 20201602 20201702 20300101 20300201 20300204 20300301 20300702 20300802 20301001 20301002 External Combustion Boilers; Commercial/Institutional; Liquid Waste; Sewage Grease Skimmings Internal Combustion Engines; Electric Generation; Distillate Oil (Diesel); Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Electric Generation; Natural Gas; Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Electric Generation; Process Gas; Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Electric Generation; Landfill Gas; Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Electric Generation; Kerosene/Naphtha (Jet Fuel); Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Distillate Oil (Diesel); Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Distillate Oil (Diesel); Reciprocating: Cogeneration Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Natural Gas; Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Natural Gas; Reciprocating: Cogeneration Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Natural Gas; 2-cycle Lean Burn Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Natural Gas; 4-cycle Rich Burn Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Natural Gas; 4-cycle Lean Burn Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Natural Gas; 2-cycle Clean Burn Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Natural Gas; 4-cycle Clean Burn Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Gasoline; Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Large Bore Engine; Diesel Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Large Bore Engine; Dual Fuel (Oil/Gas) Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Large Bore Engine; Cogeneration: Dual Fuel Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Residual/Crude Oil; Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Process Gas; Reciprocating Engine Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Process Gas; Refinery Gas: Reciprocating Engine Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Kerosene/Naphtha (Jet Fuel); Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG); Propane: Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG); Butane: Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG); Reciprocating Engine Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG); Reciprocating Engine: Cogeneration Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Methanol; Reciprocating Engine Internal Combustion Engines; Industrial; Gasoline; Reciprocating Engine Internal Combustion Engines; Commercial/Institutional; Distillate Oil (Diesel); Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Commercial/Institutional; Natural Gas; Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Commerciaillnstitutional; Natural Gas; Cogeneration Internal Combustion Engines; Commercial/Institutional; Gasoline; Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Commercial/Institutional; Digester Gas; Reciprocating: POTW Digester Gas Internal Combustion Engines; Commercial/Institutional; Landfill Gas; Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; CommerciaVlnstitutional; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG); Propane: Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines; Commercial/Institutional; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG); Butane: Reciprocating

## APPENDIX C NOx 

## MODEL RULE CONTROL COST SUMMARIES

This appendix presents information about the costs ofavailable NOx control technologies that might be employedbyNOx modelrule affected sources in the OTC States. Separate tables are provided for industrialboilers, stationary gas turbines, reciprocating internal combustion engines, and cementkilns. These are the four source categories affected by the OTC NOx model rule. Each table presents information about the ozone season (five month) and annual cost effectiveness ofvarious NOx control methods. NOx control data is differentiatedby source size, fuel type, andthe expected NOx control efficiency.



### C-1

### Table C-1 NOx Control Methods for Industrial Boilers

Baseline Base Controlled Control Boiler Size NOx NOx NOx NOx %NOx Cost Effectiveness NOx Control Method (MMBtu/hr) Fuel Type (lb/MMBtu) (t/day) (lb/MMBtu) (t/day) Reduction $/ton NOx Removed Ozone Season Annual Low NOx Burners 10 gas 50% $9,030-$11,300 50 gas 50% $2,560-$3,200 150 gas 45-50% $800-$3,500 350 gas 0.20 0.84 0.15 0.63 25% $454-$857 $189-$357 350

10 gas distillate oil 0.20 0.84 0.10 0.42 50% 45% $3,783-$7,145 $5,310-$6,640 $1,576-$2,977
50 distillate oil 45% $2,750-$3,440 150 distillate oil 45% $600-$750 10 residual oil 45% $2,910-$3,640 50 residual oil 45% $990-$1,240 

## 0 t-:l 150 680 350 residual oil residual oil coal 0.43 0.60 3.51 2.52 0.39 0.45 3.18 1.89 45% 10% 25% $490-$610 $38-$72 $2,522-$4,763 $16-$30 $1,051-$1,985 350 coal 0.60 2.52 0.38 1.6 36.6% $1,751-$3,308 $730-$1,378 500 coal-pul. 50% $760-$2,900 SNCR 50 150 50 gas gas distillate oil 30-60% 30-60% 30-70% $4,720-$5,910 $3,100-$6,800 $5,040-$6,310 150 distillate oil 30-70% $2,450-$3,060 50 residual oil 30-70% $2,190-$2,740 150 residual oil 30-70% $2,100-$2,630 350 wood 0.45 1.89 0.29 1.22 35% $2,101-$3,303 $1,300-$1,814 500 coal-put. 30-70% $870-$1,450 500 coal-stok. 30-70% $940-$1,170

Data taken from "Status Report on NOx Controls for Gas Turbines, Cement Kilns, Industrial Boilers, and I.C. Engines

- Technologies & Cost Effectiveness", NESCAUM, December 2000. Data in italics taken from draft "AssessmentofControl Technologies forReducing Nitrogen Oxides from Non-UtilityPoint Sources andMajorArea Sources", OTAG (2127/96).

### Table C-1 (continued) NOx Control Methods for Industrial Boilers

Baseline Base Controlled Control Boiler Size NOx NOx NOx NOx %NOx Cost Effectiveness NOx Control Method (MMBtu/hr) Fuel Type (lb/MMBtu) (t/day) (lb/MMBtu) (t/day) Reduction $/ton NOx Removed Ozone Season Annual SCR 50 150 50 150 50 150 gas gas distillate oil distillate oil residual oil residual oil 80-90% 80-90% 80-90% 80-90% 80-90% 80-90% $4,830-$5,480 $2,060-$5,600 $5,200-$5,890 $1,560-$1,780 $2,070-$2,360 $1,290-$1,480 100 gas 0.15 0.18 0.03 0.04 80% $7,919-$14,479 $3,376-$6,110 350 gas 0.15 0.63 0.03 0.13 80% $4,764-$8,519 $2,062-$3,626 350 coal 0.45 1.89 0.09 0.38 80% $2,953-$5,046 $1,307-$2,179 350 coal 0.45 1.89 0.09 0.38 80% $4,004-$7,030 $1,745-$3,006 Q , w Conventional Gas Reburn 500 500 coal-put. coal-stok. 80-90% 80-90% $1, 790-$6,800 $1,980-$2,230

500 coal 1.20 7.20 0.60 3.60 50% $1,215 500 coal 1.20 7.20 0.60 3.60 50% $1,482 640 coal 1.36 8.16 0.685 4.11 50% $1,246 Fuel Lean Gas Reburn (FLGR) 350 coal 0.45 1.89 0.293 1.23 35% $1,330-$2,000 $890-$1 ,170 350 coal 0.45 1.89 0.293 1.23 35% $1,523-$2,220 $1,083-$1,362 Amine Enhanced FLGR 350 coal 0.45 1.89 0.18 0.76 60% $1,700-$2,455 $1,210-$1,520 350 coal 0.45 1.89 0.18 0.76 60% $1,812-$2,604 $1,316-$1,631

Data taken from "Status Report on NOx Controls for Gas Turbines, Cement Kilns, Industrial Boilers, and I.C. Engines

- Technologies & Cost Effectiveness", NESCAUM, December, 2000. Data in italics taken from draft ''Assessment ofControl Technologies forReducing Nitrogen Oxides from Non-Utility Point Sources andMajorArea Sources", OTAG (2127/96).

### Table C-2 NOx Control Methods for Turbines

Baseline Controlled

NOx NOx %NOx Cost Effectiveness NOx Control Method Turbine Size Fuel Type (ppm) (ppm) Reduction $/ton NOx Removed Ozone Season Annual In-Combustor Methods Dry Low NOx



## V >I'>- Diluent Injection

Water Injection 7000 HP 13,000 HP

75MW 5 MW(Cont.) 25 MW(Cant.) 100 MW(Cant.) 25 MW(2000 P) 100 MW(2000 P)
21 MW 21 MW

5 MW(Cont.) 25 MW(Cant.) 100 MW(Cant.) 25 MW(2000 P) 100 MW(2000 P)

5 MW(Cont.) 25 MW(Cant.) 100 MW(Cant.) 25 MW(2000 P) 100 MW(2000 P) gas gas gas gas gas gas gas gas
gas distillate oil
gas gas gas gas gas oil oil oil oil oil 135 167 154

125 180 50 63% 50 70% 15 90% 60-90% 60-90% 60-90% 60-90% 60-90%
50 60% 50 72%
70-90% 70-90% 70-90% 70-90% 70-90% 70-90% 70-90% 70-90% 70-90% 70-90% $4,492-$9,483 $3,145-$6,640

$533-$1,126

$530-$800 $240-$370 $130-$200 $960-$1,470

$530-$800 $867-$1,217 $829-$1,031 $1,390-$1,780 $690-$880 $500-$640 $1,670-$2,150 $1,050-$2,150 $1,000-$1,300 $560-$710 $440-$560 $1,190-$1,520

$800-$1,020 $1,872-$3,951 $1,311-$2,767 $222-$469

$638-$784 $697-$781

Data taken from "Status Report on NOx Controls for Gas Turbines, Cement Kilns, Industrial Boilers, and I.C. Engines

- Technologies & Cost Effectiveness", NESCAUM, December, 2000. Data in italics taken from draft "Assessmentof Control Technologies for Reducing Nitrogen Oxides from Non-Utility Point Sources andMajorArea Sources", OTAG (2127/96).

### Table C-2 (continued) NOx Control Methods for Turbines

NOx Control Method Turbine Size Fuel Type Baseline NOx (ppm) Controlled NOx (ppm) %NOx Reduction Cost Effectiveness $Iton NOx Removed Ozone Season Annual In-Combustor Methods Diluent Injection (Continued) Steam Injection 5 MW(Cont.) gas 70-90% $1,560-$2,000 25 MW(Cant.) gas 70-90% $760-$970 100 MW(Cant.) gas 70-90% $520-$670 25 MW(2000 P) gas 70-90% $2,150-$2,760 100 MW(2000 P) gas 70-90% $1,370-$1,760

5 MW(Cont.) oil 70-90% $1,010-$1,300 25 MW(Cant.) oil 70-90% $520-$670 100 MW(Cant.) oil 70-90% $380-$480 

### 0 01 25 MW(2000 P) 100 MW(2000 P) oil oil 70-90% 70-90% $1,520-$1,820 $930-$1,190 Exhaust Treatment SCR Simple Cycle Turbines 75MW gas 15 3 80% $12,227-$20,075 $5,171-$8,441 75MW gas 42 7 83% $4,278-$6,969 $1,859-$2,980 75MW gas 154 15 90% $1,176-$1,853 $566-$849 7000 HP gas 42 5 88% $16,031-$27,020 $6,756-$11,335 7000 HP gas 142 15 89% $4,763-$7,965 $2,061-$3,395 Combined Cycle Turbines 75MW gas 15 3 80% $8,680-$13,376 $3,693-$5,650 75MW gas 42 7 83% $3,062-$4,673 $1,353-$2,024 75MW gas 154 15 90% $869-$1,275 $439-$608 7000 HP gas 42 5 88% $10,023-$15,672 $4,253-$6,607 7000HP gas 142 15 89% $3,013-$4,659 $1,332-$2,018

Data taken from "Status Report on NOx Controls for Gas Turbines, Cement Kilns, Industrial Boilers, and I.C. Engines

- Technologies & Cost Effectiveness", NESCAUM, December, 2000. Data in italics taken from draft ''Assessmentof Control Technologies forReducing Nitrogen Oxides from Non-Utility Point Sources andMajorArea Sources", OTAG (2127/96).

### Table C-2 (continued) NOx Control Methods for Turbines

Baseline Controlled

NOx NOx % NOx Cost Effectiveness NOx Control Method Turbine Size Fuel Type (ppm) (ppm) Reduction $/ton NOx Removed Ozone Season Annual Exhaust Treatment SCR (Continued) 5 MW(Cont.) gas 90% $2,180-$2,450 25 MW(Cont.) gas 90% $1,230-$1,390 100 MW(Cont.) gas 90% $920-$1,030 25 MW(2000 P) gas 90% $3,480-$3,920 100 MW(2000 P) gas 90% $2,400-$2,700

5 MW(Cont.) oil 90% $1,390-$1,560 25 MW(Cont.) oil 90% $820-$920 100 MW(Cont.) oil 90% $630-$710 25 MW(2000 P) oil 90% $2,170-$2,440 100 MW(2000 P) oil 90% $1,530-$1,720 

# o en

Data taken from "Status Report on NOx Controls for Gas Turbines, Cement Kilns, Industrial Boilers, and I.C. Engines

- Technologies & Cost Effectiveness", NESCAUM, December, 2000. Data in italics taken from draft "Assessment ofControl Technologies forReducing Nitrogen Oxides from Non-Utility Point Sources andMajorArea Sources", OTAG (2127/96).

### Table C-3 NOx Control Methods for IC Engines

Baseline Controlled

NOx NOx %NOx Cost Effectiveness NOx Control Method Engine Type Engine Size Fuel Type (gm/hp-hr) (gm/hp-hr) Reduction $Iton NOx Removed Ozone Season Annual In-Cylinder Methods Ignition Timing Retard

() , -l SI Rich Burn SI Rich Burn

SI Rich Burn SI Lean Burn SI LeanBurn SI LeanBurn

CI Diesel (Cant.) CI Diesel (Cant.) CI Diesel (Cant.) CI Diesel (2000 P) CI Diesel (2000 P) CI Diesel (2000 P) CI Diesel (200 P) CI Diesel (200 P) CI Diesel (200 P) CI Dual Fuel CI Dual Fuel CI DualFuel 250HP 1000 HP 1100 HP 1100 HP 4000HP 250HP 1000 HP 4000HP
250HP 1000 HP 4000HP 250HP 1000 HP 4000HP 250HP 1000 HP 4000HP 250HP 1000 HP 4000HP gas gas gas 10 gas 10 gas gas gas gas
diesel diesel diesel diesel diesel diesel diesel diesel diesel dual fuel dual fuel dual fuel 9 7.5 0-40% 0-40%

10% 25% 0-40% 0-20% 0-20% 0-20%

20-30% 20-30% 20-30% 20-30% 20-30% 20-30% 20-30% 20-30% 20-30% 20-30% 20-30% 20-30% $680-$1,130 $370-$610 $1,476-$1,640 $589-$657 $270-$450 $980-$4,930 $490-$1,470 $340-$1,020 $760-$1,140

$420-$630 $310-$470 $1,900

$830 $515 $13,400

$4,600 $2,010 $950-$1,420

$470-$700 $320-$480 $615-$685 $274-$245

Data taken from "Status Report on NOx Controls for Gas Turbines, Cement Kilns, Industrial Boilers, and I.C. Engines

- Technologies & Cost Effectiveness", NESCAUM, December, 2000. Data in italics taken from draft ''AssessmentofControl Technologies forReducing Nitrogen Oxides from Non-UtilityPoint Sources andMajorArea Sources", OTAG (2127/96).

### Table C-3 (continued) NOx Control Methods for IC Engines

Baseline Controlled

NOx NOx %NOx Cost Effectiveness NOx Control Method Engine Type Engine Size Fuel Type (gm/hp-hr) (gm/hp-hr) Reduction $/ton NOx Removed Ozone Season Annual In-Cylinder Methods (Continued) High Energy Ignition/ A-F Ratio 2500 HP gas 15 7 53% $280-$385 $115-$160
SI Rich Burn 250HP gas 10-40% $580-$870 SI Rich Burn 1000 HP gas 10-40% $350-$520 SI Rich Burn 4000HP gas 10-40% $270-$400 SI Lean Burn 250HP gas 5-30% $980-$4,930 SI LeanBurn 1000 HP gas 5-30% $490-$1,470 SI LeanBurn 4000HP gas 5-30% $340-$1,020 Low Emission Combustion Retrofit () , 00 Low Speed Engine Medium Speed Engine 3400 HP 2500 HP gas gas 13 15 3 3 77% 80% $1,222-$2,296 $585-$1 ,100 $509-$957 $245-$460 Dual-Fuel Engine 2500 HP gas/oil 15 3 80% $1,794-$3,388 $747-$1,412 SI Rich Burn 250HP gas 70-90% $4,500-$5,010 SI Rich Burn 1000 HP gas 70-90% $1,850-$2,090 SI Rich Burn 4000HP gas 70-90% $1,190-$1,340 SI Lean Burn 250HP gas 80-93% $3,970-$4,460 SI LeanBurn 1000 HP gas 80-93% $1,610-$1,820 SI LeanBurn 4000HP gas 80-93% $1,030-$1,150

Data taken from "Status Report on NOx Controls for Gas Turbines, Cement Kilns, Industrial Boilers, and I.C. Engines

- Technologies & Cost Effectiveness", NESCAUM, December, 2000. Data in italics taken from draft ''Assessment ofControl Technologies forReducing Nitrogen Oxides from Non-Utility Point Sources andMajorArea Sources", OTAG (2127/96).

### Table C-3 (continued) NOx Control Methods for IC Engines

Baseline Controlled

NOx NOx %NOx Cost Effectiveness NOx Control Method Engine Type Engine Size Fuel Type (gm/hp-hr) (gm/hp-hr) Reduction $/ton NOx Removed Ozone Season Annual Exhaust Treatment SCR Gas Engine 1800 HP gas 10 90% $1,104-$8,245 $533-$3,508 Gas Engine 3130 HP gas 10 90% $591-$3,884 $319-$1,691 SI Lean Burn 250HP gas 90% $4,280-$4,810 SI LeanBurn 1000 HP gas 90% $1,320-$1,490 SI LeanBurn 4000HP gas 90% $580-$660 Diesel Engine 1800 HP diesel oil 10 90% $922-$6,866 $453-$2,929 Diesel Engine 3130 HP diesel oil 10 90% $614-$4,246 $324-$1,838 CI Diesel (Cont.) 250HP diesel 80-90% $4,170-$4,690 CI Diesel (Cont.) 1000 HP diesel 80-90% $1,460-$1,640 

## V co CI Diesel (Cont.) CI Diesel (2000 P) 4000HP 250HP diesel diesel 80-90% 80-90% $780-$880 $8,750 CI Diesel (2000 P) 1000 HP diesel 80-90% $3,000 CI Diesel (2000 P) 4000HP diesel 80-90% $1,560 CI Diesel(200 P) 250HP diesel 80-90% $61',000 CI Diesel (200 P) 1000 HP diesel 80-90% $20,000 CI Diesel (200 P) 4000HP diesel 80-90% $10,000 CI Dual Fuel 250HP dual fuel 80-90% $5,800-$6,530 CI Dual Fuel 1000 HP dual fuel 80-90% $1,970-$2,210 CI Dual Fuel 4000HP dual fuel 80-90% $1,010-$1,140

Data taken from "Status Report on NOx Controls for Gas Turbines, Cement Kilns, Industrial Boilers, and I.C. Engines

- Technologies & Cost Effectiveness", NESCAUM, December, 2000. Data in italics taken from draft "Assessmentof Control Technologies forReducing Nitrogen Oxides from Non-Utility Point Sources andMajorArea Sources", OTAG (2/27/96).

### Table C-3 (continued) NOx Control Methods for IC Engines

Baseline Controlled

NOx NOx %NOx Cost Effectiveness NOx Control Method Engine Type Engine Size Fuel Type (gm/hp-hr) (gm/hp-hr) Reduction $/ton NOx Removed Ozone Season Annual Exhaust Treatment (Continued) Mobile-Source Derivative SCR Diesel Engine 1971 HP diesel oil 7.62 1.91 75% $769-$3,080 $528-$1,491 Diesel Engine 1971 HP diesel oil 15 3.75 75% $577-$1,751 $455-$944 NSCR SI Rich Burn 250HP gas 90-98% $290-$310 SI Rich Burn 1000HP gas 90-98% $200-$220 SI Rich Burn 4000HP gas 90-98% $180-$190


# o Data taken from "Status Report on NOx Controls for Gas Turbines, Cement Kilns, Industrial Boilers, and I.C. Engines

- Technologies & Cost Effectiveness", NESCAUM, :::; December, 2000. Data in italics taken from draft "Assessment ofControl Technologies forReducing Nitrogen Oxides from Non-Utility Point Sources andMajorArea Sources", OTAG (2127/96).

### Table C-4 NOx Control Methods for Cement Kilns

Baseline Controlled Kiln Kiln Size NOx NOx %NOx Cost Effectiveness NOx Control Method Type (tons/hour) (Ib/ton clinker) (Ib/ton clinker) Reduction $Iton NOx Removed Ozone Season Annual Low NOx Burners Long Wet 30 20-30% $1,130 Long Wet 50 20-30% $880 Long Dry 25 20-30% $1,270 Long Dry 40 20-30% $970 Preheater 40 20-30% $1,330 Preheater 70 20-30% $970 Precalciner 100 20-30% $1,010 Precalciner 150 20-30% $830 Mid-Kiln Tire Firing with LNB 

### \1 I-' I-' Long Wet Long Wet Long Dry 30 50 25 20-40% 20-40% 20-40% $550 $450 $610 Long Dry 40 20-40% $470 Indirect Firing & Mid-Kiln Tire Firing No tipping fee 96 5.0 2.55 49% $1,766-$4,385 $736-$1,827 With $20 tipping fee 96 5.0 2.55 49% $1,231-$3,850 $513-$1,604 With $75 tipping fee 96 5.0 2.55 49% ($242)-$2,377 ($101)-$991 Mid-Kiln Tire Firing Only No tipping fee 40 5.0 4.0 20% ($2,326)-($4,035) ($969)-($1 ,681) With $20 tipping fee 40 5.0 4.0 20% ($5,164)-($6,873) ($2,151)-($2,864) With $75 tipping fee 40 5.0 4.0 20% ($12,966)-($14,675) ($5,403)-($6,115)

Numbers in ( ) mean company is realizing a savings instead ofa cost by using control method. Data taken from draft "Status Report on NOx Controls for Gas Turbines, Cement Kilns, Industrial Boilers, and I.C. Engines

- Technologies & Cost Effectriveness", NESCAUM, December, 2000. Data in italics taken from draft ''Assessment ofControl Technologies forReducing Nitrogen Oxides from Non-Utility Point Sources andMajorArea Sources", OTAG (2127/96).

### Table C-4 (continued) NOx Control Methods for Cement Kilns

Baseline Controlled Kiln Kiln Size NOx NOx % NOx Cost Effectiveness NOx Control Method Type (tons/hour) (Ib/ton clinker) (Ib/ton clinker) Reduction $/ton NOx Removed Ozone Season Annual CemStar Process net clinkervalue

### =$15/ton net clinker value

### =$30/ton net clinkervalue

### =$50/ton SNCR pre-calciner kiln SNCR (Urea) Preheater Preheater Precalciner Precalciner 0 , SNCR (Ammonia) Preheater t>:l """'" Preheater Precalciner Precalciner SCR Long Wet Long Wet Long Dry Long Dry Preheater Preheater Precalciner Precalciner 40 200 Ib NOxlhr 160 Ib NOxlhr 20% 40 200 Ib NOxlhr 160 Ib NOxlhr 20% 40 200 Ib NOxlhr 160 Ib NOxlhr 20%
<150 700 Ib NOxlhr 385 Ib NOxlhr 45%

40 30-70% 70 30-70% 100 30-70% 150 30-70%
40 30-70% 70 30-70% 100 30-70% 150 30-70%
30 80-90% 50 80-90% 25 80-90% 40 80-90% 40 80-90% 70 80-90% 100 80-90% 150 80-90% $664-$1 ,120 $365-$555 ($1,156)-($1,611) ($1,721)-($1,910) ($4,190)-($4,646) ($4,755)-($4,945) $890-$1,215 $675-$810

$930 $790 $880 $800 $1,100

$910 $980 $880 $3,600 $3,140 $3,630 $3,170 $4,120 $3,490 $4,870 $4,400

Numbers in ( ) mean company is realizing a savings instead ofa cost by using control method. Data taken from draft "Status Report on NOx Controls for Gas Turbines, Cement Kilns, Industrial Boilers, and I.C. Engines

- Technologies & Cost Effectiveness", NESCAUM, December, 2000. Data in italics taken from draft "Assessment ofControl Technologies forReducing Nitrogen Oxides from Non-Utility Point Sources andMajorArea Sources", OTAG (2127/96).