STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

### AIR RESOURCES BOARD

P. O. Box 2815 Sacramento, California 95812

April 1 3 , 200 6

Transmittal
of
ARB Staff Rule Review Comments

To: M r

. David Y a ng Air Quality Engineer

Feather River Air Quality Man agement District Telephone Number: (530) 634

- 7659 ext. 208

e

- mail: dyang @ fr aqmd. org

From: Alex Krichevsky , (916) 324

- 6222

e

- mail: akrichev @arb.ca.gov

The following draft rule, which is scheduled for a public workshop to be held by your
District staff on April 20 , 200 6 , w as received by us on March 2 , 200 6 , for our review:

Rule 3.21 Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam

Generators, and Process Heaters

We have reviewed the rule and have the comments on the following page s . We believe that our comments are important to the effectiveness and enforceability of Rule 3.21.

On March 16, 2006, Ms. Jill Locke and Mr. Eric Patton

, both of our Program Review Section, Program Evaluation Branch, Stationary Source Division, discussed our

comments with you.

If you have any questions about our comments, please contact M r

. Hardip Judge

, Manager of the Program Review Section, at (916) 32 4

- 9512

.

Rule review comments are on the following pages2

Date: April 1 3 , 2006

Air Resources Board Staff Comments on

Feather River Air Quality Management District

Draft Rule 3.21

Rule 3 .21 Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and

Process Heaters

1. Section B1 : This section exempts units for which the permit restricts ope ration to an annual capacity factor of 15 percent or less. We are concerned that there could be business inequities and unnecessarily high emissions in that a relatively large source that operates at or below 15 percent capacity may be exempt while a smal l source that operates above 15 percent capacity must comply even though emissions from the latter may be much less. Operation under the capacity factor exemption could be continuous, or seasonal, such that a boiler operates at high capacity, but not for a long enough period to exceed the 15 percent limit over a

one

- year period. Thus, a large seasonally operated boiler can be exempted, even though it emits large amounts of NOx, perhaps at times when the District's air quality is poor.

We also believe th at this exemption does not accurately reflect a reasonable cost

effectiveness threshold for all units to which it could apply. The cost of retrofitting an existing unit to meet the emissions limits of Section D is not proportional to size,

but is a weak f unction of size. A much better indicator of cost

- effectiveness threshold is the annual fuel usage of a unit. In the ARB/CAPCOA

- approved Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Industrial , Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters , California Air Resources Board, July 18, 1991, (Determination), the fuel usage threshold for exemption from emission limits is 90,000 therms.

2. Section C: Consistent with Co mment 1 above, we suggest adding the following definition: Therm: One hundred thousand (100,000) BTU.

3. Section B.1a and E : Consistent with Comment 1 above, we suggest that a fuel totalizing fuel meter be required for each applicable unit and each appli cable fuel to validate the exemption. The fuel meter should be certified by the manufacturer in writing (Section E.1.a) and the fuel consumption for each unit should be compiled monthly into a rolling twelve calendar month report.3

4. Section D.1C : This section does not require that the annual tune

- up results be satisfactory. We recommend modifying the second sentence as follows:

The owner/operator of any unit(s) is required to submit an annual report verifying that the tune

- up has been performed with satisfactory results.

5. Section s D1, D2, D3, D4 : These sections are somewhat awkward and repetitive. We recommend that the District consider improving the clarity of sections D.1 through D.4 by possibly having a section that applies to units between 1 and 5
MMBtu/hr and those over 5 MMBtu/hr.

6. Section D3 : This section specifies a three

- hour averaging time for emissions source testing, which is not consistent with the Determination. To maximize reductions of NOx emissions and provide consistenc y with the Determination, we recommend that the District replace the three

- hour averaging time with the following:

All emission concentrations and emission rates shall be based on

15

- consecutive

- minute averages. The averages shall be
calculated from n o less than five data sets, recorded from samplings on intervals of no greater than three minutes.

7. Section F 2 : This section requires units to be source tested for compliance once every three calendar years unless otherwise specified by the APCO. Th e Determination requires that units with rated heat inputs of greater than or equal to 5 million Btu/per hour and annual heat input of greater than or equal to 9 billion Btu be source tested for compliance not less than once every 12 months. We suggest

th at a source test be require for every 8,760 hours of actual operation or two years whichever occurs more frequently.

In March 1995, the T ehama C ounty A ir P ollution C ontrol D istrict (TCAPCD) adopted a boiler rule TCAPCD Rule 4.31 with APCO discretion as t o the frequency of compliance testing. After TCAPCD Rule 4.31 was submitted to the SIP, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency partially disapproved the rule (65FR56486) because of the APCO compliance testing discretion. After the TCAPCD revised

Rule 4 .31, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved the rule (67FR34405) because the rule no longer included the unapprovable APCO discretion. To make the rule approvable we suggest removing the phrase “or other test methods approved by the APCO

. ”

8. Section F3 : This section denotes that no compliance determination shall be established within two (2) hours after a continuous period in which fuel flow to the unit is zero, or shut off, for fifteen (15) minutes or longer. The 15 minute time period does not agree with the Determination. We recommend that the 15 minute4

time period in section F.3 be replaced with 30 minutes to agree with the

Determination.

9. Section D : This section contains the emission limits for NOx. We recommend that

the District eva luate whether adoption of every feasible measure has been met by the rule by considering other regulations that have been implemented in other

Districts.1 

## Comments and Responses

Rule 3.21 Industrial, Institutional, Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators and

Process Heater s

Written Comments

Air Resources Board Staff Comments :

Comment #1

Section B1 : This section exempts units for which the permit restricts operation to an annual capacity factor of 15 percent or less. We are concerned that there could be business inequities and unnecessarily high emissions in that a relatively large source that operates at or below 15 percent capacity may be exempt while a s mall source that operates above 15 percent capacity must comply even though emissions from the latter may be much less. Operation under the capacity factor exemption could be continuous, or seasonal, such that a boiler operates at high capacity, but not f or a long enough period to exceed the 15 percent limit over a one

- year period. Thus, a large seasonally operated boiler can be exempted, even though it emits large amounts of NOx, perhaps at times when the District's air quality is poor.

We also believe that this exemption does not accurately reflect a reasonable cost

effectiveness threshold for all units to which it could apply. The cost of retrofitting an existing unit to meet the emissions limits of Section D is not proportional to size, but is a

weak function of size. A much better indicator of cost

- effectiveness threshold is the annual fuel usage of a unit. In the ARB/CAPCOA

- approved Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Industri al, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and

Process Heaters , California Air Resources Board, July 18, 1991, (Determination), the fuel usage threshold for exemption from emission limits is 90,000 therms.

Response #1

Staff reviewed the exemption and concur red with ARB that the annual capacity factor

does not reflect a reasonable cost

- effectiveness threshold for all unit s . Staff concur red

that a better indic a tor is the fuel usage threshold of 90,000 therms as determined in the

Determinat ion. Staff revised the rule to indicate the exemption based on an annual fuel usage of a unit rather than the unit’s annual capacity factor

.

Furthermore, for consistency with the Determination, Staff revised the rule to only

exemp t units rated equal to or greater than 1 MMBtu/hr, but less than 5 MMBtu/hr with

an annual heat input less than 90,000 therms. Units greater than or equal to 5 MMBtu/hr with an annual heat input less than 90,000 therms will be subject to the requirements

listed in the proposed rule, section D.1.a to D.1.d.2

Comment #2

Section C: Consistent with Comment 1 above, we suggest adding the following definition: Therm: One hundred thousand (100,000) BTU.

Response #2

Staff added the term “Therm” and defined it as “one hundred th ousand (100,000) B tu ” in

Section C.

Comment #3

Section B.1a and E : Consistent with Comment 1 above, we suggest that a fuel totalizing fuel meter be required for each applicable unit and each applicable fuel to validate the exemption. The fuel meter should be certified by the manufacturer in writing (Section E.1.a) and the fuel consumption for each unit should be compiled monthly into a rolling twelve calendar month report.

Response #3

Staff revised Section B.1

. a to be consistent with the annual heat input exemption units.

But Staff believed that either a totalizing fuel meter or a non

- resettable hour meter will be

sufficient to track the unit’s applicability to the exemption.

However, hour meter s may not be an accurate representation of the actual fuel used in a

unit if the unit does not operate at 100% load . The annual hours will represent the unit’s

maximum annual heat input based on the rated heat input of the unit and the high er heating value of the fuel.

Staff concurred with CARB and added the phrase “in writing” in section E.1.a.

Comment #4

Section D.1C : This section does not require that the annual tune

- up results be

s atisfactory. We recommend modifying the second sentence as follows:

The owner/operator of any unit(s) is r equired to submit an annual report verifying

that the tune

- up has been performed with satisfactory results.

Response #4

Staff revised the S ection D.1.c to include “ tune

- up has performed with satisfactory results

in accordance to the tune

- up p rocedures d escribe in Attachment 1 .”

Comment #5

S ections D1, D2, D3, D4 : These sections are somewhat awkward and repetitive. We recommend that the District consider improving the clarity of sections D.1 through D.4 by possibly having a section that applies to units between 1 and 5 MMBtu/hr and those

over 5 MMBtu/hr.3

Response #5 Staff reworded the language and renumbered each subsection in Sections D to be clear

and concise.

Comment #6

Section D3 : This section specifies a three

- hour averaging time for emissio ns source testing, which is not consistent with the Determination. To maximize reductions of NOx emissions and provide consistency with the Determination, we recommend that the District replace the three

- hour averaging time with the following:

All emis sion concentrations and emission rates shall be based on 15

- consecutive

minute averages. The averages shall be calculated from no less than five data sets, recorded from samplings on inte rvals of no greater than three minutes.

Response #6

Staff r e moved the “three

- hour averaging time” phrase from Section D. Staff added a new section in Section F., Compliance Determination, subsection F.5., Emission Averaging. Section F.5 is consistent with the Determination.

Comment #7

Section F 2 : This section requi res units to be source tested for compliance once every three calendar years unless otherwise specified by the APCO. The Determination requires that units with rated heat inputs of greater than or equal to 5 million Btu/per hour and annual heat input of g reater than or equal to 9 billion Btu be source tested for compliance not less than once every 12 months. We suggest that a source test be require d for every 8,760 hours of actual operation or two years whichever occurs more frequently.

In March 1995, th e Tehama County Air Pollution Control District (TCAPCD) adopted a boiler rule TCAPCD Rule 4.31 with APCO discretion as to the frequency of compliance testing. After TCAPCD Rule 4.31 was submitted to the SIP, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency partia lly disapproved the rule (65FR56486) because of the APCO compliance testing discretion. After the TCAPCD revised Rule 4.31, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved the rule (67FR34405) because the rule no longer included the unapprovable APCO di scretion. To make the rule approvable we suggest removing the phrase “or other test methods approved by the APCO.”

R esponse #7

Staff concur red with ARB’s suggestion to require a source test for every 8,760 hours of actual operation or two years, whicheve r occurs more frequently. Staff

also remove d the phrase “or other test methods approved by the APCO” to not

allow APCO discretion.

Comment #8

Section F3 : This section denotes that no compliance determination shall be established within two (2) hours af

ter a continuous period in which fuel flow to the unit is zero, or4

shut off, for fifteen (15) minutes or longer. The 15 minute time period does not agree with the Determination. We recommend that the 15 minute time period in section F.3 be replaced with 30 minutes to agree with the Determination.

Response # 8

Staff revised the section to be consistent with the Determination.

Comment #9

Section D : This section contains the emission limits for NOx. We recommend that the District evaluate whether adoptio n of every feasible measure has been met by the rule by considering other regulations that have been implemented in other Districts.

Response #9

Staff evaluated the standard s in the rule against similar requirements adopted by other

districts with simi lar attainment status. The proposed 2

- tier ed standard s , depending on the area designation, will be consistent among most of the N orthern S acramento V alley

A ir B asin District

. The proposed rule is based on CARB’s Determination for

Reasonable Available Co ntrol Technology (RACT) and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) for Industrial, Institutional and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters. Staff determined the standards are feasible and have been achieved in practice

.

EPA Comments

- Approvability Issues

Comment #10

Section D.3

- This section requires that compliance with the emission limits in Table 1 be

based on a three

- hour averaging period. The California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Determination of Reasonably A vailable Control Technology (RACT) and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) for Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters ("Determination") specifies a 15

- minute averaging period. To meet RACT re quirements, this section should be revised to specify

a 15

- minute averaging period.

Response #10

Staff revised the section to be consistent with the Determination.

Comment #11

Section F.1

- The provision on how to demonstrate initial compliance is impre cise, and

therefore difficult to enforce. The term "verified manufacturer’s specification" should be defined within the rule or removed from this section. (Also see the following two comments.)

Response # 1 1

Staff removed the term “ verified manufacturer’ s specification ” from the rule.5

Comments #1 2

Section F.1

- The phrase "or other methods/documents approved by the APCO" in this section allows APCO discretion. This phrase should be removed. If the District intends to allow initial compliance methods or documents other than source tests, the specific

allowable methods or documents should be described.

Response # 1 2

Staff r emove d the phrase “or other methods/documents approved by the APCO” to not

allow APCO discretion.

Comment # 1 3

Section F.1

- The p hrase "or other test methods approved by the APCO" allows APCO discretion. This phrase should be modified to read, "or other test methods approved before the test, in writing, by the APCO, the California Air Resources Board, and the

U.S. Environmental Pro tection Agency."

Response # 1 3

Staff removed the phrase “or other test methods approved by the APCO” to not allow

APCO discretion.

Comment # 1 4

Section F.2

- This section requires that compliance be demonstrated every three years unless otherwise specifie d by the APCO. The Determination requires that units be tested for compliance at least once every 12 months. To meet RACT requirements, this section should be revised to require compliance testing at least once every 12 months.

Response # 1 4

See Comment # 7 and Response #7 . The maximum operation in 12 months is 8,760

hours. The Determination requires compliance testing at least once every 12 months. The Rule requires compliance testing once every 8,760 actual hours if operated within 2 years. If the fac ility will not operate more than 8,760 hours in two year , the facility is required to test every 2 year to show compliance. Staff believed this alternative to annual compliance testing meets the Determination based on hours of ope ration instead of 12

- mont h operating year.

Comment # 1 5

Section F.2

- The phrase "unless otherwise specified by the APCO" allows APCO discretion. This phrase should be removed.

Response # 1 5

Staff removed the phrase “unless otherwise specified by the APCO” to not allow APCO

discretion.6

Comment # 1 6

Section F.2

- The phrase "or other test methods approved by the APCO" allows APCO discretion. This phrase should be modified to read, "or other test methods approved before the test, in writing, by the APCO, the California Air Resources Board, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency."

Response # 1 6

Staff removed the phrase “or other test methods approved by the APCO” to not allow

APCO discretion.

EPA

- Additional Recommendations

Comment # 1 7

Section D.4

- The phrase, "shal l meet the emission limits shown in Table 1 and also" is

redundant and should be removed.

Response # 1 7

Staff reworded the section and removed the phrase.

Comment # 1 8 Section D.4, Table 1

- The word "firing" in the middle column label should be removed,

s o that the label reads "Gaseous & Non

- Gaseous Fuel Co

- Firing Units."

Response # 1 8

Staff removed the word “firing” from the middle column of the table.

Comment # 19 Section D.3, Table 1

- Emission Limitations for NOx

- This table indicates a 2

- tiered set of NOx emission limits for the District, depending on whether a facility is located in the

Sacramento Federal Non

- attainment Area (SFNA), which is in serious non

- attainment, or in the northern portion of the District, which is in moderate non

- attainment. EPA recommends that the more stringent limits listed for the SFNA be imposed on the entire District. Having different limits raises questions of equity as facilities in the SFNA are disadvantaged relative to facilities elsewhere in the District. In addit ion, emission reductions from boilers anywhere in the District are likely to have positive effects over

the entire District.

Response # 19

Staff reviewed the rule and the emission limitations for NOx. Staff decided to maintain

the 2

- tiered NOx emission st andards within the jurisdiction of the District for three

reasons.

First , the 2

- tiered NOx emission standards are consistent with CH&S Code Section s 40918 and 40919, California one

- hour ozone attainment status designated by CARB

. CARB has designated the District with dual one

- hour ozone attainment status: moderate

non

- attainment for Yuba County and northern portion of Sutter County, and serious7

non

- attainment for southern portion of Sutter County. CH&S Code Section 40918 requires air d istrict s to adopt control measure s that will use reasonable available control technology (RACT) for all existing stationary sources in the “moderate” non

- attainment area. CH&S Code Section 40919 requires air districts to adopt control measure s that will use Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) for all existing stationary

source s in the “serious” non

- attainment area.

Furthermore, Yuba County and northern portion of Sutter County are designated as

federal 8

- hour ozone Attainment/Unclassified. The southern portion of Sutter County is only designated as federal 8

- hour ozone non

- attainment area for planning purpose s. Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) has not indicated that the cause of non attainment

status for the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area was the result from transport of pollutants generated from the balance of the FRAQMD jurisdiction. Therefor e, imposing an equally stringent rule to the balance of the FRAQMD for the purpose of improving the general air quality for the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area does not have scientific support.

Second , the balance of the FRAQMD juri sdiction complies with federal ambient air quality standards, which are health based. EPA has not provided a study supporting the

outcome of further health benefit s by reducing ambient pollution concentration s to lower

standards than the current ones. In addition, there is also a lack of targeted lower federal ambient air quality standards after the current ones are met.

And last

, how business competitiveness is affected by regulatory stringency is still a

debatable issue in both industry and academia. Some researchers believe that more stringent environmental standards could make companies more innovative, therefore, more profitable 1

. There is also empirical data supporting this hypothesis 2

. Therefore, having different standard s does not necessarily generate in equity issues as you have suggested.

Staff concluded that the District proposed a rule within the constraint of the CH&S Code

and complie s with federal ambient air quality standards

. Staff also concluded that by imposing t he more stringent emission standard s on the balance of FRAQMD does not necessarily generate equity

. Therefore, Staff decided to maintain the 2

- tiered NOx

emission standards within the jurisdiction of District

.

1 Michael E. Porter and Claas van der Linde. Toward a new conception of the environment

- com petitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Per spectives, 9(4):97

– 118,1995.

2 Jaffe, A.B., S.R. Peterson, P.R. Portney, and R.N. Stavins, " Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing: what does the evidence tell us ?", Journal of Economic Literature 33, 132

- 63 , 19958

Comments from Placer County APCD

Com ment #20 Have you considered setting the emission limit for firing on gaseous fuel for NOx to 30 ppmv or lower? 70 ppmv may not obtain any reductions.

Response #20 See Response #9 and #19.

Comment #21

I would show the 3% O2 correction in the same sec tion as the emission limits. (Placer’s rule is written in a similar manner as your draft).

Response #21 Staff concurred with Placer APCD. Staff revised the proposed rule to include 3% O2 corrected to all ppmv emission limits listed on Table 1 of propose d rule. The correction

to 3% O2 is also reference in section F.4

, Emissions Concentration.

Comment #22

Wood

- fired boilers are often corrected to 12% CO2 by multiplying by 12/CO2 measured.

Response #22 Staff proposed a rule to allow FRAQMD to evaluate any solid fuel

- fired unit on a case by case basis as stated in Section D.3 of the proposed rule. Upon reviewing an application

for solid fueled

- fired boiler, specific requirements will be listed on the Permit to Operate.

Staff reviewed the sources with in FRAQMD. There are no sources that operate wood

fired boilers or solid fuel

- fired boilers.

Comment #23

Section F 2 says “All emission determinations shall be made in the as

- found operating condition at the maximum firing rate allowed by the District pe rmit”.

This statement seems conflicting. As found is not normally maximum firing.

You might consider the following: All source tests shall be made in the as

- found operating condition, except that source tests shall include at least one test conducted at the maximum firing rate allowed by the District permit....OR you might consider source testing within 10% of the maximum allowed firing rate.

Response #23

Staff renumbered section F .2 to F.3, Emission Determination. Staff revised section F.3 to

be consist ent with the Determination. Section F.3 states, “ All emission determinations

shall be made in the as

- found operating conditions, except that emission determinations

shall include

, at a minimum

, one source test conducted at the maximum firing rate

allowed by the District permit ...”