UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document

for

EPA ’ s Rulemaking

for the California State Implementation Plan

South Coast Air Qualit y Management District Rule 1147
NO x Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources

Prepared by: Nicole Law August 2016− 2

− RULE IDENTIFICATION

Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)

SIP Approved Rule: Rule 1 1 47

- NO x Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources Adopted

– December 5, 2008

Submitted

– May 17, 2010 EPA Approved

– August 4, 2010 ( 75 FR 4 6845 )

Subject of this TSD: Rule 1 1 47

- NO x Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources

Amended

– September 9, 2011

Submitted

– February 6, 2013

RULE SUMMARY

Rule 1147 establishes NO x limits on gaseous and liquid fuel fired combustion equipment that require a district permit, but are not specifically required to comply

with NO x emission limits in other District Regulation XI rul es. It also describes

related certification, enforcement and mitigation fee compliance options. Changes from the approved SIP rule include:

1. Added definition for “In

- Use U nit” in section (b)

, Definitions.

2. Added language to the definition of “Make

- up air heater” in section (b)

, Definitions

, to include units used for spray booths which are used for drying coatings.

3. Revised Table 2, adding a column for a deadline to “Submit Permit Application

, ” and delayed the c ompliance dates.

4. Added section (c)(2)(B) to specify how a unit’s age is determined for tunnel kilns and crematories rebuilt prior to January 1, 2010 with new

burners.

5. Revised section (c)(3) to specify that owners or operators of units shall determine compliance with emission limits specified in Table 1.

6. Revised section (c)(6) to add requirements to demonstrate the emissions are one pound per day or less for units electing to defer compliance with emission limits specified in Table 1

.

7. Revised section (c)(8) to remove the compliance date and add language clarifying compliance requirements.

8. Various minor language revision s were made to section (c) to clarify where model numbers and rated heat input capacities should be on the− 3

− unit burner s

.

9. Revised the alternative compliance plan in section (c)(14) to delay the compliance dates for facilities with five or more in

- use units submitting

an alternate compliance plan. The de adline for submitting the plan has

been delayed from July 1, 2009 to January 1, 2012 and the deadline for

at leas t one unit modification has been delayed from January 1, 2010 to April 1, 2012. The deadline for full compliance for all units is unchanged and continues to be January 1, 2015. Facilities with pollution contro l

units in series are allow ed to synchronize compliance dates to one date no later than December 1, 2013.

10. Revised section (d) (1) to specify how compliance determinations are

done. They shall be made in the maximum heat input range at which the unit normally operates. Additional compliance determination shall be done for specific types of units at specific operating parameters.

11. Added section (d)(7) which allows for equipment with un its in series or

with a common exhaust to demonst rate compliance by testing each unit separately or testing only after the last unit in the series o r at the end of

the common exhaust.

12. Revised sections (g)(4) and (g)(6) to extend the period during which new afterburners, degassing units, thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, vapor incinerators, spray booth make

- up air heaters , new food ovens, fryers, heated process tanks, parts washers, and evaporators installed for use would be exempt from the rule emi ssion limits until the unit is 15 years old.

13. Revised section (g)(5) to extend the period during which new or relocated remediation units would be installed and exempt from the rule

emission limits until January 1, 2012.

14. Added section (h)

, requiring the District to perform a technology assessment by December 7, 2015.

15. Added section (i) to allow a mitigation fee compliance option for owners or operators with unit s that emit more than 1 pound per day to delay their compliance by 3 years.

16. Mad e o ther minor formatting and editorial revisions to improve clarity.

17. Upon the adoption of SCAQMD Rule 1153.1 in 2014, categories under

commercial food ovens formerly covered under Rule 1147 became subject to the applicability of Rule 1153.1 Emissions of O xides of− 4

− Nitrogen from Commercial Food Ovens.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

- The following criteria were used to evaluate the

submitted rule.

1. Enforceability

- The Bluebook ( Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations , EPA, May 25, 1988)

, the Little Bluebook ( Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001) and EPA’s EIP guidance ( Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs

, EPA

- 452/R/01

- 01

- 002, January 2001) were used to help evaluate compliance with the CAA § 110(a)(2)(A) requirement for enforceability.

2. Stringency

- EPA ’ s Alternative Control Techniques Document (ACT ) titled, “ NO x Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI)

Boilers ” (EPA

- 45 3 / R

- 94

- 022

, March 1994 ), CARB ’ s RACT/BARCT guidance titled, “ Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process

Heaters ” (July 18, 1991), and other state and local rules for this category were used to help evaluate the RACT requirements of CAA § 182(b)(2)

and § 182(f).

3. SIP Relaxation

- CAA § 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. In addition, CAA § 193 prohibits the modification of any SIP

- approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in a nonat tainment area.

EPA EVALUATION

- A summary of our evaluation of the three criteria follows.

1. The rule requirements and applicability are clear, and the compliance

determination

, certification , reporting and other provisions sufficient ly

ensure that affected sources and regulators can evaluate and determine compliance with Rule 1147 consistently.

A testing option for units in series was added to the rule in section (d)(7). We previously commented on this amendment in our August 31, 2011

letter asking the district to address EPA’s guidance on economic incentive programs. The revised staff report for the amended rule explain ed that in the event test results exceed the rule emission limits, each unit in the group will be determined to exceed the r ule emission limit. This is consistent with EPA’s EIP which states in section 7.2(c)− 5

− that “The number of violations is calculated by multiplying (a) the number of days the actual emissions are higher than the allowable emissions after any adjustments by ( b) the number of units covered under the emissions averaging EIP.” Additionally, the staff report explains this testing option is necessary to test units which cannot be tested individually as they share common exhaust streams. We concur with
SCAQMD’s ana lysis and believe this adequately addresses this issue.

2. The submitted rule is more stringent than EPA’s ACT and CARB ’ s RACT/BARCT guidance and is as stringent as other California District rules for this category , including SJVUAPCD Rule 4309

. While Rule 1147 categories are not directly comparable to EPA’s ACT and CARB’s RACT/BARCT guidance, they are the only N O x guidance documents available for comparison at this time. The emission limits in Rule 1147 are more stringent than those in the guidances. As a result, we have

determined that this rule fulfill s RACT requirements.

3. We propose to determine that our approval of the submittal would comply with CAA §§ 110(l) and 193 because the proposed SIP revision

would not interfere with the on

- going process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are met

.

Amended Rule 1147 delays several compliance dates from the previously SIP approved rule in Table 2, section (c)(14). Compliance dates are pushed back no further than 2 years in Table 2, Compliance

Schedule for In

- Use Units, to address compliance challenges that w ere being experienced. The required date for submitting the alternate compliance plans in section (c)(14) and starting compliance were delayed, but the final date for compliance of all units under the alternate compliance plans is unchanged at January 1, 2015. While these provisions could have delay ed emission reductions, the same emission

reductions are achieved as none of the emission limits have been

relaxed.

The district’s staff report has addressed these rule amendments and how they were needed fo r the own ers and operators to transition into compliance. The rule changes will achieve the same NO x emissions

reductions as the previous rule amendment by 2018. Additionally, SCAQMD provided a letter to EPA on May 20, 2015 addressing the emissions foreg one (i.e. emissions reductions that were not achieved) due to the delayed compliance dates and mitigation fee compliance option. The letter estimates the emissions forgone due to these rule amendments are 0.06 tpd NO x in 2015 and 2016. In 2017 and 2018,

this rule will result in NO x emission s reductions of 0.12 tpd. The letter summarizes that emissions foregone in 2015 and 2016 from Rule 1147− 6

− along with several other SCAQMD rules add up to 0.21 tpd NO x in 2015 and 0.21 tpd NO x in 2016. 0.21 tpd NO x is less than the 1 tpd NO x set aside by SCAQMD in their 2014 inventory used to model attainment. 1 Therefore, the foregone reductions do not impact the 2015 impracticability demonstration for the 2006 NAAQS for PM 2.5

. Beyond 2020, there are no emissions foregone due to the amendments in Rule
1147, therefore there is no impact on the 1

- h ou r ozone standard with

attainment date of 2022 and the 1997 8

- h ou r ozone standard with

attainment date of 2023.

Section (i) was added to provide a mitigation fee compliance option

. 2 Owners and operators of a unit are allowed to delay compliance with the rule emission limits for up to three years by submitting an alternate compliance plan and paying an emissions mitigation fee. This flexibility is given so operato rs may have additional time to incorporate low NO x technology for unique applications or processes and to phase in compliance for multiple units at a facility. The district’s staff report states the fees collected will be used to fund replacement of commer cial leaf

blowers which will provide sufficient emission reductions to compensate for the delay. We are not opining on the leaf blower program in this

TSD . However, s ince the units subject to Rule 1147 will ultimately have to meet the rule’s emission limits, this fee compliance option is similar to the other delayed compliance rule amendments and addressed by SCAQMD’s May 20, 2015 letter discussed above

.

Lastly, the categories formerly under commercia l food ovens in Rule

1147 and transferred to Rule 1153.1 are discussed in the TSD for the proposed approval on Rule 1153.1.

RULE DEFICIENCIES

– We have identified no deficiencies with Rule 1147 sufficient for EPA to propose less than full approval.

1 Letter from Philip Fine, SCAQMD, to Andrew Steckel, EPA, Re: Ongoing NO x rule development emission reductions (forgone) issues, dated May 20, 2015.

2 We note that while the fees are enforceable against sources, the emission reductions associated

are not without further documentation. If the District intends to seek credit in a SIP for emission reductions generated through disbursement of funds generated through the implementation of this fee, the District must develop and submit a SIP revision consistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance on economic incentives. See 2001 EIP and 80 FR 19020 (4/9/2015). As a result, it is not appropriate at this time to credit in SIP attainment demonstrations, emission reductions associated with emission limits with an alternative fee compliance option. In addition, if the District intends to seek SIP credit for the units complying with the emission limitati ons of the rule, the District should document the number of units complying with the emission limitations as well as link the emissions to the relevant emission inventory.− 7

− ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEXT RULE REVISION

- We

have no recommendations for the next rule revision

.

EPA ACTION

- The submitted Rule 1147 strengthens the SI P, and the associated

District s taff report projects NO x emissions will be delayed slightly , but not

reduced . The rule largely fulfills the relevant CAA § 110 and part D requirements. Therefore, EPA staff recommends a full approval of Rule 1147 pursuant to CAA § 110(k)(3) and § 301(a).

REFERENCES

-

1. SCAQMD Rule 1147

, NO x Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources

, as amended September 9, 2011 and submitted to EPA on February 6, 2013

. 2. SCAQMD Rule 1147

, NO x Reductions from Miscellaneous Sources

, as adopted on December 5, 2008 , and approved into the SIP on August 4,

2010 ( 75 FR 4 6845 )

. 3. “Staff Report

- Proposed Rule 1147

- NO x Reductions From Miscellaneous Sources,” SCAQMD, Dated September 2011.

4

. “ Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, ” (a.k.a., Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988 (web citation ).

5

. “ Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, ” (a.k.a., Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, Augu st 21, 2001 (http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/sips/littlebluebook2001.pdf ).

6

. “ NO x Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers

, ”

EPA

, March 1994, ( EPA

- 45 3 / R

- 94

- 022

, March 1994).

7

. “Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Industrial, Institutional, and

Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters,” CARB, July
18, 1991.

8

. “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs

, ” EPA, January 2001 (EPA

- 452/R

- 01

- 001)

. 9

. Letter from Andrew Steckel, EPA

, to Joe Cassmassi, SCAQMD

, Re: Rule

1147 , NO x reductions from Miscellaneous Sources (8/9/11) draft , dated August 31, 2011.

10

. Letter from Philip Fine, SCAQMD, to Andrew Steckel, EPA, Re: Ongoing

NO x rule development emission reductions (forgone) issues, dated May 20,

2015.