1 

Technical Support Document (TSD)

for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule for the 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500

Assessment of Non-EGU NOx Emission Controls, Cost of 

Controls, and Time for Compliance

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air and Radiation 

November 2015 
2

1 Introduction/Purpose

The purpose of this Technical Support Document (TSD) is to discuss the currently available 

information on emissions and control measures for sources of NOx other than electric 

generating units (EGUs). This information provides more detail about why EGUs are the 

focus of the proposed rulemaking, namely the uncertainty that exists regarding whether 

significant aggregate NOx mitigation is achievable from non-EGU point sources by the 2017

ozone season, and the fact that the limited available information points to an apparent 

scarcity of non-EGU reductions that could be accomplished in this timeframe.

Notwithstanding these conclusions as regards the 2017 ozone season, the EPA continues to 

assess the role of NOx emissions from non-EGU sources to downwind nonattainment 

problems, and welcomes comments on the information in this TSD both as it relates to the 

current rule and for future use.

This TSD begins by briefly discussing the non-EGU emissions inventories used in this 

proposed rule, both for the 2011 base year and 2017 future baseline assessed for this 

proposed rule. The TSD then presents an evaluation of whether non-EGU emissions can be 

reduced in a cost-effective manner for particular categories. Then, it assesses the available 

NOx emission reductions from such categories and presents the category-by-category 

emissions reduction potential. This assessment considers and presents the costs per ton of 

these reductions, with a focus on technologies that achieve cost-effective reductions within 

a range of costs similar to that evaluated for EGUs. Finally, the TSD presents estimates of 

the time required to install and implement the control measures, both for comparison to 

the 2017 compliance timeframe, and for discussion of installation time should such 

measures be required in the future. 

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the data and discussion in this TSD are intended to 

focus on the eastern states that are the focus of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).

Information inclusive of western states1 is presented where available and appropriate.

 

1 For the purpose of this action, the western U.S. (or the West) consists of the 11 western contiguous states of Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and the eastern U.S. 

(or East) consists of the remaining states in the contiguous U.S.
3

2 Background

In this section we present annual and ozone-season NOx emission inventory totals and the 

relative percentages for non-EGU source categories statewide and/or nationally. This 

information is summary in nature and is not meant to replace other, more detailed

information available from the EPA, such as the EPA’s 2011v6.2 Emissions Modeling 

Platform TSD2 as well as the Notice of Data Availability3 (NODA) and Regulatory Impact 

Analysis4 (RIA) for this proposed rulemaking.

Table 1 lists 2011 and 2017 projected NOx emissions by sector, in summary form, for the 

48 contiguous states of the U.S. (CONUS).

Table 1: 2011 Base Year and 2017 Projected NOx Emissions by 

Sector (tons), for the 48 CONUS

Sector 2011 NOx, 

annual

2017 NOx, 

annual

2011 NOx, ozone 

season

2017 NOx, ozone 

season

EGU-point 2,000,000 1,500,000 942,000 689,000

NonEGU-point 1,200,000 1,200,000 515,000 502,000

Point oil and gas 500,000 410,000 213,000 172,000

Wild and prescribed fires 330,000 330,000 165,000 165,000

Nonpoint oil and gas 650,000 690,000 275,000 293,000

Residential wood 

combustion 34,000 35,000 3,000 3,000

Other nonpoint 760,000 730,000 204,000 211,000

Nonroad 1,600,000 1,100,000 825,000 582,000

Onroad 5,700,000 3,200,000 2,417,000 1,329,000

C3 Commercial marine 

vessel (CMV) 130,000 130,000 58,000 58,000

Locomotive and C1/C2 

CMV 1,100,000 910,000 451,000 384,000

Biogenics 1,000,000 1,000,000 630,000 630,000

TOTAL 15,000,000 11,200,000 6,698,000 5,018,000

It is clear from Table 1 that NOx emissions are projected to remain constant or decrease for 

most sectors in the 48 states between 2011 and 2017. Emissions from the non-EGU point

source sector and the other nonpoint source sector are not projected to change

significantly, while emissions from the nonpoint oil and gas source sector are projected to 

grow (approximately 6%), during this time period. Based on the values in Table 1, Figures 

 

2 Technical Support Document (TSD), Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the Version 6.2, 2011 Emissions Modeling 

Platform, August 2015, available at: 

http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/2011v6/2011v6_2_2017_2025_EmisMod_TSD_aug2015.pdf

3 Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The official version is available in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking.

4 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for the 2008 Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The official version is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
4

1 and 2 show the relative contributions of the various sectors to overall NOx emissions (left 

panel) and for the non-EGU sectors (right panel) for 2011 and 2017, respectively.

Figure 1: 2011 NOx emissions by sector, with further non-EGU 

breakout (48 states)

Figure 2: Projected 2017 NOx emissions by sector, with further 

non-EGU breakout (48 states)

13%

16%

2%

0%

60%

9%

2011 v2 NEI - NOx by Sector

(TOTAL 6.7M os TONS)

EGU

Non-EGU total

Fires

Residential wood

Mobile

Biogenics

42%

15%

25%

18%

2011 V2 NEI - NOx IN 

NON-EGU SECTOR

Non-EGU

point

Point oil &

gas

Nonpoint oil

& gas

Other

nonpoint

12%

21%

3%

0%

53%

11%

2017 PROJECTIONS - NOx BY 

SECTOR 

(TOTAL 5.0M os TONS)

EGU

Non-EGU total

Fires

Residential wood

Mobile

Biogenics

42%

18%

23%

17%

2017 PROJECTION -

NOx IN NON-EGU 

SECTOR

Non-EGU

point

Point oil &

gas

Nonpoint oil

& gas

Other

nonpoint
5

Figure 1 depicts total ozone season NOx emissions of 6,698,000 tons in 2011 and Figure 2 

depicts total ozone season NOx emissions of 5,018,000 tons in 2017. In both 2011 and 

2017, the mobile source sector has the largest NOx emissions. Substantial reductions in 

mobile source NOx are projected to occur by 2017. Mobile sources are projected to 

decrease because of sector-specific standards related to fuels, fuel economy, pollution 

controls, and repair and replacement of the existing fleet. Because these reductions are 

already expected to occur, mobile source emission reductions are not included in this 

analysis of non-EGU emission reductions achievable by the 2017 ozone season. 

For the purposes of preliminary analysis in this TSD, “non-EGU total” refers to four 

separate categories of sources: non-EGU point, point oil and gas, nonpoint oil and gas, and 

other nonpoint (and does not include mobile sources). The oil and gas point and nonpoint 

sources are separated from the remaining non-EGU point and nonpoint sources due to the 

magnitude of their contribution to the inventory and other aspects related to the inventory 

development, emissions modeling, and future year projections for that industry. The point 

oil and gas sources are also separated out from the other non-EGU point sources according 

to the NAICS code specified for the various sources. Note that point oil and gas sources 

include a variety of types of processes, and there is overlap with the processes included in 

the rest of the non-EGU point inventory. More information on the emissions sectors is 

available in the 2011v6.2 Emissions Modeling Platform TSD.

Comparing the proportions of the total inventory for non-EGUs (Figures 1 and 2), it 

becomes clear that, although they are decreasing in the absolute sense, non-EGU NOx 

emissions are becoming a larger share of overall ozone-season NOx emissions (16% in 

2011 compared with 21% in 2017).

Table 2 compares statewide projected total anthropogenic NOx emissions (inclusive of all 

sectors listed in Table 1 with the exception of fires and biogenics) for the 2017 ozone 

season to non-EGU NOx emissions for the 2017 ozone season for each of the 48 contiguous

states of the U.S. Totals are given for the 48 contiguous United States (the 37 eastern states 

plus D.C. that are addressed in the proposed rulemaking are highlighted below in blue).

Non-EGU sources in this table are broken down into two groups (non-EGU point sources,

including point oil & gas sources, and other nonpoint and nonpoint oil & gas sources).
6

Table 2: Projected Total Anthropogenic Ozone-Season NOx 

Emissions vs. Projected Non-EGU Source Group NOx Emissions, 

2017 Projections, Tons5

State

Total 

Anthropogenic

Non-EGU 

Point + Oil & 

Gas Point

% 

Anthro

Oil & Gas 

Nonpoint+ Other 

Nonpoint

% 

Anthro

Oil & Gas 

Point + Oil 

& Gas

Nonpoint

% 

Anthro

Alabama 88,805 22,187 25 7,952 9 7,442 8

Arizona 71,906 5,015 7 2,310 3 612 1

Arkansas 69,737 13,400 19 5,308 8 9,164 13

California 236,322 29,342 12 20,220 9 3,105 1

Colorado 90,756 19,594 22 16,899 19 27,284 30

Connecticut 17,672 1,105 6 2,626 15 98 1

Delaware 7,786 628 8 615 8 0 0

District of 

Columbia 2,252 212 9 312 14 0 0

Florida 177,514 16,293 9 7,543 4 1,112 1

Georgia 103,536 18,816 18 4,559 4 1,495 1

Idaho 27,893 3,752 13 1,989 7 503 2

Illinois 148,178 24,668 17 15,409 10 9,424 6

Indiana 139,133 27,222 20 6,864 5 5,931 4

Iowa 70,467 7,888 11 3,861 5 153 0

Kansas 79,939 6,968 9 12,619 16 10,697 13

Kentucky 106,830 11,456 11 11,905 11 12,251 11

Louisiana 173,330 45,506 26 30,160 17 31,503 18

Maine 17,576 4,639 26 809 5 26 0

Maryland 46,029 6,213 13 3,508 8 522 1

Massachusetts 35,369 4,144 12 4,807 14 105 0

Michigan 131,486 21,867 17 12,245 9 9,398 7

Minnesota 89,328 15,541 17 6,414 7 46 0

Mississippi 54,832 11,684 21 2,122 4 6,557 12

Missouri 101,035 9,238 9 3,594 4 122 0

Montana 38,504 2,948 8 3,630 9 3,390 9

Nebraska 70,005 3,884 6 1,163 2 467 1

Nevada 28,192 4,018 14 1,003 4 115 0

New Hampshire 8,932 680 8 1,028 12 0 0

New Jersey 52,743 4,544 9 5,506 10 173 0

New Mexico 65,263 10,559 16 19,940 31 27,759 43

New York 109,910 13,738 12 14,624 13 904 1

North Carolina 98,064 15,711 16 3,657 4 1,203 1

North Dakota 74,118 4,047 5 18,125 24 19,185 26

Ohio 160,110 21,280 13 11,617 7 2,906 2

Oklahoma 131,763 32,203 24 33,178 25 51,257 39

Oregon 40,507 6,130 15 4,348 11 365 1

Pennsylvania 174,664 23,735 14 33,508 19 26,713 15

 

5 EGUs are not provided a separate breakout in Table 2 since state-level emissions are presented in the emissions 

modeling platform TSD and other TSDs for this proposal.
7

State

Total 

Anthropogenic

Non-EGU 

Point + Oil & 

Gas Point

% 

Anthro

Oil & Gas 

Nonpoint+ Other 

Nonpoint

% 

Anthro

Oil & Gas 

Point + Oil 

& Gas

Nonpoint

% 

Anthro

Rhode Island 5,845 544 9 1,370 23 12 0

South Carolina 55,897 10,144 18 3,980 7 348 1

South Dakota 22,192 1,241 6 432 2 75 0

Tennessee 85,759 13,494 16 5,846 7 1,922 2

Texas 467,245 95,671 20 115,180 25 145,285 31

Tribal Data 26,717 3,799 14 0 0 3,700 14

Utah 66,486 8,004 12 9,781 15 9,349 14

Vermont 5,473 163 3 937 17 0 0

Virginia 87,754 14,039 16 7,318 8 4,775 5

Washington 75,833 8,666 11 1,150 2 164 0

West Virginia 64,839 9,678 15 12,642 19 16,723 26

Wisconsin 75,047 11,181 15 5,351 7 178 0

Wyoming 68,864 26,488 38 4,018 6 10,905 16

Eastern States 3,411,193 545,649 16 418,692 12 378,171 11

US Total 4,248,436 673,964 16 503,980 12 465,421 11

Table 2 indicates that, in the projected 2017 inventory, non-EGU sources comprising nonEGU point and point oil and gas sources are estimated to make up 16% of anthropogenic 

NOx emissions in the 48 contiguous United States. In individual states, the percentage of 

anthropogenic emissions contributed by these two non-EGUs categories range from 3% to 

26% (eastern states) and from 7% to 38% (western states).

We also note that in the projected 2017 inventory, non-EGU sources comprising nonpoint 

oil & gas and other nonpoint sources are estimated to make up 12% of anthropogenic NOx 

emissions in the entire continental U.S. In individual states, the percentage of 

anthropogenic emissions contributed by these non-EGUs ranges from 2% to 25% (eastern 

states) and from 4% to 31% (western states). 

The EPA’s preliminary analysis indicates that NOx emissions from oil and gas sources

(inclusive of emissions from the point oil and gas and nonpoint oil and gas sectors) 

comprise an average of 11% of the total ozone season NOx emissions inventory. For some

states, this percentage increases up to 43%, with oil and gas emissions exceeding non-EGU 

point totals in a number of states. The key sources of NOx emissions in the oil and gas 

sector are from the combustion of fossil fuel (primarily drilling rigs, internal combustion 

(IC) engines and pipeline compressors) and flares. Please refer to the EPA’s 2011v6.2

Emissions Modeling Platform TSD for more information on emissions from these sectors.

3 Preliminary Analysis

For the purposes of this proposed rule, the EPA performed a preliminary analysis to 

characterize whether there are non-EGU source groups with a substantial amount of 

available cost-effective NOx reductions achievable by the 2017 ozone season.
8

3.1 Methodology

The EPA’s preliminary analysis of potential non-EGU NOx emission reductions was 

performed using the Control Strategy Tool (CoST). CoST is the software tool the EPA uses 

to estimate the emission reductions and costs associated with future-year control 

strategies, and then to generate emission inventories that result from the control strategies 

applied. CoST tracks information about control measures, their costs, and the types of 

emissions sources to which they apply. The purpose of CoST is to support national- and 

regional-scale multi-pollutant analyses, primarily for Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) of 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). CoST is also a component of the 

Emissions Modeling Framework (EMF) that was used to generate the 2017 non-EGU 

emissions presented above and in the Emissions Modeling Platform TSD for this proposal. 

Further discussion and documentation of CoST is available on the EPA’s website at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/cost.htm.

Appendices to this TSD discuss recommendations for updates to CoST, including 

corrections for inapplicable controls, sources already controlled by state rules, sources 

with permit limits or that clearly identified controls in place, and sources subject to future 

NOx emission limits. Appendix A summaries RTI’s work to review estimates for lean burn 

IC engines, glass manufacturing, ammonia reformers, and gas turbines.

6 Appendix B 

discusses SRA’s work on a variety of other categories including many of the others 

evaluated in this TSD.7

It should be noted that all of the NOx measures included in this report are currently in the 

Control Measure Data Base (CMDB) used by CoST, and do not reflect the updates suggested 

in these contractor reports. Obstacles to full incorporation of the recommended changes 

include availability of accurate costs for these measures, and to have cost equations rather 

than average cost/ton to estimate costs. Control efficiencies are readily available for 

measures, but costs, particularly those that can be estimated using equations that consider 

source size or capacity, often are not. The EPA plans to incorporate these recommendations 

for changes or additions to the NOx controls for non-EGUs to support NOx control efforts 

for future rules and other efforts. Nonetheless, the information from these reports helped 

inform our assessment in terms of uncertainty surrounding non-EGU emission reduction 

potential. Further details on the CMDB can be found on the CoST web site.

For the purpose of identifying a list of non-EGU NOx source groups with controls available, 

the EPA ran CoST including non-EGU sources for the 37 eastern U.S. with NOx emissions of 

greater than 25 tons/year in 2017. These reports are included in the Appendices of this 

TSD. Through a contractual agreement with EPA, SRA International and RTI International 

provided reports which CoST examined a number of source categories of non-EGUs with

control costs up to $10,000 per ton (in 2011 dollars). CoST selected particular control 

 

6 “Update of NOx Control Measure Data in the CoST Control Measure Database for Four Industrial Source Categories: 

Ammonia Reformers, NonEGU Combustion Turbines, Glass Manufacturing, and Lean Burn Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines,” Revised Draft Report, RTI International, 2014.

7 “Review of CoST Model Emission Reduction Estimates,” SRA International, 2014; “Summary of State NOx Regulations for 

Selected Stationary Sources,” SRA International, 2014.
9

technologies based on application of a least-cost criterion for control measures applied as 

part of control strategy. Other NOx control measures are available for some of these 

categories, but on average annualized costs for these measures were at higher cost. 

3.2 Uncertainties and Limitations

The EPA acknowledges several important limitations of the non-EGU cost analysis included 

in this TSD, which include the following: 

Boundary of the cost analysis: In this engineering cost analysis we include only the impacts 

to the regulated industry, such as the costs for purchase, installation, operation, and 

maintenance of control equipment over the lifetime of the equipment. Recordkeeping, 

reporting, testing and monitoring costs are not included. Additional profit or income may 

be generated by industries supplying the regulated industry, especially for control 

equipment manufacturers, distributors, or service providers. These types of secondary 

impacts are not included in this cost analysis. 

Cost and effectiveness of control measures: Our application of control measures reflect 

nationwide average retrofit factors and equipment lives. We do not account for regional or 

local variation in capital and annual cost items such as energy, labor, materials, and others. 

Our estimates of control measure costs may over- or under-estimate the costs depending 

on how the difficulty of actual retrofitting and equipment life compares with our control 

assumptions. In addition, our estimates of control efficiencies for control measures 

included in our analysis assume that the control devices are properly installed and 

maintained. There is also variability in scale of application that is difficult to reflect for 

small area sources of emissions. 

Discount (Interest) rate: Because we obtain control cost data from many sources, we are 

not always able to obtain consistent data across original data sources. If disaggregated 

control cost data are not available (i.e., where capital, equipment life value, and operation 

and maintenance [O&M] costs are not shown separately), the EPA assumes that the 

estimated control costs are annualized using a 7 percent discount rate, which is the 

discount (interest) rate used in accordance with OMB guidance in Circular A-94. In general, 

we have some disaggregated data available for non-EGU point source controls. In addition, 

while these interest rates are consistent with OMB guidance, the actual interest rates may 

vary regionally or locally. 

Accuracy of control costs: We estimate that there is an accuracy range of +/- 30 percent for 

non-EGU point source control costs. This level of accuracy is described in the EPA Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual, which is a basis for the estimation of non-EGU control cost 

estimates included in this TSD. This level of accuracy is consistent with either the budget or 

bid/tender level of cost estimation as defined by the AACE International. In addition, the 

accuracy of costs is also influenced by the availability of data underlying the cost estimates 

for individual control measures. For some control measures, we recognize that there is 

limited data available to generate robust cost estimates. This is reflected in the derivation 
10

of costs for some of the non-EGU NOx control measures discussed in Appendix A for this 

TSD. 

3.3 CoST Results

The results of the CoST analysis are displayed in Table 3. In this table, we display the 

source groups selected by CoST, the Source Classification Codes (SCCs) included in those 

groups8, the least-cost control technology for a given source group (also selected by CoST), 

the current estimate (in dollars per ton, using 2011 dollars) of the annualized cost per ton 

NOx reduced of the control technology, the current estimate of the time necessary to install 

the selected control technology (not including permitting time), the estimated ozone 

season emissions in the East from the non-EGU source group in 2017 in the absence of the 

installation of the selected controls, and the estimated potential ozone season reductions in 

the East from the non-EGU source group in 2017 assuming the selected controls could be

fully installed and operational prior to the 2017 ozone season (which as discussed in more 

detail later, is not the case for many of the categories examined). Note that CoST does not 

account for installation time or time required for the permitting process. Instead it 

provides information on the control measures applicable to sources in the inventory, along 

with the cost of installation and operation of the selected measures.

 

 

8 The CoST results do not indicate applicability of the recommended control technology to all sources in the source group

but only to the specific SCCs for which control technologies are applicable. For example, for the cement kilns source 

group, BSI is applicable only for the types of cement kilns covered by the listed SCCs.
11

Table 3: CoST Results: Non-EGU Source Groups with NOx Reductions 

 

9 Time to install is not an output of CoST, but are rather estimates determined by EPA based on research from a variety of sources. See “Typical Installation Timelines for 

NOx Emissions Control Technologies on Industrial Sources,” Institute of Clean Air Companies, December 2006 (all sources except cement kilns and RICE), “Cement Kilns 

Technical Support Document for the NOx FIP,” EPA, January 2001 (cement kilns), and “Availability and Limitations of NOx Emission Control Resources for Natural GasFired Reciprocating Engine Prime Movers Used in the Interstate Natural Gas Transmission Industry,” Innovative Environmental Solutions Inc., July 2014 (prepared for 

the INGAA Foundation).

10 In general, for control retrofits to non-EGU sectors, it appears that the full sector-wide compliance time is uncertain, but is longer than the installation time shown 

above for a typical unit. We have insufficient information on capacity and experience within the OEM suppliers and major engineering firms supply chain to offer 

conclusions on their availability to execute the project work for non-EGU sectors.

11 Non-EGUs of any type – boiler or turbine – that are not currently required to monitor and report in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75 and/or not currently participating 

in the existing CSAPR program will require additional time relative to EGUs that are currently equipped with Part 75 monitoring and reporting and/or participating in 

the current CSAPR program. Installation of NOx monitors for the reporting of NOx mass requires the construction of platforms, CEM shelters, procurement of 

equipment, certification testing, and electronic data reporting programming of a data handling system. These added timing considerations for infrastructure on the nonEGU sources combined with the additional programmatic adoption measures necessary make installation of controls by the 2017 timeframe established in this rule less 

likely and more uncertain for industrial sources.

12 Emissions and potential reductions for Gas Turbines ($163/ton grouping), Cement Kiln/Dryer (Bituminous Coal) ($942/ton grouping), Coal Cleaning – Thermal Dryer 

(2), Spreader Strokers, Petroleum Refinery Process Heaters, Incinerators, Boilers & Process Heaters, Gas-Fired Process Heaters, Coal Boilers, By-Product Coke 

Manufacturing, ICI Boilers – Residual Oil, Ammonia Production, Glass Manufacturing, ICI Boilers, Iron & Steel - In-Process Combustion - Bituminous Coal, Industrial 

Processes Miscellaneous, Catalytic Cracking, Process Heaters, & Coke Ovens, Petroleum Refinery Gas-Fired Process Heaters, Glass Manufacturing – Pressed, Glass 

Manufacturing – Container, Petroleum Refinery Gas-Fired Process Heaters, and RICE source groups were calculated for 2018, however they are likely to be virtually 

identical to projections for 2017. Non-EGU source groups with projected aggregate 2017 NOx emissions below 100 OS tons are excluded from this table.

13 Potential reductions assume fully implemented controls by the start of the 2017 ozone season.

Non-EGU Source 

Group

SCCs Control 

Technology

Recommended 

by CoST

Current 

estimate of 

NOx $/ton, 

CoST (2011 $)

Time to install9

10(excluding 

permitting, reporting 

preparation, 

programmatic and 

administrative 

considerations11)

201712

NOx 

Emissions 

(37 States 

+ DC), OS 

tons, CoST

2017 Potential 

Reductions13 (37 

States + DC), OS 

tons, CoST

Cement Kilns 30500622 (preheater kiln), 30500623 

(preheater/precalciner); 39000201 

(kiln/dryer); 39000288 (kiln in process 

coal)

Biosolid 

Injection 

Technology 

(BSI)

$410 Uncertain 24,760 4,207

Cement Mfg (dry) 30500606 Industrial Processes, Mineral 

Products, Cement Manufacturing (Dry 

Process), Kilns

Selective NonCatalytic 

Reduction 

(SNCR)

$1,255 42-51 weeks 13,006 6,501

Cement Mfg (wet) 30500706 Industrial processes, mineral 

products, Cement Manufacturing (Wet 

Process), Kilns

Mid-Kiln Firing $73 5-7 months 7,971 2,287
12

Coal Cleaning –

Thermal Dryer (1)

30502508 Construction Sand & Gravel, 

Dryer; 30501001 Industrial Processes, 

Mineral Products, Coal Mining, Cleaning, 

and Material Handling, Fluidized Bed 

Reactor

Low NOx Burner 

(LNB)

$1,125 6-8 months 503 165

Coal Cleaning –

Thermal Dryer (2)

30501001 Industrial Processes, Mineral 

Products, Coal Mining, Cleaning, and 

Material Handling, Fluidized Bed Reactor

Low NOx Burner 

(LNB)

$1,640 6-8 months 154 63

Cement 

Kiln/Dryer 

(Bituminous Coal)

39000201 Industrial Processes, In-process 

Fuel Use, Bituminous Coal, Cement 

Kiln/Dryer (Bituminous Coal)

SNCR $942 42-51 weeks 520 260

Iron and Steel 

Mills - Reheating

30300934 (303015) Primary Metal 

Production: Steel; 30300933

Low NOx Burner 

(LNB) & Flue 

Gas 

Recirculation 

(FGR)

$620 6-8 months 1,064 664

Steel Production 30490033 Industrial Processes, 

Secondary Metal Production, Fuel Fired 

Equipment, Natural Gas: Furnaces; 

30400704 Industrial Processes, 

Secondary Metal Production, Steel 

Foundries, Heat Treating Furnace

Low NOx Burner 

(LNB)

$928 6-8 months 281 141

Nitric Acid Mfg 30101301 Chemical Manufacturing, 

Nitric Acid, Absorber Tail Gas (Pre-1970 

Facilities); 30101302 Chemical 

Manufacturing, Nitric Acid, Absorber 

Tail Gas (Post-1970 Facilities)

NSCR $900 6-14 weeks 1,290 724

Petroleum 

Refinery Process 

Heaters

30600106 Industrial Processes, Petroleum 

Industry, Process Heaters, Process Gasfired

SCR-95% $940-$1101 28-58 weeks 179 177

Gas Turbines 20200201 Natural Gas, Turbine; 20200203 

Natural Gas, Turbine: Cogeneration; 

20300202 Natural Gas, Turbine

Low NOx Burner 

(LNB)

$163 12 months 945 793

Gas Turbines 20200201 Natural Gas, Turbine; 

20200203 Natural Gas, Turbine: 

Cogeneration; 20300202 Natural Gas, 

Turbine; 20300203 Natural Gas, 

Turbine: Cogeneration

Low NOx Burner 

(LNB)

$800 6-8 months 16,036 4,713

Natural Gas RICE 

Pipeline 

Compressors

20200202 Internal Combustion Engines, 

Industrial, Natural Gas, Reciprocating

Adjust Air to 

Fuel Ratio and 

Ignition Retard

$249 Uncertain 10,099 2,958
13

Natural Gas RICE 

Miscellaneous

20100202 Internal Combustion Engines, 

Electric Generation, Natural Gas, 

Reciprocating; 20200202 Internal 

Combustion Engines, Industrial, Natural 

Gas, Reciprocating; 20200204, Internal 

Combustion Engines, Industrial, Natural 

Gas, Reciprocating: Cogeneration; 

20300201, Internal Combustion 

Engines, Commercial/Institutional, 

Natural Gas, Reciprocating

Adjust Air to 

Fuel Ratio and 

Ignition Retard

$447 Uncertain 27,600 8,085

Natural Gas RICE 

Pipeline 

Compressors, 

Rich Burn

20200253 Internal Combustion Engines, 

Industrial, Natural Gas, 4-cycle Rich 

Burn

NSCR $517 Uncertain 11,758 10,571

Natural Gas RICE 

Pipeline 

Compressors, 

Lean Burn / Clean 

Burn

20200252 Internal Combustion Engines, 

Industrial, Natural Gas, 2-cycle Lean 

Burn; 20200254 Internal Combustion 

Engines, Industrial, Natural Gas, 4-cycle 

Lean Burn; 20200255 Internal 

Combustion Engines, Industrial, Natural 

Gas, 2-cycle Clean Burn; 20200256 

Internal Combustion Engines, Industrial, 

Natural Gas, 4-cycle Clean Burn

Low Emission 

Combustion 

(LEC)

$649 Uncertain 47,321 41,169

Diesel / Dual Fuel 

RICE

20200401 Internal Combustion Engines, 

Industrial, Large Bore Engine, Diesel; 

20200402 Internal Combustion Engines, 

Industrial, Large Bore Engine, Dual Fuel 

(Oil/Gas)

Ignition Retard $1,255 Uncertain 865 216

Catalytic Cracking 

(1)

30600201 Industrial Processes, Petroleum 

Industry, Catalytic Cracking Units, Fluid 

Catalytic Cracking Unit

Low NOx Burner 

(LNB) & Flue 

Gas Recirculation 

(FGR)

$1,375 6-8 months 255 140

Spreader 

Strokers

10100204 External Combustion Boilers, 

Electric Generation, 

Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal, 

Spreader Stroker (Bituminous Coal)

SNCR $1,390 42-51 weeks 394 158

Petroleum 

Refinery Process 

Heaters

30600106 Industrial Processes, Petroleum 

Industry, Process Heaters, Process Gasfired

SCR-95% $1,406-$1,501 28-58 weeks 161 157
14

Incinerators 50200102, 50200103, 50200104, 

50200504, 30190013, 30190014, 

50300101, 50300106, 50300112, 

50300113, 50300501, 50300503, 

50300504, 50300599, 50100101, 

50100102,

50100103, 50100506, 50100515, 

50100516, 39990024 Incineration

SNCR $1,842 42-51 weeks 6,556 2,950

Boilers & Process 

Heaters

10200203, 10200217, 10300216, 

10200204, 10200205, 10300207, 

10300209, 10200799 External Combustion 

Boilers; 30190002, 30600103 Industrial 

Process Heaters

SCR $2,235 28-58 weeks 13,146 10,358

Natural Gas RICE 

Electric 

Generation

20100206 Internal Combustion Engines, 

Electric Generation, Natural Gas, 

Reciprocating: Evaporative Losses (Fuel 

Delivery System)

Adjust Air to 

Fuel Ratio and 

Ignition Retard

$2,347 Uncertain 107 32

Catalytic Cracking 

(2)

30600201 Industrial Processes, Petroleum 

Industry, Catalytic Cracking Units, Fluid 

Catalytic Cracking Unit; 30600202 

Industrial Processes, Petroleum Industry, 

Catalytic Cracking Units, Catalyst 

Handling System

Low NOx Burner 

(LNB) & Flue 

Gas Recirculation 

(FGR)

$2,369 6-8 months 274 97

Gas-Fired Process 

Heaters (1)

30600104 Industrial Processes, Petroleum 

Industry, Process Heaters, Gas-fired

SCR-95% $2,376 28-58 weeks 211 204

Coal Boilers 10200206, 10200224, 10200225, 

10300102, 10300208, 10300224, 

10300225

SNCR $2,413 42-51 weeks 1099 495

Gas-Fired Process 

Heaters (2)

30600104 Industrial Processes, Petroleum 

Industry, Process Heaters, Gas Fired

Ultra-Low NOx 

Burners

$2,419-$2,638 6-8 months 137 64

By-Product Coke 

Manufacturing

30300306 Industrial Processes, Primary 

Metal Production, By-Product Coke 

Manufacturing, Oven Underfiring

SNCR $2,673 42-51 weeks 2,366 1,420

ICI Boilers –

Residual Oil

10200401, 10200402, 10200404, 

10300401, 10300402 External Combustion 

Boilers, Residual Oil

LNB & SNCR $2,850 6-8 months 991 689

Ammonia 

Production

30100306 Industrial Processes, Chemical 

Manufacturing, Ammonia Production, 

Primary Reformer: Natural Gas Fired

SCR $2,896 28-58 weeks 2,508 2,257

Glass 

Manufacturing -

Flat

30501403 Industrial Processes, Mineral 

Products, Glass Manufacture, Flat Glass: 

Melting Furnace

OXY-Firing $3,097 Uncertain 9,721 7,880
15

ICI Boilers 10200201, 10200202, 10200212, 

10300205, 10200501, 10200504, 

10200601, 10200602, 10200603, 

10200604, 10201401, 10300601, 

10300602, 10200701, 10200704, 

10200707, 10201402 External Combustion 

Boilers

Low NOx Burner 

& SCR

$3,456 6-8 months (LNB)

28-58 weeks (SCR)

31,005 28,204

Iron & Steel - InProcess 

Combustion - 

Bituminous Coal

30300819, 30300824, 30300913, 

30300914, 30301522 Industrial Processes, 

Primary Metal Production

SCR $3,705 28-58 weeks 829 746

Diesel RICE 

Miscellaneous

20100102 Internal Combustion Engines, 

Electric Generation, Distillate Oil 

(Diesel), Reciprocating; 20100107 

Internal Combustion Engines, Electric 

Generation, Distillate Oil (Diesel), 

Reciprocating: Exhaust; 20200102 

Internal Combustion Engines, Industrial, 

Distillate Oil (Diesel), Reciprocating;

20200106 Internal Combustion Engines, 

Industrial, Distillate Oil (Diesel), 

Reciprocating: Evaporative Losses (Fuel 

Storage and Delivery System);

20200107 Internal Combustion Engines, 

Industrial, Distillate Oil (Diesel), 

Reciprocating: Exhaust;

20300101 Internal Combustion Engines, 

Commercial/Institutional, Distillate Oil 

(Diesel), Reciprocating;

20400403 Internal Combustion Engines, 

Engine Testing, Reciprocating Engine, 

Distillate Oil

SCR $3,814 28-58 weeks 1,091 869

Catalytic 

Cracking, Process 

Heaters, & Coke 

Ovens

30600201, 30390004, 39000701, 

39000702, 39000797

LNB & FGR $5,199 6-8 months 1,989 1,094

Petroleum 

Refinery GasFired Process 

Heaters (3)

30600104 Industrial Processes, Petroleum 

Industry, Process Heaters, Gas-fired, 

30600106 Industrial Processes, Petroleum 

Industry, Process Heaters, Process Gasfired

SCR-95% $8,885-$9,140 28-58 weeks 370 316

Glass 

Manufacturing -

Pressed

30501404 Industrial Processes, Mineral 

Products, Glass Manufacture, Pressed and 

Blown Glass: Melting Furnace

OXY-Firing $6,356 Uncertain 1,001 851
16

Petroleum 

Refinery GasFired Process 

Heaters (2)

30600104 Industrial Processes, 

Petroleum Industry, Process Heaters, 

Gas-fired, 30600106 Industrial 

Processes, Petroleum Industry, Process 

Heaters, Process Gas-fired 

SCR-95% $7,533-$8,120 28-58 weeks 362 304

Industrial 

Processes 

Miscellaneous

30600201 Industrial Processes, 

Petroleum Industry, Catalytic Cracking 

Units, Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit; 

39000701 Industrial Processes, Inprocess Fuel Use, Process Gas, Coke 

Oven or Blast Furnace

LNB & FGR $4,026 6-8 months 871 479

Glass 

Manufacturing -

Container

30501402 Industrial Processes, Mineral 

Products, Glass Manufacture, Container 

Glass: Melting Furnace

OXY-Firing $7,481 Uncertain 3,107 2,628

Petroleum 

Refinery GasFired Process 

Heaters (1)

30600104 Industrial Processes, 

Petroleum Industry, Process Heaters, 

Gas-fired; 30600106 Industrial 

Processes, Petroleum Industry, Process

Heaters, Process Gas-fired

SCR-95% $5,609-$5,884 28-58 weeks 372 338

Taconite Ore 

Processing

30302351, 30302352, 30302359 

Industrial Processes, Primary Metal 

Production, Taconite Ore Processing, 

Induration

SCR $6,449 28-58 weeks 1,188 991

Diesel RICE 

Electric 

Generation

20200102 Internal Combustion Engines, 

Electric Generation, Distillate Oil 

(Diesel), Reciprocating

SCR $1,499 28-58 weeks 778 622
17

3.4 Discussion of Non-EGU Source Groups 

The below discussion utilizes the information in Table 3 in order to assess whether 

significant aggregate NOx mitigation is achievable from non-EGU sources by the 2017 

ozone season.

It is clear that a number of source categories have been identified by CoST that have the 

potential for non-EGU stationary source emissions reductions. There are some notable 

source categories below $10,000 per ton that have the potential for substantial non-EGU 

stationary source emissions reductions. However, for the purposes of this analysis, the 

EPA did not further examine control options above $3,300 per ton. This is consistent with 

the range we analyzed for EGUs in this proposal, and is also consistent with what the EPA 

has identified in previous transport rules as highly cost-effective, including the NOx SIP 

call.14 Again, this was done because the objective of this analysis is to characterize whether 

significant aggregate NOx mitigation is achievable from non-EGU sources by the 2017

ozone season, so we focused the search on categories with highly cost-effective 

technologies. This focus excludes several source groups with high reduction potential, 

including as SCR & LNB from ICI boilers, LNB & FGR on Catalytic Cracking, Process Heaters, 

& Coke Ovens, and OXY-Firing on Pressed and Container Glass Manufacturing, because 

reductions from those source groups are not available for $3,300 per ton or less.

At a cost level of $3,300 per ton or less, there are a number of remaining source groups

with substantial reduction potential. However the table also identifies several source 

groups whose reduction potential is not significant, and which EPA did not weigh heavily in 

assessing the aggregate non-EGU NOx reduction potential. This is because the aggregate 

potential reductions from these “insignificant” source groups is small. These “insignificant” 

source groups comprise those with many small sources, as well those containing a limited 

number of larger sources; for either of these types of groups, potential aggregate emission

reductions are small relative to reductions available from other source categories. The EPA 

does not believe that small sources have significant potential in the aggregate because most 

small sources emit less than 100 tons of NOx per year. (It is worth noting that small sources 

account for a significant percentage of the total number of non-EGU point sources. Please 

see Appendix A/B for more information on the number of sources within certain states.) 

The EPA therefore excludes from the focus of this analysis these insignificant source 

groups, namely, those with aggregate potential reductions of 1,000 tons per year or less

(which represents less than 0.1 percent of the anthropogenic ozone season inventory).

The EPA will now focus on the several source groups with significant cost-effective 

reductions identified in Table 3. These source groups include cement kilns, two types of 

cement manufacturing (dry and wet), gas turbines, four separate groups of natural gas 

RICE, incinerators, boilers & process heaters, by-product coke manufacturing, ammonia 

production, and flat glass manufacturing. These remaining source groups are listed below 

with their control technologies, estimated control costs, and estimated installation time.

 

14 $3,300 per ton represents the $2,000 per ton value (in 1990 dollars) used in the NOx SIP call, adjusted to the 2011 

dollars used throughout this proposal. 
18

These groups have been organized into 7 categories for clarity, based on either common 

control technologies (categories 1 through 6) or similarity of source groups (category 7).

Category 1

Cement Mfg (dry) SNCR $1,255 42-51 weeks

Incinerators SNCR $1,842 42-51 weeks

By-Product Coke Manufacturing SNCR $2,673 42-51 weeks

Category 2

Cement Kilns Biosolid Injection Technology (BSI) $410 Uncertain

Category 3

Gas Turbines Low NOx Burner (LNB) $800 6-8 months

Category 4

Cement Mfg (wet) Mid-Kiln Firing $73 5-7 months

Category 5

Boilers & Process Heaters SCR $2,235 28-58 weeks

Ammonia Production SCR $2,896 28-58 weeks

Category 6

Glass Manufacturing - Flat OXY-Firing $3,097 Uncertain

Category 7

Gas RICE Pipeline Compressors Adjust AFR and Ignition Retard $249 Uncertain

Gas RICE Miscellaneous Adjust AFR and Ignition Retard $447 Uncertain

Gas RICE Pipeline Compressors, Rich Burn NSCR $517 Uncertain

Gas RICE Pipeline Compressors, Lean/Clean Burn 

Low Emission Combustion (LEC) $649 Uncertain

The EPA makes the following observations about the potential reductions from these 

significant cost-effective categories. 

The source groups listed in Category 1 would utilize SNCR as the recommended control 

technology. The time necessary to install SNCR equipment is generally well known. A 

typical installation timeline of 42-51 weeks is generally needed to complete an SNCR 

project going from the bid evaluation through startup. Based on this fact alone (which does 

not consider additional time likely necessary for permitting or installation of monitoring 

equipment), the ability for SNCR technology to be installed and operational in time for the 

2017 ozone season seems very unlikely.

The source group listed in Category 2 contains a specific source of uncertainty in regards to

biosolid injection technology (BSI). Due in large part to the lack of widespread use of this 
19

control technology, research performed by the EPA has been unable to uncover any reliable 

information on the time required to install the necessary BSI equipment on cement kilns. 

Compliance timing with regard to biosolid injection technology should therefore be 

considered extremely uncertain. Based on this fact alone (and aside from additional time 

likely necessary for permitting or installation of monitoring equipment), the ability for this 

technology to be installed and operational at all facilities in this category in time for the 

2017 ozone season is unknown.

The source group listed in Category 3 would utilize LNB as the recommended control 

technology, with a necessary installation time of approximately 6-8 months. Some of the 

LNB combustion control technology identified for non-EGU sources reflects a different 

technology that may have different timing considerations than that considered for EGU 

boilers. For instance, LNB at non-EGU combustion turbines in this assessment refers to 

“dry low-NOx burners” (DLNB) which, in addition to the usual diffusion burner, typically 

also include provisions to “premix” natural gas and combustion air prior to combustion. In 

spite of the similarity in naming, this is a different technology than the LNB technology 

examined and assumed for reductions at EGU boilers. Therefore, the same timing 

assumptions assumed and demonstrated on the EGU side are not necessarily applicable to 

combustion control technology for non-EGU sources. Moreover, non-EGUs of any type –

boiler or turbine – that are not currently required to monitor and report in accordance 

with 40 CFR Part 75 will require additional time relative to EGUs that are currently 

equipped with Part 75 monitoring and reporting (such as those EGUs covered under 

federal transport rulemakings and this one). Installation of NOx monitors for the reporting 

of NOx mass requires the construction of platforms, CEM shelters, procurement of 

equipment, certification testing, and electronic data reporting programming of a data 

handling system. These added timing considerations on the non-EGU sources make 

installation of controls by the 2017 timeframe established in this rule less likely and more 

uncertain for industrial sources.

The source group listed in Category 4 would utilize mid-kiln firing as the recommended 

control technology. A fairly well-known aspect is the time necessary to install this 

equipment; typically, 5-7 months is needed to complete a mid-kiln firing project going from 

the bid evaluation through startup. However, the above-discussed issues regarding 

monitoring and reporting of NOx mass on non-EGU sources that currently lack such 

monitoring equipment make installation of controls by the 2017 timeframe proposed in 

this rule less likely and more uncertain for industrial sources such as those in the cement 

manufacturing (wet) source group.

The source groups listed in Category 5 would utilize SCR as the recommended control 

technology, with an installation time of 28-58 weeks for SCR (dependent on exhaust gas 

flow rates; larger systems require longer installation times). Based on the installation time 

frame alone (which does not consider additional time likely necessary for permitting or 

installation of monitoring equipment), the ability for SCR technology to be installed and 

operational in time for the 2017 ozone season seems unlikely. In addition to this 

uncertainty, the above-discussed issues regarding monitoring and reporting of NOx mass 

on non-EGU sources that currently lack such monitoring equipment make installation of 
20

controls by the 2017 timeframe established in this rule less likely and more uncertain for 

industrial sources such as those in Category 5 source groups.

The source group listed in Category 6 would utilize OXY-Firing as the recommended 

control technology, with an uncertain necessary installation. A specific source of 

uncertainty with regard to the estimated installation time of this control technology is that 

OXY-Firing is generally installed only at the time of a furnace rebuild, which rebuilds may 

occur at infrequent intervals of a decade or more.15 In addition to this uncertainty, the 

above-discussed issues regarding monitoring and reporting of NOx mass on non-EGU 

sources that currently lack such monitoring equipment make installation of controls by the 

2017 timeframe established in this rule less likely and more uncertain for industrial 

sources such as those in Category 6 source group.

Finally, the source groups listed in Category 7 are all RICE. While some of the 

recommended control technologies may involve installation timelines that are relatively 

short on a per-engine basis, there is substantial uncertainty in large-scale installation over 

numerous sources. References indicate that implementation of NOx controls of any type on 

a large number of RICE will require significant lead time to train and develop resources to 

implement emission reduction projects; market demand could significantly exceed the 

available resource base of skilled professionals.16 Additionally, in order not to disrupt 

pipeline capacity, engine outages must be staggered and scheduled during periods of low 

system demands for those engines involved in natural gas pipelines (as is the case with 3 of 

the 4 RICE source groups with significant cost-effective reductions). In addition to this 

uncertainty, the above-discussed issues regarding monitoring and reporting of NOx mass 

on non-EGU sources that currently lack such monitoring equipment make installation of 

controls by the 2017 timeframe established in this rule less likely and more uncertain for 

industrial sources such as RICE.

4 Conclusion

The above preliminary analysis performed by the EPA indicates that uncertainty exists 

regarding whether significant aggregate NOx mitigation is achievable from non-EGU point 

sources by the 2017 ozone season. Reducing this uncertainty requires further 

understanding of potentially available control measures that could have annualized costs of 

$3,300 per ton or less. In addition, further implementation of the recommendations in the 

Appendices to this TSD would also reduce our uncertainty regarding the control measures 

included in future non-EGU NOx control strategy efforts.

While a number of source groups with control options were identified, the EPA did not 

further examine control options above $3,300 per ton, consistent with the range analyzed 

for EGUs in this proposal and with what the EPA has identified in previous transport rules 

as highly cost-effective. At a cost level of $3,300 per ton or less, a number of source groups 

 

15 See Appendix B.

16 “Availability and Limitations of NOx Emission Control Resources for Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating Engine Prime 

Movers Used in the Interstate Natural Gas Transmission Industry,” Innovative Environmental Solutions Inc., July 2014.
21

remained, however the EPA believes several of these source groups are not significant. Of 

the remaining source groups, a variety of considerations indicated the ability for control 

technology to be installed and operational in time for the 2017 ozone season seemed

unlikely, with an overarching consideration being that non-EGUs of any type that are not 

currently required to monitor and report in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75 will require 

additional time relative to EGUs that are currently equipped with Part 75 monitoring and 

reporting. These added timing considerations on the non-EGU sources make installation of 

controls by the 2017 timeframe established in this rule less likely and more uncertain for 

industrial sources.

With all of these factors being considered, the limited available information points to an 

apparent scarcity of non-EGU reductions that could be accomplished by the beginning of 

the 2017 ozone season. As noted in the proposed rule, this conclusion has led EPA to focus 

the current proposed FIPs on EGU reductions. The proposal acknowledges that this may 

not be the full remedy that is ultimately be needed to eliminate an upwind state’s 

significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS (or, for that matter, the 2015 ozone NAAQS). Emissions reductions from the 

non-EGU categories discussed above may be necessary, though on a longer timeframe than 

the 2017 compliance deadline being proposed in this rulemaking. EPA intends to explore 

this question further in the near future and welcomes comment on any of the information 

in this TSD to assist with that effort. 
May 2014

Update of NOx Control Measure Data in the 

CoST Control Measure Database for Four 

Industrial Source Categories:

Ammonia Reformers, NonEGU Combustion 

Turbines, Glass Manufacturing, and Lean Burn 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

Final Report

Prepared for

Larry Sorrels

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Air Economics Group

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Prepared by

RTI International

3040 E. Cornwallis Road

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

RTI Project Number 0212979.002.002
_________________________________

RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.

RTI Project Number

0212979.002.002

Update of NOx Control Measure Data in the 

CoST Control Measure Database for Four 

Industrial Source Categories:

Ammonia Reformers, NonEGU Combustion 

Turbines, Glass Manufacturing, and Lean Burn 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

Revised Draft Report

October 2014

Prepared for

Larry Sorrels

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Air Economics Group

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Prepared by

RTI International

3040 E. Cornwallis Road

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
iii

CONTENTS

Section Page

1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1-1

2 Ammonia Reformers Sector ......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Recommended Deletions..................................................................................... 2-2

2.2 Recommended Additions..................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Recommended Changes....................................................................................... 2-3

2.4 Other Comments.................................................................................................. 2-5

3 Combustion Turbines.................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Recommended Deletions..................................................................................... 3-2

3.2 Recommended Additions..................................................................................... 3-2

3.2.1 Catalytic Combustion; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas 

(NCATCGTNG) ...................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.2 EMx and Water Injection; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas 

(NEMXWGTNG) .................................................................................... 3-4

3.2.3 EMx and Dry Low NOx Combustion; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas 

(NEMXDGTNG)..................................................................................... 3-8

3.3 Recommended Changes....................................................................................... 3-9

3.3.1 Water Injection; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas (NWTINGTNG)............ 3-10

3.3.2 Steam Injection; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas (NSTINGTNG)............. 3-11

3.3.3 Dry Low NOx Combustion; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas 

(NDLNCGTNG).................................................................................... 3-12

3.3.4 SCR and Water Injection; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas 

(NSCRWGTNG).................................................................................... 3-13

3.3.5 SCR and Steam Injection; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas 

(NSCTSGTNG) ..................................................................................... 3-16

3.3.6 SCR and Dry Low NOx Combustion; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas 

(NSCRDGTNG) .................................................................................... 3-17

3.3.7 Water Injection; Gas Turbines—Oil (NWTINGTOL) .......................... 3-19
iv

3.3.8 SCR and Water Injection; Gas Turbines—Oil (NSCRWGTNG).......... 3-20

3.3.9 Water Injection; Gas Turbines—Jet Fuel (NWTINGTJF) .................... 3-22

3.3.10 SCR and Water Injection; Gas Turbines—Jet Fuel (NSCTWGTJF) .... 3-22

3.3.11 Applicable Control Measures for Gas Turbine SCCs............................ 3-22

3.4 Example Emission Limits for NonEGU Combustion Turbines ........................ 3-26

3.5 References.......................................................................................................... 3-26

4 Glass Manufacturing Sector.......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Example NOx Regulatory Limits ........................................................................ 4-1

4.2.1 Wisconsin................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2.2 New Jersey............................................................................................... 4-1

4.2.3 New York................................................................................................. 4-1

4.3 Recommended Additions..................................................................................... 4-1

4.4 Recommended Changes....................................................................................... 4-3

4.5 Recommended Deletions..................................................................................... 4-5

4.6 Updates to Source Classification Codes.............................................................. 4-5

4.7 References............................................................................................................ 4-7

5 Lean Burn Engines........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Literature Search.................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Document Review................................................................................................ 5-2

5.3 Low Emission Combustion (LEC) (NLECICENG) ............................................ 5-3

5.4 Layered Combustion (LC), 2 Stroke (NLCICE2SNG)........................................ 5-5

5.5 Layered Combustion (LC), Large Bore, 2 Stroke, Low Speed 

(NLCICE2SLBNG) ............................................................................................. 5-7

5.6 Air to Fuel Ratio Controller (AFRC) (NAFRCICENG)...................................... 5-9

5.7 SCR (for 4 Stroke Natural Gas Engines) (NSCRICE4SNG)............................. 5-10
v

5.8 SCR (for Diesel Engines) (NSCRICEDS)......................................................... 5-12

5.9 Applicable SCCs for Lean Burn Engine Control Measures .............................. 5-14

Appendixes

A Ammonia Reformers........................................................................................... A-1

B Combustion Turbines...........................................................................................B-1

C Glass Manufacturing............................................................................................C-1

D Lean Burn Engines.............................................................................................. D-1

E Notes Provided Here to EPA Questions on Lean Burn RICE .............................E-1
vi

LIST OF TABLES

Number Page

2-1 Applicable SCCs for the Ammonia Production Industry ............................................. 2-4

2-2 RACT NOX Limits for ICI Natural Gas Boilers.......................................................... 2-5

3-1 Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for Catalytic Combustion........ 3-4

3-2 Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for EMx Plus Water 

Injection ........................................................................................................................ 3-7

3-3 Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for EMx Plus Dry Low 

NOx Combustion .......................................................................................................... 3-8

3-4 Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for DLN Combustion ............ 3-13

3-5 Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for SCR Plus Water 

Injection ...................................................................................................................... 3-15

3-6 Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for SCR Plus Steam 

Injection (SI)............................................................................................................... 3-17

3-7 Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for SCR Plus DLN 

Combustion................................................................................................................. 3-18

3-8 Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for SCR Plus Water 

Injection (WI) for Oil-Fired Turbines......................................................................... 3-21

3-9 Recommended Control Measures for Gas Turbine SCCs .......................................... 3-23

3-10 NOx Emissions Limits for NonEGU Combustion Turbines in New York ................ 3-26

4-1 Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for Recommended 

Additions....................................................................................................................... 4-2

4-2 Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for Recommended 

Additions....................................................................................................................... 4-5

4-3 Applicable SCCs for the Glass Manufacturing Industry .............................................. 4-6

5-1 LEC for Natural Gas Lean Burn Engines..................................................................... 5-4

5-2 LC for Natural Gas Lean Burn Engines, 2-stroke......................................................... 5-6

5-3 LC for Natural Gas Lean Burn Engines, Large Bore 2-stroke ..................................... 5-8

5-4 AFRC for Natural Gas Lean Burn Engines .................................................................. 5-9

5-5 SCR for Natural Gas Lean Burn Engines, 4-stroke .................................................... 5-11

5-6 SCR for Diesel Lean Burn Engines—Assumptions ................................................... 5-13

5-7 Potential Reciprocating Engine SCCs to Add to the CMDB and Applicable 

Control Measures........................................................................................................ 5-15

5-8 Recommended New Control Measures to Associate With Lean Burn 

Reciprocating Engine SCCs in the CMDB................................................................. 5-17

5-9 Recommended Control Measure Deletions From SCCs in the CMDB...................... 5-18

5-10 NOx Control Requirements for RICE in Pennsylvania .............................................. 5-21

5-11 Characteristics of NOx Emissions and Controls for RICE......................................... 5-21
1-1

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Health and Environmental Impacts 

Division (HEID) has developed the Control Strategy Tool (CoST) to support national- and 

regional-scale multipollutant air quality modeling analyses. CoST allows users to estimate the 

emissions reductions and costs associated with future-year emission control strategies, and then 

to generate emission inventories that reflect the effects of applying the control strategies. The 

tool uses EPA HEID’s Control Measures Database (CMDB) to develop control strategies and 

provides a user interface to that database. The CMDB is a relational database that contains 

information on an extensive set of control measures for point sources, nonpoint sources, and 

mobile sources. Information contained in the database includes descriptions of the measures, 

control efficiencies for the pollutants affected, costs of control, and the types of sources or 

processes to which the control measures can be applied. The database includes robust cost 

equations to determine engineering costs for some control measures that take into account how 

control costs vary with respect to variables for the source such as unit size or flow rate. The 

database also includes simple cost factors for all source types in terms of dollars per ton of 

pollutant reduced that can be used to calculate the cost of the control measure if the applicable 

source variable data are unavailable or no equation has been developed.

This report presents the results of an effort to review and enhance the CMDB with new and/or 

updated NOx control measure data for the following four industrial source categories: ammonia 

reformers, combustion turbines (nonEGU), glass manufacturing, and lean burn reciprocating 

internal combustion engines. Section 2 of this report describes the procedures used to locate 

more recent data than that currently in the CMDB for control measures applicable to ammonia 

reformers. Section 2 also identifies the source of the new data, describes any modifications to the 

assumptions or procedures in the referenced analyses needed to make the results consistent with 

results for other control measures in the database (such as operating hours for determination of 

total annual costs), and describes the specific recommended changes or additions to the database. 

Sections 3 through 5 of this report provide similar details for combustion turbines, glass 

manufacturing, and lean burn reciprocating internal combustion engines, respectively. Appendix 

A presents all of the records for ammonia reformer control measures in each of the CMDB tables 

showing their content after making the recommended revisions described in the report. 

Appendixes B through D provide comparable tables for the combustion turbine, glass 

manufacturing, and lean burn reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) source 

categories, respectively. Appendix E provides answers to questions on lean-burn RICE NOx 
1-2

emissions and available control measures. It should be noted that these revisions and updates 

will improve the accuracy and quality of NOx non-EGU control strategy and cost analyses for 

EPA rulemakings. 
2-1

SECTION 2

AMMONIA REFORMERS SECTOR

The control measures database includes the following NOX emissions control measures 

for ammonia reformers:

■ Oxygen trim and water injection,

■ Low NOX burners and flue gas recirculation,

■ Selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR),

■ Selective catalytic reduction (SCR), and

■ Low NOX burners.

In order to update the existing control measures database, a literature search was 

conducted using the following terms:

■ reformer

■ cost

■ “NOX” or “nitrogen oxide”

■ “Low NOX burner” or “LNB”

■ “Flue gas recirculation” or “FGR”

■ oxygen trim

■ water injection

■ “Selective catalytic reduction” or “SCR”

■ “Selective non catalytic reduction” or “SNCR”

■ emission reduction

■ control efficiency

Due to the use of SCR and SNCR to control NOX emissions and the fact that ammonia is 

used in the operation of SCR and SNCR, the literature search resulted in NOX reductions on 

processes other than ammonia production.
2-2

In order to focus on ammonia production, a focused internet search for operating permits, 

BACT analyses, and NOX controls was conducted using the 22 ammonia production facilities in 

the United States.

As a result of the following facts, most of the internet search results included NOX

reductions from the production of nitric acid production instead of ammonia production:

■ The NOX emissions from nitric acid production are covered by a New Source 

Performance Standard (NSPS) codified as Subpart G and Subpart Ga of Part 60.

■ Nitric acid facilities covered by the NSPS are required to install NOX continuous 

emission monitoring systems (CEMS).

■ Many nitric acid facilities use SCR to control NOX emissions.

■ Many ammonia production facilities are co-located with nitric acid production 

facilities.

The internet search resulted in one new NOX reduction project, which was the result of a 

voluntary agreement between Terra Nitrogen and the Indian Nations Council of Governments to 

install “ultra-low NOX burner technology to an existing ammonia reformer [and] reduce the 

unit’s NOX emissions by approximately 60% at a projected capital cost of two million dollars.”

The existing ammonia reformer is located at Terra Nitrogen, L.P., Verdigris Plant in Claremore, 

Oklahoma.

Based on information known to EPA and collected for this report, Low NOX burner 

technologies are known and demonstrated control techniques for ammonia reformers.

The following sections outline the deletions, additions, changes, and other comments 

recommended for the CMDB in relation to NOX emissions from ammonia reformers.

2.1 Recommended Deletions

No deletions are recommended.

2.2 Recommended Additions

The only addition to the CMDB is to add the following reference: Tulsa Metropolitan 

Area 8-Hour Ozone Flex Plan: 2008 8-O3 Flex Program. Prepared by Indian Nations Council of 

Governments (INCOG), 201 W. 5th Street, Suite 600, Tulsa, OK 74103. March 6, 2008. 

http://www.epa.gov/ozoneadvance/pdfs/Flex-Tulsa.pdf.

This addition is shown in Appendix A as Table A-1.
2-3

2.3 Recommended Changes

Updates to costs and Efficiencies.

Changes to one record (LNB applied to large source types) are recommended to reflect 

the new reference dated March 6, 2008.

Using the new reference and a reference already contained in the CMDB, the following 

assumptions were made:

■ NOX reductions of 425 tons per year1

■ Capital cost of $2 million1

■ Maintenance costs are 2.75% of capital costs2

■ Equipment life of 10 years

■ Interest rate of 7%

■ Capital recovery factor of 0.1424.

The resulting annual costs are $339,800 and the cost effectiveness is $800 per ton of NOX

reduction (both in 2008 dollars). The capital to annual cost ratio is 5.9.

The previous entry showed a cost effectiveness of $650 per ton of NOX reduction (in 

1990 dollars) and a capital to annual cost ratio is 5.5. The changes are included in Appendix A as 

Table A-2 and Table A-3. Changes are indicated by red, italic text.

Updates to Source Classification Codes.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) developed the Source 

Classification Code (SCC) system, which assigns an eight digit code to each emission unit based 

on the general criteria pollutant emission point type, the major industry group, specific industry 

group, and specific process unit/fuel combination. The system allows similar emission points to 

be grouped together for analyses.

For ammonia reformers, there are seven applicable SCCs, as shown in Table 2-1.

 

1

Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG), 2008: Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG), 

“Tulsa Metropolitan Area 8-Hour Ozone Flex Plan: 2008 8-O3 Flex Program,” March 6, 2008. Downloaded from 

http://www.epa.gov/ozoneadvance/pdfs/Flex-Tulsa.pdf. 

2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Alternative Control Techniques Document— NOX Emissions from 

Process Heaters (Revised), document EPA-453/R-93-034, dated September 1993.
2-4

Table 2-1. Applicable SCCs for the Ammonia Production Industry

SCC SCC 1 SCC3 SCC6 SCC8

30100305 Industrial Processes Chemical 

Manufacturing

Ammonia Production Feedstock 

Desulfurization

30100306 Industrial Processes Chemical 

Manufacturing

Ammonia Production Primary Reformer: 

Natural Gas Fired

30100307 Industrial Processes Chemical 

Manufacturing

Ammonia Production Primary Reformer: Oil 

Fired

30100308 Industrial Processes Chemical 

Manufacturing

Ammonia Production Carbon Dioxide 

Regenerator

30100309 Industrial Processes Chemical 

Manufacturing

Ammonia Production Condensate Stripper

30100310 Industrial Processes Chemical 

Manufacturing

Ammonia Production Storage and Loading 

Tanks

30100399 Industrial Processes Chemical 

Manufacturing

Ammonia Production Other Not Classified

In an analysis of NOX emissions for the Ozone Transport Region in 2011, four of the 

SCCs in Table 2-1 were identified. These SCCs are 30100306, 30100307, 30100310, and 

30100399. Only SCCs 30100306 and 30100307 are associated with ammonia reformer NOX

controls in the current CMDB.

The known control techniques for ammonia reformers are typically used for point 

emission sources, such as stacks. Emissions from SCC 30100310 are not typically vented, so 

capture and control of these emissions is likely not feasible. Therefore, no changes related to 

SCC 30100310 are recommended for the CMDB.

For the purposes of this analysis, SCC 30100399 is assumed to include combustion 

emissions from gaseous fuels other than natural gas. Therefore, all control techniques that are 

applicable to natural gas fired ammonia reformers are assumed to also apply to SCC 30100399. 

Also, the cost to control NOX emissions from gaseous fuels is assumed to be comparable to the 

cost to control NOX emissions from natural gas. Therefore, the costs related to those control 

techniques are assumed to apply to SCC 30100399.

The applicable SCC from Table 2-1 was added to the Description field for each control 

technique in Table A-2 of Appendix A. SCC 30100306 was already included in the table; SCCs 

30100305, 30100307, and 30100399 were added, where appropriate. Changes are indicated by

red text.
2-5

2.4 Other Comments

Control measures used by ICI boilers. Review of NOX control measures used for 

boilers was not included in this analysis. However, many of the SCR costs in the CMDB for 

natural gas fired ammonia reformers are based on SCR costs for 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers using Process Gas. No SCR costs specific to 

ammonia reformers were noted in the CMDB.

At a later time, it may be pertinent to review recent final ICI Boilers regulations or other 

sources for potential updates to the cost of SCR on ammonia reformers. The final major source 

NESHAP for ICI Boilers was promulgated on January 31, 2013 and the final area source 

NESHAP for ICI Boilers was promulgated on February 1, 2013.

Potential NOX limits for ammonia reformers based on boiler NOX limits. According 

to NOX Reasonably Acceptable Control Technology (RACT), the states of New Jersey and New 

York have established emission limits for ICI Natural Gas Boilers (greater than 100 million BTU 

per hour) that could be applicable to natural gas ammonia reformers. These RACT limits are 

shown in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2. RACT NOX Limits for ICI Natural Gas Boilers

State Boiler Size Limit (lb NOX/MMBTU) Effective Date

New Jerseya >100 MMBTU 0.10 Already in effect

New York >100 MMBTU and  250 MMBTU 0.06 7/1/14

New York > 250 MMBTU 0.08 7/1/14

a The limit also applies to other indirect heat exchangers.
3-1

SECTION 3

COMBUSTION TURBINES

The CMDB includes the following NOX emissions control measures for Combustion 

Turbines:

■ Water injection for natural gas-fired turbines (achieves 76 percent reduction)

■ Steam injection for natural gas-fired turbines (achieves 80 percent reduction)

■ Low NOx Burners for natural gas-fired turbines (achieves 84 percent reduction)

■ SCR on natural gas-fired turbines that also have water injection (achieves 95 percent 

reduction)

■ SCR on natural gas-fired turbines that also have steam injection (achieves 95 percent 

control)

■ SCR on natural gas-fired turbines that also have low NOx burners (achieves 94 

percent reduction)

■ Water injection for oil-fired turbines (achieves 68 percent reduction)

■ SCR on oil-fired turbines that also have water injection (achieves 90 percent 

reduction)

■ Water injection for jet fuel-fired turbines (achieves 68 percent reduction)

■ SCR on jet fuel-fired turbines that also have water injection (achieves 90 percent 

reduction)

■ Water injection for aeroderivative turbines (achieves 40 percent reduction)

All of the cost data are in 1990 dollars, except the costs of water injection for 

aeroderivative turbines, which are in 2005 dollars. In addition, all of the costs are based on 

estimated operation for 8,000 hr/yr, except the costs of water injection for aeroderivative 

turbines, which are for intermittently operated units. The costs in 1990 dollars are based 

primarily on analyses in EPA’s 1993 ACT document for NOx Emissions from Stationary Gas 

Turbines (EPA, 1993). Capital and annual cost equations are provided for all of the controls 

except those for jet fuel-fired turbines and water injection for aeroderivative turbines.

Literature search. In order to update the existing CMDB, a literature search was 

conducted for articles and papers published since 2008. In addition, an internet search was 

conducted for BACT analysis reports and control technology reports prepared for federal and 
3-2

state agencies and RPOs. The literature search did not identify any documents with cost data, but 

the internet search identified the documents listed in Section 3.5 of this report.

Changes to CMDB. The following sections outline the deletions, additions, and other 

changes recommended for the CMDB in relation to NOX emissions from Combustion Turbines. 

All cost data and calculations are in an Excel Worksheet (RTI, 2014). Copies of the CMDB 

tables with recommended revisions to the records for combustion turbine controls are provided 

in Appendix B.

The coefficient of determination (R2) is 1.0 for many of the regression equations 

presented in sections 3.2 and 3.3. The R2 value is exactly 1.0 in cases where the analysis was 

based on only two data points; these cases are noted in the discussions for the particular control 

measure. In other cases, actual R2 values greater than 0.995 have been rounded to 1.0. These 

high values likely are due to the fact that available data for most control measures are from a 

single source, and those sources may have already developed a correlation and then picked 

specific data points from that correlation for presentation in their documentation. 

3.1 Recommended Deletions

RTI recommends deleting the record for water injection for aeroderivative turbines 

because the estimated costs are for combustion turbines that operate on a limited and intermittent 

basis (i.e., peaking EGUs). In principle, data for small EGU combustion turbines would be 

acceptable for estimating costs of control measures for nonEGUs. However, the limited 

operation of peaking units is inconsistent with the assumed operating time of about 8,000 hr/yr 

for all of the other nonEGU combustion turbine control measures in the database. For several 

SCCs that are currently associated with this control measure in the CMDB we are recommending 

applying other existing control measures, as discussed in Section 3.3.11 of this report.

The CMDB also currently applies several gas turbine control measures to reciprocating 

internal combustion engine SCCs and to gas turbine SCCs for evaporative losses from fuel 

storage and delivery systems. We recommend deleting these applications of the gas turbine 

control measures, as discussed in Section 3.3.11 and Section 5.9 of this report.

3.2 Recommended Additions

There are 3 control technique additions for emerging technologies to be added to the 

CMDB; these additions include:

■ Catalytic Combustion; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas;
3-3

■ EMx and Water Injection; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas;

■ EMx and Dry Low NOx Combustion; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas.

3.2.1 Catalytic Combustion; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas (NCATCGTNG)

Catalytic combustion is a flameless process that allows fuel oxidation to occur at 

temperatures approximately 1800°F lower than those of conventional combustors (OSEC, 1999). 

Lower temperatures are desirable because NOx emissions levels are strongly correlated with 

temperature. One design that has been commercialized is the XononTM combustor (now called KLeanTM). In the Xonon combustor, a small amount of fuel is burned in a low temperature precombustor. Additional fuel is then mixed with the air and combustion gases from the precombustor and passed through a catalyst module. The catalyst promotes a flameless reaction 

between some of the fuel and oxygen. The gases then enter a burnout zone in which the 

remaining fuel burns. The maximum temperature in the system is between 2300°F and 2700°F. 

In addition to low NOx emissions, the catalytic combustor generates very little CO emissions.

(Peltier, 2003; CARB, 2004; Leposky, 2004; Kawasaki, 2010; Quackenbush, 2012)

Since 1999 at least six Xonon combustors have been installed; all are 1.4 MW units 

(CARB, 2004; Kawasaki, 2010; Quackenbush, 2012). Testing of four of the operating Xonon 

combustors has shown NOx emissions less than 3 parts per million by volume on a dry basis

(ppmvd) at 15% oxygen, and permit limits range from 3 ppmvd to 20 ppmvd at 15% oxygen

(CARB, 2004; Quackenbush, 2012). Several companies have conducted research into developing 

larger catalytic combustors and other types of designs, but no information was found indicating 

that such units have been commercialized (CARB, 2004; Leposky, 2004; Cybulski, 2006).

Although one type of catalytic combustor has been commercialized, we recommend 

considering catalytic combustion as an emerging technology in the CMDB because so few units 

are in operation, and they are all only one size. In addition, as of 1999, issues with catalytic 

combustors include the need for the air-fuel mixture to have completely uniform temperature, 

composition, and velocity profile to assure effective use of all the catalyst and to prevent damage 

to the substrate from high temperatures. Also the catalyst durability is uncertain (OSEC, 1999).

The recommended costs are based on costs presented in a report by Onsite Sycom Energy 

Corporation (OSEC, 1999). The only change we made to the OSEC costs was to calculate capital 

recovery using an interest rate of 7 percent instead of 10 percent; this change makes the capital 

recovery costs consistent with guidance in Circular A-4 from the Office of Management and 

Budget. Table 3-1 summarizes the recommended cost effectiveness and capital to annual cost 

ratios for implementing the catalytic combustion NOx control technology. With an outlet 
3-4

concentration of 3 ppmvd, catalytic combustion achieves an average reduction of 98 percent 

relative to uncontrolled conventional diffusion combustion.

Table 3-1. Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for Catalytic Combustion

Turbine 

Output, MW

Cost 

Year

Uncontrolled NOx 

Emissions Outlet 

Concentration, 

ppmvd

Cost 

Effectiveness, 

$/ton NOx

Capital to 

Annual Cost 

Avg. ppmvd tpy Ratio

Small (5.2) 1999 150 <365 3 920 1.7

Small (26.3) 1999 130 >365 3 670 1.2

Large (170) 1999 210 >365 3 370 0.7

Based on regression of the data in the analysis, the best fit trend lines are represented by 

the following equations for the uncontrolled scenario:

Total capital investment (1999 dollars) = 20668 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.57 (R2=1.0)

Total annual cost (1999 dollars) = 4254.2 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.82 (R2=1.0)

For all but the smallest turbines, the incremental cost of catalytic combustors relative to 

conventional combustors is less than the incremental cost of DLN combustion versus 

conventional combustors. Thus, there are no incremental capital costs for catalytic combustion 

relative to conventional combustion. However, there are incremental annual costs because the 

cost of catalyst replacement is high. A best fit equation for incremental catalytic combustion total 

annual costs relative to a RACT baseline of DLN combustion is:

Total annual cost (1999 dollars) = 743.22 x (MMBtu/hr) + 54105 (R2=1.0)

3.2.2 EMx and Water Injection; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas (NEMXWGTNG)

Like SCR, EMxTM (formerly called SCONOXTM) is a post-combustion catalytic NOx 

reduction technology. EMx uses a precious metal catalyst and a NOx absorption/regeneration 

process to convert CO and NOx to CO2, H2O, and N2. NOx reacts with the potassium carbonate 

absorbent coating the surface of the oxidation catalyst in the EMx reactor, forming potassium 

nitrites and nitrates that are deposited onto the catalyst surface. Each segment, or “can,” within 

the reactor becomes saturated with potassium nitrites and nitrates over time and must be 

desorbed. Regeneration is accomplished by isolating the can via stainless steel lovers and 
3-5

injecting hydrogen diluted with steam. Hydrogen is generated onsite with a small reformer that 

uses natural gas and steam as input streams. The hydrogen concentration of the reformed gas is 

typically 5 percent. Hydrogen and carbon dioxide react with the potassium nitrites and nitrates to 

form N2 and H2O and to regenerate the potassium carbonate for another absorption cycle. 

(OSEC, 1999; CARB, 2004)

At least 8 EMx systems at 6 facilities have been installed on combustion turbines with 

capacities up to 45 MW. Permit limits at most of these facilities have been set at 2.5 ppmvd for 

gas-fired operation. EPA has certified it as “demonstrated in practice” LAER-level technology 

that reduces NOx to less than 5 ppmvd. The operating range of the catalyst is 300 to 700°F, 

which means the technology is not applicable for simple cycle turbines. The vendor for the 

technology has indicated that these systems also reduce carbon monoxide emissions to 

undetectable levels (essentially 100 percent reduction), reduce volatile organic compound 

emissions by greater than 90 percent, and reduce fine particulate matter emissions by 30 percent 

(EmeraChem, 2004). Test data documenting these reductions are not available. For the purposes 

of the CMDB database, we recommend that this control measure be listed as an emerging 

technology (rather than known) because its use has been limited to only a few small turbines.

The recommended costs for EMx in the combined EMx/water injection control measure 

are based on costs presented in a 2008 cost estimate prepared by EmeraChem Power for the Bay 

Area Air Quality Management District (ECP, 2008). For the purposes of developing 2008 cost 

inputs for the CMDB, we made the following changes to the data and assumptions used in the 

ECP analysis:

■ Increased the indirect cost for engineering from $200,000 to $255,000 for the 50 MW 

turbine. ECP’s documentation indicated that this cost (as well as most of the other 

direct installation and indirect costs) would be the same as for an SCR system on the 

same turbine. The reported cost of $200,000 was inconsistent with this statement.

■ Increased the contingencies cost for the 50 MW turbine from $76,486 to $244,101. 

This change makes the cost consistent with ECP’s statement that the cost for 

contingencies is estimated to be equal to 5 percent of the total purchased equipment 

cost, excluding the cost of the precious metals in the catalyst, sales taxes, and freight.

■ Added a cost for the performance loss due to back pressure from the EMx system for 

both turbines. ECP estimated the loss to be 0.5 percent, which is consistent with the 

estimate in the 1993 ACT for SCR and the estimate OSEC used in a cost analysis for 

SCONOx (EPA, 1993; OSEC, 1999). However, the ECP analysis did not include a 

corresponding dollar amount for this element.
3-6

■ Changed the operating hours from 7,884 hr/yr to 8,000 hr/yr. This change also had a 

small effect on the annual costs for utilities.

■ Added costs for natural gas to generate steam for the 50 MW turbine using the same 

procedures presented in the ECP analysis for the 180 MW turbine. ECP did not report 

the basis for the amount of steam needed for the 180 MW turbine. Therefore, we 

plotted the reported steam consumption versus turbine size for this unit and for two 

turbines identified in a CARB analysis (CARB, 2004). We calculated the quantity of 

steam needed for EMx on the 50 MW turbine using the regression equation from this 

plot. Note that the unit cost for natural gas is $9.75/1000 scf. This was a reasonable 

annual average cost in 2008, but it would be much too high for an analysis in 2014.

■ Deleted the credit for recovery of precious metals in the spent catalyst because the 

cost for replacement catalyst considers only the difference between the total purchase 

price minus the value of the recovered material.

■ Estimated the annualized cost of replacement catalyst (both the non-precious metal 

substrate and the precious metal coating) using the future worth factor, whereas the 

cost in the ECP analysis was the purchased cost divided by the 10-year replacement 

interval.

■ Estimated the cost of annual catalyst cleaning based on the average if data reported by 

CARB (CARB, 2004) plus the amounts reported by ECP. Although ECP reported a 

slightly higher cleaning cost for the 180 MW turbine than for the 50 MW turbine, an 

analysis of all the cleaning data showed no correlation with turbine size. Thus, we 

used the average of all reported costs for both turbines.

■ Revised the indirect annual cost for administrative charges. ECP estimated that these 

costs are the same as for an SCR system on the same turbines. We factored the cost as 

2 percent of the TCI for the applicable EMx systems, which is consistent with the 

approach for all control devices in the EPA Control Cost Manual. This resulted in 

slightly higher costs.

■ Increased the indirect costs for insurance, property tax, and capital recovery for both 

turbines because the ECP analysis excluded the precious metal costs from the TCI 

used in these calculations.

■ Calculated capital recovery using an interest rate of 7 percent instead of 10 percent.

The capital costs for water injection in the combined EMx/water injection control 

measure were estimated in 1999 dollars using the regression equation for the water injection 

control measure (see Section 3.3.1) and then scaled to 2008 dollars using the Chemical 

Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI). Total annual costs for water injection were first 

estimated in 1999 dollars using the regression equation for the water injection control option. On 

average, 25 percent of these costs were estimated to be for indirect costs that are factored from 
3-7

the system capital cost, and the remaining 75 percent is for direct annual costs and overhead. To 

estimate the total annual costs for water injection in 2008, the indirect costs were scaled from the 

1999 estimate using the CEPCI, and the direct annual costs and overhead were assumed to be the 

same as in 1999.

Table 3-2 summarizes the recommended cost effectiveness and capital to annual cost 

ratios for implementing the EMx plus water injection NOx control measure. With an outlet 

concentration of 2 ppmvd, this control measure achieves an average reduction of 99 percent 

relative to uncontrolled conventional diffusion combustion.

Table 3-2. Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for EMx Plus Water 

Injection

Turbine Output, 

MW

Cost 

Year

Uncontrolled NOx 

Emissions

EMx Outlet 

Concentration, 

ppmvd

Cost 

Effectiveness, 

$/ton NOx

Capital to 

Annual 

Cost Ratio

Incremental Cost 

Relative to 

RACT Baseline 

of WI, $/ton NOx

Avg 

ppmvd tpy

Large (50-180) 2008 160a >365 2.0 2,760 3.1 6,810

aUncontrolled concentrations were not reported in the referenced analysis. Thus, the value used in this analysis is an 

assumed average that results in the estimated 84 percent reduction for DLN combustion, as described in Section

3.3.3 of this report.

Based on regression of the data in the analysis, the best fit trend lines are represented by 

the following power equations for the uncontrolled scenario (the R2 =1.0 for both equations 

because there were only two data points in the analysis):

Total capital investment (2008 dollars) = 196928 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.68

Total annual cost (2008 dollars) = 18747 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.86

Best fit equations for incremental EMx costs relative to a RACT baseline of water 

injection are:

Total capital investment (2008 dollars) = 156349 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.68

Total annual cost (2008 dollars) = 17252 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.80
3-8

3.2.3 EMx and Dry Low NOx Combustion; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas (NEMXDGTNG)

Table 3-3 summarizes the recommended cost effectiveness and capital to annual cost 

ratios for implementing the EMx plus dry low NOx combustion control measure. With an outlet 

concentration of 2 ppmvd, this control measure achieves an average reduction of 99 percent 

relative to uncontrolled conventional diffusion combustion. For the same reasons noted in 

Section 3.2.2, we recommend that this control measure be listed as an emerging technology in 

the CMDB.

Table 3-3. Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for EMx Plus Dry Low 

NOx Combustion

Turbine Output, 

MW

Cost 

Year

Uncontrolled 

NOx Emissions

EMx Outlet 

Concentration, 

ppmvd

Cost 

Effectiveness, 

$/ton NOx

Capital to 

Annual 

Cost 

Ratio

Incremental 

Cost Relative to 

RACT Baseline 

of DLN, $/ton 

NOx

Avg 

ppmvd tpy

Small (4.2) 1999 134 <365 2.0 2,860 3.9 14,940

Small (23) 1999 174 >365 2.0 1,720 4.1 10,270

Large (170) 1999 210 >365 2.0 840 3.9 6,600

Large (50-180) 2008 160a >365 2.0 2,050 4.1 12,390

aUncontrolled concentrations were not reported in the referenced analysis. Thus, the value used in this analysis is an 

assumed average that results in the estimated 84 percent reduction for DLN combustion, as described in Section

3.3.3 of this report.

The recommended costs for EMx in 2008 dollars for the combined EMx/dry low NOx 

combustion control measure are the same as in the estimate for the EMx/water injection control 

measure described in Section 3.2.2. The recommended costs for EMx in 1999 dollars are based 

on an analysis prepared by Onsite Sycom Energy Corporation (OSEC, 1999). For this analysis 

the only changes we made to OSEC’s analysis were to reduce the operating hours from 

8,400 hr/yr to 8,000 hr/yr, which slightly reduced the energy penalty and utilities costs, and we 

calculated the capital recovery factor using an interest rate of 7 percent instead of 10 percent. 

Note that the total annual costs for natural gas (or purchased steam) are considerably lower in 

this analysis than in the 2008 analysis because the unit cost of natural gas was considerably 

lower in 1999.

The recommended total capital investment and total annual cost for dry low NOx 

combustion in 1999 dollars for the combined EMx/dry low NOx combustion control measure are 

the same as in the estimate for the dry low NOx combustion control measure alone as described 

in Section 3.3.3. The recommended total capital investment for dry low NOx combustion in 2008 
3-9

dollars was estimated in 1999 dollars using the regression equation for the water injection control 

measure (see Section 3.3.1) and then scaled to 2008 dollars using the CEPCI. The recommended 

total annual costs for dry low NOx combustion consist of capital recovery plus the cost for parts 

and repair; capital recovery costs in 2008 dollars were estimated by escalating the 1999 costs

using the CEPCI, and annual parts and repairs costs were assumed to be the same in 2008 as in 

1999.

Based on regression of the data in both the 1999 and 2008 cost analyses, the best fit trend 

lines are represented by the following power equations for the uncontrolled scenario (the R2 =1.0 

for the equations in 2008 dollars because there were only two data points in the analysis; R2for 

the equations in 1999 dollars round to 1.0 when only two significant figures are presented):

Total capital investment (1999 dollars) = 58237 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.78

Total annual cost (1999 dollars) = 15004 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.78

Total capital investment (2008 dollars) = 126892 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.74

Total annual cost (2008 dollars) = 20041 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.80

Best fit equations for incremental EMx costs relative to a RACT baseline of DLN 

combustion are:

Total capital investment (1999 dollars) = 65163 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.72

Total annual cost (1999 dollars) = 13702 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.76

Total capital investment (2008 dollars) = 156349 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.68

Total annual cost (2008 dollars) = 17252 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.80

3.3 Recommended Changes

This section presents updated cost estimates for combustion turbine control measures that 

are currently in the CMDB, and it describes the basis for such changes. These changes include 

both more recent costs for some control measures as well as minor revisions to existing estimates 

for other control measures. The changes affect both cost per ton values and equations.
3-10

This section also identifies applicable SCCs for the new control measures described in 

Section 3.2, and it identifies additional SCCs for which the control measures in this section are 

applicable.

3.3.1 Water Injection; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas (NWTINGTNG)

Recommended updates to the costs for water injection are based on analyses in a report 

prepared by OnSite Sycom Energy Corporation for the U.S. Department of Energy (OSEC, 

1999). OSEC estimated costs for some of the same small turbine model sizes as in EPA’s 1993 

ACT document (4 MW and 23 MW). OSEC obtained water injection equipment costs in 1999 

dollars. They then estimated total capital investment and total annual costs using the same 

procedures as in the 1993 ACT document, and they concluded that 1999 costs for water injection 

were essentially the same as the 1990 costs presented in the ACT document. Because the ACT 

analysis included a greater number of models over a wider range of sizes, RTI recommends 

continuing to use the cost data from the ACT analysis in the CMDB, except the cost year should 

be updated from 1990 to 1999. RTI also recommends the four additional changes noted below.

Our second recommendation is to split the record for small sources into two records—

one for sources with uncontrolled emissions less than 365 tpy, and the other for emissions greater 

than 365 tpy. The 2006 AirControlNET Documentation Report indicates that small sources are 

turbines with design outputs up to 34.4 MW. Four model turbines in the ACT analysis have 

outputs below this threshold. The two turbines with uncontrolled emissions <365 tpy have an 

average cost effectiveness of $1,790/ton of NOx. The two turbines with uncontrolled emissions 

>365 tpy have an average cost effectiveness of $1,000/ton of NOx.

Our third recommendation is to revise the control efficiency for water injection from 76 

percent to 72 percent. The 76 percent control level is the average reduction for all 6 model 

turbines in the 1993 ACT analysis. Five of those models were guaranteed to reduce NOx 

emissions to less than 42 ppmvd, while the sixth was guaranteed to meet 25 ppmvd. Although 

water injection may be more effective on some combustion turbines than others, 42 ppmvd is the 

generally accepted threshold. Thus, we think this threshold should be incorporated in the CMDB. 

The average reduction of the 5 models in the 1993 ACT analysis with an outlet concentration of 

42 ppmvd was 72 percent.

Our fourth recommendation is to use a capital to annual cost ratio of 2.4 in the new 

record for small sources with uncontrolled emissions >365 tpy; this is the average value for the 

two turbines in the ACT analysis in this size range. (The capital to annual cost ratio for the small 

sources with uncontrolled emissions <365 tpy would remain at 3.1 because this is the average 
3-11

value for the two turbines in this size range; it is not clear why this value was applied for all 

small sources in the current version of the CMDB.) The total annual costs in this calculation are 

based on using a 7 percent interest rate in the calculation of capital recovery, instead of the 10 

percent value in the 1993 ACT. Even if capital recovery was estimated using the 10 percent 

interest rate, it is not clear how the 3.1 value was developed.

Our fifth recommendation is to revise the constants in the CMDB table of equations for 

estimating capital and annual costs. Based on regression of the data in the 1993 ACT, the best fit 

trend lines are represented by the following revised power equations for both uncontrolled and 

RACT baseline scenarios:

Total capital investment (1999 dollars) = 27665 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.69 (R2 =0.97)

Total annual cost (1999 dollars) = 3700.2 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.95 (R2=0.95)

3.3.2 Steam Injection; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas (NSTINGTNG)

The only available information on the cost of steam injection was in the 1999 report from 

Onsite Sycom Energy Corporation (OSEC, 1999). OSEC discussed steam injection only in the 

context of large GE Frame 7F turbines (170 MW). They noted that only the first such model, 

operational in 1990 when the ACT analysis was being conducted, was equipped with steam 

injection. All subsequent units (at least through 1999) were equipped with DLN combustion 

technology.

Because the limited available information suggests that steam injection costs, like water 

injection costs, were essentially the same in 1999 as in 1990, we recommend continuing to base 

the steam injection costs on the results in the 1993 ACT, but update the cost year from 1990 to 

1999. In addition, as for water injection, we recommend splitting the one record for small 

sources into two records—one for sources with uncontrolled NOx emissions <365 tpy, and the 

other for uncontrolled NOx emissions >365 tpy. This split results in average cost effectiveness 

values of $1,690/ton of NOx for the small sources with uncontrolled NOx emissions 

<365 tons/yr and $820/ton of NOx for the small sources with uncontrolled NOx emissions 

>365 tons/yr. The capital cost to annual cost ratios also are slightly less than the current values in 

the CMDB.

Based on regression of the data in the 1993 ACT, the best fit trend lines are represented 

by the following revised power equations for both uncontrolled and RACT baseline scenarios:
3-12

Total capital investment (1999 dollars) = 43092 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.82 (R2=0.95)

Total annual cost (1999 dollars) = 7282 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.76(R2=0.96)

3.3.3 Dry Low NOx Combustion; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas (NDLNCGTNG)

Dry low NOx (DLN) combustion technology premixes air and a lean fuel mixture that 

significantly reduces peak flame temperature and thermal NOx formation. In some cases, this 

can be accomplished by using low NOx burners, but in other cases, the combustor design itself 

differs as well as the burner design. For example, the DLN combustor volume is typically twice 

that of a conventional combustor (OSEC, 1999). Therefore, we recommend revising the current 

control technology name in the CMDB from “Low NOx Burners” to “Dry Low NOx 

Combustion.” In addition, the CM abbreviation should be changed from NLNBUGTNG to 

NDLNCGTNG.

Recommended updates to the costs for DLN Combustion are based on analyses in a 

report prepared by Onsite Sycom Energy Corporation for the U.S. Department of Energy (OSEC, 

1999). OSEC estimated costs for some of the six turbines with design outputs ranging from 

4 MW to 169 MW.

OSEC obtained installed equipment costs and annual repair costs in 1999 dollars from 

three turbine manufacturers, but there are some uncertainties in the data. Although the reported 

tabular summary indicates the equipment costs are incremental relative to the cost of a 

conventional combustor, the text of the report states that the costs for 169 MW turbines are the 

total cost to replace a conventional combustor (which may explain why the regression equation 

for the capital costs is linear rather than a power function). Annual costs for parts and repair for 

some of the turbines were proprietary for two of the small turbines and thus could not be 

reported. As a result, the annual costs for those turbines are biased low. In addition, because parts 

and repair costs were unavailable for the 169 MW turbine, OSEC assumed these costs could be 

represented by the costs for the 23 MW turbine.

The only change we made to the assumptions and data reported by OSEC was to 

calculate capital recovery using an interest rate of 7 percent instead of 10 percent.

Table 3-4 summarizes the recommended new cost effectiveness and capital to annual cost 

ratios for implementing the DLN combustion NOx control technology. In addition to changing 

these costs in the CMDB, we also recommend changing the control efficiency for DLN 

combustion applied to small sources from 68 percent to 84 percent. The 84 percent level is 
3-13

currently used for large sources, and it is consistent with the efficiency for DLN combustion (or 

low NOx burners) in the 1993 ACT. It appears the 68 percent entry was a data transcription error 

because that is the control efficiency for water injection applied to oil-fired turbines.

Table 3-4. Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for DLN Combustion

Turbine 

Output, MW

Cost 

Year

Uncontrolled NOx 

Emissions Outlet 

Concentration, 

ppmvd

Cost 

Effectiveness, 

$/ton NOx

Capital to 

Annual Cost 

Avg. ppmvd tpy Ratio

Small (4-23) 1999 152 <365 25 300 5.0

Large (170) 1999 210 >365 25 130 7.4

Based on regression of the data in both analyses, the best fit trend lines are represented by 

the following revised equations for both uncontrolled and RACT baseline scenarios:

Total capital investment (1999 dollars) = 2860.6 x (MMBtu/hr) + 25427 (R2=1.0)

Total annual cost (1999 dollars) = 584.5 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.96 (R2=0.95)

3.3.4 SCR and Water Injection; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas (NSCRWGTNG)

Recommended updates to the costs for SCR combined with water injection are based on 

two sets of cost analyses. One set of costs is in 1999 dollars for three turbines ranging in size 

from 4.2 MW to 161 MW (OSEC, 1999). The second is in 2008 dollars for two larger turbines 

with design outputs of 50 MW and 180 MW (ECP, 2008). For SCR, the referenced analyses 

estimated direct installation costs and indirect costs based on scaling from the purchased 

equipment costs using standard factors as in the Control Cost Manual. Annual costs were 

estimated for the same cost elements that were used in the SCR analysis in the 1993 ACT. Water 

injection costs for the two smallest turbines in the 1999 analysis were estimated as described 

above for the water injection control option. Water injection costs for the large turbines were not 

estimated in the referenced analyses.

For the purposes of developing 1999 cost inputs for the CMDB, we made the following 

changes to the data and assumptions used in the OSEC analysis:

■ Increased the engineering cost for SCR for the 161 MW turbine from $100,000 to 

$228,865. The revised value is equal to 10 percent of the purchased equipment cost, 

which is consistent with the approach used for the smaller turbines. The report did not 

explain why $100,000 was used instead of the factor.
3-14

■ Estimated performance penalty costs and electricity costs for the blower and pumps in 

the ammonia injection system using operating hours of 8,000 hr/yr instead of 

8,400 hr/yr.

■ Calculated capital recovery for the SCR system using an interest rate of 7 percent 

instead of 10 percent.

■ Calculated annual catalyst replacement and disposal costs using a future worth factor 

instead of a capital recovery factor.

■ Estimated total capital investment and total annual costs for the 161 MW turbine 

using the regression equations for the water injection control option. (Maybe it would 

be better to drop the large model from this analysis and just present 1999 costs for 

small turbines and 2008 costs for large turbines.)

For the purposes of developing 2008 cost inputs for the CMDB, we started with the ECP 

analysis for SCR costs and then made the following changes to the data and assumptions:

■ Calculated the performance penalty for SCR using an electricity cost of $0.06/kwh 

instead of $0.1/kwh and 8,000 hr/yr instead of 8,400 hr/yr. In addition, although it 

appears that the referenced analysis assumed a performance loss equal to 0.5 percent 

of the turbine’s design output, the cited cost was significantly greater than it should 

be for that percentage loss, even if the cited electricity cost and operating hours were 

used in the calculation. We changed the cost to be consistent with the calculated 

amount.

■ Calculated capital recovery for the SCR system using an interest rate of 7 percent 

instead of 10 percent.

■ Estimated capital costs for water injection in 1999 dollars using the regression 

equation for the water injection control option, and then scaled the costs to 2008 

dollars using the CEPCI.

■ Estimated total annual costs for water injection following the same procedure

described in Section 3.2.2 for the water injection portion of a combined water 

injection and EMx control measure. Thus, the total annual costs for water injection 

are the same in both control measures.

Table 3-5 summarizes the recommended new cost effectiveness and capital to annual cost 

ratios values for implementing SCR plus water injection on natural gas-fired combustion 

turbines. Table 3-5 also presents revised incremental costs of SCR relative to a RACT baseline 

of water injection for the different categories of turbines. Note that the SCR outlet NOx level 

was assumed to be 2.5 ppmvd in the ECP analysis, which results in an overall control efficiency 

of 98 percent versus the 94 percent for the OSEC and ACT analyses.
3-15

Table 3-5. Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for SCR Plus Water 

Injection

Turbine 

Output, MW

Cost 

Year

Uncontrolled NOx 

Emissions SCR Outlet 

Concentration, 

ppmvd

Cost 

Effectiveness, 

$/ton NOx

Capital to 

Annual 

Cost Ratio

Incremental Cost 

Relative to RACT 

Baseline of WI, 

Avg. ppmvd tpy $/ton NOx

Small (4.2) 1999 134 <365 9 2,790 3.0 5,840

Small (22.7) 1999 174 >365 9 1,370 2.9 3,130

Large (161) 1999 210 >365 9 1,070 1.5 1,690

Large (50-180) 2008 160a >365 2.5 1,830 2.7 3,170

aUncontrolled concentrations were not reported in the referenced analysis. Thus, the value used in this analysis is an 

assumed average that results in the estimated 84 percent reduction for DLN combustion, as described in Section

3.3.3 of this report.

Based on regression of the data in both analyses, the revised best fit trend lines are 

represented by the following power equations for both uncontrolled scenarios (R2=1 for the 2008 

costs because the analysis was based on only two data points):

Total capital investment (1999 dollars) = 62962 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.66 (R2=1.0)

Total annual cost (1999 dollars) = 8590 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.87 (R2=0.99)

Total capital investment (2008 dollars) = 34533 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.85 (R2=1.0)

Total annual cost (2008 dollars) = 6794 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.94 (R2=1.0)

Revised best fit equations for incremental SCR costs relative to a RACT baseline of 

water injection are (R2=1 for the 2008 costs because the analysis was based on only two data 

points):

Total capital investment (1999 dollars) = 37193 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.63 (R2=1.0)

Total annual cost (1999 dollars) = 12065 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.64 (R2=1.0)

Total capital investment (2008 dollars) = 10323 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.96 (R2=1.0)

Total annual cost (2008 dollars) = 3106.1 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.94 (R2=1.0)
3-16

3.3.5 SCR and Steam Injection; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas (NSCTSGTNG)

Combined costs for SCR and steam injection were not presented in any available 

references. Thus, costs for combined control systems were estimated in 1999 dollars for four 

model turbines ranging from 4 MW to 161 MW using the procedures described above for steam 

injection alone and for SCR as part of combined SCR and water injection control systems. 

Specifically, steam injection costs for each model turbine were assumed to be the same as in the 

1993 ACT, consistent with the description above for steam injection control costs. Since OSEC 

did not estimate SCR costs for the specific turbines in this analysis, we estimated the SCR costs 

using the trendlines that we developed for incremental SCR costs relative to a RACT baseline of 

water injection. We then summed the separate SCR and steam injection costs to obtain the 

combined system costs.

We also estimated costs for a combined steam injection and SCR control measure in 2008 

dollars. The SCR portion of the costs are the same as for SCR in the combined water injection 

plus SCR control measure, as described in Section 3.3.4. Total capital investment for the steam 

injection portion were estimated in 1999 dollars using the regression equation developed for 

steam injection alone, as described in Section 3.3.2. These costs were escalated to 2008 costs 

using the CEPCI. Total annual costs for steam injection were first estimated in 1999 dollars 

using the regression equation for the steam injection control option (see Section 3.3.2). On 

average, 40 percent of these costs were estimated to be for indirect costs that are factored from 

the system capital cost, and the remaining 60 percent is for direct annual costs and overhead. To 

estimate the total annual costs for steam injection in 2008, the indirect costs were scaled from the 

1999 estimate using the CEPCI, and the direct annual costs and overhead were assumed to be the 

same as in 1999.

Table 3-6 summarizes the recommended new cost effectiveness and capital to annual cost 

ratios values for implementing SCR plus steam injection on natural gas-fired combustion 

turbines. Table 3-6 also presents revised incremental costs of SCR relative to a RACT baseline 

of steam injection for the different categories of turbines. Note that the incremental costs are 

slightly different from the costs in Table 3-5. The costs should be the same for a given turbine 

category. They differ because the two analyses examined a different number of turbines, and the 

sizes were not exactly the same. At a later date, the analysis could be improved by combining the 

SCR costs from both analyses and developing a single set of incremental SCR costs.
3-17

Table 3-6. Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for SCR Plus Steam 

Injection (SI)

Turbine Output, 

MW

Cost 

Year

Uncontrolled NOx 

Emissions SCR Outlet 

Concentration, 

ppmvd

Cost 

Effectiveness, 

$/ton NOx

Capital to 

Annual 

Cost Ratio

Incremental Cost 

Relative to RACT 

Baseline of SI, 

Avg. ppmvd tpy $/ton NOx

Small (4.2) 1999 155 <365 9 2,570 3.3 5,550

Small (26.8) 1999 142 >365 9 1,380 3.1 2,870

Large (83–161) 1999 300 >365 9 570 2.7 1,810

Large (50–180) 2008 160a >365 2.5 1,420 3.9 3,170

aUncontrolled concentrations were not reported in the referenced analysis. Thus, the value used in this analysis is an 

assumed average that results in the estimated 84 percent reduction for DLN combustion, as described in Section

3.3.3 of this report.

Based on regression of the data in the analysis, the revised best fit trend lines are 

represented by the following power equations for the uncontrolled scenario (R2=1 for the 2008 

costs because the analysis was based on only two data points):

Total capital investment (1999 dollars) = 72169 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.66 (R2=0.99)

Total annual cost (1999 dollars) = 17551 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.72 (R2=0.98)

Total capital investment (2008 dollars) = 46492 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.82 (R2=1.0)

Total annual cost (2008 dollars) = 8704 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.86 (R2=1.0)

Revised best fit equations for incremental SCR costs relative to a RACT baseline of 

steam injection are assumed to be the same as noted above in the discussion of costs for SCR and 

water injection.

3.3.6 SCR and Dry Low NOx Combustion; Gas Turbines—Natural Gas (NSCRDGTNG)

Updated costs for combined SCR and DLN combustion control systems were estimated 

in 1999 dollars for all turbine sizes, 2007 dollars for small turbines, and 2008 dollars for large 

turbines. The 1999 costs were estimated by combining the separate costs for DLN combustion 

and SCR provided by Onsite Sycom Energy Systems (OSEC, 1999). The 2007 costs were 

estimated by combining SCR costs developed by Energy and Environmental Analysis in a report 

prepared for EPA with the OSEC costs for DLN combustion in 1999 dollars, escalated to 2007 

dollars (EEA, 2008). Similarly, costs in 2008 dollars were estimated by combining SCR costs 
3-18

developed by EmeraChem Power in an analysis for the Bay Area Air Quality Management 

District with escalated DLN combustion costs (ECP, 2008). The EEA analysis provided only 

capital costs; therefore, we estimated annual costs using the same factors provided in ECP’s 

analysis of costs in 2008 dollars. For both the 2007 and 2008 cost estimates, DLN capital costs 

and capital recovery were escalated from 1999 dollars using the CEPCI, and annual parts and 

repairs costs were assumed to be the same in all three years.

Table 3-7 summarizes the recommended new cost effectiveness and capital to annual cost 

ratios values for implementing SCR plus dry low NOx combustion on natural gas-fired 

combustion turbines. Table 3-7 also presents revised incremental costs of SCR relative to a 

RACT baseline of steam injection for the different categories of turbines. Note that the SCR 

outlet NOx level was assumed to be 2.5 ppmvd in the ECP analysis, which results in an overall 

control efficiency of 98 percent versus the 94 percent for the OSEC analyses. We also used an 

outlet concentration of 2.5 ppmvd to estimate emissions to use with EEA’s 2007 costs. The ECP 

and EEA analyses did not specify inlet NOx emissions concentrations to the SCR; therefore, we 

assumed 25 ppmvd, as in other DLN analyses. We also assumed an average uncontrolled 

emissions level of 160 ppmvd for all models so that the overall control efficiency of the DLN 

combustion plus the SCR was 98 percent. Note that the incremental costs in 1999 dollars are 

significantly higher than those for SCR following water injection and steam injection; this is due 

to the inlet concentration being 25 ppmvd for this analysis and 42 ppmvd for water injection and 

steam injection.

Table 3-7. Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for SCR Plus DLN 

Combustion

Turbine Output, 

MW

Cost 

Year

Uncontrolled NOx 

Emissions SCR Outlet 

Concentration, 

ppmvd

Cost 

Effectiveness, 

$/ton NOx

Capital to 

Annual 

Cost Ratio

Incremental Cost 

Relative to RACT 

Baseline of DLN, 

Avg. ppmvd tpy $/ton NOx

Small (4.2) 1999 134 <365 9 1,800 2.9 11,900

Small (26.8) 1999 174 >365 9 990 3.6 6,320

Large (161) 1999 210 >365 9 390 4.2 3,340

Small (1–10.2) 2007 160a <365 2.5 2,910 4.3 18,900

Small (25) 2007 160a >365 2.5 1,460 3.8 7,510

Large (50–180) 2008 160a >365 2.5 1,040 4.5 5,560

aUncontrolled concentrations were not reported in the referenced analysis. Thus, the value used in this analysis is an 

assumed average that results in the estimated 84 percent reduction for DLN combustion, as described in Section

3.3.3 of this report.
3-19

Based on regression of the data in each analysis, the best fit trend lines are represented by 

the following power equations for uncontrolled scenarios (R2=1 for the 2008 costs because the 

analysis was based on only two data points, and note that the R2for the 2007 equations is not 

meaningful because the DLN portion of the costs are based on a regression equation instead of 

independent, model-specific data):

Total capital investment (1999 dollars) = 24854 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.79 (R2=1.0)

Total annual cost (1999 dollars) = 12725 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.69 (R2=1.0)

Total capital investment (2007 dollars) = 187647 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.54 (R2=1.0)

Total annual cost (2007 dollars) = 2782 x (MMBtu/hr) + 167494 (R2=1.0)

Total capital investment (2008 dollars) = 14790 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.97 (R2=1.0)

Total annual cost (2008 dollars) = 5263.5 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.90 (R2=1.0)

The equations to estimate incremental costs for SCR relative to a RACT baseline of dry 

low NOx combustion in 1999 dollars and 2008 dollars are assumed to be the same as noted in 

Section 3.3.4 for incremental costs relative to a RACT baseline of water injection. Incremental 

costs for SCR relative to a RACT baseline of water injection in 2007 dollars are estimated using 

the following equations:

Total capital investment (2007 dollars) = 210883 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.46 (R2=1.0)

Total annual cost (2007 dollars) = 1894 x (MMBtu/hr) + 185570 (R2=0.99)

3.3.7 Water Injection; Gas Turbines—Oil (NWTINGTOL)

No new data are available on costs of water injection for oil-fired combustion turbines. 

However, because the water injection costs for natural gas-fired turbines were determined to be 

essentially the same in 1999 as in 1990, we assume the same would be true for water injection on 

oil-fired turbines; the costs for both types of turbines also were the same in the 1993 ACT 

analysis. Therefore, we recommend continuing to base costs on the results of the 1993 ACT 

analysis, but to update the cost year from 1990 to 1999. In addition, we changed the size of the 

large model in the ACT analysis from 83.3 MW to 84.7 MW because it appears the incorrect 
3-20

model was used in the ACT analysis. As for the natural gas-fired turbines, we also recommend 

splitting the single record for small sources into two records—one for source with uncontrolled 

NOx emissions <365 tpy, and the other for sources with uncontrolled NOx emissions >365 tpy. 

The resulting cost effectiveness values for the turbines with uncontrolled NOx emissions 

<365 tpy and >365 tpy are $1,630/ton of NOx and $960/ton of NOx, respectively. The capital to 

annual cost ratios also change slightly.

As for other control technologies, the constants in the equations to estimate total capital 

costs and total annual costs differ from those in the regression analyses performed in Excel. In 

this case, the differences are small, but we recommend revising the constants so that all 

equations are developed based on the same approach. The revised equations for both the 

uncontrolled and RACT baseline scenarios are:

Total capital investment (1999 dollars) = 43255 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.60 (R2=1.0)

Total annual cost (1999 dollars) = 6796.8 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.80(R2=1.0)

3.3.8 SCR and Water Injection; Gas Turbines—Oil (NSCRWGTNG)

SCR costs were developed in a BACT analysis for a 48 MW oil-fired combustion turbine 

(FMPA, 2004). Because water injection costs in 2004 dollars are not available, we calculated 

costs in 1999 dollars as described above for the water injection option, and then estimated costs 

in 2004 dollars by scaling up the 1999 capital costs (and capital recovery) using the CEPCI; 

other annual operating and maintenance costs were assumed to be unchanged. We used the SCR 

capital cost as presented in the FMPA analysis, but we made several changes to the annual costs. 

Although the original values may have been appropriate for the specific application evaluated by 

FMPA, the following changes were made to be consistent with the calculations for other controls 

in this analysis:

■ Estimated O&M costs assuming operation for 8,000 hr/yr instead of 4,422 hr/yr.

■ Excluded cost for one week of lost power generation while catalyst is being replaced, 

assuming that catalyst replacement can be performed during scheduled annual 

downtime.

■ Reduced sales tax and freight cost for catalyst from 12.25 percent of the purchased 

cost to 8 percent of the purchased cost.

■ Deleted capital recovery cost for catalyst because the catalyst is replaced annually.
3-21

■ The reported annual cost for ammonia was based on a stoichiometric ratio of 1.4 

(possibly because they assumed a significant generation of NO2 relative to NO). 

They also applied a factor of 1.05, apparently to account for ammonia slip, as in the 

Control Cost Manual procedures for SCR on boilers. However, both factors should 

not be needed. For this analysis, we used just the 1.05 factor (also used the reported 

unit cost of $750/ton of ammonia, which may have been high for 2004).

■ Reduced the property tax factor from 2.75 percent of the TCI to 1 percent of the TCI.

Table 3-8 summarizes the recommended cost effectiveness and capital to annual cost 

ratios values for implementing SCR plus water injection on oil-fired combustion turbines. 

Table 3-8 also presents incremental costs of SCR relative to a RACT baseline of water injection. 

The 1990 costs are essentially the same as the costs currently in the CMDB, except that we 

recommend splitting the one record for small sources into two records.

Table 3-8. Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for SCR Plus Water 

Injection (WI) for Oil-Fired Turbines

Turbine 

Output, MW

Cost 

Year

Uncontrolled NOx 

Emissions SCR Outlet 

Concentration, 

ppmvd

Cost 

Effectiveness, 

$/ton NOx

Capital to 

Annual 

Cost Ratio

Incremental Cost 

Relative to RACT 

Baseline of WI, 

Avg. ppmvd tpy $/ton NOx

Small (3.3) 1990 179 <365 18 3,200 2.9 7,620

Small (26.3) 1990 211 >365 18 1,320 2.3 2,450

Large (84) 1990 228 >365 18 1,000 2.4 2,210

Large (48) 2004 200a >365 5 1,560 2.3 4,790

aThe referenced analysis did not report an uncontrolled emissions level. The value used in this analysis is the 

average of the uncontrolled emissions concentrations for oil-fired model turbines in the 1993 ACT.

Based on regression of the data in the 1993 ACT, the best fit trend lines are represented 

by the following revised power equations for the uncontrolled scenario:

Total capital investment (1990 dollars) = 95837 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.62(R2=0.99)

Total annual cost (1990 dollars) = 25990 x (MMBtu/hr) ^ 0.70 (R2=1.0)

Revised best fit equations for incremental SCR costs relative to a RACT baseline of 

water injection are:

Total capital investment (1990 dollars) = 4744 x (MMBtu/hr) + 368162 (R2=1.0)
3-22

Total annual cost (1990 dollars) = 1522.5 x (MMBtu/hr) + 142643 (R2=1.0)

We could not develop equations for this control system in 2004 dollars because 2004 data 

are available for only one turbine, and thus are insufficient for this purpose.

3.3.9 Water Injection; Gas Turbines—Jet Fuel (NWTINGTJF)

The current CMDB assumes costs for jet fuel-fired turbines are the same as for oil-fired 

turbines. Thus, we recommend the same changes for jet fuel fired turbines as noted above for oilfired turbines.

3.3.10 SCR and Water Injection; Gas Turbines—Jet Fuel (NSCTWGTJF)

The current CMDB assumes costs for jet fuel-fired turbines are the same as for oil-fired 

turbines. Thus, we recommend the same changes for jet fuel fired turbines as noted above for oilfired turbines.

3.3.11 Applicable Control Measures for Gas Turbine SCCs

The first column in Table 3-9 lists all of the gas turbine SCCs that are associated with one 

or more gas turbine control measures in the CMDB table called “Table 03_SCCs.” In addition, 

the last seven SCCs in Table 3-9 are additional gas turbine SCCs that are not currently assigned 

any NOx control measures in the CMDB. These seven SCCs, as well as many of the others at the 

top of Table 3-9, were identified with NOx emissions in an EPA query of the NEI for facilities in 

the Ozone Transport Group Assessment Region (i.e., 37 states that are partially or completely to 

the east of 100oW longitude). The first 11 control measures in column headings in Table 3-9 are 

the gas turbine control measures that are currently in the CMDB; the last three column headings 

are the new control measures identified in this review and described in Section 3.2 of this report.

Each control measure that was determined to be applicable for a specific SCC is 

identified by either an “E” or an “N” in the cell at the intersection of the applicable SCC row and 

the control measure column. An “E” means the control measure is already listed in the CMDB 

for the particular SCC, and we concur with that designation. An “N” means the control measure 

is not currently linked to a particular SCC, but we recommend adding this link in the database. In 

some cases, we recommend applying new links between existing control measures and existing 

SCCs. For example, some of the SCCs are for turbines that are fired with relatively uncommon 

fuels such as landfill gas or gasoline. We have not located any analyses that determined the 

applicable controls and related costs for gas turbines fired with such fuels. In order to conduct

CoST modeling analyses for these turbines, the most representative available control measures
3-23

Table 3-9. Recommended Control Measures for Gas Turbine SCCs

SCCa

SCC 

Level 

1

b

SCC 

Level 

2

c SCC Level 3 SCC Level 4

Applicable Gas Turbine Control Measures for the SCCd

NWTINGTOLNSCRWGTOLNWTINGTJFNSCRWGTJFNWTINGTNGNSTINGTNGNDLNCGTNGNSCRWGTNGNSCRSGTNGNSCRDGTNGNWIGTAGTNCATCGTNGNEMXWGTNGNEMXDGTNG

20200101 ICE Ind Distillate Oil (Diesel) Turbine E E

20200103 ICE Ind Distillate Oil (Diesel) Turbine: Cogeneration E E

20200108 ICE Ind Distillate Oil (Diesel) Turbine: Evap Losses D D

20200109 ICE Ind Distillate Oil (Diesel) Turbine: Exhaust E E

20200201 ICE Ind Natural Gas Turbine E E E E E E D N N N

20200203 ICE Ind Natural Gas Turbine: Cogeneration E E E E E E D N N N

20200208 ICE Ind Natural Gas Turbine: Evap Losses D D D D D D D

20200209 ICE Ind Natural Gas Turbine: Exhaust E E E E E E D N N N

20200701 ICE Ind Process Gas Turbine Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne D Ne Ne Ne

20200705 ICE Ind Process Gas Refinery Gas: Turbine Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne D Ne Ne Ne

20200713 ICE Ind Process Gas Turbine: Evap Losses D

20200714 ICE Ind Process Gas Turbine: Exhaust Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne D Ne Ne Ne

20200901 ICE Ind Kerosene/Naphtha (Jet 

Fuel)

Turbine E E

20200908 ICE Ind Kerosene/Naphtha (Jet 

Fuel)

Turbine: Evap Losses D D

20200909 ICE Ind Kerosene/Naphtha (Jet 

Fuel)

Turbine: Exhaust E E

20201008 ICE Ind Liquified Petroleum Gas 

(LPG)

Turbine: Evap Losses D

(continued)
3-24

Table 3-9. Recommended Control Measures for Gas Turbine SCCs (continued)

SCCa

SCC 

Level 

1

b

SCC 

Level 

2

c SCC Level 3 SCC Level 4

Applicable Gas Turbine Control Measures for the SCCd

NWTINGTOLNSCRWGTOLNWTINGTJFNSCRWGTJFNWTINGTNGNSTINGTNGNDLNCGTNGNSCRWGTNGNSCRSGTNGNSCRDGTNGNWIGTAGTNCATCGTNGNEMXWGTNGNEMXDGTNG

20201009 ICE Ind Liquified Petroleum Gas 

(LPG)

Turbine: Exhaust Ne Ne D

20201011 ICE Ind Liquified Petroleum Gas 

(LPG)

Turbine Ne Ne D

20201013 ICE Ind Liquified Petroleum Gas 

(LPG)

Turbine: Cogeneration Ne Ne D

20300102 ICE C/I Distillate Oil (Diesel) Turbine E E

20300108 ICE C/I Distillate Oil (Diesel) Turbine: Evap Losses D D

20300109 ICE C/I Distillate Oil (Diesel) Turbine: Exhaust E E

20300202 ICE C/I Natural Gas Turbine E E E E E E D N N N

20300203 ICE C/I Natural Gas Turbine: Cogeneration E E E E E E D N N N

20300208 ICE C/I Natural Gas Turbine: Evap Losses D D D D D D D

20300209 ICE C/I Natural Gas Turbine: Exhaust E E E E E E D N N N

20300701 ICE C/I Digester Gas Turbine Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne D Ne Ne Ne

20300708 ICE C/I Digester Gas Turbine: Evap Losses D

20300709 ICE C/I Digester Gas Turbine: Exhaust Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne D Ne Ne Ne

20300801 ICE C/I Landfill Gas Turbine Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne D Ne Ne Ne

20300808 ICE C/I Landfill Gas Turbine: Evap Losses D

20300809 ICE C/I Landfill Gas Turbine: Exhaust Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne D Ne Ne Ne

20400301 ICE ET Turbine Natural Gas N N N N N N D N N N

20400304 ICE ET Turbine Landfill Gas Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne D Ne Ne Ne

(continued)
3-25

Table 3-9. Recommended Control Measures for Gas Turbine SCCs (continued)

SCCa

SCC 

Level 

1

b

SCC 

Level 

2

c SCC Level 3 SCC Level 4

Applicable Gas Turbine Control Measures for the SCCd

NWTINGTOLNSCRWGTOLNWTINGTJFNSCRWGTJFNWTINGTNGNSTINGTNGNDLNCGTNGNSCRWGTNGNSCRSGTNGNSCRDGTNGNWIGTAGTNCATCGTNGNEMXWGTNGNEMXDGTNG

50100420 WD SWD-G Landfill Dump Waste Gas Recovery: 

GT

Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne Ne D Ne Ne Ne

20201609 ICE Ind Methanol Turbine: Exhaust Ne Ne

20201701 ICE Ind Gasoline Turbine Ne Ne

20300901 ICE C/I Kerosene/Naphtha (Jet 

Fuel)

Turbine: JP-4 N N

20400302 ICE ET Turbine Diesel/Kerosene N N

20400303 ICE ET Turbine Distillate Oil N N

20400305 ICE ET Turbine Kerosene/Naphtha N N

20400399 ICE ET Turbine Other Not Classifiedf Ne Ne

aSCCs in regular font are associated with one or more gas turbine control measures in the current CMDB. The SCCs in bold font represent gas turbine activities 

that were identified with NOx emissions in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region analysis but are not associated with gas turbine control measures in 

the current CMDB.

b

ICE means “Internal Combustion Engines” and WD means “Waste Disposal.”

c

Ind means “Industrial,” C/I means “Commercial/Institutional,” ET means “Engine Testing,” and SWD-G means “Solid Waste Disposal-Government.”

dAn “E” means the control measure is currently associated with the SCC in the CMDB, and no changes are recommended. A “D” means the control measure is 

currently associated with the SCC, but this control measure should be deleted because it is not appropriate for the SCC. An “N” means the control measure is 

not currently associated with the SCC in the CMDB, but adding it is recommended.

eThe control measure is assumed to be representative for the SCC; control cost data are unavailable for the specific fuel type for the SCC.

fThe fuel type is unknown. For the purposes of this analysis it is assumed to be a liquid because most of the emissions identified for the engine testing SCCs in 

the analysis done in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region were from liquid fuel-fired turbines. 
3-26

should be assigned. For turbines that burn miscellaneous gaseous fuels, the most representative 

control measures are those for natural gas-fired turbines. Similarly, for turbines that burn 

miscellaneous liquid fuels, the most representative available control measures are those for oilfired turbines. The description field in the CMDB table called “Table 02_Efficiencies” could be 

revised to indicate that the control measures for natural gas units are assumed to be applicable for 

all gaseous fuel fired units, and the control measures for oil-fired units are assumed to be 

applicable for all liquid fuel-fired units (note that the separate control measures already in the 

CMDB for jet fuel-fired turbines are also based on the data for oil-fired units).

Finally, gas turbine SCCs for evaporative losses from turbine fuel storage and delivery 

systems are associated with NOx control measures in the current CMDB. We recommend 

deleting these NOx control measure/SCC records from the CMDB table called “Table 03_SCCs” 

because there should be no NOx emissions from the sources represented by these SCCs. These 

control measure/SCC combinations are identified with a “D” in the applicable cells in Table 3-9.

3.4 Example Emission Limits for NonEGU Combustion Turbines

NonEGU combustion turbines are subject to several emission regulations, including 

NSPS in 40 CFR part 60 and various state regulations. Example emission limits in state

regulations are presented in Table 3-10.

Table 3-10. NOx Emissions Limits for NonEGU Combustion Turbines in New York

State Type of Service

Type of Combustion Turbine 

Operating Cycle Emission Limit

Effective 

Date

New Yorka Any—gaseous fuel Combined cycle 42 ppmdv (at 15% O2) Current

Simple cycle or regenerative 

cycle

50 ppmdv (at 15% O2) Current

Any—oil-fired Combined cycle 65 ppmdv (at 15% O2) Current

Simple cycle or regenerative 

cycle

100 ppmdv (at 15% O2) Current

aThe requirements apply to combustion turbines with a maximum heat input rate greater than or equal to 10 million 

Btu per hour at major sources of NOx emissions. The specified limits apply until July 1, 2014; beginning on July 

1, 2014, owners/operators must submit a proposal for RACT (NYCRR, 2014).

3.5 References

BAAQMD, 2010. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Preliminary Determination of 

Compliance. Marsh Landing Generating Station. Application 18404. March 2010. 

Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/marshlanding/documents/other/2010-

03-24_Bay_Area_AQMD_PDOC.pdf
3-27

CARB, 2004. California Environmental Protection Agency. Air Resources Board. Report to the 

Legislature. Gas-Fired Power Plant NOx Emission Controls and Related Environmental 

Impacts. Stationary Source Division. May 2004. Available at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/reports/l2069.pdf

CH2MHill, 2002. Walnut Energy Center Application for Certification. Prepared for the 

California Energy Commission. November 2002. Available at: 

www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/turlock/documents/applicant_files/volume_2/App_08.01

E_Eval_Control.pdf

Cybulski, 2006. Cybulski, A. and J. Moulin, editors. Structured Catalysts and Reactors. CRC 

Press. 2006. p. 236.

DeCicco, 2004. DeCicco, S., B. Reyes, and T. Girdlestone. EmeraChem, LLC. SCONOX White 

Paper. Multi-Pollutant Emission Reduction Technology For Stationary Gas Turbines and 

IC Engines. January 5, 2004. Available at: 

www.emera.serveyourmarket.com/papers/SCONOx%20White%20Paper%20-

%20r1.pdf

ECP, 2008. EmeraChem Power. Attachment in email from J. Valmus, EmeraChem Power, to W. 

Lee, BAAQMD. Request for EMx Cost Information. September 8, 2008. Available at: 

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Engineering/Public%20Notices/2010/18404/Foot

notes/EMx%20BACT%20economic%20analysis%20final09072008.ashx

EEA, 2008. Energy and Environmental Analysis (An ICF International Company). Technology 

Characterization: Gas Turbines. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency Climate 

Protection Partnership Division. December 2008. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/catalog_chptech_gas_turbines.pdf

EPA, 1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOx Emissions from Stationary Gas Turbines. EPA-453/R-93-007. January 

1993.

FMPA, 2004. Florida Municipal Power Agency. Chapters 3 and 4 of PSD BACT Analysis for 

Stock Island Facility in Key West, Florida. Available at: Available at: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/emission/construction/stockisland/BasisofBACT.pdf and 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/emission/construction/stockisland/NOxBACT.pdf

Kawasaki, 2010. Kawasaki Gas Turbines—Americas. Press Release. Kawasaki Gas Turbines 

Cogeneration System Helps Bridgewater Correctional Facility. January 25, 2010.

Available at: 

http://www.kawasakigasturbines.com/index.php/press_releases/read/kawasaki_gas_turbi

nes_cogeneration_system_helps_bridgewater_correctional_fa

Leposky, 2004. Leposky, G. Oil producer installs cogeneration system with ultra-low NOx 

emissions. Distributed Energy. July/August 2004. Available at: 

http://www.distributedenergy.com/DE/Articles/Oil_Producer_Installs_Cogeneration_Syst

em_With_Ult_2857.aspx?pageid=62d52359-b1c7-4115-9d0d-7837abe081cb
3-28

NYCRR, 2014. New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Title 6. Chapter III. Subchapter A. 

Part 227. Subpart 227-2. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) For Major 

Facilities of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx). Available at: 

http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=nycrr-1000

OSEC, 1999. Onsite Sycom Energy Corporation. Cost Analysis of NOx Control Alternatives for 

Stationary Gas Turbines. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. Environmental 

Programs Chicago Operations Office. November 5, 1999. Available at: 

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/distributedenergy/pdfs/gas_turbines_nox_c

ost_analysis.pdf

Peltier, 2003. Peltier, R. Gas turbine combustors drive emissions toward nil. Power Magazine. 

March 15, 2003.

Quackenbush, 2012. Quackenbush, G. Cogeneration plant saves Pacific Union College $1 

million a year in energy costs. North Bay Business Journal. March 19, 2012. Available at: 

http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/50863/cogeneration-plant-saves-pacific-unioncollege-1-million-a-year-in-energy-costs/

RDC, 2001. Resource Dynamics Corporation. Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology 

Applications. Prepared for Maine Public Utilities Commission. February 2001. Available 

at: http://www.distributed-generation.com/Library/Maine.pdf

RTI, 2014. Spreadsheet “Turbines control costs.xlsx.” Prepared for U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Air Economics Group. 

February 7, 2014.
4-1

SECTION 4

GLASS MANUFACTURING SECTOR

4.1 Introduction

The control cost database separates the glass manufacturing sector into four different 

types; flat glass, container glass, pressed glass, and general glass manufacturing. The CMDB 

listed six different control technologies for NOx emissions which were all reviewed in 2006 and 

included cullet preheat, oxy-firing, electric boost, low NOx burners, selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR). A literature and internet search was 

conducted to find any new control technologies for NOx or any updates to existing controls 

regarding cost and efficiencies. Operating permits for some glass manufacturing plants were 

reviewed and control system vendors were also contacted for information. A brief summary of 

data from each reference reviewed in included in the spreadsheet “CoST_Glass Mfg.xlsx.”

4.2 Example NOx Regulatory Limits

4.2.1 Wisconsin

Glass manufacturing furnace with a maximum heat input capacity equal to or greater than 

50 mmBtu per hour, 2.0 pounds per ton of produced glass.1

4.2.2 New Jersey

Commercial container glass, specialty container glass, borosilicate recipe glass, pressed 

glass, blown glass, and fiberglass manufacturing furnaces: 4.0 lbs/ton glass removed. Flat glass 

manufacturing furnaces: 9.2 lbs/ton glass removed.

4.2.3 New York

NOx emissions are covered under NY’s case-by case RACT regulations.

4.3 Recommended Additions

The following NOx controls are recommended additions for the glass manufacturing 

industry that are not currently in the control cost database, and a tabular summary of the costs is 

presented in Table 4-1.

■ Electric Boost—Three entries for electric boost controls were in the CMDB for 

container, flat, and pressed glass manufacturing. A cost estimate for electric boost was 

found for “general” glass manufacturing (DOE, 2002), since the CMDB did not have a 

“general” entry for electric boost controls, an entry for “Electric Boost; Glass 

Manufacturing—General” was added with a new abbreviation of NELBOGMGN. The 

 

1 http://dnr.wi.gov/About/NRB/2007/January/01-07-3A4.pdf
4-2

reference provided an annualized cost of $7,100 per ton of NOx removed based on a 

250 ton of glass per day glass melting furnace operating with an emission rate of 8-lb 

NOx per ton glass produced and a NOx removal efficiency of 30 percent. Since the 

reference did not provide capital costs, the capital to annual cost ratio could not be 

determined, and the capital recovery factor was assumed to be the same as the electric 

boost entries for container, flat, and pressed glass (i.e., 0.1424, assuming equipment 

life of 10 years).

■ Oxy-firing—Three entries for oxy-firing were in the CMDB for container, flat, and 

pressed glass manufacturing. Similar to electric boost controls, an updated cost 

estimate for oxy-firing was found for “general” glass manufacturing (DOE, 2002); 

since the CMDB did not have a “general” entry for oxy-firing, an entry for “OXYFiring; Glass Manufacturing—General” was added to the CMDB with a new 

abbreviation of NOXYFGMGN. The reference provided an annualized cost of $2,352 

per ton of NOx removed based on a 250 ton of glass per day glass melting furnace 

emitting 8-lb NOx per ton glass produced and a NOx removal efficiency of 85 

percent.1 Since the capital costs were not provided the capital to annual cost ratio and 

the capital recovery factor were assumed to be the same as the oxy-firing entries for 

container, flat, and pressed glass, which all had the same values.

■ Catalytic Ceramic Filter—This new control technology for NOx reduction was not 

previously in the database and was added for flat glass manufacturing with a new 

abbreviation of CATCFGMFT. A vendor was contacted for information (2013 

Vendor Quote). The minimum and maximum cost per ton estimates were based on 

regenerative gas-fired furnace with pull rates of 600 tons per day and 490 tons per 

day, respectively. The estimate provided by the vendor included capital cost, 

annualized capital costs, and annual operational cost in 2013 dollars; it also included 

NOx reductions based on a 95 percent NOx efficiency.

Table 4-1. Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for Recommended 

Additions

Technology

Furnace Production 

Rate (ton/day)

Cost 

Year

NOx Removal 

Efficiency (%)

Cost Effectiveness, 

$/ton NOx

Capital to Annual 

Cost Ratio

Electric Boost 

(general)

250 2002 30 7,100 N/Aa

Oxy-firing 

General

250 2002 85 2,352 2.7

Catalytic 

Ceramic Filter

490 2013 95 1,045 4.6

600 2013 95 997 4.6

aThe ratio cannot be calculated because capital costs are not available.
4-3

4.4 Recommended Changes

Changes to the CMDB are recommended for the following three types of control 

measures, which are also summarized in Table 4-2.

■ Low NOx Burner General—Three entries for Low NOX burners were in the cost 

database for container, flat, and pressed glass manufacturing. An updated cost 

estimate for low NOx burners for flat glass and container glass manufacturing (EC, 

2013) was found and entries NLNBUGMCN and NLNBUGMFT were updated. The 

reference provided capital costs and an annualized cost in euros per kilogram of NOx 

removed which was converted to dollars per ton of NOx. For flat glass the minimum 

cost per ton estimate was based on a 900 ton per day gas fired furnace, and the 

maximum cost per ton estimate was based on a 500 ton per day gas fired furnace. For 

container glass the minimum cost per ton estimate was based on 450 ton per day gas 

fired furnace, and the maximum cost per ton estimate was based on a 200 ton per day 

gas fired furnace. The capital recovery factor and the capital to annual cost ratio were 

also updated. We also recommend changing the equipment life for low NOx burners 

on flat glass furnaces from 3 years to 10 years (EC, 2013).

Additionally, equations for low NOx burners were added for entries NLNBUGMCN 

and NLNBUGMFT to “Table 04_Equations” of the CMDB based on the best fit trend 

lines of the total capital investment and total annual cost for the facilities with the 

production levels described above, the best fit trend line results were as follows:

NLNBUGMCN (The correlation coefficients are high because the data are from a 

single source, and they may reflect data points from a correlation performed by that 

source)

Total capital investment (2007 dollars) = 30,930 x (tons/day)0.45 (R2 = 0.99)

Total annual cost (2007 dollars) = 9,377 x (tons/day) 0.40 (R2 = 0.99)

NLNBUGMFT (The correlation coefficients are a perfect 1.0 because only two data 

points are available)

Total capital investment (2007 dollars) = 527 x (tons/day) + 664,557 (R2 = 1.0)

Total annual cost (2007 dollars) = 132x (tons/day) + 150,105 (R2 = 1.0)

■ Cullet Preheating—Two entries for cullet preheating controls were in the cost 

database for container and pressed glass manufacturing. An updated annualized cost 

per ton value and NOx efficiency for pressed and container glass entries (IT, 2002) 

were found and updated for entries NCLPTGMCN and NCUPHGMPD. The 

reference provided an annualized cost of $5,000 per ton of NOx removed based on a 

250 ton of glass per day glass melting furnace emitting 8-lb NOx per ton glass 

produced and a NOx removal efficiency of 5 percent.1 Since the reference did not 

 

1 Annualized cost includes capital and O&M costs and is based on 2002 dollars.
4-4

provide capital costs separately, the capital to annual cost ratio and the capital 

recovery factor were not updated. Additionally, based on information from EPA’s 

OECA staff, class entries for cullet preheating should be changed from “known” to 

“emerging” in Table 01_Summary of the CMDB because this control measure is 

technically feasible but has rarely been implemented.

1

■ Selective Catalytic Reduction—Three entries for selective catalytic reduction were in 

the CMDB for container, flat, and pressed glass manufacturing. An updated cost 

estimate for SCR for flat glass and container glass manufacturing (EC, 2013) was 

found, and entries NSCRGMCN and NSCRGMFT were updated. The reference 

provided capital costs and an annualized cost in euros per kilogram of NOx removed 

which was converted to dollars per ton of NOx.2 For flat glass the minimum and 

maximum cost per ton estimates were based on a 900 and 500 ton per day gas fired 

furnace, respectively. For container glass the minimum and maximum estimates were 

based on a 450 and 200 ton per day gas fired furnaces, respectively. The capital to 

annual cost ratio were also updated.

Equations for SCR were added for entries NSCRGMCN and NSCRGMFT to Table 4 

of the CMDB based on the best fit trend lines of the total capital investment and total 

annual cost for the facilities with the production levels described above, the best fit 

trend line results were as follows:

NSCRGMCN (The correlation coefficients are high because the data are from a 

single source, and they may reflect data points from a correlation performed by that 

source)

Total capital investment (2007 dollars) = 79,415 x (tons/day) 0.51 (R2 = 0.99)

Total annual cost (2007 dollars) = 643 x (tons/day) + 135,302 (R2 = 1.0)

NSCRGMFT (The correlation coefficients are a perfect 1.0 because only two data 

points are available)

Total capital investment (2007 dollars) = 3681 x (tons/day) + 1.0E+06 (R2 = 1.0)

Total annual cost (2007 dollars) = 842 x (tons/day) + 424,930 (R2 = 1.0)

 

1 Personal communication. Katie McClintock, US EPA/OCEA, with Larry Sorrels, US EPA/OAR/OAQPS, Feb. 

13, 2014.

2 Conversion based on 2008 average exchange rate of 0.711. Source: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/InternationalTaxpayers/Yearly-Average-Currency-Exchange-Rates
4-5

Table 4-2. Summary of Cost Effectiveness and Supporting Data for Recommended 

Additions

Technology

Furnace Production 

Rate (ton/day)

Cost 

Year

NOx Removed 

(tons/year)

Cost Effectiveness, 

$/ton NOx

Capital to Annual 

Cost Ratio

NLNBUGMCN 200 2007 66 1,365 4.2

450 2007 100 1,072 4.3

NLNBUGMFT 500 2007 371 574 4.2

900 2007 611 447 4.3

NCLPTGMCN 250 2002 5% 5,000 4.5

NCUPHGMPD 250 2002 5% 5,000 4.5

NSCRGMCN 200 2007 121 2,169 4.5

450 2007 251 1,684 4.2

NSCRGMFT 500 2007 886 957 3.4

900 2007 1,383 855 3.7

4.5 Recommended Deletions

■ Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction—Three entries for selective non-catalytic 

reduction were in the cost database for container, flat, and pressed glass 

manufacturing. Based on conversations between EPA and OECA staff, SNCR entries 

for glass manufacturing should be removed based on recent NSR settlements that 

indicate SNCR is not a technically feasible control technology for the removal of 

NOx.1

4.6 Updates to Source Classification Codes

■ There are twenty applicable SCCs for glass manufacturing as shown in Table 4-3.

■ In an analysis of NOX emissions for the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region 

in 2011, fourteen of the SCCs in Table 4-3 were identified. The six SCCs not 

included in the Ozone Transport Region are shown at the bottom of Table 4-3. Four 

of the SCCs, 30501401, 30501402, 30501403, and 30501404 are associated with 

glass manufacturing NOX controls in the current CMDB.

■ Furnaces are the primary source of NOx emissions in the glass manufacturing 

industry, therefore NOx emission control techniques are typically for point emission 

sources associated with furnace emissions. The four SCCs identified in the CMDB 

pertain to four types of melting furnaces; general, flat, container, and pressed. The 

 

1 Personal communication. Katie McClintock, US EPA/OCEA, with Larry Sorrels, US EPA/OAR/OAQPS, Feb. 13, 

2014.
4-6

remaining sixteen SCCs in Table 4-3 are not associated with furnaces. Therefore, no 

changes related to SCCs are recommended for the CMDB.

■ For new control techniques added to the CMDB for glass manufacturing, the 

applicable SCC from Table 4-3 was added to the Description field for each control 

technique in Table 01_Summary in the CMDB (Table C-1of Appendix C of this 

report). These related control measures and SCCs should also be added to “Table 

03_SCCs” in the CMDB. 

Table 4-3. Applicable SCCs for the Glass Manufacturing Industry

SCC Code SCC Level One SCC Level Two SCC Level Three SCC Level Four

30501401aIndustrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Furnace/General**

30501402aIndustrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Container Glass: Melting Furnace

30501403aIndustrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Flat Glass: Melting Furnace

30501404aIndustrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Pressed and Blown Glass: 

Melting Furnace

30501406 Industrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Container Glass: 

Forming/Finishing

30501407 Industrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Flat Glass: Forming/Finishing

30501408 Industrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Pressed and Blown Glass: 

Forming/Finishing

30501410 Industrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Raw Material Handling (All 

Types of Glass)

30501411 Industrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture General **

30501413 Industrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Cullet: Crushing/Grinding

30501414 Industrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Ground Cullet Beading Furnace

30501416 Industrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Glass Manufacturing

30501420 Industrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Mirror Plating: General

30501499 Industrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture See Comment **

SCCs Not Included in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region:

30501405 Industrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Presintering

30501412 Industrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Hold Tanks **

30501415 Industrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Glass Etching with Hydrofluoric 

Acid Solution

30501417 Industrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Briquetting

30501418 Industrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Pelletizing

30501421 Industrial Processes Mineral Products Glass Manufacture Demineralizer: General

aDenotes SCCs included in the CMDB.
4-7

4.7 References

DOE, 2002. Oxygen Enriched Air Staging a Cost-effective Method For Reducing NOx 

Emissions. U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Industrial Technologies. April 2002. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/resources/

glass/pdfs/airstaging.pdf

EC, 2013. Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Manufacture of Glass. 

European Commission 2013. http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/

GLS_Adopted_03_2012.pdf

Vendor Quote 2013 – Confidential Business Information
5-1

SECTION 5

LEAN BURN ENGINES

The CMDB includes the following NOX emissions control measures for Lean Burn 

Engines:

■ Air to fuel ratio (AFR) (achieves 20 percent reduction)

■ Air to fuel ratio (AFR) and Ignition retard (IR) (achieves 30 percent reduction)

■ Ignition retard (IR) (achieves 20 percent reduction)

■ Low emission combustion (achieves 87 percent reduction)

■ Low emissions combustion, low speed (achieves 87 percent reduction)

■ Low emissions combustion, medium speed (achieves 87 percent reduction)

■ Nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR) (achieves 90 percent reduction)

■ Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) (achieves 90 percent reduction)

■ Selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) (achieves 90 percent reduction)

Based on the literature review and the new cost data identified for Lean Burn control 

technologies, several changes to the CMDB are recommended. No changes to existing records in 

CMDB are recommended. The following sections outline the additions and other comments 

recommended for the CMDB in relation to NOX emissions from Lean Burn Engines.

5.1 Literature Search

In order to update the existing control measures database, a literature search was 

conducted for articles and papers published since 2008 (to include 2008 through August 2013) 

using the following terms:

■ engine

■ lean burn

■ cost

■ NOx or “nitrogen oxides”

■ scr or “selective catalytic reduction”

■ turbocharge
5-2

■ air/fuel ratio

■ layered combustion

■ high energy ignition

■ high pressure fuel injection

■ “low emission control” or LEC

■ electronic engine control

■ combustion modification

■ timing

■ exhaust gas recirculation

■ lean NOx catalyst

■ lean NOx trap

■ control efficiency

■ emission reduction

The literature search identified a total of 19 references, and the abstracts for these 

references were reviewed. Three references of potential interest were identified and two of these 

were obtained for review in the lean burn engine control device study.

5.2 Document Review

A brief summary of data from each reference reviewed in included in the spreadsheet 

“CoST_leanburn.xlsx,” in worksheet “Overall Sum—New Ref Review.” The information and 

data available from each reference is provided in table format, along with indication of whether 

the data were used or not.

There are 6 control technique additions to be added to the CMDB from 5 references.

The recommended additions include:

■ Low Emission Combustion, LEC (for natural gas engines);

■ Layered Combustion, LC (for 2 stroke natural gas engines);

■ Layered Combustion, LC (for 2 stroke Large Bore natural gas engines);
5-3

■ Air to Fuel Ratio Controller, AFRC;

■ Selective Catalytic Reduction, SCR (for 4 stroke natural gas engines); and

■ SCR (for diesel engines).

Recent cost data for these control techniques were available from reports dated 2001 

through 2012.

The references for the added control techniques are included on the “Table 06 

References” worksheet and are as follows:

OTC 2012. Technical Information Oil and Gas Sector, Significant Stationary Sources of NOx 

Emissions. Final. October 17, 2012.

SJVAPCD 2003. RULE 4702—Internal Combustion Engines—Phase 2. Appendix B, Cost 

Effectiveness Analysis for Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines—Phase 2). San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. July 17, 2003.

www.arb.ca.gov/pm/pmmeasures/ceffect/rules/sjvapcd_4702.pdf

CARB 2001. Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available 

Retrofit Control Technology for Stationary Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Stationary Source 

Division, Emissions Assessment Branch, Process Evaluation Section. November 2001.

EPA 2010. Alternative Control Techniques Document: Stationary Diesel Engines. March 5, 

2010.

PA DEP 2013. Technical Support Document General Permit GP-5. Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality. January 31, 2013.

5.3 Low Emission Combustion (LEC) (NLECICENG)

The costs and cost effectiveness for applying LEC to natural gas Lean Burn engines are 

obtained from the document Appendix B, Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Rule 4702 (Internal 

Combustion Engines—Phase 2) (SJVAPCD 2003). Information was provided on Capital costs, 

Annual costs, uncontrolled emissions, and reduction efficiency. The assumptions for the original 

reference analysis are provided in Table 5-1 for LEC along with changes in assumptions for the 

current analysis.

LEC are described as retrofit kits that allow engines to operate on extremely lean fuel 

mixtures to minimize NOx emissions. The LEC retrofit may include: (1) redesign of cylinder 

head and pistons to improve mixing (on smaller engines), (2) Precombustion chamber (on larger 

engines), lower cost, simple versions, (3) Turbocharger, (4) High energy ignition system,
5-4

Table 5-1. LEC for Natural Gas Lean Burn Engines

Assumptions in Original Reference Changes to Assumptions Made in Current Analysis

Capital costs

Control efficiency: 80% None.

Capital costs: provided for multiple models None.

Annual Costs

Equipment life: 10 yr None.

Interest rate: 10% Interest rate: 7%

Operating hours: 2000 hr/yr None.

Emission rate, uncontrolled: 740 ppmv Emission rate, uncontrolled: Assumed mid to upper end 

hp rating for each model.

Emission rate, controlled: 80% reduction None.

Annualized equipment cost: provided for multiple 

model sizes

CRF: 0.1424

Annual O&M cost: assumed $0. None.

(5) Aftercooler, and (6) Air to fuel ratio controller. (A discussion of individual technologies is 

provided in Appendix B of the original reference, pp. B-1 to B-28). No detail was provided on 

the exact combination of combustion modifications included in the example cost analysis; some 

references indicate that LEC on larger engines often includes a PCC (p.B-10) (CARB 2001). 

LEC are known or demonstrated control techniques for lean burn engines. An 80 percent NOx 

emission reduction can be achieved by LEC with little or no fuel penalty (in fact, LEC 

technologies are expected to decrease fuel consumption because they result in leaner burning 

engine, though the costs do not account for fuel consumption decrease). The original reference 

assumed an 80 percent reduction in the cost example.

Capital and annual costs were provided for multiple size ranges of engines. The capital 

costs ranged from $14,000 to $256,000. Costs for the 1000 to 3000 hp model were given as 

$40,000 to $256,000, and a mid-range cost of $148,000 was assumed in the current analysis. The 

total annual costs ranged from $2,000 to $21,000 (these costs are very similar to the costs 

calculated in the original reference analysis). The original reference assumed there are no annual 

operation and maintenance costs incurred from the combustion modification technologies, and 

the only annual cost provided is for annualized capital costs. No emission reductions are 

provided in the document (however the final cost effectiveness values are provided and the 

reduction assumed in the original analysis can be back-calculated). In the current analysis, a hp 
5-5

rating based on the middle or upper end of each size range was assumed for estimating the 

uncontrolled NOx emissions. An estimate of emissions was made in the current analysis. 

Uncontrolled NOx emissions were estimated based on an uncontrolled NOx concentration of 740 

ppmv (this equates to approximately 9 g/bhp-hr), the operating hours were provided as 2000 

hr/yr in the original reference, and controlled emissions were estimated based on 80 percent 

reduction as stated in the reference. Uncontrolled NOx emissions ranged from 1.1 to 34 tpy for 

the models, and the NOx reductions ranged from 0.90 to 27 tpy for the models.

The current analysis shows a cost effectiveness of $2,200/ton of NOx reduction to 

$780/ton for 2000 hr/yr operation, and the average cost effectiveness across all the models is 

$1,000/ton of NOx reduction.

The cost year is not provided in the reference; assumed the cost year is the date of the 

cited reference, 2001$.

Based on the cost calculations for engines of varying hp, the following equations were 

developed for the capital cost and annual costs for LEC on natural gas Lean Burn engines:

Capital cost = 16019 e 0.0016 x (hp)

Annual cost = 2280.8 e 0.0016 x (hp)

The R2value for these equations is 0.96. These equations should be included in the CoST 

database file under a new equation type.

See the cost calculations in worksheet “LEC (CARB)-2001” of the Excel file.

5.4 Layered Combustion (LC), 2 Stroke (NLCICE2SNG)

The costs and cost effectiveness for applying LC to natural gas Lean Burn engines (2 

stroke) are obtained from the document Technical Information Oil and Gas Sector, Significant 

Stationary Sources of NOx Emissions (OTC 2012). Information was provided on Capital costs; 

assumptions were made to determine Annual costs, uncontrolled emissions, and reduction 

efficiency. The assumptions for the original reference analysis are provided in Table 5-2 for LC 

for 2 stroke engines, along with changes in assumptions for the current analysis.

LC consists of multiple combustion modification technologies. The combustion 

modifications included in this example are related to (1) Air supply; (2) Fuel supply, (3) Ignition, 

(4) Electronic controls, and (5) Engine monitoring (a discussion of individual technologies is 

provided on pp. 17 to 19 for 2 stroke Lean Burn engines). No significant detail was provided on 

which specific combustion modification technologies were applied. In the example study, 3 of 
5-6

the most representative manufacturer and models of 2 stroke Lean Burn engines used for integral 

compressors were selected for evaluation; these 3 engines were Cooper GMVH-10 2250 hp,

Table 5-2. LC for Natural Gas Lean Burn Engines, 2-stroke

Assumptions in Original Reference Changes to Assumptions Made in Current Analysis

Capital costs

Control efficiency: Not provided. Control efficiency: derived value is 97% (this is high)

Capital costs: based on cited ERLE 2009 project 

(First unit upgrade costs)

Capital costs: used average based on the provided range 

for each make/model engine.

Annual Costs

Equipment life: Not provided. Equipment life: 10 yr

Interest rate: Not provided. Interest rate: 7%

Operating hours: Not provided. Operating hours: 2000 hr/yr

Emission rate, uncontrolled: Not provided Emission rate, uncontrolled: 16.8 g/bhp-hr

Emission rate, controlled: 0.5 g/bhp-hr None.

Annualized equipment cost: Not provided. CRF: 0.1424

Annual O&M cost: Not provided. Annual O&M cost: $0.

Clark TLA-6 2000 hp, and Cooper GMW-10 2500 hp (cited ERLE 2009 report “ERLE Cost 

Study of the Retrofit Legacy Pipeline Engines to Satisfy 0.5 g/bhp-hr NOx”). LC are known or 

demonstrated control techniques for lean burn, 2 stroke engines. A NOx emissions rate of 0.5 

g/bhp-hr was achieved. The OTC 2012 document provided an estimate of the capital cost range 

for retrofitting technologies to achieve the outlet NOx limit for each engine. An average cost 

based on the range was estimated for each engine and used in the current analysis. Details on the 

buildup of these costs are not provided in the OTC 2012 document. No annual costs are provided 

in the document. No emission reductions are provided in the document.

Based on the review of other references in this analysis, it was assumed that there are no 

additional annual operating costs incurred from the combustion modification technologies, 

except for annualized capital costs (CARB 2001). Because no emission reduction data were 

provided, an estimate of emissions was made in the current analysis. Uncontrolled NOx 

emissions were assumed to be 16.8 g/bhp-hr (EPA 2003), controlled emissions were 0.5 g/bhp-hr 

as stated in the reference, and the operating hours were assumed to be 2000 hr/yr (this 

assumption is consistent with the LEC operating hours in the CARB 2001 document). 
5-7

Uncontrolled NOx emissions for the 3 similar sized engines ranged from 74 to 93 tpy, and the 

NOx reductions ranged from 72 to 90 tpy.

Based on the 3 make and model engines, the average cost was estimated to be $2,800,000 

for approximately 2250 hp engines (average hp of the 3 units), and the average total annual cost 

was estimated to be $390,000. The average cost effectiveness is $4,900/ton of NOx reduction for 

2000 hr/yr operation.

The cost year is not provided in the reference; we assumed the cost year is the date of the 

cited Cameron 2010 retrofit project, 2010$.

See the cost calculations in worksheet “Overall Sum—New Ref Review” of the Excel 

file, rows 21 through 25.

5.5 Layered Combustion (LC), Large Bore, 2 Stroke, Low Speed (NLCICE2SLBNG)

The costs and cost effectiveness for applying LC to natural gas Lean Burn engines (2 

stroke Large Bore) are obtained from the document Technical Information Oil and Gas Sector, 

Significant Stationary Sources of NOx Emissions (OTC 2012). Large Bore RICE are those with 

large piston diameters. The larger the bore (or piston diameter), the larger the volume available 

for engine combustion, and hence the greater the power delivered by the engine. Information was 

provided on Capital costs; assumptions were made to determine Annual costs, uncontrolled 

emissions, and reduction efficiency. The assumptions for the original reference analysis are 

provided in Table 5-3 for LC for large bore 2 Stroke engines, along with changes in assumptions 

for the current analysis.

LC consists of multiple combustion modification technologies. The combustion 

modifications included (1) High pressure fuel injection; (2) Turbocharging, (3) Precombustion 

chamber, and (4) Cylinder head modifications (a discussion of individual technologies is 

provided on pp. 18 to 19 for 2 stroke Lean Burn engines). LC are known or demonstrated control 

techniques for lean burn, large bore, 2 stroke engines. These modifications achieved a NOx 

emissions rate of 0.5 g/bhp-hr. The OTC 2012 document provided ranges of capital costs for 

retrofitting combustion modifications for large bore 2 stroke Lean Burn engines from 200 to 

11,000 hp (cited Cameron 2011 presentation “Available Emission Reduction Technology for 

Existing Large Bore Slow Speed Two Stroke Engines.” A copy of this presentation was not 

found.). Details on the buildup of these costs are not provided in the OTC 2012 document. No 

annual costs are provided in the document. No emission reductions are provided in the 

document.
5-8

Based on the review of other references in this analysis, it was assumed that there are no 

additional annual operating costs incurred from the combustion modification technologies, 

except for annualized capital costs (CARB 2001). Because no emission reduction data were 

provided, an estimate of emissions was made in the current analysis. Uncontrolled NOx

Table 5-3. LC for Natural Gas Lean Burn Engines, Large Bore 2-stroke

Assumptions in Original Reference Changes to Assumptions Made in Current Analysis

Capital costs

Control efficiency: Not provided. Control efficiency: derived value is 97% (this is high)

Capital costs: based on cited Cameron 2010 

project

None.

Annual Costs

Equipment life: Not provided. Equipment life: 10 yr

Interest rate: Not provided. Interest rate: 7%

Operating hours: Not provided. Operating hours: 2,000 hr/yr

Emission rate, uncontrolled: Not provided Emission rate, uncontrolled: 16.8 g/bhp-hr

Emission rate, controlled: 0.5 g/bhp-hr None.

Annualized equipment cost: Not provided. CRF: 0.1424

Annual O&M cost: Not provided. Annual O&M cost: $0.

emissions were assumed to be 16.8 g/bhp-hr (EPA 2003), controlled emissions were 0.5 g/bhp-hr 

as stated in the reference, and the operating hours were assumed to be 2000 hr/yr (this 

assumption is consistent with the LEC operating hours in the CARB 2001 document). 

Uncontrolled NOx emissions were estimated to be 410 tpy for the larger 11,000 hp engines and 

were estimated to be 7.4 tpy for the smaller 200 hp engines.

For the larger 11,000 hp engines, the current analysis shows a cost effectiveness of 

$1,500/ton of NOx reduction, and for the smaller 200 hp engines, the cost effectiveness is 

$38,000/ton of NOx reduction.

The cost year is not provided in the reference; assumed the cost year is the date of the 

cited Cameron 2010 retrofit project, 2010$.

See the cost calculations in worksheet “Overall Sum—New Ref Review” of the Excel 

file, rows 12 and 13.
5-9

5.6 Air to Fuel Ratio Controller (AFRC) (NAFRCICENG)

The costs and cost effectiveness for applying AFRC to natural gas Lean Burn engines are 

obtained from the document Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and 

Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Stationary Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion 

Engines (CARB 2001). Information was provided on Capital costs; assumptions were made to 

determine Annual costs, uncontrolled emissions, and reduction efficiency. The assumptions for 

the original reference analysis are provided in Table 5-4 for AFRC, along with changes in 

assumptions for the current analysis.

Table 5-4. AFRC for Natural Gas Lean Burn Engines

Assumptions in Original Reference Changes to Assumptions Made in Current Analysis

Capital costs

Control efficiency: not provided Control efficiency: assumed 20%

Capital costs: provided for multiple models None.

Annual Costs

Equipment life: 10 yr None.

Interest rate: 10% Interest rate: 7%

Operating hours: 2000 hr/yr None.

Emission rate, uncontrolled: 740 ppmv Emission rate, uncontrolled: Assumed mid to upper end 

hp rating for each model.

Emission rate, controlled: 80% reduction None. 

Annualized equipment cost: provided for multiple 

model sizes

CRF: 0.1424

Annual O&M cost: assumed $0. None.

AFRC are electronic engine controls that typically monitor engine parameters and 

atmospheric conditions to determine the correct air/fuel mixture for the operating condition, such 

as varying engine load or speed conditions, varying ambient conditions, or startup/shutdown 

conditions. (OTC 2012) (A discussion of individual technologies is provided in Appendix B of 

the original reference, CARB 2001, pp. B-1 to B-28). AFRC are known or demonstrated control 

techniques for lean burn engines. An 80 percent NOx emission reduction can be achieved by 

AFRC in combination with other combustion modifications, however a fuel consumption penalty 

of up to 3 percent can occur due to AFRC.

Capital were provided for multiple size ranges of engines. The capital costs ranged from 

$4,200 to $6,500 per engine.
5-10

No annual costs were provided in the document. No emissions reductions were provided 

in the document. Based on the cost analysis for other combustion technology controls in this 

document, it was assumed that there are no additional annual operating costs incurred from the 

combustion modification technologies, except for annualized capital costs (this assumption 

ignores the fuel penalty issue). The total annual costs ranged from $600 to $930. Because no 

emission reductions were provided in the document, an estimate of emissions was made in the 

current analysis. In the current analysis, a hp rating based on the middle or upper end of each size 

range was assumed for estimating the uncontrolled NOx emissions. Uncontrolled NOx emissions 

were estimated based on an uncontrolled NOx concentration of 740 ppmv (this equates to 

approximately 9 g/bhp-hr), the operating hours were assumed to be 2000 hr/yr (similar to the 

operating hours for other control technology analyses provided in the document), and controlled 

emissions were estimated based on an assumption of 20 percent reduction. Uncontrolled NOx 

emissions ranged from 1.1 to 34 tpy for the models, and the NOx reductions ranged from 0.22 to 

6.7 tpy for the models.

The current analysis shows a cost effectiveness of $2,700/ton of NOx reduction to 

$140/ton for 2000 hr/yr operation, and the average cost effectiveness across all the models is 

$810/ton of NOx reduction.

The cost year is not provided in the reference; assumed the cost year is the date of the 

cited reference, 2001$.

Based on the cost calculations for engines of varying hp, the following equations were 

developed for the capital cost and annual costs for AFRC on natural gas Lean Burn engines:

Capital cost = 1.3007 x (hp) + 4354.5

Annual cost = 0.1852 x (hp) + 619.99

The R2value for these equations is 0.87. These equations should be included in the CoST 

database file under a new equation type.

See the cost calculations in worksheet “AFRC (CARB)-2001” of the Excel file.

5.7 SCR (for 4 Stroke Natural Gas Engines) (NSCRICE4SNG)

The costs and cost effectiveness for applying SCR to natural gas engines are obtained 

from the document Appendix B, Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion 
5-11

Engines—Phase 2) (SJVAPCD 2003). Information was provided on Capital costs, Annual costs, 

uncontrolled emissions, and reduction efficiency. The assumptions for the original reference

analysis are provided in Table 5-5 for SCR for natural gas engines along with changes in 

assumptions for the current analysis. SCR is a known or demonstrated control technique for lean 

burn engines, although multiple references indicate that the feasibility of SCR application for 

lean burn engines is highly site-specific.

Table 5-5. SCR for Natural Gas Lean Burn Engines, 4-stroke.

Assumptions in Original Reference Changes to Assumptions Made in Current Analysis

Capital costs

Control efficiency: 90% None.

Capital costs: based on RACT/BARCT 

Determination.

None.

Annual Costs

Equipment life: 10 years None.

Interest rate: 10% Interest rate: 7%

Operating hours rate 1: 2190 hr/yr (equivalent to 

capacity factor of 0.25)

None.

Operating hours rate 2: 6570 hr/yr (equivalent to 

capacity factor of 0.75)

None.

Emission rate, uncontrolled: 740 ppmv NOx None.

Emission rate, controlled: 65 ppmv NOx None.

Annualized equipment cost: based on 

RACT/BARCT Determination.

None.

Annual O&M cost: based on RACT/BARCT 

Determination.

None.

The installed equipment capital cost ranged from $45,000 to $185,000 for 50 hp engines 

and 1500 hp engines, respectively. The total annual costs ranged from $27,000 for a 50 hp 

engine to $140,000 for a 1500 hp engine (these costs are very similar to the costs calculated in 

the original reference analysis; the only difference in annual costs is related to the CRF, i.e., 

changing the interest rate from 10 percent in the original reference analysis to 7 percent in the 

current analysis). NOx emissions are provided for two cases: a capacity factor of 0.25 (2190 

hr/yr) and a capacity factor of 0.75 (6570 hr/yr). The uncontrolled NOx emissions ranged from 

1.2 to 37 tpy for the lower capacity case, and the NOx reductions ranged from 1.1 to 33 tpy. For 

the higher capacity case, uncontrolled NOx emissions ranged from 3.7 to 110 tpy, and the NOx 

reductions achieved ranged from 3.3 to 100 tpy. The current analysis shows an average cost 
5-12

effectiveness of $8,700/ton of NOx reduction for 2190 hr/yr of operation, and $2,900/ton of NOx 

reduction for 6570 hr/yr operation (these cost effectiveness values are very similar to the costs 

shown in the original reference analysis).

Based on the cost calculations for engines of varying hp and annual capacity operating, 

the following linear equations were developed for the capital cost and annual costs for SCR on 

natural gas 4-stroke lean burn engines:

Capital cost = 107.1 x (hp) + 27186

Annual cost = 83.64 x (hp) + 14718

The R2values for these equations are 0.95 for capital cost and 0.98 for annual cost. These 

equations should be included in the CoST database file under a new equation type for linear 

equations.

The cost year is not provided in the reference; assumed the cost year is the date of the 

cost-basis document, 2001$.

See the cost calculations in worksheet “SCR NG (SJVAPCD)-2003” of the Excel file. 

[Other cost effectiveness values for SCR are available from the PA DEP that are higher than the 

cost effectiveness values shown for the SJVAPCD SCR analysis, and other analyses. See the 

summary of SCR costs in worksheet “Other SCR Cost Info” of the Excel file.]

5.8 SCR (for Diesel Engines) (NSCRICEDS)

The costs and cost effectiveness for applying SCR to diesel lean burn engines is provided 

in Alternative Control Techniques Document: Stationary Diesel Engines (EPA 2010). The 

assumptions for the original reference analysis are provided in Table 5-6 for SCR for diesel 

engines, along with changes in assumptions for the current analysis. SCR is a known or 

demonstrated control technique for lean burn, diesel engines.

Approximately 76 percent of the population of stationary diesel engines is less than 300 

hp and the remaining 24 percent is greater than 300 hp. Applications for stationary engines under 

300 hp include standby power generation, agriculture, and industrial applications, and less than 5 

percent are used for continuous power generation. Applications for stationary engines greater 

than 300 hp are primarily power generation and are almost evenly divided between continuous 

duty and standby applications.
5-13

The cost analysis provided in the original reference includes an assumption that 

stationary diesel lean burn engines operate approximately 1000 hr/yr. This assumption is likely 

appropriate for the majority of those units that are less than 300 hp and for half of the diesel 

engines greater than 300 hp, i.e., approximately 87 percent of diesel lean burn engines (this 

ignores the “fewer than 5 percent” used for continuous power generation). For the remaining 13 

percent of engines that are greater than 300 hp and used in continuous power generation 

applications, an assumption for longer operating hours, such as 8000 hr/yr, may be needed to 

estimate the cost effectiveness.

Table 5-6. SCR for Diesel Lean Burn Engines—Assumptions

Assumptions in Original Reference Changes to Assumptions Made in Current Analysis

Capital costs

Control efficiency: 90 % None.

Equipment life: 15 year None.

Interest rate: 7% None.

Capital costs: $98/hp None.

Annual Costs

Operating hours: 1000 hr/yr None.

Annual costs: $40/hp (based on 1000 hr/yr 

operation; already includes Capital Recovery)

None.

The original reference analysis provided a capital cost of $98/hp, and based on the midrange hp rating for four model engines, the capital costs ranged from $7,300 to $98,000 for SCR. 

The original reference analysis provided an annual cost of $40/hp, and the annual costs ranged 

from $3,000 to $40,000 per year. Uncontrolled NOx emissions factors in the original reference 

were based on Tier 0 to Tier 3 values1 and an assumption of 1000 hr/yr operation. Uncontrolled 

NOx emissions range from 0.25 to 9.2 tpy across the four models, and the NOx reductions 

ranged from 0.22 to 8.3 tpy.

The current analysis shows an average cost effectiveness of $9,300/ton of NOx reduction 

for 1000 hr/yr of operation (no weighting to the average based on engine age was applied). The 

cost effectiveness over the engine size range varied from $4,800/ton to $16,000/ton for diesel 

engines (and are very similar to the costs shown in the original reference analysis). It is 

 

1 Federal Standards, from the Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling—

Compression Ignition. EPA Publication No. EPA420-P-04_009. April 2004.
5-14

important to note that the cost effectiveness is correlated to the manufacturing year of the diesel 

engine, i.e., the Tier limit for NOx emissions. Older engines manufactured prior to 1998 have the 

most lenient emissions limit while later model years have more stringent NOx emission limits 

(lower baseline emissions). The overall magnitude of emission reduction achieved by the SCR is 

lower for later model years as compared to earlier years, and therefore, the cost effectiveness 

values are higher for later model years.

[Note: This analysis shows emission reductions and cost effectiveness for existing and 

new diesel engines through approximately 2011, the last year for phase in of the Tiered emission 

values. The original reference provided information (circa 2005) on the age of the stationary 

engine population, with approximately 57 percent of engines at that time being manufactured 

prior to 1994 and approximately 42 percent manufactured after 1994 (note that the grouping of 

the age data does not align well with the Tier years, in that the age data shows breaks in 1994 

and 2003 while the Tier ranges show breaks in 1996, 1998, 2002, 2003, etc.). As the diesel 

engine population continues to age and older engines are retired (i.e., those diesel engines subject 

to the Pre-1998 and the Tier 1 (1998 to 2003) or Tier 1 (1996 to 2001), etc. and are replaced with 

newer engines achieving lower NOx baseline emissions, the cost effectiveness for new engines 

would tend to be in the higher end shown for each model and would contribute to a somewhat 

higher average cost-effectiveness value. The average cost effectiveness will likely move toward 

the $13,000/ton to $16,000/ton of NOx reduction range.]

See the cost calculations in worksheet “SCR Diesel (EPA Dies ACT)-2010” of the Excel 

file.

5.9 Applicable SCCs for Lean Burn Engine Control Measures

Table 5-7 lists all of the ICE SCCs that are associated with one or more gas lean burn 

ICR control measures in the CMDB table called “Table 03_SCCs.” These SCCs were identified 

with NOx emissions in an EPA query of the NEI for facilities in the Ozone Transport Group 

Assessment Region (i.e., 37 states that are partially or completely to the east of 100oW 

longitude). The control measures shown in the column headings in Table 5-7 are the ICE control 

measures that are currently in the CMDB. Each control measure that was determined to be 

applicable for a specific SCC is identified with an “N” in the cell, meaning the control measure is 

“new,” i.e., not currently linked to this particular SCC, but we recommend adding this link in the 

database. In some cases, we recommend applying new links between existing control measures 

and existing SCCs. For example, some of the SCCs are for ICE that are fired with relatively 

uncommon fuels such as process gas, methanol, digester gas, or landfill gas. While we have not 
5-15

Table 5-7. Potential Reciprocating Engine SCCs to Add to the CMDB and Applicable Control Measures

SCCa

SCC 

Level 

1

b

SCC 

Level 2

c SCC Level 3 SCC Level 4

Applicable Control Measures for the Reciprocating Engine SCCd NAFRICGS NAFRIICGS NIRICGD NIRICGS NIRICOL NIRRICOIL NSCRICGD NSCRICGS NSCRICOL NSCRRICOIL NSNCRICGS

20200702 ICE Ind Process Gas Reciprocating Engine N N N N N

20200712 ICE Ind Process Gas Reciprocating: Exhaust N N N N N

20201602 ICE Ind Methanol Reciprocating Engine N N

20201607 ICE Ind Methanol Reciprocating: Exhaust N N

20201702 ICE Ind Gasoline Reciprocating Engine N N

20201707 ICE Ind Gasoline Reciprocating: Exhaust N N

20280001 ICE Ind Equipment Leaks Equipment Leaks

20282001 ICE Ind Wastewater, Aggregate Process Area Drains

20300702 ICE C/I Digester Gas Reciprocating: POTW Digester Gas N N N N N

20300707 ICE C/I Digester Gas Reciprocating: Exhaust N N N N N

20300802 ICE C/I Landfill Gas Reciprocating N N N N N

20400401 ICE ET Reciprocating Engine Gasoline N N

20400402 ICE ET Reciprocating Engine Diesel/Kerosene N N N N N N

20400404 ICE ET Reciprocating Engine Process Gas N N N N

20400406 ICE ET Reciprocating Engine Kerosene/Naphtha (Jet Fuel) N N

20400409 ICE ET Reciprocating Engine Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) N N

aSCCs represent reciprocating engine activities that were identified with NOx emissions in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region analysis but are not 

associated with reciprocating engine control measures in the current CMDB.

b

ICE means “Internal Combustion Engines.”

c

Ind means “Industrial,” C/I means “Commercial/Institutional,” and ET means “Engine Testing.”

dThe control measure is assumed to be representative for the SCC; control cost data are unavailable for the specific fuel type for the SCC.
5-16

located any analyses that determined the applicable controls and related costs for ICE fired with 

such fuels, similar control measures can be assigned to these SCCs. In order to conduct CoST 

modeling analyses for these ICE, the most representative available control measures could be 

assigned. For ICE that burn miscellaneous gaseous fuels, the most representative control 

measures are those for natural gas-fired ICE. Similarly, for ICE that burn miscellaneous liquid 

fuels such as methanol, gasoline, kerosene/diesel, and LPG, the most representative available 

control measures are those for gas- or diesel-fired ICE. Also, for ICE that burn liquid fuels such 

as diesel/kerosene, the most representative available control measures are those for gas-, diesel-, 

or oil-fired ICE.

Six new control measures have been added to the CMDB for lean burn engines under this 

review and these control measures are described in Sections 5.3 through 5.8 of this report. 

Table 5-8 lists those SCCs that should be associated with the newly added lean burn engine 

control measures. Each control measure that was determined to be applicable for a specific SCC 

is identified by a “Y,” which means yes.

In Table 5-9, a number of recommendations were made to delete NOx control 

measure/SCC combinations from the CMDB. ICE SCCs for evaporative losses from fuel storage 

and delivery systems are incorrectly associated with NOx control measures in the current 

CMDB, and we recommend deleting these all NOx control measure/SCC records from the 

CMDB table called “Table 03_SCCs” because there should be no NOx emissions from the 

sources represented by these SCCs. In addition, multiple ICE control measures are misassigned 

to turbine SCCs and we recommend deleting these NOx control measure/SCC records. The 

reverse issue also exists where multiple turbine control measures are misassigned to ICE SCCs, 

and we recommend deleting these NOx control measure/SCC records, as well. These control 

measure/SCC combinations are identified in Table 5-9.

5.10 Pennsylvania General Permit 5 (GP-5) for Natural Gas Compression and/or 

Processing Facilities

Pennsylvania DEP recently released a general permit for Natural Gas Compression 

and/or Processing Facilities that includes limits on NOx emissions from ICE. NOx emission 

limits from this general permit, along with other NOx limits for Pennsylvania, are shown in 

Table 5-10. Typical emission rates and the cost-effectiveness values for applying certain control 

measures are shown for lean burn and rich burn engines in Table 5-11.
5-17

Table 5-8. Recommended New Control Measures to Associate With Lean Burn Reciprocating Engine SCCs in the CMDB

SCCa SCC Level 1 SCC Level 2 SCC Level 3 SCC Level 4

Applicable Control Measures for the Lean Burn 

Reciprocating Engine SCC

NLECICENGNLCICE2SNGNLCICE2SLBNGNAFRCICENGNSCRICE4SNGNSCRICEDS

20200102 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Distillate Oil (Diesel) Reciprocating Y

20200107 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Distillate Oil (Diesel) Reciprocating: Exhaust Y

20200252 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Natural Gas 2-cycle Lean Burn Y Y Y Y Y

20200254 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Natural Gas 4-cycle Lean Burn Y Y Y Y Y

20200255 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Natural Gas 2-cycle Clean Burn Y Y Y Y Y

20200256 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Natural Gas 4-cycle Clean Burn Y Y Y Y Y

20200401bInternal Combustion Engines Industrial Large Bore Engine Diesel Y

20200402 bInternal Combustion Engines Industrial Large Bore Engine Dual Fuel (Oil/Gas) Y

20200403 bInternal Combustion Engines Industrial Large Bore Engine Cogeneration: Dual Fuel Y

aSCCs represent reciprocating engine activities that were identified with NOx emissions in the recent Ozone Transport Region analysis but are not associated 

with reciprocating engine control measures in the current CMDB.

bThe control measure is assumed to be representative for the SCC; control cost data are unavailable for the specific fuel type for the SCC.
5-18

Table 5-9. Recommended Control Measure Deletions From SCCs in the CMDB

SCC SCC Level 1 SCC Level 2 SCC Level 3 SCC Level 4

Control Measures 

Recommended for Deletion

20200106 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Distillate Oil (Diesel) Reciprocating: Evap 

Losses

All NOx control measures

20200206 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Natural Gas Reciprocating: Evap 

Losses

All NOx control measures

20200306 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Gasoline Reciprocating: Evap 

Losses

All NOx control measures

20200406 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Large Bore Engine Reciprocating: Evap 

Losses

All NOx control measures

20200506 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Residual/Crude Oil Reciprocating: Evap 

Losses

All NOx control measures

20200906 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Kerosene/Naphtha (Jet Fuel) Reciprocating: Evap 

Losses

All NOx control measures

20201006 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Reciprocating: Evap 

Losses

All NOx control measures

20300106 Internal Combustion Engines Commercial/Institutional Distillate Oil (Diesel) Reciprocating: Evap 

Losses

All NOx control measures

20300206 Internal Combustion Engines Commercial/Institutional Natural Gas Reciprocating: Evap 

Losses

All NOx control measures

20300306 Internal Combustion Engines Commercial/Institutional Gasoline Reciprocating: Evap 

Losses

All NOx control measures

20301006 Internal Combustion Engines Commercial/Institutional Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Reciprocating: Evap 

Losses

All NOx control measures

20200108 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Distillate Oil (Diesel) Turbine: Evap Losses All NOx control measures

20200109 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Distillate Oil (Diesel) Turbine: Exhaust NNSCRRBIC

20200208 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Natural Gas Turbine: Evap Losses All NOx control measures

20200209 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Natural Gas Turbine: Exhaust NNSCRRBIC2

20200908 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Kerosene/Naphtha (Jet Fuel) Turbine: Evap Losses All NOx control measures

20200909 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Kerosene/Naphtha (Jet Fuel) Turbine: Exhaust NNSCRRBGD

(continued)
5-19

Table 5-9. Recommended Control Measure Deletions From SCCs in the CMDB (continued)

SCC SCC Level 1 SCC Level 2 SCC Level 3 SCC Level 4

Control Measures 

Recommended for Deletion

20201008 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Turbine: Evap Losses All NOx control measures

20201009 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Turbine: Exhaust NNSCRRBGD

20201011 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Turbine NNSCRRBGD

20201013 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Turbine: Cogeneration NNSCRRBGD

20300108 Internal Combustion Engines Commercial/Institutional Distillate Oil (Diesel) Turbine: Evap Losses All NOx control measures

20300109 Internal Combustion Engines Commercial/Institutional Distillate Oil (Diesel) Turbine: Exhaust NNSCRRBIC

20300208 Internal Combustion Engines Commercial/Institutional Natural Gas Turbine: Evap Losses All NOx control measures

20300209 Internal Combustion Engines Commercial/Institutional Natural Gas Turbine: Exhaust NNSCRRBIC2

20200105 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Distillate Oil (Diesel) Reciprocating: Crankcase 

Blowby

NNSCRWGTOL, NWTINGTOL

20200107 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Distillate Oil (Diesel) Reciprocating: Exhaust NSCRWGTOL, NWTINGTOL

20200205 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Natural Gas Reciprocating: Crankcase 

Blowby

NLNBUGTNG, NSCRLGTNG, 

NSCRSGTNG, NSCRWGTNG, 

NSTINGTNG, NWTINGTNG

20200207 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Natural Gas Reciprocating: Exhaust NLNBUGTNG, NSCRLGTNG, 

NSCRSGTNG, NSCRWGTNG, 

NSTINGTNG, NWTINGTNG

20200252 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Natural Gas 2-cycle Lean Burn NLNBUGTNG, NSCRLGTNG, 

NSCRSGTNG, NSCRWGTNG, 

NSTINGTNG, NWTINGTNG

20200253 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Natural Gas 4-cycle Rich Burn NLNBUGTNG, NSCRLGTNG, 

NSCRSGTNG, NSCRWGTNG, 

NSTINGTNG, NWTINGTNG

20200254 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Natural Gas 4-cycle Lean Burn NLNBUGTNG, NSCRLGTNG, 

NSCRSGTNG, NSCRWGTNG, 

NSTINGTNG, NWTINGTNG

20200255 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Natural Gas 2-cycle Clean Burn NLNBUGTNG, NSCRLGTNG, 

NSCRSGTNG, NSCRWGTNG, 

NSTINGTNG, NWTINGTNG

(continued)
5-20

Table 5-9. Recommended Control Measure Deletions From SCCs in the CMDB (continued)

SCC SCC Level 1 SCC Level 2 SCC Level 3 SCC Level 4

Control Measures 

Recommended for Deletion

20200256 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Natural Gas 4-cycle Clean Burn NLNBUGTNG, NSCRLGTNG, 

NSCRSGTNG, NSCRWGTNG, 

NSTINGTNG, NWTINGTNG

20200905 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Kerosene/Naphtha (Jet Fuel) Reciprocating: Crankcase 

Blowby

NSCRWGTJF, NWTINGTJF

20200907 Internal Combustion Engines Industrial Kerosene/Naphtha (Jet Fuel) Reciprocating: Exhaust NSCRWGTJF, NWTINGTJF

20300105 Internal Combustion Engines Commercial/Institutional Distillate Oil (Diesel) Reciprocating: Crankcase 

Blowby

NNSCRWGTOL, NWTINGTOL

20300107 Internal Combustion Engines Commercial/Institutional Distillate Oil (Diesel) Reciprocating: Exhaust NSCRWGTOL, NWTINGTOL

20300205 Internal Combustion Engines Commercial/Institutional Natural Gas Reciprocating: Crankcase 

Blowby

NLNBUGTNG, NSCRLGTNG, 

NSCRSGTNG, NSCRWGTNG, 

NSTINGTNG, NWTINGTNG

20300207 Internal Combustion Engines Commercial/Institutional Natural Gas Reciprocating: Exhaust NLNBUGTNG, NSCRLGTNG, 

NSCRSGTNG, NSCRWGTNG, 

NSTINGTNG, NWTINGTNG
5-21

Table 5-10. NOx Control Requirements for RICE in Pennsylvania

State

Source Category 

Covered NOx Control Level Reference

Pennsylvania 153 ton NOx/season ≥2400 hp: 3 g/bhp-hr (220 ppm) IEPA 2007

Pennsylvania 

(proposed 

values)

[Assume 

proposal was 

2011Mar26]

General Permit—Natural 

Gas Production and 

Processing Facility, SI, ICE

Existing LB or RB, 100 to 1500 hp: 2 g/bhp-hr

New, Reconfigured, LB ≤100 hp: 2 g/bhp-hr

New, Reconfigured, LB 100 to 637 hp: 1 g/bhp-hr

New, Reconfigured, LB >637 hp: 0.5 g/bhp-hr

OTC 2012

Pennsylvania 

(amended 

2013Feb02)

Natural Gas Compression 

and Processing, NG, SI, 

ICE, includes facilities 

with actual or potential 

emissions <100 tpy NOx, 

and <25 tpy NOx in 5 

counties.

New, Reconfigured LB or RB, ≤100 hp: 2 g/bhp-hr

New, Reconfigured LB, 100 to 500 hp: 1 g/bhp-hr

New, Reconfigured LB, >500 hp: 0.5 g/bhp-hr

New, Reconfigured RB, 100 to 500 hp: 0.25 g/bhp-hr

New, Reconfigured RB, >500 hp: 0.2 g/bhp-hr

PA DEP 2013

Pennsylvania Interstate Pollution 

Transport Reduction, 

Emission of NOx from 

Stationary ICE

LB, >2400 hp: 3.0 g/bhp-hr

RICE, RB, >2400 hp: 1.5 g/bhp-hr

DE 2012

Table 5-11. Characteristics of NOx Emissions and Controls for RICE

Engine Type and 

Size

Uncontrolled 

Emissions Emissions

Cost Effectiveness for 

NOx Reductions Reference

Lean burn

LB >500 hp NA SCR, stack test, 0.22 

to 0.50 g/bhp-hr

SCR: $71,000 to $60,000/ton 

(for 500 to 4000 hp)

PA DEP 2013, 

p. 22

LB 100 to 500 hp 1 to 16.4 g/bhp-hr NA SCR: >$42,000/ton PA DEP 2013, 

p. 20

LB <100 hp 2 g/bhp-hr 2 g/bhp-hr SCR: >$48,000/ton PA DEP 2013, 

p. 17

Rich burn

RB >500 hp 13 to 16 g/bhp-hr NSCR: stack test, 0.02 

to 0.14 g/bhp-hr

NA PA DEP 2013, 

p. 28, 29

RB 100 to 500 hp 13 to 16.4 g/bhp-hr. NA NSCR: $177/ton PA DEP 2013, 

p. 25, 26

RB <100 hp 11.41 to 21.08 g/bhphrNSCR: <2 g/bhp-hr, at 

least 90% reduction

NSCR: <$650/ton for 100 hp

NSCR: <$1200/ton for 50 hp

PA DEP 2013, 

p. 17
A-1

APPENDIX A

AMMONIA REFORMERS

Copies of database tables showing all records for ammonia reformer controls, 

highlighting revisions.
A-2

Table A-1. CMDB Table 06 References (New)

Data Source Description

AR-1 Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG), 2008: Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG), “Tulsa 

Metropolitan Area 8-Hour Ozone Flex Plan: 2008 8-O3 Flex Program,” March 6, 2008. Downloaded from 

http://www.epa.gov/ozoneadvance/pdfs/Flex-Tulsa.pdf
A-3

Table A-2. CMDB Table 01 Summary

cmname

Cm 

Abbreviation

Pechan 

Meas 

Code

Major 

Poll

Control 

Technology Source Group Sector Class

Equip 

Life

Nei Device 

Code

Date 

Reviewed

Data 

Source Months Description

Low NOx 

Burner; 

Ammonia—NGFired Reformers

NLNBUFRNG N0561 NOx Low NOx 

Burner

Ammonia—NG-Fired 

Reformers

ptnonipm Known 10 204|205 2013 AR-1 |186 Application: This control is the use of low NOx burner (LNB) technology to reduce NOx emissions. LNBs 

reduce the amount of NOx created from reaction between fuel nitrogen and oxygen by lowering the 

temperature of one combustion zone and reducing the amount of oxygen available in another.

This control is applicable to small (<1 ton NOx per OSD) ammonia production operations with natural gasfired reformers (SCC 30100306) and uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: LNBs are designed to “stage” combustion so that two combustion zones are created, one fuelrich combustion and one at a lower temperature. Staging techniques are usually used by LNB to supply 

excess air to cool the combustion process or to reduce available oxygen in the flame zone. Staged-air 

LNBs create a fuel-rich reducing primary combustion zone and a fuel-lean secondary combustion zone.

Staged-fuel LNBs create a lean combustion zone that is relatively cool due to the presence of excess air, 

which acts as a heat sink to lower combustion temperatures (EPA, 2002).

Low NOx 

Burner and Flue 

Gas 

Recirculation; 

Ammonia—NGFired Reformers

NLNBFFRNG N0562 NOx Low NOx 

Burner and 

Flue Gas 

Recirculation

Ammonia—NG-Fired 

Reformers

ptnonipm Known 10 2006 72|172|175|

179|186

Application: This control is the use of low NOx burner (LNB) technology and flue gas recirculation (FGR) to 

reduce NOx emissions. LNBs reduce the amount of NOx created from reaction between fuel nitrogen and 

oxygen by lowering the temperature of one combustion zone and reducing the amount of oxygen available 

in another.

This control is applicable to small (<1 ton NOx per OSD) ammonia production operations with natural gasfired reformers (SCC 30100306) and uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: LNBs are designed to “stage” combustion so that two combustion zones are created, one fuelrich combustion and one at a lower temperature. Staging techniques are usually used by LNB to supply 

excess air to cool the combustion process or to reduce available oxygen in the flame zone. Staged-air 

LNBs create a fuel-rich reducing primary combustion zone and a fuel-lean secondary combustion zone.

Staged-fuel LNBs create a lean combustion zone that is relatively cool due to the presence of excess air, 

which acts as a heat sink to lower combustion temperatures (EPA, 2002).

Low NOx 

Burner and Flue 

Gas 

Recirculation; 

Ammonia—OilFired Reformers

NLNBFFROL N0572 NOx Low NOx 

Burner and 

Flue Gas 

Recirculation

Ammonia—Oil-Fired 

Reformers

ptnonipm Known 10 2006 72 Application: This control is the use of low NOx burner (LNB) technology and flue gas recirculation (FGR) to 

reduce NOx emissions. LNBs reduce the amount of NOx created from reaction between fuel nitrogen and 

oxygen by lowering the temperature of one combustion zone and reducing the amount of oxygen available 

in another.

This control is applicable to ammonia production operations with oil-fired reformers (SCC 30100307).

Discussion: LNBs are designed to “stage” combustion so that two combustion zones are created, one fuelrich combustion and one at a lower temperature. Staging techniques are usually used by LNB to supply 

excess air to cool the combustion process or to reduce available oxygen in the flame zone. Staged-air 

LNBs create a fuel-rich reducing primary combustion zone and a fuel-lean secondary combustion zone.

Staged-fuel LNBs create a lean combustion zone that is relatively cool due to the presence of excess air, 

which acts as a heat sink to lower combustion temperatures (EPA, 2002).

Low NOx 

Burner and Flue 

Gas 

Recirculation; 

Ammonia Prod; 

Feedstock 

Desulfurization

NLNBFAPFD N0622 NOx Low NOx 

Burner and 

Flue Gas 

Recirculation

Ammonia Prod; 

Feedstock 

Desulfurization

ptnonipm Known 10 2006 72|172|175|

179|185

Application: This control is the use of low NOx burner (LNB) technology and flue gas recirculation (FGR) to 

reduce NOx emissions. LNBs reduce the amount of NOx created from reaction between fuel nitrogen and 

oxygen by lowering the temperature of one combustion zone and reducing the amount of oxygen available 

in another.

This control is applicable to small (<1 ton per OSD) feedstock desulfurization processes in ammonia 

products operations (SCC 30100305) with uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: It is assumed that the superheated steam needed to regenerate the activated carbon bed 

used in the desulfurization process is the NOx source.

LNBs are designed to “stage” combustion so that two combustion zones are created, one fuel-rich 

combustion and one at a lower temperature. Staging techniques are usually used by LNB to supply excess 

air to cool the combustion process or to reduce available oxygen in the flame zone. Staged-air LNBs 

create a fuel-rich reducing primary combustion zone and a fuel-lean secondary combustion zone. Stagedfuel LNBs create a lean combustion zone that is relatively cool due to the presence of excess air, which 

acts as a heat sink to lower combustion temperatures (EPA, 2002).

Oxygen Trim 

and Water 

Injection; 

Ammonia—NGFired Reformers

NOTWIFRNG N0563 NOx Oxygen Trim 

and Water 

Injection

Ammonia—NG-Fired 

Reformers

ptnonipm Known 10 2006 72|172|175|

179|184|18

5

Application: This control is the use of OT + WI to reduce NOx emissions

This control is applicable to small (<1 ton NOx per OSD) ammonia production operations 

with natural gas-fired reformers (SCC 30100306) and uncontrolled NOx emissions greater 

than 10 tons per year. This control is also applicable to miscellaneous combustion 

emissions from ammonia production operations (SCC 30100399).

Discussion: Water is injected into the gas turbine, reducing the temperatures in the NOx-forming regions.

The water can be injected into the fuel, the combustion air or directly into the combustion chamber (ERG, 

2000).

(continued)
A-4

Table A-2. CMDB Table 01 Summary (continued)

cmname

Cm 

Abbreviation

Pechan 

Meas 

Code

Major 

Poll

Control 

Technology Source Group Sector Class

Equip 

Life

Nei Device 

Code

Date 

Reviewed

Data 

Source Months Description

Selective 

Catalytic

Reduction; 

Ammonia—NGFired Reformers

NSCRFRNG N0564 NOx Selective 

Catalytic 

Reduction

Ammonia—NG-Fired 

Reformers

ptnonipm Known 20 139 2006 72|167|175|

179|224|22

5|226

Application: This control is the selective catalytic reduction of NOx through add-on controls. SCR controls 

are post-combustion control technologies based on the chemical reduction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) into 

molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O). The SCR utilizes a catalyst to increase the NOx removal 

efficiency, which allows the process to occur at lower temperatures.

Applies to natural-gas fired reformers involved in the production of ammonia (SCC 30100306) with 

uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) has been widely applied to stationary source, fossil fuelfired, combustion units for emission control since the early 1970s. SCR is typically implemented on units 

requiring a higher level of NOx control than achievable by SNCR or other combustion controls (EPA, 

2002).

Like SNCR, SCR is based on the chemical reduction of the NOx molecule. The primary difference 

between SNCR and SCR is that SCR uses a metal-based catalyst to increase the rate of reaction (EPA, 

2002). A nitrogen based reducing reagent, such as ammonia or urea, is injected into the flue gas. The 

reagent reacts selectively with the flue gas NOx within a specific temperature range and in the presence of 

the catalyst and oxygen to reduce the NOx.

The use of a catalyst results in two advantages of the SCR process over SNCR, the higher NOx reduction 

efficiency and the lower and broader temperature ranges. However, the decrease in reaction temperature 

and increase in efficiency is accompanied by a significant increase in capital and operating costs (EPA, 

2002). The cost increase is due to the large amount of catalyst required.

The SCR system can utilize either aqueous or anhydrous ammonia as the reagent. Anhydrous ammonia is 

a gas at atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures. There are safety issues with the use of 

anhydrous ammonia, as it must be transported and stored under pressure (EPA, 2002). Aqueous 

ammonia is generally transported and stored at a concentration of 29.4% ammonia in water.

Selective 

Catalytic 

Reduction; 

Ammonia—OilFired Reformers

NSCRFROL N0573 NOx Selective 

Catalytic 

Reduction

Ammonia—Oil-Fired 

Reformers

ptnonipm Known 20 139 2006 72 Application: This control is the selective catalytic reduction of NOx through add-on controls. SCR controls 

are post-combustion control technologies based on the chemical reduction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) into 

molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O). The SCR utilizes a catalyst to increase the NOx removal 

efficiency, which allows the process to occur at lower temperatures.

Applies to natural-gas fired reformers involved in the production of ammonia (SCC 30100306) with 

uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) has been widely applied to stationary source, fossil fuelfired, combustion units for emission control since the early 1970s. SCR is typically implemented on units 

requiring a higher level of NOx control than achievable by SNCR or other combustion controls (EPA, 

2002).

Like SNCR, SCR is based on the chemical reduction of the NOx molecule. The primary difference 

between SNCR and SCR is that SCR uses a metal-based catalyst to increase the rate of reaction (EPA, 

2002). A nitrogen based reducing reagent, such as ammonia or urea, is injected into the flue gas. The 

reagent reacts selectively with the flue gas NOx within a specific temperature range and in the presence of 

the catalyst and oxygen to reduce the NOx.

The use of a catalyst results in two advantages of the SCR process over SNCR, the higher NOx reduction 

efficiency and the lower and broader temperature ranges. However, the decrease in reaction temperature 

and increase in efficiency is accompanied by a significant increase in capital and operating costs (EPA, 

2002). The cost increase is due to the large amount of catalyst required.

The SCR system can utilize either aqueous or anhydrous ammonia as the reagent. Anhydrous ammonia is 

a gas at atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures. There are safety issues with the use of 

anhydrous ammonia, as it must be transported and stored under pressure (EPA, 2002). Aqueous 

ammonia is generally transported and stored at a concentration of 29.4% ammonia in water.

Today, catalyst formulations include single component, multi-component, or active phase with a support 

structure. Most catalyst formulations contain additional compounds or sup-ports, providing thermal and 

structural stability or to increase surface area (EPA, 2002).

The rate of reaction determines the amount of NOx removed from the flue gas. The important design and 

operational factors that affect the rate of reduction include: reaction temperature range; residence time 

available in the optimum temperature range; degree of mixing between the injected reagent and the 

combustion gases; uncontrolled NOx concentration level; molar ratio of injected reagent to uncontrolled 

NOx; ammonia slip; catalyst activity; catalyst selectivity; pressure drop across the catalyst; catalyst pitch; 

catalyst deactivation; and catalyst management (EPA, 2001).

(continued)
A-5

Table A-2. CMDB Table 01 Summary (continued)

cmname

Cm 

Abbreviation

Pechan 

Meas 

Code

Major 

Poll

Control 

Technology Source Group Sector Class

Equip 

Life

Nei Device 

Code

Date 

Reviewed

Data 

Source Months Description

Selective NonCatalytic 

Reduction—

Ammonia; NGFired Reformers

NSNCRFRNG N0565 NOx Selective 

Non-Catalytic 

Reduction

Ammonia—NG-Fired 

Reformers

ptnonipm Known 20 107 2006 72|172|175|

179|185

Application: This control is the reduction of NOx emission through selective non-catalytic reduction add-on 

controls. SNCR controls are post-combustion control technologies based on the chemical reduction of 

nitrogen oxides (NOx) into molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O).

This control applies to small (<1 ton NOx per OSD) ammonia production natural gas fired reformers (SCC 

30100306) with uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: SNCR is the reduction of NOx in flue gas to N2 and water vapor. This reduction is done with a 

nitrogen based reducing reagent, such as ammonia or urea. The reagent can react with a number of flue 

gas components. However, the NOx reduction reaction is favored for a specific temperature range and in 

the presence of oxygen (EPA, 2002).

Both ammonia and urea are used as reagents. The cost of the reagent represents a large part of the 

annual costs of an SNCR system. Ammonia is generally less expensive than urea. However, the choice of 

reagent is also based on physical properties and operational considerations (EPA, 2002).

Ammonia can be utilized in either aqueous or anhydrous form. Anhydrous ammonia is a gas at 

atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures. There are safety issues with the use of anhydrous 

ammonia, as it must be transported and stored under pressure (EPA, 2002). Aqueous ammonia is 

generally transported and stored at a concentration of 29.4% ammonia in water.

Urea based systems have several advantages, including several safety aspects. Urea is a nontoxic, less 

volatile liquid that can be stored and handled more safely than ammonia. Urea solution droplets can 

penetrate farther into the flue gas when injected into the boiler, enhancing mixing (EPA, 2002). Because of 

these advantages, urea is more commonly used than ammonia in large boiler applications.

Low NOx 

Burner; 

Ammonia—OilFired Reformers

NLNBUFROL N0571 NOx Low NOx 

Burner

Ammonia—Oil-Fired 

Reformers

ptnonipm Known 10 204|205 2006 72 Application: This control is the use of low NOx burner (LNB) technology to reduce NOx emissions. LNBs 

reduce the amount of NOx created from reaction between fuel nitrogen and oxygen by lowering the 

temperature of one combustion zone and reducing the amount of oxygen available in another.

This control is applicable to ammonia production operations with oil-fired reformers (SCC 30100307).

Discussion: LNBs are designed to “stage” combustion so that two combustion zones are created, one fuelrich combustion and one at a lower temperature. Staging techniques are usually used by LNB to supply 

excess air to cool the combustion process or to reduce available oxygen in the flame zone. Staged-air 

LNBs create a fuel-rich reducing primary combustion zone and a fuel-lean secondary combustion zone.

Staged-fuel LNBs create a lean combustion zone that is relatively cool due to the presence of excess air, 

which acts as a heat sink to lower combustion temperatures (EPA, 2002).

Selective NonCatalytic 

Reduction—

Ammonia; OilFired Reformers

NSNCRFROL N0574 NOx Selective 

Non-Catalytic 

Reduction

Ammonia—Oil-Fired 

Reformers

ptnonipm Known 20 107 2006 72 Application: This control is the reduction of NOx emission through selective non-catalytic reduction add-on 

controls. SNCR controls are post-combustion control technologies based on the chemical reduction of 

nitrogen oxides (NOx) into molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O).

This control applies to ammonia production natural gas fired reformers (SCC 30100306) with uncontrolled 

NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: SNCR is the reduction of NOx in flue gas to N2 and water vapor. This reduction is done with a 

nitrogen based reducing reagent, such as ammonia or urea. The reagent can react with a number of flue 

gas components. However, the NOx reduction reaction is favored for a specific temperature range and in 

the presence of oxygen (EPA, 2002).

Both ammonia and urea are used as reagents. The cost of the reagent represents a large part of the 

annual costs of an SNCR system. Ammonia is generally less expensive than urea. However, the choice of 

reagent is also based on physical properties and operational considerations (EPA, 2002).

Ammonia can be utilized in either aqueous or anhydrous form. Anhydrous ammonia is a gas at 

atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures. There are safety issues with the use of anhydrous 

ammonia, as it must be transported and stored under pressure (EPA, 2002). Aqueous ammonia is 

generally transported and stored at a concentration of 29.4% ammonia in water.

Urea based systems have several advantages, including several safety aspects. Urea is a nontoxic, less 

volatile liquid that can be stored and handled more safely than ammonia. Urea solution droplets can 

penetrate farther into the flue gas when injected into the boiler, enhancing mixing (EPA, 2002). Because of 

these advantages, urea is more commonly used than ammonia in large boiler applications.

(continued)
A-6

Table A-2. CMDB Table 01 Summary (continued)

cmname

Cm 

Abbreviation

Pechan 

Meas 

Code

Major 

Poll

Control 

Technology Source Group Sector Class

Equip 

Life

Nei Device 

Code

Date 

Reviewed

Data 

Source Months Description

Low NOx 

Burner; 

Ammonia 

Production; 

Other Not 

Classified

NLNBUAONC NOx Low NOx 

Burner

Ammonia 

Production—Other 

Not Classified

ptnonipm Known 10 204|205 2013 AR-1|186 Application: This control is the use of low NOx burner (LNB) technology to reduce NOx emissions. LNBs 

reduce the amount of NOx created from reaction between fuel nitrogen and oxygen by lowering the 

temperature of one combustion zone and reducing the amount of oxygen available in another.

This control is applicable to miscellaneous combustion emissions from ammonia production operations 

(SCC 30100399).

Discussion: LNBs are designed to “stage” combustion so that two combustion zones are created, one fuelrich combustion and one at a lower temperature. Staging techniques are usually used by LNB to supply 

excess air to cool the combustion process or to reduce available oxygen in the flame zone. Staged-air 

LNBs create a fuel-rich reducing primary combustion zone and a fuel-lean secondary combustion zone.

Staged-fuel LNBs create a lean combustion zone that is relatively cool due to the presence of excess air, 

which acts as a heat sink to lower combustion temperatures (EPA, 2002)

Low NOx 

Burner and Flue 

Gas 

Recirculation; 

Ammonia 

Production; 

Other Not 

Classified

NLNBFAONC NOx Low NOx 

Burner and 

Flue Gas 

Recirculation

Ammonia 

Production—Other 

Not Classified

ptnonipm Known 10 2013 72|172|175|

179|186 Application: This control is the use of low NOx burner (LNB) technology and flue gas 

recirculation (FGR) to reduce NOx emissions. LNBs reduce the amount of NOx created 

from reaction between fuel nitrogen and oxygen by lowering the temperature of one 

combustion zone and reducing the amount of oxygen available in another.

This control is applicable to miscellaneous combustion emissions from ammonia production operations 

(SCC 30100399).

Discussion: LNBs are designed to “stage” combustion so that two combustion zones are created, one fuelrich combustion and one at a lower temperature. Staging techniques are usually used by LNB to supply 

excess air to cool the combustion process or to reduce available oxygen in the flame zone. Staged-air 

LNBs create a fuel-rich reducing primary combustion zone and a fuel-lean secondary combustion zone.

Staged-fuel LNBs create a lean combustion zone that is relatively cool due to the presence of excess air, 

which acts as a heat sink to lower combustion temperatures (EPA, 2002).

Selective NonCatalytic 

Reduction—

Ammonia; 

Ammonia 

Production; 

Other Not 

Classified

NSNCRAONC NOx Selective 

Non-Catalytic 

Reduction

Ammonia 

Production—Other 

Not Classified

ptnonipm Known 20 107 2013 72|172|175|

179|185

Application: This control is the reduction of NOx emission through selective non-catalytic reduction add-on 

controls. SNCR controls are post-combustion control technologies based on the chemical reduction of 

nitrogen oxides (NOx) into molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O).

This control is applicable to miscellaneous combustion emissions from ammonia production operations 

(SCC 30100399).

Discussion: SNCR is the reduction of NOx in flue gas to N2 and water vapor. This reduction is done with a 

nitrogen based reducing reagent, such as ammonia or urea. The reagent can react with a number of flue 

gas components. However, the NOx reduction reaction is favored for a specific temperature range and in 

the presence of oxygen (EPA, 2002).

Both ammonia and urea are used as reagents. The cost of the reagent represents a large part of the 

annual costs of an SNCR system. Ammonia is generally less expensive than urea. However, the choice of 

reagent is also based on physical properties and operational considerations (EPA, 2002).

Ammonia can be utilized in either aqueous or anhydrous form. Anhydrous ammonia is a gas at 

atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures. There are safety issues with the use of anhydrous 

ammonia, as it must be transported and stored under pressure (EPA, 2002). Aqueous ammonia is 

generally transported and stored at a concentration of 29.4% ammonia in water.

Urea based systems have several advantages, including several safety aspects. Urea is a nontoxic, less 

volatile liquid that can be stored and handled more safely than ammonia. Urea solution droplets can 

penetrate farther into the flue gas when injected into the boiler, enhancing mixing (EPA, 2002). Because of 

these advantages, urea is more commonly used than ammonia in large boiler applications.

Oxygen Trim 

and Water 

Injection; 

Ammonia 

Production; 

Other Not 

Classified

NOTWIAONC NOx Oxygen Trim 

and Water 

Injection

Ammonia 

Production—Other 

Not Classified

ptnonipm Known 10 2013 72|172|175|

179|184|18

5

Application: This control is the use of OT + WI to reduce NOx emissions

This control is applicable to miscellaneous combustion emissions from ammonia 

production operations (SCC 30100399).

Discussion: Water is injected into the gas turbine, reducing the temperatures in the NOx-forming regions.

The water can be injected into the fuel, the combustion air or directly into the combustion chamber (ERG, 

2000).

(continued)
A-7

Table A-2. CMDB Table 01 Summary (continued)

cmname

Cm 

Abbreviation

Pechan 

Meas 

Code

Major 

Poll

Control 

Technology Source Group Sector Class

Equip 

Life

Nei Device 

Code

Date 

Reviewed

Data 

Source Months Description

Selective 

Catalytic 

Reduction; 

Ammonia 

Production; 

Other Not 

Classified

NSCRAONC NOx Selective 

Catalytic 

Reduction

Ammonia 

Production—Other 

Not Classified

ptnonipm Known 20 139 2013 72|167|175|

179|224|22

5|226

Application: This control is the selective catalytic reduction of NOx through add-on controls. SCR controls 

are post-combustion control technologies based on the chemical reduction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) into 

molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O). The SCR utilizes a catalyst to increase the NOx removal 

efficiency, which allows the process to occur at lower temperatures.

This control is applicable to miscellaneous combustion emissions from ammonia production operations 

(SCC 30100399).

Discussion: Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) has been widely applied to stationary source, fossil fuelfired, combustion units for emission control since the early 1970s. SCR is typically implemented on units 

requiring a higher level of NOx control than achievable by SNCR or other combustion controls (EPA, 

2002).

Like SNCR, SCR is based on the chemical reduction of the NOx molecule. The primary difference 

between SNCR and SCR is that SCR uses a metal-based catalyst to increase the rate of reaction (EPA, 

2002). A nitrogen based reducing reagent, such as ammonia or urea, is injected into the flue gas. The 

reagent reacts selectively with the flue gas NOx within a specific temperature range and in the presence of 

the catalyst and oxygen to reduce the NOx.

The use of a catalyst results in two advantages of the SCR process over SNCR, the higher NOx reduction 

efficiency and the lower and broader temperature ranges. However, the decrease in reaction temperature 

and increase in efficiency is accompanied by a significant increase in capital and operating costs (EPA, 

2002). The cost increase is due to the large amount of catalyst required.

The SCR system can utilize either aqueous or anhydrous ammonia as the reagent.

Anhydrous ammonia is a gas at atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures. There 

are safety issues with the use of anhydrous ammonia, as it must be transported and 

stored under pressure (EPA, 2002). Aqueous ammonia is generally transported and 

stored at a concentration of 29.4% ammonia in water.
A-8

Table A-3. CMDB Table 02 Efficiencies

cmabbreviation Pollutant Locale

Effective 

Date

existingmeasureabbrneiexistingdevcodeminemissionsmaxemissionscontrolefficiencycostyearcostpertonruleeffrulepenequationtypecaprecfactordiscountratecapannratioincrementalcpt

Details

NLNBFAPFD NOx 0 0 365 60 1990 2560 100 100 cpton 0.1424 5.9 2470 Applied to small source types

NLNBFAPFD NOx 0 365 60 1990 590 100 100 cpton 0.1424 7.5 280 Applied to large source types

NLNBFFRNG NOx 0 0 365 60 1990 2560 100 100 cpton 0.1424 5.9 2470 Applied to small source types

NLNBFFRNG NOx 0 365 60 1990 590 100 100 cpton 0.1424 7.5 280 Applied to large source types

NLNBFFROL NOx 0 0 365 60 1990 1120 100 100 cpton 0.1424 5.9 1080 Applied to small source types

NLNBFFROL NOx 0 365 60 1990 390 100 100 cpton 0.1424 7.5 190 Applied to large source types

NLNBUFROL NOx 0 0 365 50 1990 400 100 100 cpton 0.1424 5.5 Applied to small source types

NLNBUFROL NOx 0 365 50 1990 430 100 100 cpton 0.1424 5.5 Applied to large source types

NOTWIFRNG NOx 0 0 365 65 1990 680 100 100 cpton 0.1424 2.9 Applied to small source types

NOTWIFRNG NOx 0 365 65 1990 320 100 100 cpton 0.1424 2.9 Applied to large source types

NSCRFRNG NOx 0 0 365 90 1999 2366 100 100 cpton 0.0944 10 Applied to small source types

NSCRFRNG NOx 0 365 90 1999 2366 100 100 cpton 0.0944 9.6 Applied to large source types

NSCRFROL NOx 0 0 365 80 1990 1480 100 100 cpton 0.0944 10 1910 Applied to small source types

NSCRFROL NOx 0 365 80 1990 810 100 100 cpton 0.0944 9.6 940 Applied to large source types

NSNCRFRNG NOx 0 0 365 50 1990 3870 100 100 cpton 0.0944 9.4 2900 Applied to small source types

NSNCRFRNG NOx 0 365 50 1990 1570 100 100 cpton 0.0944 8.2 840 Applied to large source types

NSNCRFROL NOx 0 0 365 50 1990 2580 100 100 cpton 0.0944 9.4 1940 Applied to small source types

NSNCRFROL NOx 0 365 50 1990 1050 100 100 cpton 0.0944 8.2 560 Applied to large source types

NLNBUFRNG NOx 0 0 365 50 1990 820 100 100 cpton 0.1424 5.5 Applied to small source types; no new 

information was available for small sources 

during 2013 update

NLNBUFRNG NOx 0 365 50 2008 800 100 100 cpton 0.1424 5.9 Applied to large source types; equipment 

life of 10 years and 7% interest
B-1

APPENDIX B

COMBUSTION TURBINES

Copies of the database tables for showing all records for Combustion Turbines NOx 

controls are provided. Changes are highlighted in red font.

– Table B-1. CMDB Table 01_Summary

– Table B-2. CMDB Table 02_Efficiencies

– Table B-3. CMDB Table 04_Equations

– Table B-4. Additional CMDB Table 06_References
B-2

Table B-1. CMDB Table 01_Summary

cmname cmabbreviation

pechanmea

scode majorpoll controltechnology sourcegroup sector class equiplife neidevicecode datereviewed datasource months

Dry Low NOx

Combustion; Gas 

Turbines—Natural Gas

NDLNCGTNG N0243 NOx Dry Low NOx 

Combustion

Gas Turbines—

Natural Gas

ptnonipm Known 15 204|205 2013 72|172|175|179|22

3|CT-2|CT-6

SCR + Dry Low NOx

Combustion; Gas 

Turbines—Natural Gas

NSCRDGTNG N0244 NOx SCR + DLN 

Combustion

Gas Turbines—

Natural Gas

ptnonipm Known 15 2013 72|172|175|179|22

3|224|CT-2|CT3|CT-4|CT-6|CT-8

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction and Steam 

Injecti; Gas Turbines—

Natural Gas

NSCRSGTNG N0245 NOx Selective Catalytic 

Reduction and 

Steam Injection

Gas Turbines—

Natural Gas

ptnonipm Known 15 2013 72|172|175|179|22

3|224|CT-2|CT-3

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction and Water 

Injecti; Gas Turbines—

Jet Fuel

NSCRWGTJF N0502 NOx Selective Catalytic 

Reduction and 

Water Injection

Gas Turbines—

Jet Fuel

ptnonipm Known 15 2013 72|172|175|179|22

3|CT-2|CT-7

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction and Water 

Injecti; Gas Turbines—

Natural Gas

NSCRWGTNG N0246 NOx Selective Catalytic 

Reduction and 

Water Injection

Gas Turbines—

Natural Gas

ptnonipm Known 15 2013 72|172|175|179|22

3|224|CT-2|CT3|CT-8

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction and Water 

Injecti; Gas Turbines—

Oil

NSCRWGTOL N0232 NOx Selective Catalytic 

Reduction and 

Water Injection

Gas Turbines—

Oil

ptnonipm Known 15 2013 72|172|175|179|22

3|224|CT-2|CT-7

Steam Injection; Gas 

Turbines—Natural Gas

NSTINGTNG N0242 NOx Steam Injection Gas Turbines—

Natural Gas

ptnonipm Known 15 2013 72|172|175|184|22

3|CT-2

Water Injection; Gas 

Turbines—Jet Fuel

NWTINGTJF N0501 NOx Water Injection Gas Turbines—

Jet Fuel

ptnonipm Known 15 2013 72|172|175|184|22

3|CT-2

Water Injection; Gas 

Turbines—Natural Gas

NWTINGTNG N0241 NOx Water Injection Gas Turbines—

Natural Gas

ptnonipm Known 15 2013 72|172|175|184|22

3|CT-2

Water Injection; Gas 

Turbines—Oil

NWTINGTOL N0231 NOx Water Injection Gas Turbines—

Oil

ptnonipm Known 15 2013 72|172|175|184|22

3|CT-2

Catalytic Combustion; 

Gas Turbine—Natural 

Gas

NCATCGTNG N/A NOx Catalytic 

Combustion

Gas Turbines—

Natural Gas

ptnonipm Emerging 15 2013 CT-1|CT-2

EMx and Dry Low NOx 

Combustion; Gas 

Turbines—Natural Gas

NEMXDGTNG N/A NOx EMx and Dry Low 

NOx Combustion

Gas Turbines—

Natural Gas

ptnonipm Emerging 15 2013 CT-1|CT-2|CT3|CT-4|CT-5

EMx and Water 

Injection; Gas 

Turbines—Natural Gas

NEMXWGTNG N/A NOx EMx and Water 

Injection

Gas Turbines—

Natural Gas

ptnonipm Emerging 15 2013 CT-1|CT-3

*For ease in reading this table, the Description field is included on separate pages.
B-3

Table B-1. CMDB Table 01_Summary (continued)

cmabbreviation Description

NDLNCGTNG

Application: This control is the use of dry low NOx combustion (DLN) technology to reduce NOx emissions. DLN combustion reduces the amount of NOx created from reaction 

between fuel nitrogen and oxygen by lowering the temperature of one combustion zone and reducing the amount of oxygen available in another.

This control applies to large (83.3 MW to 161 MW) natural gas fired turbines with uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: LNBs are designed to “stage” combustion so that two combustion zones are created, one fuel-rich combustion and one at a lower temperature. Staging techniques are 

usually used by LNB to supply excess air to cool the combustion process or to reduce available oxygen in the flame zone. Staged-air LNBs create a fuel-rich reducing primary 

combustion zone and a fuel-lean secondary combustion zone. Staged-fuel LNBs create a lean combustion zone that is relatively cool due to the presence of excess air, which acts as 

a heat sink to lower combustion temperatures (EPA, 2002).

NSCRDGTNG

Application: This control is the selective catalytic reduction of NOx through add-on controls. SCR controls are post-combustion control technologies based on the chemical 

reduction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) into molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O). The SCR utilizes a catalyst to increase the NOx removal efficiency, which allows the 

process to occur at lower temperatures.

This control applies to natural gas fired turbines with NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) has been widely applied to stationary source, fossil fuel-fired, combustion units for emission control since the early 1970s. SCR is 

typically implemented on units requiring a higher level of NOx control than achievable by SNCR or other combustion controls (EPA, 2002).

Like SNCR, SCR is based on the chemical reduction of the NOx molecule. The primary difference between SNCR and SCR is that SCR uses a metal-based catalyst to increase the 

rate of reaction (EPA, 2002). A nitrogen based reducing reagent, such as ammonia or urea, is injected into the flue gas. The reagent reacts selectively with the flue gas NOx within a 

specific temperature range and in the presence of the catalyst and oxygen to reduce the NOx.

The use of a catalyst results in two advantages of the SCR process over SNCR, the higher NOx reduction efficiency and the lower and broader temperature ranges. However, the 

decrease in reaction temperature and increase in efficiency is accompanied by a significant increase in capital and operating costs (EPA, 2002). The cost increase is due to the large 

amount of catalyst required.

The SCR system can utilize either aqueous or anhydrous ammonia as the reagent. Anhydrous ammonia is a gas at atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures. There are safety 

issues with the use of anhydrous ammonia, as it must be transported and stored under pressure (EPA, 2002). Aqueous ammonia is generally transported and stored at a concentration 

of 29.4% ammonia in water.

Today, catalyst formulations include single component, multi-component, or active phase with a support structure. Most catalyst formulations contain additional compounds or supports, providing thermal and structural stability or to increase surface area (EPA, 2002).

The rate of reaction determines the amount of NOx removed from the flue gas. The important design and operational factors that affect the rate of reduction include: reaction 

temperature range; residence time available in the optimum temperature range; degree of mixing between the injected reagent and the combustion gases; uncontrolled NOx 

concentration level; molar ratio of injected reagent to uncontrolled NOx; ammonia slip; catalyst activity; catalyst selectivity; pressure drop across the catalyst; catalyst pitch; catalyst 

deactivation; and catalyst management (EPA, 2001).

NSCRSGTNG

Application: This control is the selective catalytic reduction of NOx through add-on controls. SCR controls are post-combustion control technologies based on the chemical 

reduction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) into molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O). The SCR utilizes a catalyst to increase the NOx removal efficiency, which allows the 

process to occur at lower temperatures.

This control applies to natural gas fired turbines with NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

(continued)
B-4

Table B-1. CMDB Table 01_Summary (continued)

cmabbreviation Description

NSCRSGTNG 

(cont.)

Discussion: Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) has been widely applied to stationary source, fossil fuel-fired, combustion units for emission control since the early 1970s. SCR is 

typically implemented on units requiring a higher level of NOx control than achievable by SNCR or other combustion controls (EPA, 2002).

Like SNCR, SCR is based on the chemical reduction of the NOx molecule. The primary difference between SNCR and SCR is that SCR uses a metal-based catalyst to increase the 

rate of reaction (EPA, 2002). A nitrogen based reducing reagent, such as ammonia or urea, is injected into the flue gas. The reagent reacts selectively with the flue gas NOx within a 

specific temperature range and in the presence of the catalyst and oxygen to reduce the NOx. 

The use of a catalyst results in two advantages of the SCR process over SNCR, the higher NOx reduction efficiency and the lower and broader temperature ranges. However, the 

decrease in reaction temperature and increase in efficiency is accompanied by a significant increase in capital and operating costs (EPA, 2002). The cost increase is due to the large 

amount of catalyst required.

The SCR system can utilize either aqueous or anhydrous ammonia as the reagent. Anhydrous ammonia is a gas at atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures. There are safety 

issues with the use of anhydrous ammonia, as it must be transported and stored under pressure (EPA, 2002). Aqueous ammonia is generally transported and stored at a concentration 

of 29.4% ammonia in water.

Today, catalyst formulations include single component, multi-component, or active phase with a support structure. Most catalyst formulations contain additional compounds or supports, providing thermal and structural stability or to increase surface area (EPA, 2002). 

The rate of reaction determines the amount of NOx removed from the flue gas. The important design and operational factors that affect the rate of reduction include: reaction 

temperature range; residence time available in the optimum temperature range; degree of mixing between the injected reagent and the combustion gases; uncontrolled NOx

concentration level; molar ratio of injected reagent to uncontrolled NOx; ammonia slip; catalyst activity; catalyst selectivity; pressure drop across the catalyst; catalyst pitch; catalyst 

deactivation; and catalyst management (EPA, 2001).

NSCRWGTJF

Application: This control is the selective catalytic reduction of NOx through add-on controls in combination with water injection. SCR controls are post-combustion control 

technologies based on the chemical reduction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) into molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O). The SCR utilizes a catalyst to increase the NOx 

removal efficiency, which allows the process to occur at lower temperatures.

This control applies to jet fuel-fired turbines with uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) has been widely applied to stationary source, fossil fuel-fired, combustion units for emission control since the early 1970s. SCR is 

typically implemented on units requiring a higher level of NOx control than achievable by SNCR or other combustion controls (EPA, 2002).

Like SNCR, SCR is based on the chemical reduction of the NOx molecule. The primary difference between SNCR and SCR is that SCR uses a metal-based catalyst to increase the 

rate of reaction (EPA, 2002). A nitrogen based reducing reagent, such as ammonia or urea, is injected into the flue gas. The reagent reacts selectively with the flue gas NOx within a 

specific temperature range and in the presence of the catalyst and oxygen to reduce the NOx.

The use of a catalyst results in two advantages of the SCR process over SNCR, the higher NOx reduction efficiency and the lower and broader temperature ranges. However, the 

decrease in reaction temperature and increase in efficiency is accompanied by a significant increase in capital and operating costs (EPA, 2002). The cost increase is due to the large 

amount of catalyst required.

The SCR system can utilize either aqueous or anhydrous ammonia as the reagent. Anhydrous ammonia is a gas at atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures. There are safety 

issues with the use of anhydrous ammonia, as it must be transported and stored under pressure (EPA, 2002). Aqueous ammonia is generally transported and stored at a concentration 

of 29.4% ammonia in water.

(continued)
B-5

Table B-1. CMDB Table 01_Summary (continued)

cmabbreviation Description

NSCRWGTJF 

(cont.)

Today, catalyst formulations include single component, multi-component, or active phase with a support structure. Most catalyst formulations contain additional compounds or supports, providing thermal and structural stability or to increase surface area (EPA, 2002). 

The rate of reaction determines the amount of NOx removed from the flue gas. The important design and operational factors that affect the rate of reduction include: reaction 

temperature range; residence time available in the optimum temperature range; degree of mixing between the injected reagent and the combustion gases; uncontrolled NOx 

concentration level; molar ratio of injected reagent to uncontrolled NOx; ammonia slip; catalyst activity; catalyst selectivity; pressure drop across the catalyst; catalyst pitch; catalyst 

deactivation; and catalyst management (EPA, 2001).

NSCRWGTNG

Application: This control is the selective catalytic reduction of NOx through add-on controls in combination with water injection. SCR controls are post-combustion control 

technologies based on the chemical reduction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) into molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O). The SCR utilizes a catalyst to increase the NOx 

removal efficiency, which allows the process to occur at lower temperatures.

This control applies to natural gas-fired gas turbines with uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) has been widely applied to stationary source, fossil fuel-fired, combustion units for emission control since the early 1970s. SCR is 

typically implemented on units requiring a higher level of NOx control than achievable by SNCR or other combustion controls (EPA, 2002).

Like SNCR, SCR is based on the chemical reduction of the NOx molecule. The primary difference between SNCR and SCR is that SCR uses a metal-based catalyst to increase the 

rate of reaction (EPA, 2002). A nitrogen based reducing reagent, such as ammonia or urea, is injected into the flue gas. The reagent reacts selectively with the flue gas NOx within a 

specific temperature range and in the presence of the catalyst and oxygen to reduce the NOx.

The use of a catalyst results in two advantages of the SCR process over SNCR, the higher NOx reduction efficiency and the lower and broader temperature ranges. However, the 

decrease in reaction temperature and increase in efficiency is accompanied by a significant increase in capital and operating costs (EPA, 2002). The cost increase is due to the large 

amount of catalyst required.

The SCR system can utilize either aqueous or anhydrous ammonia as the reagent. Anhydrous ammonia is a gas at atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures. There are safety 

issues with the use of anhydrous ammonia, as it must be transported and stored under pressure (EPA, 2002). Aqueous ammonia is generally transported and stored at a concentration 

of 29.4% ammonia in water.

Today, catalyst formulations include single component, multi-component, or active phase with a support structure. Most catalyst formulations contain additional compounds or supports, providing thermal and structural stability or to increase surface area (EPA, 2002).

The rate of reaction determines the amount of NOx removed from the flue gas. The important design and operational factors that affect the rate of reduction include: reaction 

temperature range; residence time available in the optimum temperature range; degree of mixing between the injected reagent and the combustion gases; uncontrolled NOx 

concentration level; molar ratio of injected reagent to uncontrolled NOx; ammonia slip; catalyst activity; catalyst selectivity; pressure drop across the catalyst; catalyst pitch; catalyst 

deactivation; and catalyst management (EPA, 2001).

NSCRWGTOL

Application: This control is the selective catalytic reduction of NOx through add-on controls in combination with water injection. SCR controls are post-combustion control 

technologies based on the chemical reduction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) into molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O). The SCR utilizes a catalyst to increase the NOx 

removal efficiency, which allows the process to occur at lower temperatures.

This control applies to oil-fired turbines with uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) has been widely applied to stationary source, fossil fuel-fired, combustion units for emission control since the early 1970s. SCR is 

typically implemented on units requiring a higher level of NOx control than achievable by SNCR or other combustion controls (EPA, 2002).

(continued)
B-6

Table B-1. CMDB Table 01_Summary (continued)

cmabbreviation Description

NSCRWGTOL 

(cont.)

Like SNCR, SCR is based on the chemical reduction of the NOx molecule. The primary difference between SNCR and SCR is that SCR uses a metal-based catalyst to increase the 

rate of reaction (EPA, 2002). A nitrogen based reducing reagent, such as ammonia or urea, is injected into the flue gas. The reagent reacts selectively with the flue gas NOx within a 

specific temperature range and in the presence of the catalyst and oxygen to reduce the NOx. 

The use of a catalyst results in two advantages of the SCR process over SNCR, the higher NOx reduction efficiency and the lower and broader temperature ranges. However, the 

decrease in reaction temperature and increase in efficiency is accompanied by a significant increase in capital and operating costs (EPA, 2002). The cost increase is due to the large 

amount of catalyst required.

The SCR system can utilize either aqueous or anhydrous ammonia as the reagent. Anhydrous ammonia is a gas at atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures. There are safety 

issues with the use of anhydrous ammonia, as it must be transported and stored under pressure (EPA, 2002). Aqueous ammonia is generally transported and stored at a concentration 

of 29.4% ammonia in water.

Today, catalyst formulations include single component, multi-component, or active phase with a support structure. Most catalyst formulations contain additional compounds or supports, providing thermal and structural stability or to increase surface area (EPA, 2002). 

The rate of reaction determines the amount of NOx removed from the flue gas. The important design and operational factors that affect the rate of reduction include: reaction 

temperature range; residence time available in the optimum temperature range; degree of mixing between the injected reagent and the combustion gases; uncontrolled NOx 

concentration level; molar ratio of injected reagent to uncontrolled NOx; ammonia slip; catalyst activity; catalyst selectivity; pressure drop across the catalyst; catalyst pitch; catalyst 

deactivation; and catalyst management (EPA, 2001).

NSTINGTNG

Application: This control is the use of steam injection to reduce NOx emissions.

This control applies to small (3.3 MW to 34.4MW) natural gas-fired gas turbines with uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: Steam is injected into the gas turbine, reducing the temperatures in the NOx-forming regions. The steam can be injected into the fuel, the combustion air or directly into 

the combustion chamber (ERG, 2000).

NWTINGTJF

Application: This control is the use of water injection to reduce NOx emissions.

This control applies to small (3.3 MW to 34.4MW) jet fuel-fired turbines with uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: Water is injected into the gas turbine, reducing the temperatures in the NOx-forming regions. The water can be injected into the fuel, the combustion air or directly into 

the combustion chamber (ERG, 2000).

NWTINGTNG

Application: This control is the use of water injection to reduce NOx emissions.

This control applies to small (3.3 MW to 34.4MW) natural gas-fired gas turbines with uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: Water is injected into the gas turbine, reducing the temperatures in the NOx-forming regions. The water can be injected into the fuel, the combustion air or directly into 

the combustion chamber (ERG, 2000).

NWTINGTOL

Application: This control is the use of water injection to reduce NOx emissions.

This control applies to small (3.3 MW to 34.4MW) oil-fired turbines with uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: Water is injected into the gas turbine, reducing the temperatures in the NOx-forming regions. The water can be injected into the fuel, the combustion air or directly into 

the combustion chamber (ERG, 2000).

(continued)
B-7

Table B-1. CMDB Table 01_Summary (continued)

cmabbreviation Description

NCATCGTNG

Application: This control is the use of catalytic combustion to reduce NOx emissions. Catalytic combustors reduce the amount of NOx created by oxidizing fuel at lower 

temperatures (and without a flame) than in conventional combustors. Catalytic combustion uses a catalytic bed to oxidize a lean air fuel mixture within a combustor instead of 

burning with a flame. The fuel and air mixture oxidizes at lower temperatures than in a conventional combustor, producing less NOx.

Currently installed only on a few 1.4 MW combustion turbines, and commercially available for turbines rated up to 10 MW (CT-1).

NEMXDGTNG

Application: This control is the use of EMx in combination with dry low NOx combustion. EMx is a post-combustion catalytic oxidation and absorption technology that uses a twostage catalyst/absorber system for the control of NOx as well as CO, VOC, and optionally SOx. A coated catalyst oxidizes NO to NO2, CO to CO2, and VOC to CO2 and water.

The NO2 is then absorbed onto the catalyst surface where it is chemically converted to and stored as potassium nitrates and nitrites. A proprietary regeneration gas is periodically 

passed through the catalyst to desorb the NO2 from the catalyst and reduce it to elemental nitrogen (N2). EMx has been successfully demonstrated on several small combustion 

turbine projects up to 45 MW. The manufacturer has claimed that EMx can be effectively scaled up to larger turbines (CT-1).

Cost estimates for DLN combustion in 2008 dollars are not available. Thus, the total system cost in this analysis in 2008 dollars was developed from 1999 cost estimates for DLN 

combustion that were escalated to 2008 dollars and added to the available 2008 estimate for the EMx system.

NEMXWGTNG

Application: This control is the use of EMx in combination with water injection.

Cost estimates for water injection in 2008 dollars are not available. Thus, the total system cost in this analysis in 2008 dollars was developed from 1999 cost estimates for water

injection that were escalated to 2008 dollars and added to the available 2008 estimate for the EMx system.
B-8

Table B-2. CMDB Table 02_Efficiencies

cmabbreviationpollutantlocaleEffective Dateexistingmeasureabbrneiexistingdevcodeminemissionsmaxemissionscontrolefficiencycostyearcostpertonruleeffrulepenequationtypecaprecfactordiscountratecapannratioincrementalcptdetails

NWTINGTNG NOx00 365 72 1999 1790 100 100 cpton 0.1098 3.1 Applied to small source types (<34.4 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions <365 tpy

NWTINGTNG NOx0 365 72 1999 1000 100 100 cpton 0.1098 2.4 Applied to small source types (<34.4 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions >365 tpy

NWTINGTNG NOx0 365 72 1999 730 100 100 cpton 0.1098 1.6 Applied to large source types

NSCRWGTNG NOx00 365 94 1999 2790 100 100 cpton 0.10983 5840 Applied to small source types (3 to 26 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions <365 tpy.

NSCRWGTNG NOx0 365 94 1999 1370 100 100 cpton 0.1098 2.9 3130 Applied to small source types (3 to 26 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions >365 tpy.

NSCRWGTNG NOx0 365 94 1999 1070 100 100 cpton 0.1098 1.5 1690 Applied to large source types (~80 to 160 MW)

NSCRWGTNG NOx0 365 98 20081960 100 100 cpton 0.1098 2.5 3170 Applied to large source types (~50 to 180 MW), 1999 

costs for WI assumed to be the same as 1990 costs in 

the 1993 ACT based on data in ref CT-2 that showed

the costs were essentially the same for NG-fired units.

1999 WI capital and indirect annual costs were 

escalated to 2008 dollars using ratio of 2008 to 1999 

CEP cost indexes, direct annual costs for WI were 

assumed to be the same in 2008 as in 1999, and resulting 2008 costs were added to the 2008 SCR costs 

from ref CT-3.

NEMXWGTNG NOx0 365 99 2008 2960 100 100 cpton 0.1098 2.9 7120 Applied to large source types (50 to 180 MW); WI costs 

estimated using the same procedure as for 

NSCRWGTNG applied to large sources.

NSTINGTNG NOx00 365 80 1999 1690 100 100 cpton 0.1098 3.5 Applied to small source types (3 to 26.3 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions <365 tpy, 1999 costs for SI 

assumed to be the same as 1990 costs in the 1993 ACT 

based on data in ref CT-2 that showed WI costs were 

essentially the same for NG-fired units (assumed same 

pattern holds for steam injection).

NSTINGTNG NOx0 365 80 1999 820 100 100 cpton 0.1098 3.5 Applied to small source types (3 to 26.3 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions >365 tpy, 1999 costs for SI 

assumed to be the same as 1990 costs in the 1993 ACT 

based on data in ref CT-2 that showed WI costs were 

essentially the same for NG-fired units (assumed same 

pattern holds for steam injection).

NSTINGTNG NOx0 365 80 1999 500 100 100 cpton 0.1098 3.0 Applied to large source types (~80 to 160 MW), 1999 

costs for SI assumed to be the same as 1990 costs in the 

1993 ACT based on data in ref CT-2 that showed WI 

costs were essentially the same for NG-fired units 

(assumed same pattern holds for steam injection).

NSCRSGTNG NOx00 365 95 1999 2570 100 100 cpton 0.1098 3.3 5550 Applied to small source types (3 to 26 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions <365 tpy.
B-9

(continued)

Table B-2. CMDB Table 02_Efficiencies (continued) cmabbreviation pollutant locale Effective Date existingmeasureabbr neiexistingdevcode minemissions maxemissions controlefficiency costyear

costpertonruleeffrulepenequationtypecaprecfactordiscountratecapannratioincrementalcptdetails

NSCRSGTNG NOx 0 365 95 1999 1380 100 100 cpton 0.1098 3.1 2870 Applied to small source types (3 to 26.3 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions >365 tpy.

NSCRSGTNG NOx 0 365 95 1999 570 100 100 cpton 0.1098 2.7 1810 Applied to large source types (~80 to 160 MW)

NSCRGYNG NOx 0 365 95 2008 1420 100 100 cpton 0.1098 3.9 3170 Applied to large source types (50 to 180 MW)

NDLNCGTNG NOx 0 0 365 84 1999 300 100 100 cpton 0.1098 5 540 Applied to small source types

NDLNCGTNG NOx 0 365 84 1999 130 100 100 cpton 0.1098 7.4 140 Applied to large source types

NSCRDGTNG NOx 0 0 365 94 1999 1800 100 100 cpton 0.1098 2.9 11900 Applied to small source types (3 to 26.3 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions <365 tpy.

NSCRDGTNG NOx 0 365 94 1999 990 100 100 cpton 0.1098 3.6 6320 Applied to small source types (3 to 26.3 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions >365 tpy.

NSCRDGTNG NOx 0 365 94 1999 390 100 100 cpton 0.1098 4.2 3340 Applied to large source types (~160 MW)

NSCRDGTNG NOx 0 365 2007 18900 Applied to small source types (up to 40 MW, 

uncontrolled emissions <365 tpy)

NSCRDGTNG NOx 0 365 2007 7510 Applied to small source types (up to 40 MW, 

uncontrolled emissions >365 tpy)

NSCRDGTNG NOx 0 365 94 2008 1040 100 100 cpton 0.1098 4.6 5560 Applied to large source types (~50 to 180 MW), 1999 

costs for DLN were estimated based on data in ref CT2. Escalated these costs to 2008 dollars using ratio of 

2008 to 1999 CEP cost indexes and added to the 2008 

SCR costs from ref CT-3.

NEMXDGTNG NOx 365 1999 2860 14940 Applied to small source types (<26 MW), uncontrolled 

emissions <365 tpy

NEMXDGTNG NOx 365 1999 1720 10270 Applied to small source types (<26 MW), uncontrolled 

emissions >365 tpy

NEMXDGTNG NOx 365 1999 840 6600 Applied to large source types (170 MW), uncontrolled 

emissions >365 tpy

NEMXDGTNG NOx 0 365 Applied to small source types

NEMXDGTNG NOx 0 365 99 2008 2040 100 100 cpton 0.1098 4.1 12370 Applied to large source types (50 to 180 MW); DLN 

costs estimated in 1999 dollars were escalated to 2008 

dollars using the CEPCI, except parts and repair costs 

were assumed to be the same in 2008 as in 1999.

NCATCGTNG NOx 0 365 98 1999 920 100 100 cpton 0.1098 1.7 4760 Applied to small source types (3 to 26 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions <365 tpy.

NCATCGTNG NOx 0 365 98 1999 670 100 100 cpton 0.1098 1.2 2580 Applied to small source types (3 to 26 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions >365 tpy.

NCATCGTNG NOx 0 365 98 1999 370 100 100 cpton 0.1098 0.7 2200 Applied to large source types (~170 MW)

NWTINGTOL NOx 0 0 365 68 1999 1630 100 100 cpton 0.1098 3.0 Applied to small source types (3 to 26.3 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions <365 tpy, 1999 costs assumed to 

be the same as 1990 costs in the 1993 ACT based on 

data in ref CT-2 that showed the costs were essentially 

the same for NG-fired units.
B-10

(continued)

Table B-2. CMDB Table 02_Efficiencies (continued) cmabbreviation pollutant locale Effective Date existingmeasureabbr neiexistingdevcode minemissions maxemissions controlefficiency costyear

costpertonruleeffrulepenequationtypecaprecfactordiscountratecapannratioincrementalcptdetails

NWTINGTOL NOx 0 365 68 1999 960 100 100 cpton 0.1098 1.8 Applied to small source types (3 to 26.3 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions >365 tpy, 1999 costs assumed to 

be the same as 1990 costs in the 1993 ACT based on 

data in ref CT-2 that showed the costs were essentially 

the same for NG-fired units.

NWTINGTOL NOx 0 365 68 1999 650 100 100 cpton 0.1098 1.6 Applied to large source types (~83 MW), uncontrolled 

emissions >365 tpy, 1999 costs assumed to be the same 

as 1990 costs in the 1993 ACT based on data in ref CT2 that showed the costs were essentially the same for 

NG-fired units.

NSCRWGTOL NOx 0 0 365 90 1990 3190 100 100 cpton 0.1098 2.9 7620 Applied to small source types (3 to 26.3 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions <365 tpy.

NSCRWGTOL NOx 0 365 90 1990 1320 100 100 cpton 0.1098 2.3 2450 Applied to small source types (3 to 26.3 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions >365 tpy.

NSCRWGTOL NOx 0 365 97 2004 1560 100 100 cpton 0.1098 2.3 4790 Applied to large source types (~83 MW), uncontrolled 

emissions >365 tpy, 1999 costs for WI assumed to be 

the same as 1990 costs in the 1993 ACT based on data 

in ref CT-2 that showed the costs were essentially the 

same for NG-fired units. Escalated these costs to 2004 

dollars using ratio of 2004 to 1999 CEP cost indexes 

and added to the 2004 SCR costs from ref CT-7. 

Control efficiency based on data from analysis for one 

unit (ref CT-7).

NWTINGTJF NOx 0 0 365 68 1999 1630 100 100 cpton 0.1098 3.0 Applied to small source types (3 to 26.3 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions <365 tpy, costs assumed to be 

the same as for oil-fired turbines.

NWTINGTJF NOx 0 365 68 1999 960 100 100 cpton 0.1098 1.8 Applied to small source types (3 to 26.3 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions >365 tpy, costs assumed to be 

the same as for oil-fired turbines.

NWTINGTJF NOx 0 365 68 1999 650 100 100 cpton 0.1098 1.6 Applied to large source types (~83 MW), uncontrolled 

emissions >365 tpy, costs and control efficiency 

assumed to be the same as for oil-fired turbines.

NSCRWGTJF NOx 0 0 365 90 1990 3190 100 100 cpton 0.1098 2.9 7620 Applied to small source types (3 to 26.3 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions <365 tpy, costs assumed to be 

same as for oil-fired turbines.

NSCRWGTJF NOx 0 365 90 1990 1320 100 100 cpton 0.1098 2.3 2450 Applied to small source types (3 to 26.3 MW), 

uncontrolled emissions >365 tpy, costs assumed to be 

same as for oil-fired turbines.

NSCRWGTJF NOx 0 365 97 2004 1560 100 100 cpton 0.1098 2.3 4790 Applied to large source types (~83 MW), uncontrolled 

emissions >365 tpy, costs and control efficiency 

assumed to be same as for oil-fired turbines).
B-11
B-12

Table B-3. CMDB Table 04_Equationsa

cmabbreviation cmeqntype pollutant costyear var1 var2 var3 var4 var5 var6 var7 var8 var9 var10

NWTINGTNG Type 2 NOx 1999 27665 0.69 3700.2 0.95 27665 0.69 3700.2 0.95

NSCRWGTNG Type 2 NOx 1999 62962 0.66 8590 0.87 37193 0.63 12065 0.64

NSCRWGTNG Type 2 NOx 2007 210883 0.46

NSCRWGTNG Type “L” NOx 2007 1893.8 185570

NSCRWGTNG Type 2 NOx 2008 34533 0.85 7236 0.94 10323 0.96 3106 0.94

NEMXWGTNG Type 2 NOx 2008 200894 0.68 19215 0.86 160409 0.67 20174 0.78

NSTINGTNG Type 2 NOx 1999 43092 0.66 7282.3 0.76 43092 0.66 7282.3 0.76

NSCRSGTNG Type 2 NOx 1999 72169 0.66 17551 0.72 37193 0.63 12065 0.64

NSCRSGTNG Type 2 NOx 2008 46492 0.82 9434.1 0.86 10323 0.96 3106 0.94

NDLNCGTNG Type 2 NOx 1999 676.37 0.96 676.37 0.96

NDLNCGTNG Type “L” NOx 1999 2860.6 25427 2860.6 25427

NSCRDGTNG Type 2 NOx 1999 24854 0.79 12725 0.69 37193 0.63 12065 0.64

NSCRDGTNG Type 2 NOx 2007 187647 0.54 210883 0.46

NSCRDGTNG Type “L” NOx 2007 2782 167494 1893.8 185570

NSCRDGTNG Type 2 NOx 2008 14785 0.97 5250.8 0.9 10323 0.96 3106.1 0.94

NEMXDGTNG Type 2 NOx 1999 58237 0.78 15004 0.78 65163 0.72 13702 0.76

NEMXDGTNG Type 2 NOx 2008 129611 0.74 23051 0.78 160409 0.67 20174 0.78

NCATCGTNG Type 2 NOx 1999 20668 0.57 4254.2 0.82

NCATCGTNG Type “L” NOx 1999 N/A N/A 743.2 54105

NWTINGTOL Type 2 NOx 1999 42533 0.6 6776.7 0.8 42533 0.6 6776.7 0.8

NSCRWGTOL Type 2 NOx 1990 94337 0.63 25914 0.7

NSCRWGTOL Type “L” NOx 1999 4868.5 349694 1546.1 139203

aType “L” is a linear equation; variables are the slope and intercept. No incremental TCI for NCATCGTNG relative to DLN because the capital costs for 

catalytic combustion are lower than the capital costs for DLN for all but the smallest turbines. The underlying data for 2008 costs for SCR and EMx are for 

large turbines (50 MW to 180 MW). The underlying data for 2007 costs are for 1 MW to 40 MW turbines.
B-13

Table B-4. Additional CMDB Table 06 References

Data Source Description

CT-1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. Preliminary Determination of Compliance. Marsh Landing Generating Station. March 2010.

Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/marshlanding/documents/other/2010-03-24_Bay_Area_AQMD_PDOC.pdf

CT-2 Onsite Sycom Energy Corporation, 1999. “Cost Analysis of NOx Control Alternatives for Stationary Gas Turbines.” Prepared for U.S. 

Department of Energy. Environmental Programs Chicago Operations Office. November 5, 1999. Available at: 

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/distributedenergy/pdfs/gas_turbines_nox_cost_analysis.pdf

CT-3 EmeraChem Power, 2008. Attachment in email from Jeff Valmus, EmeraChem Power, to Weyman Lee, BAAQMD. Request for EMx Cost 

Information. September 8, 2008. Available at:

http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Engineering/Public%20Notices/2010/18404/Footnotes/EMx%20BACT%20economic%20analysis%20f

inal09072008.ashx

CT-4 CH2MHill, 2002. Walnut Energy Center Application for Certification.” Prepared for California Energy Commission. November 2002.

Available at: www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/turlock/documents/applicant_files/volume_2/App_08.01E_Eval_Control.pdf.

CT-5 CARB, 2004. California Environmental Protection Agency. Air Resources Board. Report to the Legislature. Gas-Fired Power Plant NOx 

Emission Controls and Related Environmental Impacts. Stationary Source Division. May 2004. Available at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/reports/l2069.pdf

CT-6 Resource Dynamics Corporation, 2001. “Assessment of Distributed Generation Technology Applications.” Prepared for Maine Public Utilities 

Commission. February 2001. Available at: http://www.distributed-generation.com/Library/Maine.pdf

CT-7 Florida Municipal Power Agency, 2004. Chapters 3 and 4 of PSD BACT analysis for Stock Island facility in Key West, Florida. Available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/emission/construction/stockisland/BasisofBACT.pdf and 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/emission/construction/stockisland/NOxBACT.pdf 

CT-8 Energy and Environmental Analysis (An ICF International Company), 2008. Technology Characterization: Gas Turbines. Prepared for 

Environmental Protection Agency Climate Protection Partnership Division. December 2008. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/catalog_chptech_gas_turbines.pdf
C-1

APPENDIX C

GLASS MANUFACTURING

Copies of database tables showing all records for glass manufacturing controls, 

highlighting revisions.
C-2

Table C-1. CMDB Table 01 Summary

cmname cmabbreviation

pechanm

eascode

major

poll controltechnology sourcegroup Sector Class equiplife

neidevic

ecode

daterevi

ewed datasource

Month

s Description

Cullet Preheat; Glass 

Manufacturing—Container

NCLPTGMCN N0302 NOx Cullet Preheat Glass Manufacturing—

Container

ptnonipm Emerging 10 2013 72|175|182|

GM-1

Cullet Preheat; Glass 

Manufacturing—Pressed

NCUPHGMPD N0322 NOx Cullet Preheat Glass Manufacturing—

Pressed

ptnonipm Emerging 10 2013 72|175|182|

GM-1

OXY-Firing; Glass 

Manufacturing—General

NDOXYFGMG N/A NOx OXY-Firing Glass Manufacturing—

General

ptnonipm Emerging 10 167

Electric Boost; Glass 

Manufacturing—General

NELBOGMGN N0301 NOx Electric Boost Glass Manufacturing—

Container

ptnonipm Known 10 2013 GM-1

Electric Boost; Glass 

Manufacturing—Container

NELBOGMCN N0301 NOx Electric Boost Glass Manufacturing—

Container

ptnonipm Known 10 2006 72|175|182

Electric Boost; Glass 

Manufacturing—Flat

NELBOGMFT N0311 NOx Electric Boost Glass Manufacturing—

Flat

ptnonipm Known 10 2006 72|175|182

Electric Boost; Glass 

Manufacturing—Pressed

NELBOGMPD N0321 NOx Electric Boost Glass Manufacturing—

Pressed

ptnonipm Known 10 2006 72|175|182

Low NOx Burner; Glass 

Manufacturing—Container

NLNBUGMCN N0303 NOx Low NOx Burner Glass Manufacturing—

Container

ptnonipm Known 10 204|205 2013 72|175|179|

182|GM-2

Low NOx Burner; Glass 

Manufacturing—Flat

NLNBUGMFT N0312 NOx Low NOx Burner Glass Manufacturing—

Flat

ptnonipm Known 10 204|205 2013 72|175|179|

182|GM-2

Low NOx Burner; Glass 

Manufacturing—Pressed

NLNBUGMPD N0323 NOx Low NOx Burner Glass Manufacturing—

Pressed

ptnonipm Known 10 204|205 2006 175|179|18

2

OXY-Firing; Glass 

Manufacturing—General

NOXYFGMGN N0306 NOx OXY-Firing Glass Manufacturing—

Container

ptnonipm Known 10 2013 GM-1

OXY-Firing; Glass 

Manufacturing—Container

NOXYFGMCN N0306 NOx OXY-Firing Glass Manufacturing—

Container

ptnonipm Known 10 2006 72

OXY-Firing; Glass 

Manufacturing—Flat

NOXYFGMFT N0315 NOx OXY-Firing Glass Manufacturing—

Flat

ptnonipm Known 10 2006 72

OXY-Firing; Glass 

Manufacturing—Pressed

NOXYFGMPD N0326 NOx OXY-Firing Glass Manufacturing—

Pressed

ptnonipm Known 10 2006 72

Selective Catalytic Reduction; 

Glass Manufacturing—Container

NSCRGMCN N03403 NOx Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Glass Manufacturing—

Container

ptnonipm Known 10 139 2013 72|172|175|

179|182|22

4|GM-2

Selective Catalytic Reduction; 

Glass Manufacturing—Flat

NSCRGMFT N0314 NOx Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Glass Manufacturing—

Flat

ptnonipm Known 10 139 2013 72|172|175|

179|182|18

6|224|GM-2

Selective Catalytic Reduction; 

Glass Manufacturing—Pressed

NSCRGMPD N0325 NOx Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Glass Manufacturing—

Pressed

ptnonipm Known 10 139 2006 72|172|175|

179|182|18

6|224

Catalytic Ceramic Filter; Glass 

Manufacturing—Flat

CATCFGMFT NOx Catalytic Ceramic 

Filter

Glass Manufacturing—

Flat

ptnonipm Known 20 2013 GM-3
C-3

Table C-1. CMDB Table 01 Summary—Description Field

cmabbreviation description

NCLPTGMCN Application: This control is the use of cullet preheat technologies to reduce NOx emissions from glass manufacturing operations.

This control is applicable to container glass manufacturing operations classified under 305010402.

NCUPHGMPD Application: This control is the use of cullet preheat technologies to reduce NOx emissions from glass manufacturing operations.

This control is applicable to pressed glass manufacturing operations classified under 305010404.

NDOXYFGMG Application: This control is the use of OXY-firing in glass manufacturing furnaces to reduce NOx emissions. Oxygen enrichment refers to the substitution of oxygen for nitrogen in the combustion air used 

to burn the fuel in a glass furnace. Oxygen enrichment above 90 percent is sometimes called “oxy-firing.”

Discussion: The basic rationale for oxy-firing is improved efficiency, i.e., more of the theoretical heat of combustion is transferred to the glass melt and is not lost in the flue gas. Many other combustion 

modification techniques (e.g., flue gas recirculation, staged combustion, and low excess air combustion) reduce NOx formation but also reduce the combustion efficiency. Oxy-firing was originally 

developed to improve the combustion efficiency primarily by eliminating the sensible heat lost in heating the nitrogen present in air, which is then lost in the flue gas.

NELBOGMGN Application: This control is the use of electric boost technologies to reduce NOx emissions from glass manufacturing operations. 

This control applies to general glass manufacturing operations classified under SCC 30501401.

NELBOGMCN Application: This control is the use of electric boost technologies to reduce NOx emissions from glass manufacturing operations. 

This control applies to container glass manufacturing operations classified under SCC 30501402.

Discussion: The 250 tons per day plant is assumed to be representative of container glass plants (Pechan, 1998).

NELBOGMFT Application: This control is the use of electric boost technologies to reduce NOx emissions from glass manufacturing operations. 

This control applies to flat glass manufacturing operations classified under SCC 30501403.

Discussion: The 500 tons per day plant is assumed to be representative of flat glass plants (Pechan, 1998).

NELBOGMPD Application: This control is the use of electric boost technologies to reduce NOx emissions from glass manufacturing operations. 

This control applies to pressed glass manufacturing operations classified under SCC 30501403.

Discussion: The 50 tons per day plant is assumed to be representative of pressed glass plants (Pechan, 1998).

NLNBUGMCN Application: This control is the use of low NOx burner (LNB) technology to reduce NOx emissions. LNBs reduce the amount of NOx created from reaction between fuel nitrogen and oxygen by lowering 

the temperature of one combustion zone and reducing the amount of oxygen available in another.

This control is applicable to container glass manufacturing operations classified under 305010402 with uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: The 250 tons per day plant is assumed to be representative of container glass plants (Pechan, 1998).

LNBs are designed to “stage” combustion so that two combustion zones are created, one fuel-rich combustion and one at a lower temperature. Staging techniques are usually used by LNB to supply excess 

air to cool the combustion process or to reduce available oxygen in the flame zone. Staged-air LNBs create a fuel-rich reducing primary combustion zone and a fuel-lean secondary combustion zone.

Staged-fuel LNBs create a lean combustion zone that is relatively cool due to the presence of excess air, which acts as a heat sink to lower combustion temperatures (EPA, 2002).

NLNBUGMFT Application: This control is the use of low NOx burner (LNB) technology to reduce NOx emissions. LNBs reduce the amount of NOx created from reaction between fuel nitrogen and oxygen by lowering 

the temperature of one combustion zone and reducing the amount of oxygen available in another.

This control is applicable to flat glass manufacturing operations classified under 305010404 with uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: The 500 tons per day plant is assumed to be representative of flat glass plants (Pechan, 1998).

LNBs are designed to “stage” combustion so that two combustion zones are created, one fuel-rich combustion and one at a lower temperature. Staging techniques are usually used by LNB to supply excess 

air to cool the combustion process or to reduce available oxygen in the flame zone. Staged-air LNBs create a fuel-rich reducing primary combustion zone and a fuel-lean secondary combustion zone.

Staged-fuel LNBs create a lean combustion zone that is relatively cool due to the presence of excess air, which acts as a heat sink to lower combustion temperatures (EPA, 2002).

(continued)
C-4

Table C-1. CMDB Table 01 Summary—Description Field (continued)

cmabbreviation description

NLNBUGMPD Application: This control is the use of low NOx burner (LNB) technology to reduce NOx emissions. LNBs reduce the amount of NOx created from reaction between fuel nitrogen and oxygen by lowering 

the temperature of one combustion zone and reducing the amo

NOXYFGMGN

Application: This control is the use of OXY-firing in flat glass manufacturing furnaces to reduce NOx emissions. Oxygen enrichment refers to the substitution of oxygen for nitrogen in the combustion air 

used to burn the fuel in a glass furnace. Oxygen enrichment above 90 percent is sometimes called “oxy-firing.”

This control applies to general manufacturing operations. This control applies to general glass manufacturing operations classified under SCC 30501401.

Discussion: The basic rationale for oxy-firing is improved efficiency, i.e., more of the theoretical heat of combustion is transferred to the glass melt and is not lost in the flue gas. Many other combustion 

modification techniques (e.g., flue gas recirculation, staged combustion, and low excess air combustion) reduce NOx formation but also reduce the combustion efficiency. Oxy-firing was originally 

developed to improve the combustion efficiency primarily by eliminating the sensible heat lost in heating the nitrogen present in air, which is then lost in the flue gas.

NOXYFGMCN

Application: This control is the use of OXY-firing in container glass manufacturing furnaces to reduce NOx emissions. Oxygen enrichment refers to the substitution of oxygen for nitrogen in the 

combustion air used to burn the fuel in a glass furnace. Oxygen enrichment above 90 percent is sometimes called “oxy-firing.”

Discussion: The basic rationale for oxy-firing is improved efficiency, i.e., more of the theoretical heat of combustion is transferred to the glass melt and is not lost in the flue gas. Many other combustion 

modification techniques (e.g., flue gas recirculation, staged combustion, and low excess air combustion) reduce NOx formation but also reduce the combustion efficiency. Oxy-firing was originally 

developed to improve the combustion efficiency primarily by eliminating the sensible heat lost in heating the nitrogen present in air, which is then lost in the flue gas.

NOXYFGMFT

Application: This control is the use of OXY-firing in flat glass manufacturing furnaces to reduce NOx emissions. Oxygen enrichment refers to the substitution of oxygen for nitrogen in the combustion air 

used to burn the fuel in a glass furnace. Oxygen enrichment above 90 percent is sometimes called “oxy-firing.”

This control applies to flat-glass manufacturing operations with uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: The basic rationale for oxy-firing is improved efficiency, i.e., more of the theoretical heat of combustion is transferred to the glass melt and is not lost in the flue gas. Many other combustion 

modification techniques (e.g., flue gas recirculation, staged combustion, and low excess air combustion) reduce NOx formation but also reduce the combustion efficiency. Oxy-firing was originally 

developed to improve the combustion efficiency primarily by eliminating the sensible heat lost in heating the nitrogen present in air, which is then lost in the flue gas.

NOXYFGMPD

Application: This control is the use of OXY-firing in pressed glass manufacturing furnaces to reduce NOx emissions. Oxygen enrichment refers to the substitution of oxygen for nitrogen in the combustion 

air used to burn the fuel in a glass furnace. Oxygen enrichment above 90 percent is sometimes called “oxy-firing.”

Discussion: The basic rationale for oxy-firing is improved efficiency, i.e., more of the theoretical heat of combustion is transferred to the glass melt and is not lost in the flue gas. Many other combustion 

modification techniques (e.g., flue gas recirculation, staged combustion, and low excess air combustion) reduce NOx formation but also reduce the combustion efficiency. Oxy-firing was originally 

developed to improve the combustion efficiency primarily by eliminating the sensible heat lost in heating the nitrogen present in air, which is then lost in the flue gas.

(continued)
C-5

Table C-1. CMDB Table 01 Summary—Description Field (continued)

cmabbreviation description

NSCRGMCN Application: This control is the selective catalytic reduction of NOx through add-on controls. SCR controls are post-combustion control technologies based on the chemical reduction of nitrogen oxides 

(NOx) into molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O). The SCR utilizes a catalyst to increase the NOx removal efficiency, which allows the process to occur at lower temperatures.

Applies to glass-container manufacturing processes, classified under SCC 30501402 and uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) has been widely applied to stationary source, fossil fuel-fired, combustion units for emission control since the early 1970s. SCR is typically implemented 

on units requiring a higher level of NOx control than achievable by SNCR or other combustion controls (EPA, 2002).

Like SNCR, SCR is based on the chemical reduction of the NOx molecule. The primary difference between SNCR and SCR is that SCR uses a metal-based catalyst to increase the rate of reaction (EPA, 

2002). A nitrogen based reducing reagent, such as ammonia or urea, is injected into the flue gas. The reagent reacts selectively with the flue gas NOx within a specific temperature range and in the presence 

of the catalyst and oxygen to reduce the NOx.

The use of a catalyst results in two advantages of the SCR process over SNCR, the higher NOx reduction efficiency and the lower and broader temperature ranges. However, the decrease in reaction 

temperature and increase in efficiency is accompanied by a significant increase in capital and operating costs (EPA, 2002). The cost increase is due to the large amount of catalyst required.

The SCR system can utilize either aqueous or anhydrous ammonia as the reagent. Anhydrous ammonia is a gas at atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures. There are safety issues with the use of 

anhydrous ammonia, as it must be transported and stored under pressure (EPA, 2002). Aqueous ammonia is generally transported and stored at a concentration of 29.4% ammonia in water.

Today, catalyst formulations include single component, multi-component, or active phase with a support structure. Most catalyst formulations contain additional compounds or sup-ports, providing thermal 

and structural stability or to increase surface area (EPA, 2002).

The rate of reaction determines the amount of NOx removed from the flue gas. The important design and operational factors that affect the rate of reduction include: reaction temperature range; residence 

time available in the optimum temperature range; degree of mixing between the injected reagent and the combustion gases; uncontrolled NOx concentration level; molar ratio of injected reagent to 

uncontrolled NOx; ammonia slip; catalyst activity; catalyst selectivity; pressure drop across the catalyst; catalyst pitch; catalyst deactivation; and catalyst management (EPA, 2001).

NSCRGMFT Application: This control is the selective catalytic reduction of NOx through add-on controls. SCR controls are post-combustion control technologies based on the chemical reduction of nitrogen oxides 

(NOx) into molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O). The SCR utilizes a catalyst to increase the NOx removal efficiency, which allows the process to occur at lower temperatures.

Applies to large(>1 ton NOx per OSD) flat-glass manufacturing operations (SCC 30501403) with uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) has been widely applied to stationary source, fossil fuel-fired, combustion units for emission control since the early 1970s. SCR is typically implemented 

on units requiring a higher level of NOx control than achievable by SNCR or other combustion controls (EPA, 2002).

Like SNCR, SCR is based on the chemical reduction of the NOx molecule. The primary difference between SNCR and SCR is that SCR uses a metal-based catalyst to increase the rate of reaction (EPA, 

2002). A nitrogen based reducing reagent, such as ammonia or urea, is injected into the flue gas. The reagent reacts selectively with the flue gas NOx within a specific temperature range and in the presence 

of the catalyst and oxygen to reduce the NOx.

The use of a catalyst results in two advantages of the SCR process over SNCR, the higher NOx reduction efficiency and the lower and broader temperature ranges. However, the decrease in reaction 

temperature and increase in efficiency is accompanied by a significant increase in capital and operating costs (EPA, 2002). The cost increase is due to the large amount of catalyst required.

The SCR system can utilize either aqueous or anhydrous ammonia as the reagent. Anhydrous ammonia is a gas at atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures. There are safety issues with the use of 

anhydrous ammonia, as it must be transported and stored under pressure (EPA, 2002). Aqueous ammonia is generally transported and stored at a concentration of 29.4% ammonia in water.

Today, catalyst formulations include single component, multi-component, or active phase with a support structure. Most catalyst formulations contain additional compounds or sup-ports, providing thermal 

and structural stability or to increase surface area (EPA, 2002).

The rate of reaction determines the amount of NOx removed from the flue gas. The important design and operational factors that affect the rate of reduction include: reaction temperature range; residence 

time available in the optimum temperature range; degree of mixing between the injected reagent and the combustion gases; uncontrolled NOx concentration level; molar ratio of injected reagent to 

uncontrolled NOx; ammonia slip; catalyst activity; catalyst selectivity; pressure drop across the catalyst; catalyst pitch; catalyst deactivation; and catalyst management (EPA, 2001).

(continued)
C-6

Table C-1. CMDB Table 01 Summary—Description Field (continued)

cmabbreviation description

NSCRGMPD Application: This control is the selective catalytic reduction of NOx through add-on controls. SCR controls are post-combustion control technologies based on the chemical reduction of nitrogen oxides 

(NOx) into molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O). The SCR utilizes a catalyst to increase the NOx removal efficiency, which allows the process to occur at lower temperatures.

Applies to pressed-glass manufacturing operations, classified under SCC 30101404 and uncontrolled NOx emissions greater than 10 tons per year.

Discussion: Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) has been widely applied to stationary source, fossil fuel-fired, combustion units for emission control since the early 1970s. SCR is typically implemented 

on units requiring a higher level of NOx control than achievable by SNCR or other combustion controls (EPA, 2002).

Like SNCR, SCR is based on the chemical reduction of the NOx molecule. The primary difference between SNCR and SCR is that SCR uses a metal-based catalyst to increase the rate of reaction (EPA, 

2002). A nitrogen based reducing reagent, such as ammonia or urea, is injected into the flue gas. The reagent reacts selectively with the flue gas NOx within a specific temperature range and in the presence 

of the catalyst and oxygen to reduce the NOx.

The use of a catalyst results in two advantages of the SCR process over SNCR, the higher NOx reduction efficiency and the lower and broader temperature ranges. However, the decrease in reaction 

temperature and increase in efficiency is accompanied by a significant increase in capital and operating costs (EPA, 2002). The cost increase is due to the large amount of catalyst required.

The SCR system can utilize either aqueous or anhydrous ammonia as the reagent. Anhydrous ammonia is a gas at atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures. There are safety issues with the use of 

anhydrous ammonia, as it must be transported and stored under pressure (EPA, 2002). Aqueous ammonia is generally transported and stored at a concentration of 29.4% ammonia in water.

Today, catalyst formulations include single component, multi-component, or active phase with a support structure. Most catalyst formulations contain additional compounds or sup-ports, providing thermal 

and structural stability or to increase surface area (EPA, 2002).

The rate of reaction determines the amount of NOx removed from the flue gas. The important design and operational factors that affect the rate of reduction include: reaction temperature range; residence 

time available in the optimum temperature range; degree of mixing between the injected reagent and the combustion gases; uncontrolled NOx concentration level; molar ratio of injected reagent to 

uncontrolled NOx; ammonia slip; catalyst activity; catalyst selectivity; pressure drop across the catalyst; catalyst pitch; catalyst deactivation; and catalyst management (EPA, 2001).

CATCFGMFT Application: Filter tubes have nanobits of proprietary catalyst are embedded throughout the filter walls. The system can achieve excellent NOx removal using liquid ammonia that is injected upstream of the 

filters, reacting with NOx at the catalyst to form nitrogen gas and water vapor.

This control applies to general glass manufacturing operations classified under SCC 30501403
C-7

Table C-2. CMDB Table 02 Efficiencies

cmabbreviatio

n

polluta

nt

loca

le

Effec

tive 

Date

existing

measure

abbr

neiexistingd

evcode

minemissi

ons

maxemissi

ons

controleffi

ciency

costyea

r costperton ruleeff rulepen

equation

type

caprecfact

or

discou

ntrate

capannr

atio

incremen

talcpt details

NCLPTGMCN NOx 0 365 0 5 2002 5000 100 100 cpton 0.1424 4.5 Applied to large source types

NCLPTGMCN NOx 0 0 365 5 2002 5000 100 100 cpton 0.1424 4.5 Applied to small source types

NCUPHGMPD NOx 0 365 5 2002 5000 100 100 cpton 0.1424 4.5 Applied to large source types

NCUPHGMPD NOx 0 0 365 5 2002 5000 100 100 cpton 0.1424 4.5 Applied to small source types

NELBOGMCN NOx 0 365 10 1990 7150 100 100 cpton 0.1424 0 Applied to large source types

NELBOGMCN NOx 0 0 365 10 1990 7150 100 100 cpton 0.1424 0 Applied to small source types

NELBOGMFT NOx 0 365 10 1990 2320 100 100 cpton 0.1424 0 Applied to large source types

NELBOGMFT NOx 0 0 365 10 1990 2320 100 100 cpton 0.1424 0 Applied to small source types

NELBOGMPD NOx 0 365 10 1990 8760 100 100 cpton 0.1424 0 Applied to large source types

NELBOGMPD NOx 0 0 365 10 1990 2320 100 100 cpton 0.1424 0 8760 Applied to small source types

NELBOGMGN 0 365 0 30 2002 7100 100 100 cpton 0.1424 0 Applied to large source types

NELBOGMGN 0 0 365 30 2002 7100 100 100 cpton 0.1424 0 Applied to small source types

NLNBUGMCN NOx 0 365 40 2007 1072 100 100 cpton 0.14 4.3 1690 Applied to large source types

NLNBUGMCN NOx 0 0 365 40 2007 1365 100 100 cpton 0.14 4.2 1690 Applied to small source types

NLNBUGMFT NOx 0 0 365 40 2007 574 100 100 cpton 0.14 4.2 Applied to small source types

NLNBUGMFT NOx 0 365 40 2007 447 100 100 cpton 0.14 4.3 Applied to large source types

NLNBUGMPD NOx 0 365 40 1990 1500 100 100 cpton 0.1424 2.2 Applied to large source types

NLNBUGMPD NOx 0 0 365 40 1990 1500 100 100 cpton 0.1424 2.2 Applied to small source types

NOxYFGMCN NOx 0 0 365 85 1990 4590 100 100 cpton 0.1424 2.7 Applied to small source types

NOxYFGMCN NOx 0 365 85 1990 4590 100 100 cpton 0.1424 2.7 Applied to large source types

NOxYFGMFT NOx 0 365 85 1990 1900 100 100 cpton 0.1424 2.7 Applied to large source types

NOxYFGMFT NOx 0 0 365 85 1990 1900 100 100 cpton 0.1424 2.7 Applied to small source types

NDOXYFGMG NOx 0 85 1999 4277 100 100 cpton

NOxYFGMPD NOx 0 0 365 85 1990 3900 100 100 cpton 0.1424 2.7 Applied to small source types

NOxYFGMPD NOx 0 365 85 1990 3900 100 100 cpton 0.1424 2.7 Applied to large source types

NOxYFGMGN 365 0 85 2002 2353 100 100 cpton 0.1424 2.7 Applied to large source types

NOxYFGMGN 0 365 85 2002 2353 100 100 cpton 0.1424 2.7 Applied to small source types

NSCRGMCN NOx 0 365 0 75 2007 1684 100 100 cpton 0.1424 4.2 Applied to large source types

NSCRGMCN NOx 0 0 365 75 2007 2169 100 100 cpton 0.1424 4.5 Applied to small source types

NSCRGMFT NOx 0 365 0 75 2007 855 100 100 cpton 0.1424 3.7 710 Applied to large source types

NSCRGMFT NOx 0 0 365 75 2007 957 100 100 cpton 0.1424 3.4 Applied to small source types

(continued)
C-8

Table C-2. CMDB Table 02 Efficiencies (continued)

cmabbreviatio

n

polluta

nt

loca

le

Effec

tive 

Date

existing

measure

abbr

neiexistingd

evcode

minemissi

ons

maxemissi

ons

controleffi

ciency

costyea

r costperton ruleeff rulepen

equation

type

caprecfact

or

discou

ntrate

capannr

atio

incremen

talcpt details

NSCRGMPD NOx 0 365 75 1990 2530 100 100 cpton 0.1424 1.3 Applied to large source types

NSCRGMPD NOx 0 0 365 75 1990 2530 100 100 cpton 0.1424 1.3 Applied to small source types

CATCFGMFT NOx 0 365 0 95 2013 997 100 100 cpton 0.05 4.6 Applied to large source types

CATCFGMFT NOx 0 0 365 95 2013 1045 100 100 cpton 0.05 4.6 Applied to small source types
C-9

Table C-3. CMDB Table 06 References (New)

Data Source Description

GM-1 Oxygen Enriched Air Staging a Cost-effective Method For Reducing NOx Emissions. Industrial Technologies. April 2002. Available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/resources/glass/pdfs/airstaging.pdf

GM-2 Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Manufacture of Glass. European Commission 2013. Available at: 

http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/GLS_Adopted_03_2012.pdf

GM-3 Confidential Vendor Quote

Table C-4. CMDB Table 04_Equationsa

cmabbreviation cmeqntype pollutant costyear var1 var2 var3 var4 var5 var6 var7 var8 var9 var10

NLNBUGMCN Type 2 NOx 2008 30,930 0.45 9,377 0.40

NLNBUGMFT Type “L” NOx 2008 527 664,557 132 150,105

NSCRGMCN Type 2 NOx 2008 79,415 0.51

NSCRGMCN Type “L” NOx 2008 643 135,302

NSCRGMFT Type “L” NOx 2008 3,681 1,000,000 842 424,930

aType “L” is a linear equation; variables are the slope and intercept.
D-1

APPENDIX D

LEAN BURN ENGINES

Copies of the database tables for showing all records for Lean Burn Engine NOx controls 

are provided:

– Table D-01_Summary

– Table D-02_Efficiencies

– Table D-03_SCCs

– Table D-04_Equations

– Table D-06_References
D-2

Table D-01_Summary

cmname cmabbreviation

pechanme

ascode

majorp

oll

controltechn

ology

sourcegr

oup sector class equiplife

neid

evic

eco

de

datereviewe

d

datasour

ce months description

Low 

Emission 

Combustion; 

Lean Burn 

ICE—NG

NLECICENG NOx Low 

Emission 

Combustion

Lean 

Burn 

ICE—

NG

PTNONIPM Known 10 9/15/2013 ABCD3 Low Emission Combustion includes Precombustion 

chamber head and related equipment on a Lean Burn 

engine.

Layered 

Combustion; 

Lean Burn 

ICE 2 

stroke—NG

NLCICE2SNG NOx Layered 

Combustion

Lean 

Burn 

ICE—

NG

PTNONIPM Known 10 9/15/2013 ABCD1 Layered combustion—2 stroke, Lean Burn, NG (Air 

Supply; Fuel Supply; Ignition; Electronic Controls; 

Engine Monitoring). Evaluation for 3 most representative 

made/models of 2 stroke LB compressor engines. All 

retrofit combustion-related controls may not be available 

for all manufacturers and models of 2-stroke lean burn 

engines. Actual NOx emission rates would be engine 

design specific. Efficiency achieved may range from 60 

to 90%, depending on the make/model of engine 

(approximate range of NOx emissions of 3.0 to 0.5 

g/bhp-hr).

Layered 

Combustion; 

Lean Burn 

ICE 2 stroke 

Large 

Bore—NG

NLCICE2SLBNG NOx Layered 

Combustion

Lean 

Burn 

ICE—

NG

PTNONIPM Known 10 9/15/2013 ABCD1 Layered combustion—for Large Bore, 2 stroke, Lean 

Burn, Slow Speed (High Pressure Fuel Injection achieves 

90% reduction; Turbocharging achieves 75% reduction; 

Precombustion chambers achieves 90% reduction; 

Cylinder Head Modifications). All retrofit combustionrelated controls may not be available for all 

manufacturers and models of 2-stroke lean burn engines.

Actual NOx emission rates would be engine design 

specific. Efficiency achieved may range from 60 to 90%, 

depending on the make/model of engine (approximate 

range of NOx emissions of 3.0 to 0.5 g/bhp-hr).

Air to Fuel 

Ratio 

Controller; 

Lean Burn 

ICE—NG

NAFRCICENG NOx Air to Fuel 

Ratio 

Controller

Lean 

Burn 

ICE—

NG

PTNONIPM Known 10 12/5/2012 ABCD3

Selective 

Catalytic 

Reduction; 

Lean Burn 

ICE 4 

Stroke—NG

NSCRICE4SNG NOx Selective 

Catalytic 

Reduction

Lean 

Burn 

ICE—

NG

PTNONIPM Known 10 9/15/2013 ABCD1| 

ABCD2| 

ABCD3

SCR can be used on Lean Burn, NG engines. Assumed 

SCR can meet NOx emissions of 0.89 g/bh-hr. This is a 

Known technology, however there is indication that 

applicability is engine/unit specific.

Selective 

Catalytic 

Reduction; 

ICE—Diesel

NSCRICEDS NOx Selective 

Catalytic 

Reduction

ICE—

Diesel

PTNONIPM Known 7 9/15/2013 ABCD4 SCR can be used on Diesel engines.
D-3

Table D-02_Efficiencies

cmabbreviation

polluta

nt

local

e

Effec

tive 

Date

existing

measur

eabbr

neiexi

stingd

evcod

e

mine

missio

ns

maxemis

sions

controle

fficiency costyear costperton ruleeff

rulepe

n

equation

type

caprecfac

tor

discount

rate

capann

ratio

increme

ntalcpt details

NLECICENG NOx NA NA NA NA 0 365 80 2001 1,000 100 100 cpton 0.1424 7 7.025 NA

NLCICE2SNG NOx NA NA NA NA 0 365 97 2009 4,900 100 100 cpton 0.1424 7 7.024 NA

NLCICE2SLBNG NOx NA NA NA NA 365 0 97 2010 1,500 100 100 cpton 0.1424 7 7.024 NA Apply to large 

source types.

Assumed Interest 

Rate of 7 percent 

(not provided in 

documentation) 

to calculate 

annual costs.

NLCICE2SLBNG NOx NA NA NA NA 0 365 97 2010 38,000 100 100 cpton 0.1424 7 7.024 NA Apply to small 

source types.

NAFRCICENG NOx NA NA NA NA 0 365 80 2001 200 100 100 cpton 0.1424 7 7.023 NA

NSCRICE4SNG NOx NA NA NA NA 0 365 96 2001 2,900 100 100 cpton 0.1424 7 1.401 NA

NSCRICEDS NOx NA NA NA NA 0 365 90 2005 9,300 100 100 cpton 0.1098 7 2.45 NA
D-4

Table D-03_SCCs

cmabbreviation Source Classification Code Status

NLECICENG 20200252

NLECICENG 20200254

NLECICENG 20200255

NLECICENG 20200256

NLCICE2SNG 20200252

NLCICE2SNG 20200254

NLCICE2SNG 20200255

NLCICE2SNG 20200256

NLCICE2SLBNG 20200252

NLCICE2SLBNG 20200254

NLCICE2SLBNG 20200255

NLCICE2SLBNG 20200256

NLCICE2SLBNG 20200401

NLCICE2SLBNG 20200402

NLCICE2SLBNG 20200403

NAFRCICENG 20200252

NAFRCICENG 20200254

NAFRCICENG 20200255

NAFRCICENG 20200256

NSCRICE4SNG 20200252

NSCRICE4SNG 20200254

NSCRICE4SNG 20200255

NSCRICE4SNG 20200256

NSCRICEDS 20200102

NSCRICEDS 20200107
D-5

Table D-04_Equations

cmabbreviation cmeqntype pollutant costyear var1 var2 var3 var4 var5 var6 var7 var8 var9 var10

NSCRICE4SNG linear capital and annual NOx 2001 107.1 27186 83.64 14718

NLECICENG capital and annual NOx 2001 16019 0.0016 2280.8 0.0016

NAFRCICENG linear capital and annual NOx 2001 1.0337 4354.5 0.1852 619.99

Table D-06 References

Data Source Description

ABCD1 OTC 2012. Technical Information Oil and Gas Sector, Significant Stationary Sources of NOx Emissions. Final. October 17, 2012.

ABCD2 SJVAPCD 2003. RULE 4702—Internal Combustion Engines—Phase 2. Appendix B, Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Rule 4702 

(Internal Combustion Engines—Phase 2). San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. July 17, 2003.

www.arb.ca.gov/pm/pmmeasures/ceffect/rules/sjvapcd_4702.pdf

ABCD3 CARB 2001. Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for 

Stationary Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines. California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Stationary 

Source Division, Emissions Assessment Branch, Process Evaluation Section. November 2001.

ABCD4 EPA 2010. Alternative Control Techniques Document: Stationary Diesel Engines. March 5, 2010.
E-1

APPENDIX E

NOTES PROVIDED HERE TO EPA QUESTIONS ON LEAN BURN RICE 
E-2

EPA Question 1: What is the applicability of SCR to RICE, especially Lean Burn?

Notes for Question 1

In addition to the two documents cited in Section 5 of the report with costs for selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) for Lean Burn (LB) engines, there are several other references that 

indicate SCR is feasible for LB engines and several that provide input on technical issues related 

to SCR use for LB engines. In summary, from the references reviewed, SCR seems to be 

technically feasible in most instances for LB engines, however, SCR application may not be

feasible in all cases due to technical issues at individual sites and individual engines. In addition, 

SCR costs are higher relative to other NOx control techniques for LB engines. See more detailed 

discussion below.

SCR can be applied to LB engines, achieving greater than 90 percent NOx reductions 

(Table 4 on p. 6 provides a slightly different value, greater than 95 percent). The costs [assumed 

this referred to capital costs] ranged from $50/hp to $125/hp. No annual operating costs were 

provided. In discussions on p. 8 regarding “catalysts on IC engines” in general (including NSCR, 

SCR, oxidation, and Lean-NOx), it is noted that “Thousands of stationary IC engine catalyst 

applications have been effectively used for stationary IC engine gaseous emission control for 

five years or more. Some installations, however, do experience performance loss over time,”

however the text goes on to explain remedies for catalyst poisoning issues. Costs [capital] for 

SCR, LB ranged from $50 to $125/hp (no cost year provided). (MECA 1997)

The literature suggests that SCR is technically feasible for LB engines but there are 

problems that make SCR installation questionable. Two stroke (2S) LB engines are sensitive to 

changes in exhaust pressure, which could be problematic for retrofit of SCR on existing engines, 

but can be alleviated with proper design and sizing of airflow and exhaust components. This 

reference cited a presentation that indicated the following issues with SCR: applying SCR to 

pipeline engines is not feasible because the exhaust temperatures (T) are below the operating 

window for SCR or where SCR effectiveness is reduced; SCR installations are at unmanned 

facilities; and SCR has not been demonstrated for variable loads. However, the OTC 2012 

reference responded to each of these issues, stating that there are several manufacturers and 

suppliers that offer SCR systems that indicate their catalysts are capable of effectively operating 

over a wide range of exhaust gas T; modern software based controls and SCADA 

communication technologies allow operation from a remote location; and SCR can function 

properly over a broad range of loads given catalysts that are effective over wide T ranges, 

modern controls regulate fuel and air flows to ensure combustion O2 and T are at expected levels 
E-3

and to regulate reagent flow. A study conducted for retrofitting existing pipeline engines 

indicates that SCR is a high cost alternative to combustion improvements, primarily due to the 

high cost of ongoing reagent consumption. (p. 25-26) (There is a similar discussion for SCR for 

four stroke (4S) LB on p. 39-40; cited presentation at Gas Machinery Conference in October 

2011.) (OTC 2012)

Shell indicated they have installed SCR on diesel engines (LB) that they utilize in drilling 

rig operations. Shell indicated that have been able to achieve greater than 90 percent reduction in 

NOx emissions while encountering minimal operational issues (see p. 10). (OTC 2012)

The OTC 2012 document indicated that MECA has noted there have been limited 

examples to date of SCR retrofit on 2S LB engines as demonstration test programs, but the 

results of these programs have not been published (see p. 27). It appears that SCR for NOx does 

not appear to be technically infeasible generically but that individual 2S LB engine 

characteristics and installations may be greatly problematic or not cost effective, although this 

site-specific issue is not altogether different than other emission reduction technologies (see p.27, 

40). (OTC 2012)

The OTC 2012 document indicated that MECA has stated the commercial use of SCR 

systems for LB stationary engines have been in place since the mid-1980’s in Europe and since 

the early 1990s in the US. One MECA member company has installed over 400 SCR systems 

worldwide for stationary engines with varying fuel combinations, including dozens of NG 

compressor engines in the US. These 4S LB engines with urea-SCR achieve >90% NOx 

reduction (see p.40). (OTC 2012)

EF&EE announced in November 2010 that is received an order from Clean Air Power 

Inc. for 6 SCR systems, to be installed on large LB NG compressor engines at gas storage sites in 

TX and MS (see p.40). (OTC 2012)

Clean Air Power cited: 4 SCRs supplied at Pine Prairie Energy Center, Louisiana; 1 SCR 

supplied at EXTERRAN/TRESPALACIOS, Texas; and 4 SCRs supplied to EXTERRAN/LEAF 

River, Mississippi (see p.41). (OTC 2012)

A PowerPoint slide presentation from a MARAMA workshop discusses the use of SCR 

for RICE and LB. Johnson Mathey (JM) included SCR as a feasible control for LB engines in a 

presentation at a May 2011 MARAMA Workshop. (The SCR systems included Urea and 

Ethanol as reagents.) SCR operating temperatures range from 700 to 900°F for internal 

combustion (IC) engines and achieved 90 percent NOx reductions. The budgetary costs 
E-4

[assumed this referred to capital costs] ranged from $150/ hp for a 500 hp unit (approximately 

$75,000) to $42/hp for a 3000 hp unit (approximately $126,000) (cost year not provided). No 

annual operating costs were provided. JM cited 4 LB engine installations of SCR on gas 

compressors at 2 locations, including Loudon Compressor Station in Clarksburg, WV and Lodi 

Compressor/Storage in Kirby Hills, CA. (Chu 2011) These engines are listed in the following 

table:

SCR for Lean Burn Engines—Johnson Mathey presentation at 2007 MARAMA Workshop

Engine Model Engine hp NOx, g/bhp-hr NOx Reduction, %

CAT G3516 1,340 1.5 90%

CAT G3608 2,370 0.7 90%

CAT G3612 3,550 0.7 90%

CAT G3616 4,735 0.7 90%

References 

(MECA 1997). Emission Control Technology for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines: 

Status Report. Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA). July 1997.

(Chu 2011). NOx Control for Stationary Gas Engines. W. Chu, Johnson Mathey. Presented at 

Advances in Air Pollution Control Technology, MARAMA Workshop. May 19, 2011.

(OTC 2012). Technical Information Oil and Gas Sector, Significant Stationary Sources of NOx 

Emissions. Final. October 17, 2012.
E-5

EPA Question 2: What are credible estimates of the percentage of RICE NOx Emissions 

that are lean burn versus rich burn when RICE emissions are unspecified?

Notes for Question 2

There does not seem to be much information on NOx emission totals for LB and rich 

burn (RB) engines. A few references attempted to provide information on the numbers or 

populations of LB and RB engines. Several of the references highlighted surveys of engine 

populations and summary information from various engine databases. These data in general tend 

to point to a large LB engine population, however most of the references noted that RB engines

are typically not captured or covered in surveys, databases, or by permits because the RB engines

tend to be smaller in size. In general, larger engines tend to be LB and smaller engines tend to be 

RB. The ERLE 2009 study noted that approximately 73% of the 5,600 engines/horsepower 

capacity covered in their study of NG pipeline systems are LB, and approximately 6% are RB 

(the balance is not known). In the KSU 2011 database, approximately 66% of the 4,729 engines 

used in E&P at major sources are LB and 34% are RB. In addition, the EDF 2008 document 

cited a 2007 survey conducted for DFW NAA and AA that attempted to identify those engines 

that did not meet reporting requirement thresholds and were therefore not included in the TCEQ 

inventory. This reference, which included small engines, indicated that for smaller engines <500 

hp, approximately 96% are RB and 4% are LB. The reference also indicated that for larger 

engines >500 hp, there is approximately a 50-50 split of LB and RB engines and of horsepower 

capacity. The ETCG 2013 reference also highlights engines in the Barnett Shale region. Data 

from the TCEQ Barnett Shale Special Inventory (Phase I) survey indicated that the majority of 

engines in the Barnett Shale are RB (84%). For those engines <240 hp, 95% are RB and 5% are 

LB, however, in looking at those engines >240 hp, 59% are LB and 41% are RB. More details 

for each of these references are provided in the discussion that follows.

Note also that the emissions rate in g/bhp-hr for LB engines tend to be higher, and the 

emissions rate for RB engines tends to be lower. (See the tables under Question 4 of this 

appendix for relative emission rate values for LB and RB engines in various states and local 

districts.)

A summary of the information available from various references is provided below. 

The CARB 2001 reference indicated that LB engines tend to be larger in size, and smaller 

engines tend to be RB (p.B-4). (CARB 2001)

EPA received comments from the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America 

(INGAA) on the 2002 proposed rule, where EPA indicated that 156 of 168 large engines listed in 
E-6

the NOx SIP Call Inventory that have SIC codes associated with the NG transmission industry 

are LB engines (with the exception that the other 12 engines are no longer in service, are owned 

by a company not included in the industry database, or are duplicates). INGAA recommended 

that EPA assume all large NG stationary engines in the inventory are LB. (EPA 2003).

One prominent use of large Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) is to 

drive NG pipeline compressor stations; almost all engines affected by the NOx SIP Call Phase 2 

rule in IL (except for 3 engines) are used to compress NG at NG pipeline stations. (IEPA 2007) 

A 2009 ERLE study cited in this reference indicated there are 5,600 engines on the NG 

pipeline systems with a collective rating of 9,150,000 hp. That study further indicated that 

approximately 80 percent of the rated output was low speed 2S, low speed 4S integral engines 

and diesel medium speed engines converted to spark ignition (SI). Of these 80 percent of 

engines, 78 percent were 2S LB, 14 percent were 4S LB, and 8 percent were 4S RB. (On a rated 

horsepower basis, 80 percent was 2S LB, 15 percent was 4S LB, and 5 percent 4S RB) (p. 16). 

[On an overall basis, compared to the full 9,150,000 hp collective rating, 2S LB would be 

roughly 62%, 4S LB would be roughly 11%, and 4S RB would be roughly 6% of the overall 

rating/engines. So 73% would be LB, 6% would be RB, and the balance is not known.] (OTC 

2012)

Engine Type No. Engines, % Horsepower, %

2S LB 78 80

4S LB 14 15

4S RB 8 5

The DE 2012 document cited a 2003 Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI) 

document that identified 5,686 engines: 71% are LB and 29% are RB (based on dropping the 

turbine numbers in the table below) (p.19). (DE 2012) [These data may be repeated in OTC 

2012, as it looks fairly similar to the 2009 ERLE study data cited above from OTC 2012.]

2003 Pipeline Research Council International Data (PRCI)

Unit Type U.S. Total Units (%) Avg hp

2S LB 2,955 (44%) 2,113

4S LB 1,059 (16%) 1,844

RB 1,672 (25%) 589

Turbine 1,016 (15%) 6,121
E-7

Energy Information Agency (EIA) data cited in the OTC 2012 reference indicated there 

were 1201 NG mainline compressor stations in the U.S. in 2006, with combined rating of 

16,800,000 hp. Between 2007 and 2010, the Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) 

approved new compressor stations or upgrades to existing compressor facilities that were 

expected to add 2,600,000 hp (p. 16). (OTC 2012)

The Kansas State University (KSU) 2011 document included a database on 4,729 engines 

used in Exploration and Production (E&P) at major sources. LB engines accounted for 66 

percent of engines (17 percent are 2S and 49 percent are 4S), and RB engines accounted for 34 

percent. LB outnumbers RB among engines included in the database; because many engines 

rating less than 100 hp are not included, and because the majority of the smaller units are 4S RB, 

RB are actually underrepresented in the database. A listing of the engines (manufacturer and 

model), air to fuel (A/F) ratio type, cycle, and horsepower are included in Appendix I of the KSU 

2011 document. The database was not meant to collect every single engine in use but rather to 

provide a frequency distribution of engines. The data was pulled from multiple sources, 

including the State of Wyoming Engine Inventory Database, EPA ICCR Database, GTI/PRCI 

Engine and Turbine Database, and Database of Colorado and New Mexico Engines (from 

Universal Compression). The engine database likely includes only permitted engines, and lowerhp engines are underrepresented in the database. (pp. 5-7) (KSU 2011)

The EDF 2008 reference indicated most engines in Barnett Shale area of Texas are 100 to 

500 hp but some large engines of 1000+ hp are also used. (EDF 2008)

The EDF 2008 reference indicated that the TCEQ Point Source Emissions Inventory 

(PSEI) does not include a substantial fraction of compressor engine emissions. Most of the 

missing engines in the DFW NAA were units with emissions below the reporting thresholds, but 

the combined emissions from large numbers of these engines can be substantial (pp. 13-14). The 

2007 DFW Engine survey indicated there were approximately 680,000 hp of installed engine 

capacity in DFW NAA not previously reported to the TCEQ PSEI (p. 14). The report also 

estimated that there is approximately 132,000 hp of engines in Attainment Area (AA) counties 

within the Barnett Shale that don’t report to PSEI (non-PSEI) (p. 14). The LB and RB engine 

data from the 2007 DFW Engine Survey for the DFW NAA is provided in the table below. In 

this survey, there seem to be fairly even numbers of LB (51%) and RB (49%) engines in the 

>500 hp category, and there seems to be fairly even horsepower capacity for the LB and RB 

engines. For smaller engines that are <500 hp, there are significantly more RB engines (736 
E-8

engines, or 96%) than LB engines (27 engines, or 4%). In addition, for the smaller engines <500 

hp, the horsepower capacity for RB represents 15% and for LB is <1%. (EDF 2008)

Installed Engine Capacity in 2007 DFW Engine Survey by Engine Type and Size, in DFW 

NAA (EDF 2008)

Engine 

Type

Engine 

Size, hp

Number of 

Engines

Percent of 

Engines,

%

Typical Size, 

hp

Installed 

Capacity, hp

Percent of 

Installed 

Capacity, 

%

RB <50 12 1.03% 50 585 0.086%

RB 50–500 724 62% 140 101,000 15%

RB >500 200 17% 1,400 280,000 41%

LB <500 27 2.3% 185 4,940 0.72%

LB >500 206 18% 1,425 294,000 44%

The EDF 2008 reference looked at all of the compressor engines in the Barnett Shale 

region, including both the engines located within the DFW NAA and the engines in the DFW 

AA (including those larger engines that report to the PSEI and those non-PSEI engines). New 

TCEQ rules became effective in 2009 to reduce NOx from the subset of engines located in the 

DFW NAA that typically are not reported to the PSEI (due to their small size) for major sources 

(p. 25). Engines that are located outside the DFW NAA are not subject to the 2009 rule. As 

shown in the table below, a 50% reduction of emissions from 2007 to 2009 was estimated in 

DFW NAA, taking into account the growth, regulation affect, and NSCR installations. For AA 

engines, emissions will increase from 2007 to 2009 due to growth and the fact that no regulation 

applies (these engines not subject to 2009 engine regulation) (p. 19). (EDF 2008)

NOx Emissions from Compressor Engines in Barnett Shale of Texas (EDF 2008)

Area 2007 NOx Emissions, tpd 2009 NOx Emissions, tpd

DFW NAA engines 32 16

AA engines 20 31

Barnett Shale engines, total 52 47

The reference then looked at emission reductions for extending the 2009 rule to all 

engines in the Barnett Shale (including those in the AA). By extending the 2009 engine rule, 
E-9

NOx emissions from AA engines would drop by approximately 6.5 tpd (p.25) (this approach 

reduces emissions from a large number of engines, in particular RB engines between 50 to 500 

hp). (EDF 2008)

The ETCG 2013 reference indicated that analysis of test reports at the TCEQ Tyler office 

showed 68 compressor engines: 9 engines (13%) <240 hp and 59 engines (87%) ≥240 hp (and 

69% of all engines ≥500 hp) (p.11). (A graph showing the distribution of the hp for all 68 

engines is shown on p.12 of the reference document.) (ETCG 2013)

The ETCG 2013 reference discussed TCEQ Barnett Shale Special Inventory (Phase I)

survey data. The table below is a summary of the engine horsepower distribution. (A graph 

showing the distribution of NG engines in the Barnett Shale region is shown in Figure 5-1 on 

p. 21 of the reference document.) The majority of engines in the Barnett Shale are RB and are 

<240 hp, see the two tables below. This data set shows that smaller hp engines are predominantly 

RB, with 2,089 engines <240 hp are RB (95%) and 104 engines (5%) are LB. For engines >240 

hp, 327 engines (59%) are LB and 230 engines (41%) are RB.

2009 Equipment Inventory of Stationary NG Engines by Horsepower for Barnett Shale 

Region. (ETCG 2013)

Engine Size Total Engines

Percent of 

Total 

Engines

Engine Type, 

RB or LB

Number of 

Engines

Percent of Each 

Size Category

0 to 50 hp 317 12% RB 302 95%

LB 15 4.7%

50 to 240 hp 1,876 68% RB 1,787 95%

LB 89 4.7%

>240 hp 557 20% RB 230 41%

LB 327 59%
E-10

Barnett Shale Special Inventory Phase I Equipment Survey Data on Stationary Gas-Fired 

Engines for 2009. (ETCG 2013)

Engine counts

<240 hp ≥240 hp Total

RB and LB

2,193 557 2,750

RB only

2,089 230 2,319

LB only

104 327 431

The CO DPHE reference indicates that large NG RICE represent 16% of the statewide 

point source NOx emissions (16,199 tpy of 101,818 tpy) and 73% of the ICE NOx emissions 

(16,199 tpy of 22,210 tpy) (p. 1). (CO DPHE)

Example Emissions Estimates: It is difficult to draw conclusions for the emissions from 

LB versus RB from the data provided. However, some assumptions could be made to help draw 

conclusions for the defined scenario. If assume that the total capacity between LB and RB in the 

ERLE study is more representative of the total reporting population than the 50–50 split in the 

EDF study; assume that operating hours are similarly distributed for both LB and RB; and if the 

EFs tend to be higher for LB than for RB engines, then it is likely that 90% plus of the total 

emissions are from LB.

References

(CARB 2001). Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available 

Retrofit Control Technology for Stationary Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines. 

California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Stationary Source 

Division, Emissions Assessment Branch, Process Evaluation Section. November 2001.

(IEPA 2007). Technical Support Document for Controlling NOx Emissions from Stationary 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines and Turbines. AQPSTR 07-01. Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Planning Section, Division of Air 

Pollution Control, Bureau of Air. March 19, 2007.

(EPA 2003). Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines: Technical Support 

Document for NOx SIP Call. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. D. Grano and B. 

Neuffer. October 2003.
E-11

(EDF 2008). Emissions from Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale Area and 

Opportunities for Cost Effective Improvements. Conducted by Department of 

Environmental and Civil Engineering, Southern Methodist University, for Environmental 

Defense Fund. Peer-Review Draft. September 30, 2008.

(KSU 2011). Final Report: Cost-Effective Reciprocating Engine Emissions Controls and 

Monitoring for E&P Field and Gathering Engines. K. Hohn and S. Nuss-Warren, Kansas 

State University. November 2011.

(OTC 2012). Technical Information Oil and Gas Sector, Significant Stationary Sources of NOx 

Emissions. Final. October 17, 2012. [This document focuses on Offshore Gulf of 

Mexico, Rocky Mountains, Southwest, and Mid-Continent areas.]

(ETCG 2013). Gas Compressor Engine Study for Northeast Texas, for East Texas Council of 

Governments. Prepared by ENVIRON International Corporation, for East Texas Council 

of Governments. June 2013.

(CO DPHE). Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) Source Category, Reasonable 

Progress Evaluation for RICE Source Category. Colorado Department of Public Health 

and Environment—Air Pollution Control Division.
E-12

EPA Question 3: What is the effect of NOx SIP call controls on RICE in NOx SIP call 

states? That is, what percent reduction and types of controls have gone into place in states 

affected by the NOx SIP call? 

Notes for Question 3

The applicability, reduction achieved, and cost for RICE NOx controls are often engine 

specific and highly variable. (DE 2012) (OTC 2012)

Common NOx control techniques are provided in the table below, along with NOx 

emission reductions achievable. (References from other areas outside of the NOx SIP call states 

also provided details on controls and emissions reductions achieved by these controls and are 

included in the table.)

Effectiveness of Combustion Control Technologies and Add-On Controls

Control Technique (OTC 2012) (KSU 2011) (CARB 2001) (CO DPHE)

2 Stroke, LB

Improved combustion air 

flow, Turbocharger 

(p. 18, 31): up to 

75%

Up to 90%;

0.5 to 2 g/bhp-hr

(increases fuel 

economy; may 

increase CO) (p. 9)

— —

Retard ignition timing (p. 54): diesel, 10% 

(reduces engine 

efficiency; increases 

PM)

Up to 10% (increase 

fuel economy; may 

increase CO) (p. 9)

(p. B-7,8): 15 to 

30% (increases 

fuel consumption; 

increases VOC, 

HAP)

20% (pp. 5-7); 

$310 to 

$2,000/ton 

(p. 8)

Improved air fuel mixing, 

High Pressure Fuel Injection 

(p. 18, 31): up to 

90%

— — —

Advanced In-cylinder mixing — 30 to 70% (p. 11) — —

Precombustion chamber 

(PCC) ignition system 

(p. 19, 31-32): up to 

90%

1 g/bhp-hr (p. 10) — —

Micro Precombustion 

chamber (MPCC), hybrid of 

High energy Ignition system 

and PCC

— 2 to 4 g/bhp-hr (p. 10) — —

Screw-in PCC — 1 g/bhp-hr (p. 10) — —

Autobalance cylinders (p. 23): not 

provided

— — —

(continued)
E-13

Effectiveness of Combustion Control Technologies and Add-On Controls (continued)

Control Technique (OTC 2012) (KSU 2011) (CARB 2001) (CO DPHE)

2 Stroke, LB (cont.)

Air to Fuel Ratio Controller 

(AFRC) 

(p. 19, 32): not 

provided

Not provided; use in 

combo with Increased 

air flow, or 

postcombustion 

Catalyst; a few 

thousand $ for small 

engine to $30K for 

larger engines (p. 12).

(p. B-8): not 

provided (fuel 

consumption 

penalty of 3%; 

may increase CO, 

VOC)

5 to 30% 

(pp. 5-7); $320 

to $8,300/ton 

(p. 7)

Combustion modifications, 

Layered Combustion controls 

(p. 25): 60 to 90%; 

range of 0.5 to 3 

g/bhp-hr

— — —

4 stroke, LB

EGR and NSCR (p. 32): (emissions 

lower than SCR)a

— — —

Combustion modifications, 

Layered Combustion controls 

(p. 38): 90%; range 

of 0.5 to 2 g/bhp-hr

— — —

Engines (general) or LB

High energy ignition system 

(HEIS)

(p. 18, 31, 44): 10% 2.5 to 3 g/bhp-hr

(pp. 9-10)

(p. B-12): 200 

ppm NOx

—

Low emission combustion 

(LEC)/precombustion 

chamber retrofit (PCC) [also 

applicable to RB]

— — (p. B-10): 80%

(may increase 

VOC, CO)

—

Turbocharging/

supercharging, and 

Aftercooling

(p. 18): Up to 75% — (p. B-13): 3 to 

35% for 

Aftercooling

(may reduce 

VOC, CO; 

increases engine 

efficiency, power 

rating)

—

EGR (p. 55): diesel, 

>40% (loss of fuel 

efficiency; loss of 

engine output)

Still under 

development for NG 

engines; not cost 

effective at this time

(p. 11).

(p. B-14): 30%

(reduces engine 

peak power; 

reduces fuel 

efficiency by 2 to 

12%)

—

Ignition system improvement — — (p. B-11-2): not 

provided (may 

increase VOC, 

CO)

—

(continued)
E-14

Effectiveness of Combustion Control Technologies and Add-On Controls (continued)

Control Technique (OTC 2012) (KSU 2011) (CARB 2001) (CO DPHE)

Engines (general) or LB 

(cont.)

Homogeneous charge 

compression ignition 

(HCCI), combines best 

features of SI and CI engines

— Still in R&D phase, 

no reduction or cost 

info available 

(reduces PM; high 

efficiency) (p. 11-12).

— —

Fuel switching, 

Hydrogen/NG blended fuel

— 40 to 50% (p. 12)

Still under 

development, no cost 

info available; use of 

H2 blend removes 

need for PCC; H2 fuel 

would need to be 

available in the field.

— —

Selective Catalytic Reduction 

(SCR) 

(p. 19, 32, 55): 50 to 

95% (reduces THC, 

CO)

80 to 90% (can 

release NH3) (p. 13)

(p. B-23): >80% 80 to 90% 

(pp. 5-7); $430 

to $4,900/ton

(p. 9)

Lean-NOx catalysts (p. 55): diesel, 10 to 

50%

Up to 80% (reduces 

CO, HC by 60%; 

reduces fuel economy 

by 3%) (p. 14)

(p. B-24): diesel, 

25 to 50% 

(increases fuel 

consumption; 

may increase 

VOC, PM)

—

NOxTech — — (p. B-25): 80 to 

90%; (decreases 

CO, VOC, PM by 

80%; fuel penalty 

5 to 10%)

—

Lean NOx traps (p. 55): diesel, up to 

90%

— — —

NOx Adsorber Technology 

(SCONOx)

— — (p. B-27): >90% 

on diesel engine 

<100 hp; [2 ppmv 

on NG turbine]

—

Selective noncatalytic 

reduction (SNCR) [also 

applicable to RB]

— — — 50 to 95% 

(pp. 5-7)

(continued)
E-15

Effectiveness of Combustion Control Technologies and Add-On Controls (continued)

Control Technique (OTC 2012) (KSU 2011) (CARB 2001) (CO DPHE)

Engines (general) or LB 

(cont.)

Fuel switching, methanol — — (p. B-16): 30% 

for conversion 

from NG to 

methanol (can 

generate 

formaldehyde 

emissions)

—

Hybrid system, modification 

of dual bed NSCR system

— — (p. B-22): 3 to 4 

ppm NOx

—

Use of electric motors in 

place of combustion engines

— — (p. B-27): >60% 60 to 100% 

(pp. 5-7); $100 

to $4,700/ton 

[not include 

full costs] 

(p. 9)

RB

Nonselective catalytic 

reduction (NSCR) plus 

AFRC

(p. 45, 49-51): 90 to 

99% (reduces CO, 

VOC)

>90%, < 1 g/bhp-hr 

(reduces CO, HC) 

(p. 13)

(p. B-19-20): 

>90% (reduces 

CO >80%; 

reduces 

CO>50%; 

increases fuel 

consumption)

80 to 90% 

(pp. 5-7); 

Capital cost is 

$35,000; O&M 

is $6,000; 

Annualized 

capital is 

$4,851; TAC is 

$10,851; 

$571/ton (p. 8)

Convert RB to LB (p. 45): not 

provided

— — —

EGR (p. 49): up to 80% 

(increase power 

output by 10%; 

decrease fuel 

consumption by 

7%)

— — —

Pre-stratified charge 

(converts RB to LB)

— For 4S, RB, 2 g/bhphr (may de-rate 

engine power by 

20%; costs 

significant) (p. 11)

(p. B-15): >80% 

(improved fuel 

efficiency)

—
E-16

aSome industry literature suggests that some particular 4S RB SI reciprocating engines can be converted to LB 

configurations with the accompanying LB engine NOx reduction capabilities. One vendor indicates that 

conversion to a LB configuration and the use of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) delivers the advantages of a LB 

engine’s efficiency and the RB engine’s capability of utilizing NSCR for NOx control. The ability to convert a RB 

engine to a LB configuration is highly unit specific and does appear to have had widespread application in 

industry (p. 45). (OTC 2012)

Illinois: IEPA projected 2007 NOx emissions from 28 engines subject to the NOx SIP 

call to be 6,618 ton/season. NOx emission reductions from these sources were estimated to be 

5,422 ton/season, and controlled NOx emissions levels were estimated to be 1,196 ton/season.

(So baseline emissions were estimated to be 6,618 ton/season and controlled emissions were 

estimated to be 1,196 ton/season.) (IEPA 2007)

IEPA 2002 base year emissions inventory was 23,347 tpy NOx emitted from RICE and

turbines, or approximately 8.4 percent of total point source NOx emissions (277,899 tpy NOx 

emissions from all point sources in Illinois) (p. 12). (IEPA 2007)

In addition to the NOx SIP Call requirements, IEPA also included additional units in its 

NOx regulation. NOx SIP Call units were to comply by May 2007, and additional units in NAA 

and AA were to comply in 2009, 2011, and 2012 (p. 51). The IL regulation will potentially affect 

202 RICE engines and 36 turbines and reduce NOx emissions by 5,422 ton/season in 2007 ozone 

control season (p. 10). (IEPA 2007) [Full implementation of the IL regulation in 2012, to include 

additional units in NAA and AA counties down to the 500 hp size [28 NOx SIP Call units plus 

an additional 246 engines], was projected to reduce NOx emissions statewide by 17,082 tpy and 

7,206 ton/season, which is 65 percent reduction on an annual basis and 55 percent reduction in 

O3 season emissions (pp. 11 and 56). Uncontrolled NOx emissions in 2012 were projected to be 

21,532 tpy and 9,134 ton/season, for those units included under the full implementation of the 

rule (p. 56). (IEPA 2007)]

Other Available Information

Additional RB control technologies and data are available in the OTC 2012.

Additional Diesel control technologies and data are available in OTC 2012.

References

(CARB 2001). Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available 

Retrofit Control Technology for Stationary Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines. 

California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Stationary Source 

Division, Emissions Assessment Branch, Process Evaluation Section. November 2001.
E-17

(IEPA 2007). Technical Support Document for Controlling NOx Emissions from Stationary 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines and Turbines. AQPSTR 07-01. Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Planning Section, Division of Air 

Pollution Control, Bureau of Air. March 19, 2007.

(KSU 2011). Final Report: Cost-Effective Reciprocating Engine Emissions Controls and 

Monitoring for E&P Field and Gathering Engines. K. Hohn and S. Nuss-Warren, Kansas 

State University. November 2011.

(DE 2012) Background Information, Oil and Gas Sector, Significant Sources of NOx Emissions. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality.

(OTC 2012). Technical Information Oil and Gas Sector, Significant Stationary Sources of NOx 

Emissions. Final. October 17, 2012.

(CO DPHE). Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) Source Category, Reasonable 

Progress Evaluation for RICE Source Category. Colorado Department of Public Health 

and Environment – Air Pollution Control Division.
E-18

EPA Question 4: What are typical or realistic baseline and controlled NOx emissions 

factors (grams/hp-hr) for RICE in the OTC states? 

Notes for Question 4

NOx control requirements for several of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) states 

were provided for Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, based on a 1994 

STAPPA/ALAPCO document (p. 45). (IEPA 2007) These could potentially be used as 

maximum EF for RICE units. NOx control requirements are listed in the following table.

NOx Control Requirements for RICE in Some OTC States and Other States

State Covered NOx Control Level Reference

Connecticut ≥3 MMBtu/hr (1175 hp) Liquid-fired, CI: 8 g/bhp-hr (584 ppm) IEPA 2007

New York RACT for Major 

Facilities of NOx, Severe 

O3 NAA ≥200 hp and 

Rest of state ≥400 hp

 Thru March 31, 2005, NG, RICE, LB: 3 

g/bhp-hr (220 ppm)

 After April 1, 2005, LB: 1.5 g/bhp-hr (110 

ppm)

 Thru March 31, 2005, Liquid-fired, CI: 9 

g/bhp-hr (657 ppm)

 After April 1, 2005: 2.3 g/bhp-hr (168 ppm)

OTC 2012, DE 

2012, IEPA 2007

New York 

(RACT)

Major facilities >25 tpy, 

NYC and Lower Orange 

Co: ≥200 kW

Rest of state, major 

facilities >100 tpy: ≥400 

kW

 NG: 1.5 g/bhp-hr

 Landfill or digester gas: 2.0 g/bhp-hr

New Jersey  NG, LB, ≥500 hp: 2.5 g/bhp-hr (182 ppm)

 Liquid-fired, CI, ≥500 hp: 8 g/bhp-hr (584 

ppm)

IEPA 2007

New Jersey 

(RACT)

≥148 kW

Group of 2 or more 

engines, each at ≥37 to 

<148 kW, but total 

combined power ≥148 

kW

 Gas, LB: 1.5 g/bhp-hr, or 80% reduction

 Gas, RB: 1.5 g/bhp-hr

New Jersey 

(RACT)

≥37 kW  Commenced on or after March 7, 2007: 

0.9 g/bhp-hr

 Modified on or after March 7, 2007: 0.9 

g/bhp-hr, or 90% reduction

Maryland NG pipeline engines with 

>15% capacity factor

NA IEPA 2007

Other States and Areas

Illinois NA  3 g/bhp-hr (210 ppm) NA

(continued)
E-19

NOx Control Requirements for RICE in Some OTC States and Other States (continued)

State Covered NOx Control Level Reference

Other States and Areas (cont.)

SJVAPCD 

(amended 

2011Aug18)

Rule 4702

ICE, SI and CI, 

nameplate rating ≥25 hp

 2S, LB, NG, <100 hp: 75 ppmvd

 LB limited use or Gas compression: 65 

ppmvd

 LB, all others: 11 ppmvd

OTC 2012

Texas Oil & Gas Handling and 

Production Facilities

 2S, SI, LB, ≥500 hp:

– Mfg before 9/23/1982: 8 g/bhp-hr

– Mfg before 6/18/1992, <825 hp: 8 g/bhphr 

– Mfg btwn 9/23/1982 and 6/18/1992, 

>825hp: 5 g/bhp-hr

– Mfg btwn 6/18/1992 and 6/1/2010: 2 

g/bhp-hr (except 5 g/bhp-hr at reduced 

speed and torque 80-100%)

– Mfg after 6/1/2010: 1 g/bhp-hr

OTC 2012

Texas Oil & Gas Handling and 

Production Facilities 

 4S, SI, LB:

– Mfg before 9/23/1982, ≥500hp: 5 g/bhp-hr 

(except 8 g/bhp-hr at reduced speed and 

torque 80-100%)

– Mfg before 6/18/1992, <825 hp: 5 g/bhphr (except 8 g/bhp-hr at reduced speed and 

torque 80-100%)

– Mfg btwn 9/23/1982 and 6/18/1992, 

>825hp: 5 g/bhp-hr

– Mfg btwn 6/18/1992 and 6/1/2010, 

≥500hp: 2 g/bhp-hr (except 5 g/bhp-hr at 

reduced speed and torque 80-100%)

– Mfg after 6/1/2010, ≥500hp: 1 g/bhp-hr

 After 1/1/2030, no 4S LB SI engine NOx 

emissions shall exceed 2 g/bhp-hr regardless 

of manufacture date.

OTC 2012

Texas Oil & Gas Handling and 

Production Facilities

 4S SI, LB, <500hp:

 Mfg before 7/1/2008: 2 g/bhp-hr 

 After 1/1/2030: no 4S LB SI engine NOx 

emissions shall exceed 2 g/bhp-hr regardless 

of manufacture date.

OTC 2012

Texas

(NAA major 

sources)

RACT, Major ICI, O3 

NAA, Beaumont-Port 

Arthur O3 NAA Major 

sources

 NG, SI, RICE, LB ≥300 hp: 3 g/bhp-hr

 NG, SI, RICE, RB, ≥300 hp: 2 g/bhp-hr

OTC 2012, DE 

2012

Texas

(NAA minor 

sources)

Combustion Control at 

Minor Sources in O3

NAA, HoustonGalveston-Brazoria

 NG, RICE, >50 hp: 0.5 g/bhp-hr DE 2012, ETCG 

2013

Texas O3 NAA, Dallas Ft. 

Worth

 RB, >50 hp: 0.5 g/hp-hr

 LB, >50 hp:

– Installed or moved before June 2007: 0.7 

g/hp-hr

– Installed or moved after June 2007: 0.5 

g/hp-hr

EDF 2008; 

ETCG 2013

(continued)
E-20

NOx Control Requirements for RICE in Some OTC States and Other States (continued)

State Covered NOx Control Level Reference

Other States and Areas (cont.)

Texas East Texas Combustion 

Rule (existing engines 

comply by March 1, 

2010; new engines 

comply at startup.)

 RB, NG, RICE, 240 to 500 hp: 1 g/hp-hr

 RB, NG, RICE, ≥500 hp: 0.5 g/hp-hr

 RB, Landfill gas, RICE, ≥500 hp: 0.6 g/hp-hr

ETCG 2013

Colorado Regulation 7, RICE, LB, 

NG, New, modified, 

relocated

 After July 1, 2007, ≥500 hp: 2 g/bhp-hr

 After July 1, 2010, ≥500 hp: 1 g/bhp-hr

 After January 1, 2008, 100 to 500 hp: 2 g/bhphr

 After January 1, 2011, 100 to 500 hp: 1 g/bhphr

OTC 2012; CO 

DPHE 

USEPA Part 

60, subpart 

JJJJ (NSPS)

(final 

2008Jan18)

NG, SI, ICE  Mfg after 7/1/2008, ≤25 hp, Class I: 11.0 

g/hp-hr of NMHC + NOx combined

 Mfg after 7/1/2008, ≤25 hp, Class I-B: 27.6 

g/hp-hr of NMHC + NOx combined

 Mfg after 7/1/2008, ≤25 hp, Class II: 8.4 g/hphr of NMHC + NOx combined

 Mfg after 7/1/2008, 25 to 100 hp: 2.8 g/hp-hr 

of HC + NOx combined

ETGC 2013

USEPA Part 

60, subpart 

JJJJ (NSPS)

(final 

2008Jan18)

SI, NG and SI, LB, LPG, 

100 to 500 hp

 Mfg after 7/1/2008: 2 g/bhp-hr

 Mfg after 1/1/2011: 1 g/bhp-hr

ETCG 2013

USEPA Part 

60, subpart 

JJJJ (NSPS)

(final 

2008Jan18)

NG and LPG, SI, LB, 

500 to 1350 hp

 Mfg after 7/1/2008: 2 g/bhp-hr

 Mfg after 7/1/2010: 1 g/bhp-hr

OTC 2012

USEPA Part 

60, subpart 

JJJJ (NSPS)

(final 

2008Jan18)

SI, NG and SI, LB, LPG 

(except LB 500 to 1350 

hp)

 Mfg after 7/1/2007: 2 g/bhp-hr ETCG 2013
E-21

NOx Control Requirements for RICE in Local Areas.

State or 

Area Criteria NOx control level Reference

SCAQMD 

(July 2010)

Rule 1110.2 Emissions 

from Gaseous and Liquid 

Fueled Engines

 ≥500 hp: 0.5 g/bhp-hr (36 ppmvd)

 <500 hp: 0.6 g/bhp-hr (45 ppmvd)

 After July 1, 2010, ≥500 hp: 0.15 g/bhp-hr 

(11 ppmvd)

 After July 1, 2010, <500 hp: 0.6 g/bhp-hr 

(45 ppmvd)

 After July 1, 2011, All: 0.15 g/bhp-hr (11 

ppmvd)

OTC 2012

For engines with unknown pre-rule emissions, NOx emissions were assumed to be 

16.4 g/bhp-hr for 2S and 18.9 g/bhp-hr for 4S. (DE 2012) 

A list of Stack test results for engines in PA that are >500 hp are given in Appendix A, 

Table 3 of the PA DEP 2013 reference (p. 53). (PA DEP 2013) [Capital] costs for NSCR, RB 

ranged from $10 to $12/bhp. (p. 9) NSCR, RB ranged from $10 to $15/bhp (slightly different 

value given here). (p. 16) (MECA 1997)

IC Engine Typical Emissions Levels (MECA 1997)

Engine Type

Lambda (Actual A/F ratio to 

Stoichiometric A/F ratio) Mode NOx, g/bhp-hr

NG 0.98 Rich 8.3

0.99 Rich 11.0

1.06 Lean 18.0

1.74 Lean 0.7

Diesel 1.6–3.2 Lean 11.6

Dual Fuel 1.6–1.9 Lean 4.1

For RB, CARB 2001 document has Costs for NSCR w/o AFRC achieving 96%

reduction. Capital costs ranged from $11,000 to $44,000; Annual costs ranged from $8,200 to 

$18,000; and cost effectiveness ranged from $2,100/ton to $300/ton NOx reduction (p. V-2 to 

V-3). (CARB 2001)

For RB, CARB 2001 document has Costs for Pre-stratified Charge, achieving 80% 

reduction. Capital costs ranged from $10,000 to $47,000; Annual costs ranged from $2,700 to 
E-22

$11,000; and cost effectiveness ranged from $800/ton to $200/ton NOx reduction (pp. V-2 to V3). (CARB 2001)

CARB 2001 document has costs for Ignition Timing Retard (ITR), although the 

description of the combustion technology indicates it is less popular on Stationary engines than 

mobile source engines (pp. V-2, B-7 to B-8). (CARB 2001)

The EDF 2008 reference provided NOx EF for engines in the Bartlett Shale region. The 

document notes that extending the 2009 engine rules in Barnett Shale to counties outside the 

DFW NAA would likely result in many engine operators installing NSCR on RB engines. NSCR 

costs were cited as follows: $330/ton (IEPA 2007); $92 to $105/ton (EPA 2006); and $112 to 

$183/ton (northeast Texas 2005 report). Another control technique reviewed in this report 

included replacement of compressor engines with electric motors. There are multiple 

compressors driven by electric motors throughout Texas (p. 26). Use of electric motors instead of 

gas-fired engines eliminates combustion emissions (p. 27). The costs are time and site specific, 

based on the cost of electricity, cost of NG, hours of operation per year, number of compressors,

size of compressor, etc. (EDF 2008)

NOx Emission Factors for Engines Identified in DFW 2007 Engine Survey (EDF 2008)

2007 EF 2009 EF

Engine 

Type

Engine 

Size, hp NOx, g/hp-hr Engine Type Engine Size, hp NOx, g/hp-hr

RB <50 13.6 RB <50 13.6

RB 50–500 13.6 RB 50–500 0.5

RB >500 0.9 RB >500 0.5

LB <500 6.2 LB, installed or 

moved before June 

2007

<500 0.62

LB >500 0.9 LB, installed or 

moved after June 

2007, 

<500 0.5

___ ___ ___ LB, installed or 

moved before June 

2007

>500 0.7

___ ___ ___ LB, installed or 

moved after June 2007

>500 0.5
E-23

References

(MECA 1997). Emission Control Technology for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines: 

Status Report. Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA). July 1997.

(CARB 2001). Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available 

Retrofit Control Technology for Stationary Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engines. 

California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Stationary Source 

Division, Emissions Assessment Branch, Process Evaluation Section. November 2001.

(IEPA 2007). Technical Support Document for Controlling NOx Emissions from Stationary 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines and Turbines. AQPSTR 07-01. Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Quality Planning Section, Division of Air 

Pollution Control, Bureau of Air. March 19, 2007.

(EDF 2008). Emissions from Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale Area and 

Opportunities for Cost Effective Improvements. Conducted by Department of 

Environmental and Civil Engineering, Southern Methodist University, for Environmental 

Defense Fund. Peer-Review Draft. September 30, 2008.

(DE 2012) Background Information, Oil and Gas Sector, Significant Sources of NOx Emissions. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality.

(OTC 2012). Technical Information Oil and Gas Sector, Significant Stationary Sources of NOx 

Emissions. Final. October 17, 2012.

PA DEP 2013. Technical Support Document General Permit GP-5. Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality. January 31, 2013.

(ETCG 2013). Gas Compressor Engine Study for Northeast Texas, for East Texas Council of 

Governments. Prepared by ENVIRON International Corporation, for East Texas Council 

of Governments. June 2013.

(CO DPHE). Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) Source Category, Reasonable 

Progress Evaluation for RICE Source Category. Colorado Department of Public Health 

and Environment—Air Pollution Control Division.
E-24

EPA Question 5: Using FERC data or other data sources, what is the relationship between 

RICE model and age, and emissions (both for baseline and with controls)? In particular, 

what is the relationship for RICE built before the imposition of the SI (spark ignition, 

natural gas-fired) RICE NSPS in 2007? 

Notes for Question 5

The DE 2012 reference stated that many of the installed mainline NG compressors are of 

the age (in excess of 40 years old) to have pre-dated modern original equipment manufacturer 

(OEM) installed NOx emission controls and otherwise applicable new source performance 

standards (NSPS). There is little information on the number of units that may have undergone 

NOx modifications as a result of federal or State rules and regulations. The reference cited a 

2003 Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI) document that identified 5,686 engines: 

71% are LB and 29% are RB (based on dropping the turbine numbers in the table below). The 

average age for each unit type is shown in the following table. [These data are repeated in OTC 

2012.] [Based on these data, it is estimated that the LB and RB engines are 37 years old on 

average (based on dropping the turbine numbers in the table below).] (p. 19) (DE 2012)

2003 Pipeline Research Council International Data (PRCI)

Unit Type U.S Total Units (%) Average Age (as of 2003) Avg hp

2S LB 2,955 (44%) 42 2,113

4S LB 1,059 (16%) 33 1,844

RB 1,672 (25%) 32 589

Turbine 1,016 (15%) 24 6,121

The OTC 2012 reference indicated that many of the reciprocating engines driving 

mainline NG compressors are in excess of 40 years old, pre-dating any applicable modern OEM 

installed NOx emission control and any otherwise applicable NSPS NOx controls (p. 16). (OTC 

2012)

The DE 2012 reference discussed a 2005 study conducted for NG field gathering engines 

in Eastern Texas; the study was able to determine the age only for a very small portion of the 

engines, and the engine age ranged from 2 to 25 years. The output ratings of engines in the study 

ranged from 26 to 1478 hp, with the majority rated between 50 and 200 hp (p. 12). (DE 2012)

The DE 2012 reference indicated they reviewed MARAMA’s 2007 Point Source 

Inventory and 2007 FERC data. The 2007 FERC data are provided as Attachment III to the 
E-25

reference. The two sets of data did not match: 2007 MARAMA data indicated 107 compressor 

facilities, and 2007 FERC data indicated 150 compressor facilities. The reviewed databases did 

not provide any information regarding NOx emission rates (g/bhp-hr, ppmvd). NOx emission 

rates were obtained for a small number of prime movers, through operating permits: 2SLB range 

from 1 to 13.3 g/bhp-hr; 4SLB range from 0.5 to 6 g/bhp-hr; and 4SRB were 3 g/bhp-hr. The 

data are not sufficient to estimate actual NOx emission rates and NOx reductions. Note that the 

FERC data addresses large entities, and smaller companies may not be required to report data to 

FERC. The 2007 OTC compressors from FERC are provided in the following table. (DE 2012)

State No. Compressors Total Rated hp

CT 10 35,300

MA 15 25,702

MD 17 52,250

ME 4 33,244

NJ 36 129,130

NY 120 359,487

PA 467 1,331,164

RI 6 29,170

VA (OTR area only) 22 49,390

The KSU 2011 reference discussed control technologies testing performed in the 

laboratory on a 1966 Ajax DP-115 (Lean Burn) that has none of the low emissions controls that 

are currently OEM standard. The published emission factor (EF) for this engine is 4.4 g/bhp-hr, 

and the emissions from actual testing were 4.69±0.18 g/bhp-hr (the Lab testing results are 

discussed on pp. 19-27). There is additional discussion of Field testing conducted on multiple LB 

engines with NOx emission control techniques, including (1) Increased air flow, and 

precombustion chamber (PCC) screw-in type, (2) PCC screw-in type and Upgraded 

turbocharger, (3) Integral PCC and high-output turbocharger (pp. 27-29). Discussion of Field 

testing conducted on two RB engines with NOx emission control techniques (p. 29). Integrated 

nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR) with modeling and enhanced controller is also 

discussed. (KSU 2011). 

References

(KSU 2011). Final Report: Cost-Effective Reciprocating Engine Emissions Controls and 

Monitoring for E&P Field and Gathering Engines. K. Hohn and S. Nuss-Warren, Kansas 

State University. November 2011.
E-26

(DE 2012) Background Information, Oil and Gas Sector, Significant Sources of NOx Emissions. 

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality. 

(OTC 2012). Technical Information Oil and Gas Sector, Significant Stationary Sources of NOx 

Emissions. Final. October 17, 2012.
E-27

EPA Question 6: What is the variability in NOx emissions from RICE within each State, 

both for baseline and with controls?

Notes for Question 6

No data were found. [Likely a review of RICE SCCs in the NEI across states would be a 

useful exercise to see the relative levels of baseline and/or controlled NOx emissions, however 

this exercise was not part of this task.]
1

To: US EPA OAQPS 

From: SRA International, Inc.

Subject: Review of CoST Model Emission Reduction Estimates

Date: September 30, 2014

EPA uses the Control Strategy Tool (CoST) to estimate the emission reductions and engineering costs 

associated with control strategies applied to point, area, and mobile sources of air pollutant emissions to 

support the analyses of air pollution policies and regulations. CoST accomplishes this by matching 

control measures to emission sources using algorithms such as "maximum emissions reduction", "least 

cost", and "apply measures in series". There was a concern that the baseline inventory used by CoST did 

not completely account for emission control requirements already in place, and that the emission 

reductions were perhaps overestimated. 

SRA reviewed the CoST results and made recommendations for changing the CoST control measure 

assignment and the estimated reductions for oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The recommendations were based 

on a review of source permits, state regulations, enforcement actions, and other available information. 

The analysis was conducted for a 24-state area in the eastern two-thirds of the U.S. The focus was on 

stationary point sources other than electric generating units (non-EGUs). The purpose of this memo is to 

document the data used and assumptions made in recommending changes to the CoST results, and to 

summarize the differences between the CoST results and the recommended changes. 

The findings in this memo are based on review of CoST results for a 2018 emissions inventory projected 

from the 2011 National Emission Inventory (NEI). This work was in support of EPA’s current Transport 

Rule efforts for implementing the 75 ppb ozone standard. If EPA considers establishing a tighter ozone 

standard in the future, it is likely that a more distant future year will be used and that some of the 

conclusions reached in this memo could change.

CoST DATA PROVIDED BY EPA

EPA provided SRA with the outputs from a CoST scenario that identified sources for which NOx controls 

were available at a cost-effectiveness level of less than $10,000 per ton. The CoST outputs included 

source identifiers, control technology, baseline emissions and estimates of NOx emission reductions. The 

CoST results were divided into two groups. The first group included sources where CoST estimated NOx 

emission reductions of more than 100 tons per year. There were 547 sources in this group where CoST 

controls were initially applied. The second group included sources where CoST estimated emission 

reductions for sources whose 2018 projected emissions were greater than 25 tons/year, excluding those 
2

with reductions greater than 100 tons/year. There were 1,280 sources in this group where CoST controls 

were initially applied.

Another contractor reviewed the CoST results for additional source categories, and their 

recommendations were merged with SRA’s recommendations in the summary tables and maps that 

follow. The data used, assumptions made and results for IC engines are documented elsewhere1. 

REVIEW OF CoST RESULTS FOR THE GREATER THAN 100 TPY GROUP

Table 1 summarizes the source categories included in our analysis, the CoST recommendation for NOx 

control, and the recommendation for changing the CoST control measure assignment and associated 

emission reduction estimates. Following Table 1, there is a discussion for each source group to provide 

more detail on the rationale for the recommended changes for each source group. Attachments 1 to 4 are 

tabular comparisons of the initial CoST emission reduction estimates and the recommended changes. All 

Attachments present the results in terms of tons per ozone season, simply estimated by assuming that 

ozone season emissions were equal to 5/12 of the annual emissions. Maps 1A and 1B graphically show 

the location of sources and the magnitude of the recommended emission reductions. 

Table 1 – CoST Controls and Recommended Changes for

Greater than 100 TPY Sources

Source Group CoST Control 

Recommendation

Summary of Recommended Changes to 

CoST Controls and Reductions

Ammonia – NG-fired 

Reformers

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Agreed with CoST recommendation of SCR 

except for those sources where a permit or 

state regulation already required the source 

to be controlled.

By-Product Coke Mfg; 

Oven Underfiring

Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction

Review of a source-specific NOx RACT 

permit indicated that NOx controls were 

technically or economically infeasible. 

Cement Kilns Biosolid Injection 

Technology

Disagreed with CoST recommendation

based on concerns about biosolids 

availability and information from EPA’s ISIS 

(Industrial Sector Integrated Solutions) 

Model; recommended SNCR for all sources, 

except those that already have SNCR due to 

NOx SIP Call, NSR requirement, Consent 

Decree, or other state regulation.

 

1 Update of NOx Control Measure Data in the CoST Control Measures Database for Four Industrial

Source Categories: Ammonia Reformers, NonEGU Combustion Turbines,Glass Manufacturing, and Lean 

Burn Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines," prepared by Research Triangle Institute, July 2014.
3

Source Group CoST Control 

Recommendation

Summary of Recommended Changes to 

CoST Controls and Reductions

Cement Manufacturing 

- Dry

Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction

Agreed with CoST recommendation except 

when already controlled due to NOx SIP Call, 

NSR requirement, Consent Decree, or other 

state regulation.

Cement Manufacturing 

– Wet

Mid-kiln Firing Disagreed with CoST recommendation

based on information from EPA’s ISIS Model; 

recommended SNCR for all sources, except 

those that already controlled

Coal Cleaning –

Thermal Dryer

Low NOx Burner Agreed with CoST recommendation

Comm/Inst Incinerators Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction

Both sources are already controlled with 

SNCR

External Combustion 

Boilers, Elec Gen, Solid 

Waste

Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction

All 6 sources are already controlled with 

SNCR

Fluid Catalytic Cracking 

Units

Low NOx Burner and Flue 

Gas Recirculation

Nearly all FCCUs are already controlled due 

to the OECA global refinery consent decrees. 

There is one small refinery in West Texas 

that does not appear to be covered by a 

consent decree, so the CoST 

recommendation was accepted.

Glass Manufacturing –

Container, Flat, 

Pressed 

OXY-Firing Disagreed with CoST recommendation. 

OXY-firing is not generally required under 

recent OECA consent decrees. More 

common control is oxygen-enriched air 

staging (OEAS). OXY-firing can only be 

implemented at the time of furnace rebuild, 

which is generally done every 10-15 years. 

Changed recommended control to OEAS 

with a 50% NOx reduction instead of OXYfiring at 85% NOx reduction, except for 

sources that already had NOx controls in 

place due to a consent decree, NSR 

requirement, or state regulation. Assumed 

that a furnace with a NOx emission limit of 

less than 4 lbs/ton of glass pulled was 

already reasonably controlled. 

ICI Boilers –

Coal/Cyclone

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Agreed with CoST recommendation of SCR 

except for those sources where a permit or 

state regulation already required the source 

to be controlled. LADCO/OTC also 

recommends SCR

ICI Boilers –

Coal/Stoker

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Disagreed with CoST recommendation of 

SCR. CoST has $2200/ton, which appears 
4

Source Group CoST Control 

Recommendation

Summary of Recommended Changes to 

CoST Controls and Reductions

very low for ICI boilers. Used LADCO/OTC 

recommendation of SNCR for Coal-Stokers 

with a 50% reduction, except for those 

sources where a permit or state regulation 

already required the source to be controlled.

ICI Boilers – Coal/Wall Low NOx Burner and 

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Agreed with CoST recommendation of SCR 

except for those sources where a permit or 

state regulation already required the source 

to be controlled. LADCO/OTC also 

recommends LNB/SCR

ICI Boilers – Gas, 

Natural Gas, Process 

Gas

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Disagreed with CoST recommendation of 

SCR. CoST has $3456/ton, which appears 

very low for ICI boilers. Used LADCO/OTC 

recommendation of Low NOx Burners plus 

Flue Gas Recirculation for Gas-fire ICI 

boilers with a 60% reduction, except for 

those sources where a permit or state 

regulation already required the source to be 

controlled

Industrial Incinerators Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction

Agreed with CoST recommendation of SNCR 

except for those sources where a permit or 

state regulation already required the source

to be controlled.

Iron & Steel Mills –

Reheating

Low NOx Burner and Flue 

Gas Recirculation

Agreed with CoST recommendation except 

for those sources where a permit or state 

regulation already required the source to be 

controlled.

Municipal Waste 

Combustors

Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction

Agreed with CoST recommendation of SNCR 

except for those sources where a permit or 

state regulation already required the source 

to be controlled.

Nitric Acid 

Manufacturing

Nonselective Catalytic 

Reduction

Agreed with CoST recommendation of NSCR 

except for those sources where a permit or 

state regulation already required the source 

to be controlled.

Petroleum Refinery 

Process Heaters

SCR-95% Nearly all refineries are already controlled 

due to the OECA global refinery consent 

decrees, which generally require 40-60% 

reductions across all boilers/heaters that 

each company operates. Not possible at 

present to identify the individual 

boilers/heaters that actually have been 

controlled or are scheduled to be controlled

due to confidentiality agreements between 

EPA and companies.
5

Source Group CoST Control 

Recommendation

Summary of Recommended Changes to 

CoST Controls and Reductions

Taconite Ore 

Processing – Induration 

– Coal or Gas

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Disagree with CoST recommendation of 

SCR. EPA Region V considers SCR/SNCR 

to be infeasible. Used Low NOx Burners at 

70% reduction instead as reasonable control, 

except for those sources where a permit or 

state regulation already required the source 

to be controlled. .

Utility Boilers* –

Coal/Wall

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Agreed with CoST recommendation of SCR 

except for those sources where a permit or 

state regulation already required the source 

to be controlled.

Utility Boilers* – Oil/Gas Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Agreed with CoST recommendation of SCR 

except for those sources where a permit or 

state regulation already required the source 

to be controlled.

The utility boilers included in the context of this report are non-IPM utility boilers. In the NEI, these units 

have an SCC of 1-01—xxx-xx (the SCC series generally used for electric generating units. However, the 

sources included in this analysis do not sell electricity to the grid. 

Ammonia – NG-fired Reformers

There are 15 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR) with a 90% reduction in NOx emissions. We determined that four of these sources were already 

controlled by either SCR or ultra-NOx burners and recommended no further control/reductions. For all 

other sources, we agreed with the CoST control and emission reduction estimate.

By-Product Coke Mfg; Oven Underfiring

There are 14 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was selective non-catalytic reduction 

(SNCR) with a 60% reduction in NOx emissions. We reviewed a detailed RACT analysis for a facility in 

Pennsylvania that determined that no controls were feasible. For all sources in this category, we 

recommended that no controls were feasible and thus no reductions were appropriate. 

Cement Preheater/Precalciner Kilns

There are 36 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was biosolid injection technology

with a 23% reduction in NOx emissions. We reviewed permits and consent decrees to identify those kilns 

that are already controlled. Several kilns are already controlled based on NOx SIP Call requirements that 

typically required low NOx burners, mid-kiln firing, or an approved alternative that resulted in a 30% 

reduction. Other kilns already had SNCR installed due to a consent decree, new source review 

requirement, or other state-level requirement.
6

EPA expressed a concern whether there was sufficient biosolids availability for use by the uncontrolled 

kilns. Also, EPA has done considerable research on cement kiln NOx controls as part of its Industrial 

Sector Integrated Solutions (ISIS) project. EPA uses the ISIS-cement model help analyze policy options 

for various rulemakings. Based on the ISIS work, we recommended that low-NOx burners and SNCR as 

the appropriate control for all types of kilns.

For uncontrolled kilns, we applied a 65% reduction in NOx emissions. For kilns already controlled with 

low-NOx burners or mid-kiln firing, we applied a 35% incremental reduction to account for the additional 

reductions from SNCR. For kilns already controlled with SNCR, we applied no additional emission 

reductions. 

Cement Manufacturing - Dry Process

There are 20 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SNCR with a 50% reduction in 

NOx emissions. We reviewed permits and consent decrees to identify those kilns that are already 

controlled. Several kilns are already controlled based on NOx SIP Call requirements that typically 

required low NOx burners, mid-kiln firing, or an approved alternative that resulted in a 30% reduction. 

Other kilns already had SNCR installed due to a consent decree, new source review requirement, or other 

state-level requirement.

As discussed earlier, we recommended that low-NOx burners and SNCR as the appropriate control for all 

types of kilns based on the ISIS work. For uncontrolled kilns, we applied a 65% reduction in NOx 

emissions. For kilns already controlled with low-NOx burners or mid-kiln firing, we applied a 35% 

incremental reduction to account for the additional reductions from SNCR. For kilns already controlled 

with SNCR, we applied no additional emission reductions. 

Cement Manufacturing – Wet Process

There are seven sources in this category. The CoST control technology was mid-kiln firing with a 30% 

reduction in NOx emissions. We determined that two of these kilns were installing a pilot SCR system as 

part of a consent decree. One kiln recently went through NSR review and has state-of-the-art control. 

Another kiln is required to install SNCR as part of a consent decree. No additional reductions were 

applied for these kilns. For the remaining kilns, we applied low-NOx burners and SNCR as described in 

the previous sections.

Coal Cleaning – Thermal Dryer

There was one source in this category. The CoST control technology was a low-NOx burner with a 50% 

reduction in NOx emissions. We could not find any information on this source and accepted the CoST 

controls. 
7

Comm/Inst Incinerators

There are two sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SNCR with a 45% reduction in 

NOx emissions. Both of these sources are already controlled by SNCR and we applied no additional 

emission reductions.

External Combustion Boilers, Elec Gen, Solid Waste

There are six sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SNCR with a 50% reduction in 

NOx emissions. All six of these sources are already controlled by SNCR and we applied no additional 

emission reductions.

Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units

There are six sources in this category. The CoST control technology was low-NOx burners and flue gas 

recirculation with a 55% reduction in NOx emissions. Nearly all sources are already controlled or 

required to install controls as a result of the EPA’s global refinery consent decrees. There is one small 

refinery in West Texas that does not appear to be covered by a consent decree, so the CoST 

recommendation was accepted.

Glass Manufacturing – Container, Flat, Pressed 

There are 65 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was oxy-firing with an 85% 

reduction in NOx emissions. There were several concerns about using oxy-firing for this analysis. First, 

there is a concern about the timing of installing oxy-firing technology. Oxy-firing is typically installed at 

the time of a furnace rebuild, which is typically done every 10 to 15 years. Second, oxy-firing is not 

generally required under recent EPA consent decrees. More common control is oxygen-enriched air 

staging (OEAS). We recommended that OEAS with a 50% NOx reduction instead of OXY-firing at 85% 

NOx reduction, except for sources that already had NOx controls in place due to a consent decree, NSR 

requirement, or state regulation. We assumed that a furnace with a NOx emission limit of less than 4 

lbs/ton of glass pulled was already reasonably controlled.

ICI Boilers – Coal/Cyclone

There are eight sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SCR with an 80% reduction in 

NOx emissions. We reviewed the Evaluation of Control Options for Industrial, Commercial and 

Institutional (ICI) Boilers Technical Support Document (TSD), March, 2011 prepared by the Lake 

Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) and the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). 

LADCO/OTC also recommended SCR for coal-cyclone boilers. Since the LADCO/OTC recommendation 

was consistent with the CoST control, we agreed with the CoST control technology for five sources 

which we determined were uncontrolled. Two sources were determined to be already controlled. One 

source appears to have shut down their coal-fired boilers. No reductions were applied for these three 

sources since they are already controlled. 
8

ICI Boilers – Coal/Stoker

There are 45 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SCR with an 80% reduction in 

NOx emissions. The LADCO/OTC recommendation was for combustion tuning and SNCR. We agreed 

with the LADCO/OTC recommendation and assumed a 50% control efficiency. We determined that most 

of these sources are currently uncontrolled. Two coal-fired boilers are scheduled to be replaced with gasfired boilers. Two other boilers recently installed SNCR. 

ICI Boilers – Coal/Wall

There are 54 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was low-NOx burners and SCR with 

a 91% reduction in NOx emissions. The LADCO/OTC recommendation was also for low-NOx burners 

and SCR. Since the LADCO/OTC recommendation was consistent with the CoST control, we agreed 

with the CoST control technology and emission reductions.

ICI Boilers – Gas, Natural Gas, Process Gas

There are 130 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SCR with an 80% reduction in 

NOx emissions. The LADCO/OTC recommendation was for low-NOx burners, flue gas recirculation, or 

low-NOx burners combined with flue gas recirculation. We agreed with the LADCO/OTC 

recommendation of low-NOx burners combined with flue gas recirculation and assumed a 60% control 

efficiency. 

Several of these sources are located in the OTR or ozone nonattainment areas, and as a result already have 

a RACT control requirement or emission limitation that is consistent with the LADCO/OTC 

recommendations. A few of these sources are located at petroleum refineries and were assumed to be 

already controlled due to EPA’s refinery enforcement initiative. 

Municipal Waste Combustors

There are 55 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SNCR with a 45% reduction in 

NOx emissions. We determined that 35 of these sources are already controlled with SNCR and no 

additional reductions were applied. For the remaining uncontrolled sources, we agreed with the CoST 

controls and emission reductions.

Nitric Acid Manufacturing

There are seven sources in this category. The CoST control technology was non-selective catalytic 

reduction (NSCR) with a 98% reduction in NOx emissions. All but one of these sources is already 

controlled by NSCR or SCR. 

Petroleum Refinery Process Heaters

There are 28 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SCR with a 95% reduction in 

NOx emissions. All of the sources in this category are covered sources under EPA’s global refinery 

enforcement initiative. The settlements generally require 40-60% reductions across all boilers/heaters that 
9

each company operates. Companies have submitted NOx compliance plans to OECA that identify the 

specific sources that have been controlled or are planned to be controlled, along with the technology used. 

But it is not possible at present to identify the individual boilers/heaters that actually have been controlled 

or are scheduled to be controlled due to confidentiality agreements between EPA and companies. No 

additional reductions were included for this category.

Taconite Ore Processing – Induration – Coal or Gas

There are 10 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SCR with a 90% reduction in 

NOx emissions. All of the sources in this category are already subject to Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) requirements under the Regional Haze program. EPA Region V determined that 

BART is low-NOx burners and agreed that SCR controls are infeasible for indurating furnaces. No 

additional reductions were included for this category. 

Utility Boilers – Coal/Wall, Oil, Gas

There are 11 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SCR with a 80 to 90% reduction 

in NOx emissions depending on fuel type. All of the sources in this category appear to be uncontrolled 

and we agreed with the CoST control and emission reduction estimate.

REVIEW OF CoST RESULTS FOR THE 25 TO 100 TPY GROUP

Due to the large number of sources in this group, we were not able to review individual permits to 

determine whether the individual source was already controlled. Instead, our recommendations were 

based on of state regulations, enforcement actions, engineering judgment, and other available information. 

We generally assumed that sources located in areas with stringent NOx rules are already well controlled 

and we assumed that no additional reductions were likely from these sources. This assumption was 

generally applied in New Jersey, New York and sources located in the Houston nonattainment area. 

Given more time, we would like to have also applied this assumption in other areas with stringent existing 

regulations, such as Chicago, Milwaukee, and Baton Rouge. In any future analysis, it would be useful to 

examine the stringency of rules that apply strictly to nonattainment areas. 

Table 2 summarizes the source categories included in our analysis, the CoST recommendation for NOx 

control, and the recommendation for changing the CoST control measure assignment and associated 

emission reduction estimates. Following Table 2, there is a discussion for each source group to provide 

more detail on the rationale for the recommended changes for each source group. Attachments 5 to 8 are 

tabular comparisons of the initial CoST emission reduction estimates and the recommended changes. All 

Attachments present the results in terms of tons per ozone season, simply estimated by assuming that 
10

ozone season emissions were equal to 5/12 of the annual emissions. Maps 3A and 3B graphically show 

the location of sources and the magnitude of the recommended emission reductions. 

Table 2 – CoST Controls and Recommended Changes for

25 to 100 TPY Sources

Source Group CoST Control 

Recommendation

Summary of Recommended Changes to 

CoST Controls and Reductions

Ammonia – NG-fired 

Reformers

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Agreed with CoST recommendation of SCR 

except for those sources where a permit or 

state regulation already required the source to 

be controlled.

Cement Kilns Biosolid Injection 

Technology

Because of low emissions, assume that the 

kiln is already controlled or have very low 

usage which would result in a unreasonably 

high cost-effectiveness

Cement Manufacturing 

– Wet

Mid-kiln Firing Because of low emissions, assume that the 

kiln is already controlled or have very low 

usage which would result in a unreasonably 

high cost-effectiveness

Ceramic Clay Mfg; 

Drying

Low NOx Burner Questions about technical feasibility for these 

category, assume zero reductions

Coal Cleaning –

Thermal Dryer

Low NOx Burner Agree with CoST recommendation

Comm/Inst Incinerators Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction

Agree with CoST recommendation

External Combustion 

Boilers, Elec Gen, 

Sub/Bit Coal

Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction

Agree with CoST recommendation, although 

questions as to whether the source is already 

controlled or very low usage which would 

result in a unreasonably high costeffectiveness

Fluid Catalytic Cracking 

Units

Low NOx Burner and Flue 

Gas Recirculation

Nearly all FCCUs are already controlled due 

to the OECA global refinery consent decrees.

Gas Turbines Low NOx Burners Agreed with CoST recommendation except for 

those sources where a state regulation 

already required the source to be controlled.

Glass Manufacturing –

Container, Flat, Pressed 

OXY-Firing Because of low emissions, assume that the 

furnace is already controlled or have very low 

usage which would result in a unreasonably 

high cost-effectiveness

ICI Boilers –

Coal/Stoker

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Disagreed with CoST recommendation of 

SCR. CoST has $2200/ton, which appears 

very low for ICI boilers. Used LADCO/OTC 

recommendation of SNCR for Coal-Stokers 

with a 50% reduction, except for those 

sources where a state regulation already 

required the source to be controlled.

ICI Boilers – Coal/Wall Low NOx Burner and 

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Agreed with CoST recommendation of SCR 

except for those sources where a state 

regulation already required the source to be 
11

Source Group CoST Control 

Recommendation

Summary of Recommended Changes to 

CoST Controls and Reductions

controlled. LADCO/OTC also recommends 

LNB/SCR

ICI Boilers – Distillate 

Oil or Process Gas

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Because of low emissions, assume that the 

boiler is already controlled or have very low 

usage which would result in a unreasonably 

high cost-effectiveness

ICI Boilers – Natural 

Gas

Low NOx Burner and 

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Disagreed with CoST recommendation of 

SCR. Used LADCO/OTC recommendation of 

Low NOx Burners plus Flue Gas Recirculation 

for Gas-fire ICI boilers with a 60% reduction, 

except for those sources where a permit or 

state regulation already required the source to 

be controlled

ICI Boilers – Residual 

Oil 

Low NOx Burner and 

Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction

Agreed with CoST recommendation of SCR 

except for those sources where a state 

regulation already required the source to be 

controlled.

Industrial Incinerators Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction

Agreed with CoST recommendation of SNCR 

except for those sources where a state 

regulation already required the source to be 

controlled.

Iron & Steel Mills –

Reheating

Low NOx Burner and Flue 

Gas Recirculation

Agreed with CoST recommendation except for 

those sources where a state regulation 

already required the source to be controlled.

Municipal Waste 

Combustors

Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction

Agreed with CoST recommendation of SNCR 

except for those sources where a state 

regulation already required the source to be 

controlled.

Nitric Acid 

Manufacturing

Nonselective Catalytic 

Reduction

Agreed with CoST recommendation of NSCR 

except for those sources where a state 

regulation already required the source to be 

controlled.

Petroleum Refinery 

Process Heaters

SCR or Ultra-Low NOx 

Burner

Nearly all refineries are already controlled due 

to the OECA global refinery consent decrees, 

which generally require 40-60% reductions 

across all boilers/heaters that each company 

operates. Not possible at present to identify 

the individual boilers/heaters that actually 

have been controlled or are scheduled to be 

control due to confidentiality agreements 

between EPA and companies.

Utility Boilers –

Coal/Wall

Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Agreed with CoST recommendation of SCR 

except for those sources where a state 

regulation already required the source to be 

controlled

Utility Boilers – Oil/Gas Selective Catalytic 

Reduction

Because of low emissions, assume 

unreasonably high cost-effectiveness for 

SCR; use LNB/FGR as reasonable control.
12

Ammonia – NG-fired Reformers

There are seven sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SCR with a 90% reduction in 

NOx emissions. For all other sources, we agreed with the CoST control and emission reduction estimate.

Cement Kilns

There are six sources in this category. The CoST control technology was either biosolid injection 

technology with a 23% reduction in NOx emissions or mid-kiln firing with a 30% reduction. Because of 

the low baseline emissions for these kilns, we assumed that the kilns were already controlled or have low 

usage which would result in a very high cost-effectiveness. We determined that no reductions be applied 

for these sources. 

Coal Cleaning – Thermal Dryer

There are 10 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was a low-NOx burner with a 50% 

reduction in NOx emissions. We agreed with the CoST control and emission reduction estimate.

Commercial/Institutional Incinerators

There are four sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SNCR with a 45% reduction in 

NOx emissions. We agreed with the CoST control and emission reduction estimate.

External Combustion Boilers, Electric Generation, Coal

There are 14 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SNCR with a 40% reduction in 

NOx emissions. It appears that the sources in this category are low usage spreader stokers. Although there 

may be a concern about the cost-effectiveness for these sources, we agreed with the CoST control and 

emission reduction estimate.

Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units

There are 21 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was low-NOx burners and flue gas 

recirculation with a 55% reduction in NOx emissions. All sources in this category are assumed subject to 

existing control requirements resulting from the OECA global refinery enforcement initiative. 

Additionally, eight of the sources are located in the Houston nonattainment area and are likely subject to 

stringent controls. For these reasons, we assumed no further control or emission reductions for the 

FCCUs. 

Gas Turbines

There are 438 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was for low-NOx burners with a 

68% reduction in NOx emissions. We agreed with the CoST control and emission reduction estimate, 

except for those sources located in the OTR and Houston ozone nonattainment area, where we assumed 

that these sources already had RACT controls.

Glass Manufacturing – Container, Flat, Pressed 
13

There are eight sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SCR with a 90% reduction in 

NOx emissions. Because of the low baseline emissions for these furnaces, we assumed that the furnaces 

were already controlled and determined that no reductions be applied for these sources. 

ICI Boilers – Coal/Stoker

There are 133 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SCR with a 90% reduction in 

NOx emissions. The LADCO/OTC recommendation was for combustion tuning and SNCR. We agreed 

with the LADCO/OTC recommendation and assumed a 50% control efficiency.

ICI Boilers – Coal/Wall

There are 11 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SCR with a 90% reduction in 

NOx emissions. The CoST control technology was low-NOx burners and SCR with a 91% reduction in 

NOx emissions. The LADCO/OTC recommendation was also for low-NOx burners and SCR. Since the 

LADCO/OTC recommendation was consistent with the CoST control, we agreed with the CoST control 

technology and emission reductions.

ICI Boilers – Natural Gas

There are 376 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was low-NOx burners and SCR 

with a 91% reduction in NOx emissions. The LADCO/OTC recommendation was for low-NOx burners, 

flue gas recirculation, or low-NOx burners combined with flue gas recirculation. We agreed with the 

LADCO/OTC recommendation of low-NOx burners combined with flue gas recirculation and assumed a 

50% control efficiency, except for those sources located in the OTR and Houston ozone nonattainment 

area, where we assumed that these sources already had RACT controls.

ICI Boilers – Process Gas

There are 57 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SCR with a 90% reduction in 

NOx emissions. Most of these sources are located at petroleum refineries and are assumed subject to 

existing control requirements resulting from the OECA global refinery enforcement initiative, or are 

located in the Houston nonattainment area and are likely subject to stringent controls. For these reasons, 

we assumed no further control or emission reductions.

ICI Boilers – Residual Oil 

There are 28 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was low-NOx burner and SNCR with 

a 69.5% reduction in NOx emissions. We agreed with the CoST control and emission reduction estimate, 

except for those sources located in the OTR and Houston ozone nonattainment area, where we assumed 

that these sources already had RACT controls.

Industrial Incinerators

There are 21 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SNCR with a 45% reduction in 

NOx emissions. We agreed with the CoST control and emission reduction estimate, except for those 
14

sources located in the OTR and Houston ozone nonattainment area, where we assumed that these sources 

already had RACT controls.

Iron & Steel Mills – Reheating

There are 32 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was low-NOx burners and flue gas 

recirculation with a 77% reduction in NOx emissions. We agreed with the CoST control and emission 

reduction estimate.

Municipal Waste Combustors

There are 25 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SCR with a 90% reduction in 

NOx emissions. RTI identified the sources are already controlled and no additional reductions were 

applied for these sources. For the remaining sources, we agreed with the CoST controls and emission 

reductions.

Nitric Acid Manufacturing

There are 14 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was NSCR with a 98% reduction in 

NOx emissions. We agreed with the CoST control and emission reduction estimate. 

Petroleum Refinery Process Heaters

There are 30 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SCR with a 90-98% reduction or 

ultra-low NOx burners with a 30-50% reductions in NOx emissions. Most of these sources are located at 

petroleum refineries and are assumed subject to existing control requirements resulting from the OECA 

global refinery enforcement initiative, or are located in the Houston nonattainment area and are likely 

subject to stringent controls. For these reasons, we assumed no further control or emission reductions.

Utility Boilers – Coal/Wall

There are three sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SCR with a 90% reduction in 

NOx emissions. We agreed with the CoST control and emission reduction estimate.

Utility Boilers – Oil/Gas

There are 27 sources in this category. The CoST control technology was SCR with a 80% reduction in 

NOx emissions. The LADCO/OTC recommendation was for low-NOx burners or flue gas recirculation. 

We agreed with the LADCO/OTC recommendation of low-NOx burners combined with flue gas 

recirculation and assumed a 60% control efficiency.
15

Attachment 1 – NOx Emission Reductions by State for Sources in the > 100 Ton per Year Reduction Group

State

Number of 

Sources

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A )

Recommended

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( B )

Size of correction

in NOx emission 

reductions 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A - B )

Alabama 24 2,855 2,287 568

Arkansas 6 455 293 162

Delaware 2 206 0 206

Florida 20 2,158 1,370 788

Illinois 21 2,659 1,472 1,187

Indiana 41 5,405 4,510 896

Iowa 10 1,226 999 227

Kansas 7 735 452 283

Kentucky 11 915 838 77

Louisiana 57 7,623 3,622 4,000

Maryland 10 1,933 355 1,578

Michigan 27 2,758 1,768 990

Mississippi 7 1,054 516 538

Missouri 15 1,698 1,562 136

New Jersey 15 417 0 417

New York 30 3,091 281 2,810

Ohio 37 4,098 2,039 2,058

Oklahoma 20 2,949 1,864 1,086

Pennsylvania 52 5,637 2,215 3,422

Tennessee 13 4,741 1,987 2,755

Texas 65 8,860 6,383 2,477

Virginia 28 3,337 3,033 303

West Virginia 9 1,180 793 387

Wisconsin 20 4,092 3,416 676

547 70,082 42,054 28,028
16

Attachment 2 – NOx Emission Reductions by Source Group for Sources in the > 100 Ton per Year Reduction Group

Source Group

Number of 

Sources

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A )

Recommended

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( B )

Size of correction

in NOx emission 

reductions 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A - B )

Ammonia - NG-Fired Reformers 15 2,427 1,551 875

By-Product Coke Mfg; Oven Underfiring 14 1,199 0 1,199

Cement Kilns 36 3,932 6,586 -2,654

Cement Manufacturing - Dry 20 3,672 2,234 1,438

Cement Manufacturing - Wet 7 1,294 1,120 174

Coal Cleaning-Thrml Dryer; Fluidized Bed 1 50 50 0

Comm./Inst. Incinerators 2 137 0 137

External Combustion Boilers, Solid Waste 6 472 0 472

Fluid Cat Cracking Units; Cracking Unit 6 607 52 556

Fuel Fired Equip; Process Htrs; Pro Gas 2 143 143 0

Glass Manufacturing - Container 34 2,759 678 2,081

Glass Manufacturing – Flat 23 10,241 6,024 4,217

Glass Manufacturing - Pressed 8 684 402 282

ICI Boilers - Coal/Cyclone 8 2,987 1,840 1,147

ICI Boilers - Coal/FBC 3 233 180 53

ICI Boilers - Coal/Stoker 45 4,688 2,938 1,750

ICI Boilers - Coal/Wall 54 12,041 7,996 4,045

ICI Boilers – Gas 10 1,266 910 356

ICI Boilers - Natural Gas 84 7,578 3,452 4,126

ICI Boilers - Process Gas 36 3,868 1,229 2,639

ICI Boilers - Residual Oil 2 199 82 117

Indust. Incinerators 9 586 124 461

In-Proc;Process Gas;Coke Oven/Blast Furn 3 299 0 299
17

Source Group

Number of 

Sources

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A )

Recommended

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( B )

Size of correction

in NOx emission 

reductions 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A - B )

In-Process; Bituminous Coal; Cement Kiln 2 290 295 -5

Iron & Steel - In-Process Coal Combustion 4 419 0 419

Iron & Steel Mills – Reheating 2 156 156 0

Municipal Waste Combustors 55 1,591 876 715

Nitric Acid Manufacturing 7 687 82 605

Petroleum Refinery Gas-Fired Process Heaters 28 2,025 0 2,025

Taconite Iron Ore - Induration - Coal or Gas 10 829 451 379

Utility Boiler - Coal/Wall 5 555 555 0

Utility Boiler - Oil-Gas/Tangential 2 526 526 0

Utility Boiler - Oil-Gas/Wall 4 1,645 1,524 121

547 70,082 42,054 28,028
18

Attachment 3 – NOx Emission Reductions by 3-Digit NAICS Code for Sources in the > 100 Ton per Year Reduction Group

3-Digit NAICS Code

Number of 

Sources

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A )

Recommended

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( B )

Size of correction

in NOx emission 

reductions 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A - B )

211 Oil and Gas Extraction 1 46 30 16

212 Mining (except Oil and Gas) 11 879 500 379

221 Utilities 10 1,186 853 333

311 Food Mfg 12 1,181 815 366

312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Mfg 7 761 761 0

322 Paper Mfg 70 11,616 7,968 3,648

324 Petroleum and Coal Products Mfg 49 3,942 239 3,703

325 Chemical Mfg 132 19,689 10,753 8,937

3272 Glass and Glass Product Mfg 64 13,588 7,047 6,540

3273 Cement and Concrete Product Mfg 64 9,113 10,183 -1,070

3274 Lime & Gypsum Product Mfg 1 75 52 22

331 Primary Metal Mfg 50 4,908 1,837 3,070

333 Machinery Mfg 1 57 35 21

336 Transportation Equipment Mfg 2 148 103 46

424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods 2 160 0 160

531 Real Estate 1 72 0 72

562 Waste Mgmt and Remediation Services 65 2,366 843 1,523

611 Educational Services 5 295 34 261

547 70,082 42,054 28,028
19

Attachment 4 – NOx Emission Reductions by 3-Digit NAICS Code for Sources in the > 100 Ton per Year Reduction Group

Recommended Change to CoST Control

Number of 

Sources

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A )

Recommended

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( B )

Size of correction

in NOx emission 

reductions 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A - B )

Already Controlled 138 12,973 0 12,973

Already Controlled by Glass CD 12 1,034 0 1,034

Already Controlled By Refinery CD 52 4,300 0 4,300

Control Technically or Economically Infeasible 18 1,618 0 1,618

Fuel Switch Already Occurred 4 2,370 0 2,370

Low NOx Burner 7 629 500 129

Low NOx Burner and Flue Gas Recirculation 88 8,792 6,022 2,769

Low NOx Burner and SCR 44 7,996 7,996 0

Low NOx Burner and SNCR 41 5,895 10,236 -4,341

Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction 1 82 82 0

Oxygen Enriched Air Staging 47 12,077 7,104 4,973

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 27 6,088 6,088 0

Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) 62 5,109 4,026 1,083

Source Already Shutdown 6 1,120 0 1,120

547 70,082 42,054 28,028 
20

Attachment 5 – NOx Emission Reductions by State for Sources in the 25 to 100 Ton per Year Reduction Group

State

Number of 

Sources

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A )

Recommended

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( B )

Size of correction

in NOx emission 

reductions 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A - B )

Alabama 38 641 517 123

Arkansas 14 277 203 74

Delaware 5 73 58 15

Florida 27 532 399 133

Illinois 91 1,519 845 675

Indiana 44 894 580 314

Iowa 19 422 309 113

Kansas 31 562 421 140

Kentucky 33 619 407 212

Louisiana 101 2,046 1,467 579

Maryland 18 353 209 144

Michigan 67 1,149 844 304

Mississippi 22 366 343 23

Missouri 13 224 179 45

New Jersey 7 72 11 61

New York 41 685 59 625

Ohio 86 1,476 1,075 402

Oklahoma 40 749 669 81

Pennsylvania 79 1,359 423 936

Tennessee 42 742 514 228

Texas 374 6,444 3,311 3,133

Virginia 30 450 350 100

West Virginia 21 421 334 87

Wisconsin 37 697 471 226

1280 22,774 14,000 8,774
21

Attachment 6 – NOx Emission Reductions by Source Group for Sources in the 25 to 100 Ton per Year Reduction Group

Source Group

Number of 

Sources

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A )

Recommended

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( B )

Size of correction

in NOx emission 

reductions 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A - B )

Ammonia - NG-Fired Reformers2 7 200 155 45

Cement Kilns 4 93 0 93

Cement Manufacturing - Wet 2 60 0 60

Ceramic Clay Mfg; Drying 4 29 0 29

Coal Cleaning-Thrml Dryer; Fluidized Bed 10 188 188 0

Comm./Inst. Incinerators 4 47 47 0

Ext Comb Boilers, Elec Gen, Nat Gas (2) 1 28 28 0

Ext Comb Boilers, Elec Gen, Sub/Bit Coal (3) 14 158 158 0

Fbrglass Mfg; Txtle-Type Fbr; Recup Furn 2 9 9 0

Fluid Cat Cracking Units; Cracking Unit 21 393 0 393

Fuel Fired Equip; Furnaces; Natural Gas 3 18 18 0

Fuel Fired Equip; Process Htrs; Pro Gas 7 86 86 0

Gas Turbines - Natural Gas 438 7,193 5,749 1,444

Glass Manufacturing - Flat 8 190 0 190

ICI Boilers - Coal/FBC 1 35 22 13

ICI Boilers - Coal/Stoker 133 2,502 1,629 873

ICI Boilers - Coal/Wall 11 246 246 0

ICI Boilers - Distillate Oil 4 75 0 75

ICI Boilers - Gas 26 601 0 601

ICI Boilers - Natural Gas 350 6,814 3,705 3,109

ICI Boilers - Oil 2 41 0 41

ICI Boilers - Process Gas 31 609 0 609

ICI Boilers - Residual Oil 28 484 437 47
22

Source Group

Number of 

Sources

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A )

Recommended

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( B )

Size of correction

in NOx emission 

reductions 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A - B )

Indust. Incinerators 21 230 118 113

In-Proc;Process Gas;Coke Oven/Blast Furn 4 33 8 25

Iron & Steel - In-Process Comb - Coal 1 19 0 19

Iron & Steel Mills - Reheating 32 481 481 0

Municipal Waste Combustors 25 472 228 243

Nitric Acid Manufacturing 14 363 289 74

Petroleum Refinery Gas-Fired Process Heaters 30 456 0 456

Solid Waste Disp;Gov;Other Incin;Sludge 1 6 6 0

Space Heaters - Natural Gas 2 17 13 4

Steel Foundries; Heat Treating Furn 7 122 122 0

Surf Coat Oper;Coating Oven Htr;Nat Gas 2 11 0 11

Utility Boiler - Coal/Wall 2 48 48 0

Utility Boiler - Coal/Wall2 1 13 13 0

Utility Boiler - Oil-Gas/Tangential 8 99 62 37

Utility Boiler - Oil-Gas/Wall 19 307 137 170

1280 22,774 14,000 8,774
23

Attachment 7 – NOx Emission Reductions by 3-Digit NAICS Code for Sources in the 25 to 100 Ton per Year Reduction Group

3-Digit NAICS Code

Number of 

Sources

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A )

Recommended

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( B )

Size of correction

in NOx emission 

reductions 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A - B )

211 Oil and Gas Extraction 146 2,674 2,573 100

212 Mining (except Oil and Gas) 12 247 227 20

213 Support Activities for Mining 1 20 20 0

221 Utilities 96 1,575 1,035 540

311 Food Manufacturing 46 715 450 266

312 Beverage and Tobacco Products 9 151 91 60

313 Textile Mills 1 24 15 9

314 Textile Product Mills 1 12 7 4

316 Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing 1 10 7 3

321 Wood Product Manufacturing 6 100 56 44

322 Paper Manufacturing 79 1,662 1,028 634

324 Petroleum and Coal Products 115 2,083 527 1,556

325 Chemical Manufacturing 332 6,480 3,218 3,262

326 Plastics and Rubber Products 13 206 142 65

327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing 24 417 32 385

331 Primary Metal Manufacturing 87 1,380 1,094 285

332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 4 80 46 33

333 Machinery Manufacturing 2 20 14 6

334 Computer and Electronic Products 1 9 9 0

336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 13 261 192 69

337 Furniture and Related Products 2 18 18 0

447 Gasoline Stations 1 7 0 7

454 Nonstore Retailers 1 9 0 9
24

3-Digit NAICS Code

Number of 

Sources

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A )

Recommended

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( B )

Size of correction

in NOx emission 

reductions 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A - B )

482 Rail Transportation 3 37 23 14

486 Pipeline Transportation 156 2,551 2,034 517

488 Support Activities for Transportation 1 18 12 6

531 Real Estate 8 147 0 147

541 Professional Services 6 81 77 4

561 Administrative and Support Services 1 8 0 8

562 Waste Mgmt and Remediation Services 21 376 184 192

611 Educational Services 62 963 617 346

622 Hospitals 7 116 36 80

713 Amusement, Gambling, and Recreation 2 49 45 4

721 Accommodation 2 25 10 15

922 Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities 4 29 17 12

923 Administration of Human Resources 1 12 8 4

928 National Security and International Affairs 13 201 135 66

1280 22,774 14,000 8,774
25

Attachment 8 – NOx Emission Reductions by 3-Digit NAICS Code for Sources in the 25 to 100 Ton per Year Reduction Group

Recommended Change to CoST Control

Number of 

Sources

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A )

Recommended

NOx emissions 

reduced from 

controls in CoST 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( B )

Size of correction

in NOx emission 

reductions 

(tons/O3 season) 

 ( A - B )

Already Controlled 207 3,380 0 3,380

Already Controlled by Refinery CD 40 704 0 704

Low NOx Burner 362 6,087 6,087 0

Low NOx Burner and Flue Gas Recirculation 361 6,726 4,491 2,235

Low NOx Burner and SCR 11 246 246 0

Low NOx Burner and SNCR 24 437 437 0

Natural Gas Reburn 1 28 28 0

Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction 12 289 289 0

Questions About Feasibility 1 22 0 22

Questions About Feasibility - Cement 6 154 0 154

Questions About Feasibility - Ceramic Clay Mfg 4 29 0 29

Questions about Feasibility - Coating Ovens 2 11 0 11

Questions about Feasibility - Distillate Oil 6 116 0 116

Questions About Feasibility - Glass 7 167 0 167

Questions about Feasibility - Process Gas 50 1,070 0 1,070

Selective Catalytic Reduction 8 216 216 0

Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction 178 3,094 2,207 886

1280 22,774 14,000 8,774
1

To: US EPA OAQPS 

From: SRA International, Inc.

Subject: Summary of State NOx Regulations for Selected Stationary Sources 

Date: September 30, 2014

SRA compiled a summary of state/local NOx emission control regulations pertaining six categories of 

nonEGUs: 

 Cement kilns

 Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers – Coal-fired

 ICI Boilers – Gas-fired

 ICI Boilers – Oil-fired

 Gas Turbines

 Internal Combustion (IC) Engines

The analysis included 27 states in the eastern two-thirds of the U.S. For each of these states and source 

categories, we identified state-specific sub-categories (e.g. fuel type or size threshold), the NOx emission 

limit or control requirement, averaging time for the emission limit, geographic applicability within the 

state, testing/monitoring requirements, and rule citation. This information is contained in the attached 

spreadsheet (Draft State NOx RACT Limits 2014_04_01.xlsx).

Attachment 1 is an overall summary of the relative stringency of the NOx requirements by geographic 

area and source category. We also prepared a 2-page summary for each of the six categories to concisely 

compare state NOx emission limits or control requirements. These are shown in Attachments 2 to 7, along 

with notes highlighting the major differences between the state regulations.

Please let us know should you have questions or comments about any of the data presented in this 

memorandum. 
2

Attachment 1 – Relative Stringency of NOx Requirements

Source Category States/Areas with 

Most Stringent Regulations

States/Areas with 

Less Stringent Regulations

States with 

No Regulations or Sources

Cement Kilns1States: IL, MD, NY, PA, TX

Areas: Ellis County, TX

States: AL (NOx SIP area), IN, KY, 

MO, MI, OH, SC, TN, VA, WV

States: AR, FL, GA, MS, OK

States with no cement kilns: 

CT, DE, LA, MA, NC, NJ, WI

Coal-fired ICI Boilers2States: NY

Areas: Chicago, St. Louis (IL portion), 

Baton Rouge, Houston-Galveston (cokefired), Milwaukee,

States: FL, GA, IN, MA, MD, MI, PA, 

TN, VA

Areas: Chicago, St. Louis (MO 

portion), Baton Rouge, Charlotte, 

Cleveland

States: AL, AR, KY, MS, OK, SC, TX 

(except Houston-Galveston) WV

NE States with no coal-fired ICI 

boilers: CT, DE, NJ

Gas-fired ICI Boilers States: NJ, NY, PA

Areas: Chicago, St. Louis (IL portion), 

Baton Rouge, Beaumont-Port Arthur, 

Cleveland, Dallas, Houston, Milwaukee

States: CT, DE, FL,GA, MA, MD, MI, 

MO, TN, VA

Areas: Clark/Floyd Counties, St. 

Louis (MO portion), Charlotte 

States: AL, AR, KY, MS, OK, SC, WV

Oil-fired ICI Boilers States: NJ, NY, PA

Areas: Chicago, St. Louis (IL portion), 

Baton Rouge, Cleveland, Dallas, Houston, 

Milwaukee

States: CT, DE, FL, GA, MA, MD, 

MI, TN, VA

Areas: Clark/Floyd Counties, St. 

Louis (MO portion), Charlotte

States: AL, AR, KY, MS, OK, SC, WV

Gas Turbines States: NJ 

Areas: GA 45-county area, Dallas, 

Houston, Milwaukee

States: CT, DE, FL, LA, MA, MD, 

NY, PA, TN, VA

Areas: Chicago, St. Louis (IL 

portion), St. Louis (MO portion), 

Charlotte, Cleveland, 

States: AL, AR, IN, KY, MI, MS, OK, 

SC, WV

IC Engines > about 500 hp States: MD, NJ, NY

Areas: Chicago, St. Louis (IL portion), 

Dallas, Houston

States: CT, DE, MA, MI, PA, TN, VA

Areas: Baton Rouge, St. Louis (MO 

portion), Charlotte, Cleveland, 

Milwaukee

States: AL, AR, IN, KY, MS, OK, SC, 

WV

1) Cement kiln emission limits imposed by recent EPA enforcement settlements tend to be more stringent than the emission control 

requirements in state rules.

2) CT, DE and NJ have no active coal-fired boilers, so the stringency of their regulations for coal-fired ICI boilers is difficult to evaluate 
3

Attachment 2 - Cement Kilns

NOx Limit (lbs/ton clinker)

State Long Dry Long Wet Pre-heater Pre-calciner

AL Ozone season: low-NOx burners, mid-kiln system firing, or approved ACT 

AR No Limits No Limits No Limits No Limits

CT No Cement Kilns in State

DE No Cement Kilns in State

FL No Limits No Limits No Limits No Limits

GA No Limits No Limits No Limits No Limits

IL 5.1 5.1 3.8 2.8

IN 6.0 5.1 3.8 2.8

IN

(Clark/Floyd)

10.8 (op day)/

6 (30 day)

No Limits 5.9 (op day)/

4.4 (30 day)

No Limits

KY 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6

LA No Cement Kilns in State

MA No Cement Kilns in State

MD 5.1 6.0 2.8 2.8

MI 6.0 5.1 3.8 2.8

MO 6.0 6.8 4.1 2.7

MS No Limits No Limits No Limits No Limits

NC No Cement Kilns in State

NJ No Cement Kilns in State

NY Case-by-case RACT Determination 

OH Ozone season: low-NOx burners, mid-kiln system firing, or approved ACT 

OK No Limits No Limits No Limits No Limits

PA 3.44* 3.88* 2.36* 2.36*

SC Ozone season: low-NOx burners, mid-kiln system firing, or approved ACT 

TN Ozone season: low-NOx burners, mid-kiln system firing, or approved ACT 

TX 5.1 4 3.8 2.8

TX

(Ellis County)

No Limits 3.4 No Limits 1.7

VA Case-by-case RACT Determination 

WI No Cement Kilns in State

WV Ozone season: low-NOx burners, mid-kiln system firing, or approved ACT 

ACT = Alternative Control Technology 

* Pennsylvania has proposed “RACT 2” presumptive RACT limits 
4

Observations Regarding State NOx Rules for Cement Kilns:

 Geographic Applicability

 All NOx SIP Call states with cement kilns have NOx rules in place 

 Since only portions of Alabama, Michigan, and Missouri were affected by NOx SIP Call, the 

NOx rules only apply in the affected counties.

 States not included in the NOx SIP Call do not have NOx RACT for cement kilns, except for 

Texas. The Texas NOx requirements only apply in in Bexar, Comal, Ellis, Hays, and McLennan 

Counties.

 Form of NOx Limitation or Control Requirement

 A few states express the requirement as “at least one of the following: low-NOx burners, mid-kiln 

system firing, alternative control techniques or reasonably available control technology approved 

by the Director and the EPA as achieving at least the same emissions decreases as with low-NOX 

burners or mid-kiln system firing.”

 A few states specify presumptive emission limits in terms of pounds of NOx per ton of clinker.

 Three states do not set presumptive emission limits but rather require facilities to submit a caseby-case RACT determination. Pennsylvania has a proposed regulation that will specify 

presumptive RACT limits; current rules require sources to hold 1 trading allowance per ton of 

NOx calculated by multiplying tons clinker by the presumptive NOx limit. 

 Stringency of NOx Limitation or Control Requirement

 For states requiring “low-NOX burners, mid-kiln system firing, or ACT”, it is generally assumed 

that this will result in a 30% reduction from uncontrolled levels. 

 For states with numerical emission limits, the limits generally represent a 20 – 40 % reduction 

from uncontrolled levels, depending on the type of kiln.

 Texas has very stringent limits for kilns in Ellis County.

 Pennsylvania has proposed presumptive RACT emission limitations in April 2014 that are more 

stringent than existing presumptive RACT limits in other states. 
5

Attachment 3 – Coal-fired Boilers

NOx Limit (lbs/mmBtu)

State Geographic Area

Boilers

50-100 

mmBtu/hr

Boilers

100 - 250 

mmBtu/hr

Boilers

>250 

mmBtu/hr

AL Statewide No limits No limits No limits

AR Statewide No limits No limits No limits

CT Statewide 0.29 to 0.43 0.29 to 0.43 0.29 to 0.43

DE Statewide LEA, Low NOx, 

FGR

0.38 to 0.43 0.38 to 0.43

FL Broward, Dade, Palm Beach 

Counties

0.9 0.9 0.9

GA 45 county area No limits 30 ppmvd @ 3% 

O2

0.7

IL Chicago & St Louis areas Tune-up 0.12 CFB

0.25 Other

0.12 CFB

0.18 Other

IN Clark and Floyd Counties No limits 0.4 to 0.5 0.4 to 0.5 

KY Statewide No limits No limits No limits

LA Baton Rouge 5 counties & 

Region of Influence

0.2 0.1 0.1

MA Statewide 0.43 0.33 to 0.45 0.33 to 0.45

MD Select counties No limits 0.38 to 1.0 0.38 to 1.0

MI Fine grid zone No limits No limits 0.4

MO St Louis area No limits 0.45 to 0.86 0.45 to 0.86

MS Statewide No limits No limits No limits

NC Charlotte 6 county area No limits 0.4 to 0.5 1.8

NJ Statewide 0.43 to 1.0 0.38 to 1.0 0.38 to 1.0

NY Statewide No limits 0.08 to 0.20 0.08 to 0.20

OH Cleveland 8 county area 0.3 0.3 0.3

OK Statewide No limits No limits No limits

PA Statewide 0.45 0.45 0.20 to 0.35

SC Statewide No limits No limits NOx SIP Call

TN 5 Counties Source specific 

RACT

Source specific 

RACT

Source specific 

RACT

TX Houston area 0.057

coke-fired

0.057

coke-fired

0.057

coke-fired

VA Northern VA No limits 0.38 to 1.0 0.38 to 1.0

WI Milwaukee 7 county area 0.10 to 0.25 0.10 to 0.25 0.10 to 0.20

WV Statewide No limits No limits No limits
6

Observations Regarding State NOx Rules for Coal-fired Boilers:

 Geographic Applicability

 States in the OTR (CT, DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and PA) have NOx emission requirements that 

apply statewide, not just in ozone nonattainment areas. 

 Six states (AL, AR, KY, MS, OK, and WV) do not have regulations limiting NOx emissions.

 For the remaining states (FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MI, MO, NC, OH, TN, VA, WI), the NOx 

emission control requirements only apply in ozone nonattainment areas.

 Texas only has emission limitations for coke-fired boilers in the Houston-Galveston 

nonattainment area.

 Size Applicability

 Most of the states do not have NOx emission requirements for boilers less than 100 mmBtu/hour.

 10 states do regulation boilers in the 50-100 mmBtu size range.

 Form of NOx Limitation or Control Requirement

 Nearly all states express the NOx emission limits in terms of lbs/mmBtu.

 A few states require either a case-by-case RACT determination or specify specific types of 

control equipment (e.g., low-NOx burners, flue gas recirculation).

 Stringency of NOx Limitation or Control Requirement

 Most states specify different emission limits for different types of boilers and firing types (e.g., 

dry bottom tangential-fired) vs. dry bottom wall-fired)

 A few states in the Northeast have very few or no coal-fired ICI boilers, so the stringency of the 

regulations in those states is difficult to evaluate. These states are CT, DE, NJ and MA. 

 For boilers greater than 100 mmBtu/hour, the LADCO/OTC1 Phase I recommended limits are in 

the 0.2-0.3 lbs/mmBtu range (depending on boiler/firing configuration). The LADCO/OTC Phase 

II recommended limits are in the 0.1-0.2 lbs/mmBtu range. Four areas have limits that generally 

meet the LADCO/OTC recommendations (Chicago, Baton Rouge, New York State, and 

Milwaukee. 

 Texas has a very stringent limit (0.057 lbs/mmBtu) for coke-fired boilers in the HoustonGalveston area.

 

1 Evaluation of Control Options for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) Boilers Technical Support 

Document (TSD), March, 2011 prepared by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) and the Ozone 

Transport Commission (OTC).
7

Attachment 4 – Gas-fired Boilers

NOx Limit (lbs/mmBtu)

State Geographic Area

Boilers

50-100 

mmBtu/hr

Boilers

100 - 250

mmBtu/hr

Boilers

>250

mmBtu/hr

AL Statewide No Limits No Limits No Limits

AR Statewide No Limits No Limits No Limits

CT Statewide 0.2 to 0.43 0.2 to 0.43 0.2 to 0.43

DE Statewide LEA, low NOx, FGR 0.2 0.2

FL Broward, Dade, Palm Beach 

Counties 0.2 to 0.5 0.2 to 0.5 0.2 to 0.5

GA 45 county area 30 ppmvd 

@ 3% O2

30 ppmvd 

@ 3% O2 0.2

IL Chicago & St. Louis Areas Tune-up 0.08 0.08

IN Clark and Floyd Counties No Limits 0.2 0.2

KY Statewide No Limits No Limits No Limits

LA Baton Rouge 5 counties & 

Region of Influence 0.1 to 0.2 0.1 0.1

MA Statewide 0.1 0.2 0.2 to 0.28

MD Select counties Tune-up 0.2 0.2

MI Fine grid zone No limits Source specific 

RACT 0.2

MO St Louis area No limits 0.2 to 0.5 0.2 to 0.5

MS Statewide No limits No limits No Limits

NC Charlotte 6 county area 0.3 0.3 0.3

NJ Statewide 0.1 to 0.5 0.1 0.1

NY Statewide 0.05 0.06 0.08

OH Cleveland 8 county area 0.1 0.1 0.1

OK Statewide No limits No limits No limits

PA Statewide 0.08 0.08 0.08

SC Statewide No limits No limits No Limits

TN 5 Counties Source specific 

RACT

Source specific 

RACT

Source specific 

RACT

TX Dallas and Houston areas 0.03 or 

90% reduction

0.03 or 

90% reduction

0.03 or 

90% reduction

TX Beaumont area 0.10 0.10 0.10

VA Northern VA 0.2 0.2 0.2

WI Milwaukee 7 county area No limits 0.08 0.08

WV Statewide No limits No limits No Limits
8

Observations Regarding State NOx Rules for Gas-fired Boilers:

 Geographic Applicability

 States in the OTR (CT, DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and PA) have NOx emission requirements that 

apply statewide, not just in ozone nonattainment areas. 

 Six states (AL, AR, KY, MS, OK, and WV) do not have regulations limiting NOx emissions.

 For the remaining states (FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MI, MO, NC, OH, TN, TX,VA, WI), the NOx 

emission control requirements only apply in ozone nonattainment areas. 

 Size Applicability

 About half of the states have NOx emission requirements for boilers less than 100 mmBtu/hour, 

ranging from combustion tuning to emission limits as low as 0.05 lbs/mmBtu.

 Form of NOx Limitation or Control Requirement

 Nearly all states express the NOx emission limits in terms of lbs/mmBtu.

 A few states require either a case-by-case RACT determination or specify specific types of 

control equipment (e.g., low-NOx burners, flue gas recirculation).

 Stringency of NOx Limitation or Control Requirement

 The LADCO/OTC Phase I recommendations are combustion tuning for boilers less than 100 

mmBtu/hour, and either 0.1 lbs/mmBtu or 50% reduction for boilers greater than 100 mmBtu/hr. 

 The LADCO/OTC Phase II recommendations are either 0.05-0.1 lbs/mmBtu or 60% reduction.

 New Jersey and New York have state-wide limits that are consistent with the OTC/LADCO 

Phase II recommendations. Pennsylvania has proposed state-wide limits that are consistent with 

the OTC/LADCO Phase II recommendations.

 Five areas (Chicago, Baton Rouge, Beaumont-Port Arthur, Cleveland, and Milwaukee) have 

limits that are consistent with the OTC/LADCO Phase II recommendations. 

 Dallas and Houston have the most stringent emission limitations – 0.02 lbs/mmBtu for greater 

that 100 mmBtu/hr units.
9

Attachment 5 – Oil-fired Boilers

NOx Limit (lbs/mmBtu)

State Geographic Area

Boilers

50-100 

mmBtu/hr

Boilers

100 - 250 

mmBtu/hr

Boilers

>250 

mmBtu/hr

AL Statewide No limits No limits No limits

AR Statewide No limits No limits No limits

CT Statewide 0.2 Distillate

0.25-0.43 Resid.

0.2 Distillate

0.25-0.43 Resid.

0.2 Distillate

0.25-0.43 Resid.

DE Statewide LEA, Low NOx, FGR 0.38 to 0.43 0.38 to 0.43

GA 45 county area 30 ppmvd 30 ppmvd 0.3

IL Chicago & St Louis areas Tune-up 0.1 Distillate

0.15 Resid.

0.1 Distillate

0.15 Resid.

IN Clark and Floyd Counties No limits 0.2 Distillate

0.3 Resid.

0.2 Distillate

0.3 Resid.

KY Statewide No limits No limits NOx SIP Call

LA Baton Rouge 0.2 0.1 0.1

MA Statewide Tune-up 0.3 Distillate

0.4 Resid.

0.25 to 0.28

MD Select counties No limits 0.25 0.25

MI Fine grid zone No limits No limits 0.3 Distillate

0.4 Residual

MO St Louis area No limits 0.3 0.3

MS Statewide No limits No limits No limits

NC Charlotte 6 county area 0.2 0.2 0.2

NJ Statewide Tune-up 0.1 Distillate

0.2 Resid.

0.1 Distillate

0.2 Resid.

NY Statewide 0.08 to 0.2 0.15 0.15 to 0.2

OH Cleveland 8 county area 0.12 Distillate

0.23 Resid.

0.12 Distillate

0.23 Resid.

0.12 Distillate

0.23 Resid.

OK Statewide New only New only New only

PA Statewide 0.12 Distillate

0.20 Resid.

0.12 Distillate

0.20 Resid.

0.12 Distillate

0.20 Resid.

SC Statewide No limits No limits No limits

TN 5 Counties Case-by-Case 

RACT

Case-by-Case 

RACT

Case-by-Case 

RACT

TX Dallas and Houston areas No limits ~0.01 ~0.01

VA Northern VA 0.25 to 0.43 0.25 to 0.43 0.25 to 0.43

WI Milwaukee 7 county area No limits 0.10 Distillate

0.15 Resid.

0.10 Distillate

0.15 Resid.

WV Statewide No limits No limits No limits
10

Observations Regarding State NOx Rules for Oil-fired Boilers:

 Geographic Applicability

 States in the OTR (CT, DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and PA) have NOx emission requirements that 

apply statewide, not just in ozone nonattainment areas. 

 Six states (AL, AR, MS, OK, SC, and WV) do not have regulations limiting NOx emissions.

 For the remaining states (FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MI, MO, NC, OH, TN, TX, VA, WI), the 

NOx emission control requirements only apply in ozone nonattainment areas. 

 Size Applicability

 About half of the states have NOx emission requirements for boilers less than 100 mmBtu/hour, 

ranging from combustion tuning to emission limits as low as 0.08 lbs/mmBtu.

 Form of NOx Limitation or Control Requirement

 Nearly all states express the NOx emission limits in terms of lbs/mmBtu.

 A few states require either a case-by-case RACT determination or specify specific types of 

control equipment (e.g., low-NOx burners, flue gas recirculation).

 Stringency of NOx Limitation or Control Requirement

 The LADCO/OTC Phase I recommendations for distillate oil are combustion tuning for boilers 

less than 100 mmBtu/hour, and either 0.1 lbs/mmBtu or 50% reduction for boilers greater than 

100 mmBtu/hr. The LADCO/OTC Phase II recommendations for distillate oil are either 0.08-0.1 

lbs/mmBtu or 60% reduction.

 Only New Jersey has state-wide limits that are consistent with the OTC/LADCO Phase II 

recommendations for distillate oil. 

 Three areas (Chicago, Baton Rouge, and Milwaukee) have limits that are consistent with the 

OTC/LADCO Phase II recommendations for distillate oil. 

 The LADCO/OTC Phase I recommendations for residual oil are combustion tuning for boilers 

less than 100 mmBtu/hour, and either 0.2 lbs/mmBtu or 60% reduction for boilers greater than 

100 mmBtu/hr. The LADCO/OTC Phase II recommendations for residual oil are either 0.2 

lbs/mmBtu or 50-70% reduction.

 New Jersey and New York have state-wide limits that are consistent with the OTC/LADCO 

Phase II recommendations for residual oil. Pennsylvania has proposed state-wide limits that are 

consistent with the OTC/LADCO Phase II recommendations for residual oil. 

 Four areas (Chicago, Baton Rouge, Charlotte, and Milwaukee) have limits that are consistent with 

the OTC/LADCO Phase II recommendations for residual oil 

 Dallas and Houston have the most stringent emission limitations – 0.01 lbs/mmBtu for greater 

that 100 mmBtu/hr units.
11

Attachment 6 – Gas Turbines 

NOx Limit (ppmvd @15% O2)

State Geographic Area

Simple Cycle

>25 MW

Gas-fired

Simple Cycle

>25 MW

Oil-fired

Combined Cycle

> 25 MW

Gas-fired

Combined Cycle

> 25 MW

Oil-fired

AL Fine grid zone No limits No limits No limits No limits

AR Statewide No limits No limits No limits No limits

CT Statewide 55 258

(0.9 lb/mmBtu)

55 258

(0.9 lb/mmBtu)

DE Statewide 42 88 42 88

GA 45 county area 6 6 6 6

IL Chicago & St Louis 

areas

42 96 42 96

IN Statewide No limits No limits No limits No limits

KY Statewide No limits No limits No limits No limits

LA Baton Rouge 5 

counties & Region 

of Influence

54

(0.2 lb/mmBtu)

86

(0.3 lb/mmBtu)

54

(0.2 lb/mmBtu)

86

(0.3 lb/mmBtu)

MA Statewide 65 100 42 65

MD Select counties 42 65 42 65

MI Fine grid zone No limits No limits No limits No limits

MO St Louis area 75 100 75 100

MS Statewide No limits No limits No limits No limits

NC Charlotte 6 county 

area

75 95 75 95

NJ Statewide 33

(2.2 lb/MWh)

53

(3.0 lb/MWh)

33

(2.2 lb/MWh)

53

(3.0 lb/MWh)

NY Statewide 50 100 42 65

OH Cleveland 8 county 

area

42 96 42 96

OK Statewide No limits No limits No limits No limits

PA Statewide 42 75 42 75

SC Statewide No limits No limits No limits No limits

TN 5 Counties source specific 

RACT

source specific 

RACT

source specific 

RACT

source specific 

RACT

TX Dallas and Houston 

areas

9

(0.032 lb/mmBtu)

9

(0.032 lb/mmBtu)

9

(0.032 lb/mmBtu)

9

(0.032 lb/mmBtu)

VA Northern VA 42 65/77 42 65/77

WI Milwaukee 7 

county area

25 to 42 65 to 96 9 9

WV Statewide No limits No limits No limits No limits
12
13

Observations Regarding State NOx Rules for Gas Turbines:

 Geographic Applicability

 States in the OTR (CT, DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and PA) have NOx emission requirements that 

apply statewide, not just in ozone nonattainment areas. 

 Nine states (AL, AR, IN, KY, MI, MS, OK, SC, and WV) do not have regulations limiting NOx 

emissions.

 For the remaining states (GA, IL, LA, MO, NC, OH, TN, TX, VA, WI), the NOx emission 

control requirements only apply in ozone nonattainment areas. 

 Other Applicability Criteria

 States use a variety size thresholds. For example, Ohio’s rules differentiate between units < 3.5 

MW and > 3.5 MW. Wisconsin has requirements for three size ranges: 10-25 MW, 25-50 MW, 

and >50 MW. 

 State limits generally differ by type of fuel – gas or oil. Wisconsin also includes limits for 

biologically derived fuel. 

 Some states have different limits for simple-cycle and combined-cycle units. Other states have a

single limit that applies to both types of units.

 Form of NOx Limitation or Control Requirement

 States do not specify specific types of control techniques, but rather set a numerical emission 

limit. 

 Most states express limits in terms of “ppmv at 15% oxygen”. Some states use lbs/mmBtu, and 

the equivalent limits shown in the table above were calculated using based on Part 75 Eq-F5 and 

F-factors. New Jersey’s limits are in terms of lbs/MHr. 

 Stringency of NOx Limitation or Control Requirement

 Three areas have very low limits compared to other states/areas: the 45 county area in Georgia, 

Dallas and Houston-Galveston
14

Attachment 7 – IC Engines Greater than ~500 hp

NOx Limit (g/hp-hr)

State Geographic Area Gas-fired, 

Lean Burn

Gas-fired, 

Rich Burn Diesel Dual Fuel

AL Fine grid zone No limits No limits No limits No limits

AR Statewide No limits No limits No limits No limits

CT Statewide 2.5 2.5 8.0 8.0

DE Statewide Technology Stds. Technology Stds. Technology Stds. Technology Stds.

GA 45 county area ? ? ? ?

IL Chicago & St Louis 

areas

210 ppmvd @ 

15% O2 

(2.9 g/hp-hr)

150 ppmvd @ 

15% O2 

(2.2 g/hp-hr)

660 ppmvd @ 

15% O2

(9.1 g/hp-hr)

660 ppmvd @ 

15% O2

(9.1 g/hp-hr)

IN Statewide No limits No limits No limits No limits

KY Statewide No limits No limits No limits No limits

LA Baton Rouge 5 

counties & ROI

4.0 2.0 ? ?

MA Statewide 3.0 1.5 9.0 9.0

MD Select counties 150 ppmvd @ 

15% O2 

(1.7 g/hp-hr)

110 ppmvd @ 

15% O2 

(1.6 g/hp-hr)

175 ppmvd @ 

15% O2

(2.0 g/hp-hr)

125 ppmvd @ 

15% O2

(1.4 g/hp-hr)

MI Fine grid zone 3.0 1.5 2.3 1.5

MO St Louis area 3.0 10.0 2.5 to 9.5 2.5 - 8.5 2.5 - 6.0

MS Statewide No limits No limits No limits No limits

NC Charlotte Area 2.5 2.5 8.0 8.0

NJ Statewide 2.5 1.5 8.0 8.0

NY Statewide 1.5 1.5 2.3 2.3

OH Cleveland 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

OK Statewide No limits No limits No limits No limits

PA Statewide 3.0 2.0 8.0 8.0

SC Statewide No limits No limits No limits No limits

TN 5 Counties Source specific 

RACT

Source specific 

RACT

Source specific 

RACT

Source specific 

RACT

TX Dallas and Houston 

area

0.5 0.5 2.8 to 6.9 0.5

VA Northern VA Source specific 

RACT

Source specific 

RACT

Source specific 

RACT

Source specific 

RACT

WI Milwaukee 7 

county area

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

WV Statewide No limits No limits No limits No limits
15

Observations Regarding State NOx Rules for IC Engines:

 Geographic Applicability

 States in the OTR (CT, DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, and PA) have NOx emission requirements that 

apply statewide, not just in ozone nonattainment areas. 

 Eight states (AL, AR, IN, KY, MS, OK, SC, and WV) do not have regulations limiting NOx 

emissions.

 For the remaining states (GA, IL, LA, MI, MO, NC, OH, TN, TX, VA, WI), the NOx emission 

control requirements only apply in ozone nonattainment areas. 

 Other Applicability Criteria

 States use a variety size thresholds. For example, Louisiana’s rules have separate limits for IC 

engines that are 150-300 hp, >300 hp, and >1500 hp. New York uses > 200 hp and > 400 hp. 

Delaware uses > 450 hp, while North Carolina uses > 650 hp.

 State limits generally differ by type of fuel – gas, oil, dual-fuel or landfill/digester gas. 

 A few states have different limits lean-burn and rich-burn engines. Other states have a single limit 

that applies to both types of units.

 Form of NOx Limitation or Control Requirement

 Most states express limits in terms of “gram per brake horsepower hour”. 

 Some states use “ppmvd @ 15% O2”, and the equivalent limits shown in the table above were 

calculated using conversion factors from ppmv @ 15% O2 to g/hp-hr from EPA ACT, July 1993 

EPA453-R-93-032.

 Delaware specifies control technology standards rather than numerical emission limits. 

 Stringency of NOx Limitation or Control Requirement

 Maryland, New Jersey, New York and the Dallas/Houston areas of Texas have limits that are 

more stringent than other states/areas.