UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION Ill 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

Ms. Karen Smith AirManagement Services Department ofPublic Health City ofPhiladelphia 321 University Avenue, 2nd Floor Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
DearMs. Smith: 

## OCT:.16 

## 2014

Thank you for the opportunity to comment onthe proposed "Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)," published on September 18,2014. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) comments are provided inthe enclosure to this letter.
We look forward to working with you to resolve these comments. Please do nothesitate to contact me, orhave your staffperson contact Ms. EmlynVelez-Rosa, (215) 814-2038 ofmy stafffor any questions pertaining to these comments.

Enclosure

cc: Thomas Huynh, Director Edward Wiener, Chief, Source Registration Henry Kim, Chief, Program Services Sincerely,



# //

**Li** Acting Director Air Protection Division



# 0 Printedon I00% recycled/recyclablepaper with I00%post-consumer fiber andprocess chlorine free. CustomerServiceHotline: 1-800-438-2474U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Comments to Philadelphia Air Management Services (AMS) Proposed "Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)," Published on September 18,2014
General Comments Applicable to All Facilities: 1. In the proposed SIP Revision, a cost effectiveness "benchmark" of$2,500 perton of nitrogen oxides (NOx) reduced was used as a maximum costeffectiveness cut-offin evaluating source-specific RACT. AMS has not provided a cost-effectiveness benchmark for volatile organic compounds (VOC) RACT. In determining NOx and VOC RACT comparable cost-effectiveness levels, EPA believes that it is appropriate to focus
on a range ofcost effectiveness. The range is appropriate due to the variability ofthe actual cost effectiveness that is expected from unit to unit. In general, the actual cost and emissionreductions achieved from the implementation ofcontrols on an individual source, and consequently the cost-effectiveness levels, will vary from unit to unit, because the emission sources themselves vary in age, condition, and size, among other considerations. See EPA's detailed rationale in its March 16, 1994 memorandum "CostEffective Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)." 1 Thus, EPA strongly cautions AMS not to rigidly apply a benchmarkto exclude consideration oftechnically feasible controls, but should rather consider a broader range ofcost effectiveness to see ifsome level ofadditional control falls within that range. Additionally, EPA notes that other nearby states have adopted recentNOx RACT limits with far higher average cost effectiveness than $2,500 per ton. For instance, New York State estimated thatthe proposedNOx limits to take effect in 2015 would have an average cost effectiveness ranging from $2,600 to $5,463 perton (Proposedrevisions to Subpart 227-2 published in the NYS Register on December 23, 2009).2 NewYork State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (NY DEC) started with a higher cost effectiveness threshold for NOx RACT of$3,000 perton (in 1994 U.S. dollars) over which an "emission source ofVOC orNOx will not berequired to implement any emissionreduction or control strategy that is more costly thanthe established threshold adjusted overtime for inflation."3 Using the Bureau ofLabor Statistics "ConsumerPrice Index (CPI) inflation calculator," NYDEC determined that $3,000 in 1994 equates to $4,638 in 2012, which was thenrounded up to $5,000 to ensure a level ofconservatism.4 AMS shouldjustify the appropriateness oftheNOx cost-effectiveness level used in the

1 Available at hitp:/ /www.er.a.gov /tto/caaa/t 1 /memoranda/costcon.pdf.

2 A copy ofNew York's proposed rule is docketed at www.regulations.gov as an attachmentto document EPA-R02- 0AR-2013-0l80-0004 in docket EPA-R02-0AR-2013-0l80.

3 DAR-20: Economic and Technical Analysis for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Networks, Effective October 18,2013, available on-line at http://www.dec.ny.go /chemical/91851

.hllnl. Applying the BLS "CPI inflation calculator" to adjust $3,000 in 1994 dollars to 1990 dollars will yield $2,645 perton. Also, $1,500 in 1990 dollars is equivalentto $1,700 in 1994 dollars.

4 Id.
1source-specific RACT evaluations and indicate the applicable VOC cost-effectiveness level used, ifany. AMS should consider in thisjustificationthe NOx cost-effectiveness levels established by nearby states. Finally, while cost effectiveness, as described above, is an important consideration, it must be noted that other factors should be integrated into a RACT analysis, such as emission reductions and environmental impact, among others.
2. In proposing source-specific RACT limitations under 25 Pa Code 129.91-94, AMS needs to ensure that the requirements·are practically enforceable, by including specific emission limits and independently enforceable operating restrictions, short-term averaging times (no more than 12-monthrolling), and monitoring, record keeping, and any other compliance requirements sufficient to determine compliance.
EPA believes short-term averaging is appropriate for RACT and anyproposed RACT emissions limits should include this consideration. Because compliance with the 1997 8- hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard) is determined over an 8-hourperiod, EPA has preferred RACT emission standards for the ozone NAAQS to be based upon a short-term time period, such as daily or 24-hourrolling average basis, although typically a 30-day rolling average emission rate (as an average of all hourly data for the proceeding 30 operating days) has been approved as an acceptable averaging period for NOx RACT (57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992).
3. In accordance with the source-specific RACTrequirements of25 Pa Code 129.92(a)(4), a RACT proposal must include actual and potential NOx and VOC emissions for each affected emissions source and associated supporting documentation. AMS should provide potential and actual emissions for each ofthe emissions sources in each facility evaluated for RACT. For each emissions source evaluated, AMS should include or refer to any technical and economic data, calculations, methodology, and assumptions relevant to the proposed RACT determinations, including any submittals made by the facilities in compliance with 25 Pa Code 129.92.
4. In this proposed SIP revision, AMS is proposing to certify that f 'previously adopted source-specific RACT controls approved by EPA in the Pennsylvania SIP underthe 1- hour ozone NAAQS continue to adequately represent RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS." As part ofthis certification, AMS has provided technical memorandums for each facility evaluating the technical and economic feasibility ofimplementing additional available controls as RACT for emissions sources that is subject to Pennsylvania's source-specific RACTrequirements un,der 25 PaCode 129.91-94. EPA has long defined RACT as the "lowest emission limitationthat a particular source is capable ofmeeting by the application ofcontrol technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility" (57 FR 55620 at 55624, November 25, 1992, both citing 44 FR 53761 at 53762, September 17, 1979). Thus, to support this certification, AMS should also demonstrate that the level ofany proposed emissions rate as RACT represents the lowest emissions limitation that is currently feasible for that particular emissions source. This demonstration would also apply to any emissions limits 2that have already been approved as RACT under the 1-hour ozone standard, in order to properly evaluate whether these limits continue to adequately represent RACT for an emissions source. Accordingly, AMS would need to revise any previously approved RACT emission limitation that currently does not representthe lowestreasonably achievable rate to a more stringent level ofemissions to satisfy RACTunderthe 1997 8- hour standard. Suchrevisions would be consistent with the anti-backsliding requirements ofClean Air Act (CAA) section 110(1). As part ofthis demonstration, EPA recommends relying on actual emissions ofNOx and/or VOC for each emissions source subject to source-specific RACT. In general, cost considerations should not be necessary for evaluating the appropriateness ofexisting RACT emissions limits, as EPA does not anticipate that updating the emissions limits would have a significanteconomic impact to the facility. 5. AMS is also proposingto certify that certain facilities that were applicable to RACT requirements underthe 1-hour ozone standard are not affected sources under RACT for the 1997 8-hourNAAQS, because eitherthey are under the applicable "major source" thresholds (i.e., minor sources), as defined by EPA, orhave shut down. To support this certification, AMS has provided a list of"minor" and shutdownfacilities in Philadelphia (pages 14-15). EPAbelieves that AMS did not provide sufficient informationto evaluate the proposed certification. EPA believes it is appropriate to provide the following information: AMS should provide the potential-to-emit (PTE) ofeach facility to confirmthat certain facilities are not major sources. In the case that a facility has taken a facility-wide restriction on PTE to be underthe applicable RACT major source thresholds, AMS shouldrefer to the applicablepermit that allows suchrestriction. Forfacilities that have shutdown, AMS needs to show thatthese shutdowns are Federally-enforceable for the facility to not have to comply with RACT. 6. AMS is proposing to certify that 25 PaCode 129.81 continues to represent RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which EPA approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on September 28, 1993 (58 FR 50517) to satisfy the RACT requirements under section 183(f) ofthe CAA. CAA section 183(f) requires EPA to promulgate VOC RACT standards for marine vessel loading and unloading byNovember 15, 1992. Atthe time of EPA's SIP-approval ofregulation 25 PA Code 129.81, EPA had notpromulgated yet any Federal RACT standards. On September 19, 1995 (60 FR48388), EPApromulgated "National Emission Standards for Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations," codified at 40 CPR Part 63, Subpart Y. The rule established RAc:r and maximum available control technology (MACT) standards for marine vessel loading. CAA section 183(±)(4) provides that state regulations governing VOC emissions from marine tank vessels must be at least as stringent as the Federal standard. AMS needs tojustifythat the RACT provisions of25 PaCode 129.81 are more stringentthan the Federal RACT standards of 40 CR 63, Subpart Y. 7. In general, whenever a state chooses to revise its SIP, the State must demonstrate that the revision would not interfere with air quality goals, in accordance with section 110(1) of the CAA. Accordingly, for any revisions ofSIP-approved RACT control measures, 

### 3AMS must explainhowthe proposed SIP revision does not interfere with attainment of the applicable ozone NAAQS, including both 1-hour ozone standard and the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard, and any applicable reasonable further progress requirements. In evaluating whether a given SIP revision would interfere with attainment or maintenance,
as required by CAA section 110(1), EPA generally considers whether the SIP revision

.will allow for an increase in actual emissions into the air over what is allowed under the existing EPA-approved SIP. Thus, in proposing to modify the SIP-approved requirements, AMS must demonstrate that the proposedrevision provides equivalent or additional emissions reductions, in accordance with CAA section 110(1).
8. AMS has identified various "de minimis" or "insignificant" emissions sources for which it has determined that RACT is not an applicable requirement or for which RACT has not been determined. AMS mustjustify why RACT is not applicable to the sources identified as "de minimis" in this proposal.
EPA recognizes that it is possible for certain emissions sources at a major facilities to be
so small that it would not be reasonable to consider technological and economic feasibility and thus to determine RACT. In general, states and local regulatory agencies have included exemptions for very small emissions sources in establishing specific RACT requirements for source categories. The$e exemptions are generally based onthe State's determinationthatthe required level ofcontrol is generally not reasonable, considering technological and economic feasibility, for the affected emissions sources under certain size orcapacity or whose potential emissions are under certain level (i

.e., de minimis level). A de minimis level should not be set arbitrarily, but should be determined based ontechnical and economic infeasibility ofa determined level of control. Major sources ofNOx and VOC in Philadelphiafor which no other RACTrequirement has been established are subjectto source-specific requirements of25 Pa Code 129.91- 94. Under this regulation, RACT is required to be determined on a case-by-case basis, based on the technical and economic feasibility ofthe available controls for each particular emissions source. As stated earlier, feasibility ofcontrols on an individual
source will vary from unit to unit, because the sources themselves vary in age, condition, and size, among otherconsiderations

. Thus, EPA believes it would notbe appropriate to define a general de minimis level ofVOC and NOx,

**respect~vely,** for the vastuniverse of emissions sources that are subject to RACT under 25 Pa Code 129.91-94. EPA recommends AMS to not apply a general de minimis level, but to rather establish specific de minimis levels for emissions sources that are similar, such that different levels would apply to different source categories. In establishing such categories, AMS could consider purpose, capacity, emissions levels, and/or operation ofthe emissions sources. Alternatively, EPA believes AMS should evaluate the feasibility ofcontrols on a case-bycase basis, consistent withthe RACTrequirements of25 PA Code 129.91-94. Any determination by AMS for defining de minimis levels ofNOx and VOC, respectively, shouldbe provided as a SIP revision for EPA's evaluation.
9

. AMS should considerproposing to revise the SIP to update the names and facility

4information for the sources subjectto source-specific RACT requirements under 40 CFR 52.2020(d)(l) whichhave changed ownership or name.

Comments by Facilities PhiladelphiaEnergy Solutions (PES) (formerly Sunoco- R&M) 1. Onpage 17, AMS states that "PES, including the Tank Farm, is subjectto the 1-hour RACT determination (PA PermitNumbers 51-1501 and 51-1517) dated August 1, 2000, and approved into the SIP by EPA on October 31,2001,66 FR 54942 under the facility's former name Sunoco Inc. (R&M)

- Philadelphia." This statement is incorrect, since the 1-hourRACT determination approved byEPA did not address RACT for the Tank Farm.
2. AMS mustprovide the actual andpotential emissions ofeach emissions source at PES

. To support PTE, AMS should specify the most stringent Federally-enforceable limitation that applies to each source, and all appropriate assumptions used.
3. The following existingNOx emissions sources at the refinery, that are subjectto the presumptive RACT requirements of25 PA Code Sections 129.93(b)(2)-(5), were not listed as part ofthememorandum: Unit 860- 2Hl (49 million BritishThermal Unit per hour (MMBTU/hr) ofheat inputrating), Unit 860- 2H6 (36.7 MMBTU/hr), Unit 860- 2H8 (49.6 MMBTU/hr), Unit 864-PH2 (45 MMBTU/hr), Unit 1332 H-1 (45 MMBTU/hr), Unit 1332 H-3 (43 MMBTU/hr), Unit 1332 H-600 (21 MMBTU/hr), Unit 1332 H-601 (48

- MMBTU/hr), and Unit 1332 H-602 (49 MMBTU/hr).
4. AMS explains inthe memorandum that PES is subject to a Federally-enforceable ConsentDecree thatrestricts PES from burning refinery oil except under certain circumstances, including gas curtailments. Because "PES has completely stopped burning oil," AMS is proposing to remove from the SIP the NOx emissions limits for emission sources burning refinery oil that were approved as RACT under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS. In order for EPA to approve the proposed removal ofthe oil emissions limits, AMS needs to showthat PES (or formerly Sunoco) has taken a Federallyenforceable limit to completelyrestrict burning refinery oil throughout the facility.
5. AMS did notprovide sufficientinformation to evaluate the control feasibility analysis provided for PES for emissions sources subjectto source-specific RACT. AMS did not providejustificationfor determining technical infeasibility ofthe controls evaluated for each emissions source, and did notprovide a discussion ofthe methodology used for estimating cost-effectiveness oftechnically feasible controls. Withoutthis information, EPA is unable to properly evaluatethe source-specific NOx and VOC RACT evaluations provided for the emissions sources at PES.
6. Onpages 20 and 33 ofthe proposed SIP, AMS explains that PES has submitted a RACTproposal to determine source-specific NOx and VOC RACT for the emissions sources at the facility. AMS should include the PES submittal as part ofthe SIP revision to further support AMS proposed RACT.


### 57. On page 29, AMS states thatthe potential NOx emissions ofthe fluid catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) 868 are based onthe applicable limit of47,500 barrels per day on a rolling 365 day-rolling average, while in Table 1, page 18 AMS states a potential capacity of 50,000 barrels perday. Please clarify.
8. AMS needs to adequately address RACT for the marine vessel and tank truck loading operations at PES. AMS has identified the refinery's "loading operations" at wharfand tank truck as VOC emission sources, and has stated thatboth sources are subjectto·the RACTrequirements ofAMRV SectionV "Organic Loading Operations." However, AMRV SectionV only applies to VOC emissions from loading oforganic materials into tank truck, tank car, ortrailers from any loading facility, and is not applicable to marine vessel loading operations. Additionally, the PES Title V operatingpermit (No. V95-038) does not list AMRV Section V as an applicable requirement for the tank truck loading operations at the refinery. Please clarify.
9. AMS has notprovided potential VOC emissions from the refinery cooling towers nor sufficiently evaluated available controls for controlling VOC emissions from the towers.
10. On page 27, AMS proposes NOx
·emissions rates as RACT for various heaters and boilers in terms ofpounds per million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU) perrolling 365-day basis. These limits are essentially annual limits that are measured on a daily basis for more stringency. As explained earlier, EPAbelieves short-term averaging is appropriate in setting emissions limits for RACT, typically a 30-day rolling average. AMS shouldprovidejustificationofwhythese limits adequately represent RACT for these emissions sources.
Honeywelllntemational

- Frankford Plant (Formerly SlUloco Chemical- Frankford Plant) 1. In short, EPA believes AMS has not submitted an adequate analysis to support the proposed RACT modification for Boilers 1 and 2. Althoughthe proposed restriction for combustion ofNo. 6 fuel oil should result inNOx emissions reduction, AMS must ensure thatthe proposed emissions limitations and fuel restrictions are practically enforceable.
AMS is proposing revisions to the RACTPlan Approval to remove the ability ofBoilers 1 and 2 to bumNo.6 fuel oil, except "ifthereis a natural gas curtailment and other losses ofsupply (e.g. PGW supply line failure or maintenance activity) orduring stack testing programs (e.g. annual CEMRATAtesting, annual combustiontuning, and combustion performance testing, as required)." AMS should clarify the following: How are supply losses expected to affect the boilers' operation? Why should AMS allow the buming ofoil during stacktesting programs whenNo.6 fuel oil is almost completely excluded? Howwouldthis testing result inNOx emissions that are representative ofthe boilers' operations when burning natural gas and phenol?
6Forthis condition to be practically enforceable, AMS must clearly identify the specific circumstances in which the facility would be allowed to bumNo.6 oil in Boilers 1and 2. To show compliance with this requirement, EPA also believes the facility should be required to record and timely notify AMS whenthese events occur. AMS is proposing to establish a fuel restriction based on annual heat input: "Honeywell shall operate Boiler 1and Boiler 2 each on waste phenol residue and natural gas combined 51% or greater." EPA finds that this condition is notpractically enforceable and that is inconsistent withthe proposed restriction ofcombusting No.6 fuel oil. The proposed condition does not specify that the limit applies to annual heat input based on BTU. The proposed condition does not establish specific heat input limits for each of the fuels, but a combined limit for both natural gas and waste phenol and implies a restriction for No. 6 fuel oil. Forthe condition to be practically enforceable, fuel restrictions should apply to each ofthe fuels been combusted in Boilers 1 and 2. The proposedheat input restriction is provided as a relative limit, in terms ofpercentage, and not absolute limits. To ease practical enforceability ofthe proposed limits, EPA recommends to establish absolute heat input limits, interms ofBTU, and notrelative limits, in terms ofpercentages or fractions. The proposed heat inputrestriction is inconsistent with the proposed condition to limit the instances where burningNo. 6 fuel oil is allowed. Since the boilers would primarily bumnatural gas and/orphenol, in most cases there would be no other fuel comprising the remaining 49% ofannual heat input during thattime. The proposed fuel restriction does not appropriately reflect the two possible operating scenarios: (1) Burning ofphenol and/or natural gas, and (2) burning ofphenol and/orNo.6 fuel oil, when natural gas is not available. AMS should establish fuel restrictions for each ofthe possible operating scenarios. EPA also believes it is appropriate to establish aNOx emissions limit orfuel restriction for No. 6 fuel oil, because the proposed conditions would allow combustion of No.6 fuel oil during specific circumstances. 2. As part ofthe SIP-approvedRACT Plan Approval, Boilers 1and 2 are also subjectto the following restrictions: A NOx emissions limitation of0.35 lb/MMBTU for each ofthe boilers and a combined emissions limitation of272 tons per year. EPA finds that the 0.35 lb/MMBTU limitmay no longer be appropriate to represent RACT and that it is inconsistent withthe proposed

**~CT** revisions. First, emissions data from Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) included in

. the proposal indicates that each ofthe boilers were able to achieve much lowerNOx

emissions rates perheat input, specifically: 0.29lb/MMBTUforNo.6 oil, 0.19 lb/MMBTU for waste phenol residue, and 0.12 lb/MMBTU for natural gas. The CEMS dataprovided shows that the current 0.35 lb/MMBTU limit is only appropriate for controlling NOx emissions from burning No.6 oil. The boilers are able to achieve lower emissions rates when burning phenol or natural gas. Since No.6 fuel oil has been restricted from primaryuse, AMS should establish additional limits to control emissions from the boilers when burning phenol and natural gas. EPA recommends AMS establish
a NOx emissions limitperfuel for each boiler, and to consider actual emissions data when

7establishing such limits. AMS must alsojustifythat the existing RACT emissions limit of272 tons per year continues to be appropriate to represent RACT.
3. On page 38, AMS states that "(a)ll testing, monitoring, andrecordkeeping are in the Title V operatingpermit for the facility." Fortheproposed RACT limitations to bepracticably enforceable, the relevanttesting, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements for each of the RACT limits must be included. 4. For Boiler 3, AMS has evaluatedthe economic feasibility offlue gas recirculation (FGR) in combination with lowNOx burner (LNB). BecauseBoiler 3 is already required to maintain and operate an LNB, AMS should only considerthe cost ofinstallation ofFGR,
as the LNB is already inplace. 5. AMS includes a cost-effectiveness analysis for LNB. Boiler 3 is already required as RACTto maintain and operate LNB as of 1995. Thus, this cost-effectiveness evaluation is irrelevant. 6. AMS has also evaluated feasibility ofFGRin combinationwithultra-lowNOx burner (ULNB). AMS should explainthe difference betweenLNB andULNB withrespect technical operation and expected control efficiency; AMS should further explain whether
a completeremoval ofLNB and installation ofthe ULNB is required ormerely a simple 'upgrade' to the current burner system. · 7. The capital recovery factor (CRF) estimated for Boiler 

### 3 is based on a 15% ofinterest (i) and 10 years ofuseful life (n). PleasejustifywhyAMS assumes useful life (n) for each control of 10 years, when it is typically estimated to be 20 years. 8. The methodology provided inpages 41 for estimating emissions ofammonia (NH3) necessary for the selective catalyticreduction (SCR) systems is incorrect. Thus, the ammonia costs estimate for SCRprovided onpage 42 is also incorrect. Emissions ofNOx from combustion offossil fuels are primarily inthe form ofnitrogen oxide (NO), ratherthan inthe form ofnitrogen dioxide (NOz). Thus, the amount of ammonianeeded should be estimated based onthe reduction ofNO, rather than ofNOz. The reduction ofNOtakes place when ammonia and oxygen (Oz) react withthe NO, to produce nitrogen (Nz) and water vapor (HzO), bythe following stoichiometric chemical reaction:

Formore details, seepage 2-5 ofEPA'sJanuary 2002 AirPollution Control Cost Manual, SixthEdition, (EPA/452/B-02-001 ).. AMS provides the following methodology to estimate the annual cost ofammonia:
( 17 4molesofNH3 $410 ) Ammonia Cost= 46 * 2 1 f 0 * 1.05 *NOx emissions*--* 5years mo es o N 2 ton WhereNOx emissions are in tons per year.

8First, AMS should correct the estimated cost for ammonia, based onthe stoichiometric ratio oftl).e reduction ofNO and molecular weight ofNO, instead ofN02. Second, because AMS uses potential annual NOx emissions ofthe boiler intons per year, the cost would already be estimated on an annual basis. Itis unnecessary to multiply the costby 5 years, as this wouldresult inthe total cost for the amount ofammoniafor 5 years of operation, and the annual cost is needed. Additionally onpage 42, AMS added a commentthat indicates that the sinking fund factor (SFF) was used in estimated annual cost ofammonia. Ifusing the revised equation
as described inprevious comment, the cost ofammonia will be estimated in an annual basis, and AMS will notneed to use the SFF for annualization. The SFF should only be used in estimating the replacement cost ofthe catalyst, as AMS explained onpage 41.
9. AMS provides inadequate references to supporttheir estimation ofthe total capital investment (TCI) costs ofthe controls evaluated for Boiler 3. AMS refers to "the 2006 Best Available Control Technology submittal plus inflation adjustment to 2014 US dollars" and states that "(t)heTCI includes equipment costestimates from vendorsupplied estimates for similarunits or industry data gathered for similarprojects. This
was used because it is similarto RACT analysis and it is morerecent." AMS should include the referenced BestAvailable Control Technology (BACT) analysis, or at least provide a more substantive description ofthe BACTdetermination. Additionally, AMS should clearly identify, for each control evaluated, whether vendor cost estimates or industry data were used inestimating TCI.
Paperworks Industry (Formerly Jefferson Smurfit Corp.) 1

. In proposing revisions to the existing RACT conditions inthe SIP in accordance with CAA 110(1), AMS does notproperly describe inthe technical memorandumthe existing RACT requirements approved inthe SIP underthe 1-hour ozone standard for Paperworks Industry (Formerly Jefferson Smurfit Corp.). Atthe time ofthe 1-hour RACT determination, RACT was evaluated and determined for Boiler 1 (240 MMBTU/hr), Boiler 2 (225 MMBTU/hr), and four infrared heaters (2.9 MMBTU/hr each). Under 1-hour RACTdetermination, Boilers 1 and 2 are allowed to burn coal, No. 6 fuel oil, and natural gas; for controllingNOx emissions eachboiler is required to operate a LNB when combusting coal and LNB with overfire when combusting No.6 fuel oil and natural gas. Additionally, the combinedNOx emissions from the boilers were limitedto the following emissions rates: 0.50 lb/MMBTU on 30 day-rolling average when burning coal, 0.30 lb/MMBTU on 30 day-rolling average when burningNo. 6 fuel oil, 0.20 lb/MMBTU on 30 day-rolling average whenburning natural gas, and 1,018 tons per year total. 2. In evaluating RACTfor Boiler 1, AMS does not accurately describe thattheNOx emission limits currently approved as RACT apply to the combined emissions ofBoilers 1 and 2. Further, inproposing the existing RACT limits for Boiler 1, AMS should also

9demonstrate that the level ofthese RACT emissions rates continueto represent the lowest emissions limitations that are currently feasible for Boiler 1. Since Boiler 2 has been removed, AMS mustjustifywhy the existing RACT emissions limits are appropriate to adequately limit emissions from Boiler 1 alone.
3. The proposed RACTrequirements for Boiler 1, Boiler 2, andthe infrared heaters are inconsistentthroughout the technical memorandum and the revised RACT Plan Approval. In the memorandum, AMS indicates that the facility is no longer allowed to bum coal in Boiler 1 and that Boiler 2 and the four infrared heater have been shutdown, and yet, AMS

.does not propose any updates to the existing SIP-approved requirements for Boiler 1, Boiler 2, orthe infrared heaters. Although not supported inthe memorandum, AMS is proposingto revise various conditions ofthe RACT Plan Approval relevant to these emissions sources: (1) To remove the ability ofBoiler 1to bum coal and the applicableNOx emission limits and (2) to remove all requirements of theretired emissions sources. AMS must update the technical memorandum and/or the RACTPlanApproval to be consistent with any proposed changes to the SIP-approved RACT requirements. 4. EPAbelieves AMS should evaluate additional control measures for Boiler 1. Inthe technical memorandum (page 48), AMS states that "Boiler#1 is allowed to bumNo.6 fuel oil and natural gas, thoughthe facility has beenburning natural gas for the past five years." Based onthis statement, EPA believes thatthere are two additional reasonably available control measures that would achieve significant additional NOx emissions, which AMS should evaluate in determining RACT for Boiler 1: (1) Switching from burning bothNo.6 fuel oil and naturai gas to burning natural gas only, and (2) establishing restrictions to limithowmuchNo. 6 fuel is allowed to bum as to primarily bumnatural gas. · 5. The proposed RACTrequirements for Boilers 3 and 4 are inconsistentthroughout the technical memorandum and the revised RACT PlanApproval. Onpage 48 ofthe technical memorandum, AMS indicates that Boilers 3 and 4 are currentlypermitted under PlanApprovalNo. 08179, issued inDecember 30 2008, to bumboth natural gas andNo. 6 fuel oil, and states that on August 19, 2014 the facility requested to modifythe plan approval to remove the ability ofthe boilers to bumNo.6 fuel oil. AMS does not clearly provide ifthis modification has been approved as a permit action.
6. Please, clearly describe all the applicable NOx requirements ofBoilers 3 and4 under Plan ApprovalNo. 08179, issued inDecember 30 2008, includingthe limitation to bumNo.6 fuel oil.
7. The AMS proposed RACT requirements for Boilers 3

.and 4 are inconsistentthroughout the memorandum and the revised RACTPlan Approval. The feasibility analysis of additional controls on Boilers 3 and 4, provided inpages 48-49 ofthe memorandum, is based onthe boilers' ability to only burnnatural gas. Onpage 49 ofthe memorandum, AMS proposes as RACT the emissions limits and existing controls required under Plan ApprovalNo. 08179 issued in December 30 2008, which does notcontainthe August 2014 modification requested bythe facility for restricting to bumNo.6 fuel oil. Finally, in the proposedrevisions to the RACT Plan Approval, AMS does not include any 10limitations for burningNo.6 fuel oil. AMS mustupdate the technical memorandum and/orthe RACT Plan approval to be consistent with any proposed changes to the SIPapproved RACTrequirements.

Newman and Company, Inc. 1. On page 69, EPArecommends that AMS include the permit ID number for the RACT Plan Approval thathas been approved in the SIP as RACT under the 1-hour ozone standard. 2. The provided citation ofthe Federal Registernotice containing EPA's approval of 1-hour RACT for the facility is incorrect. The citationto the Federal Register should be 66 FR 54691. 3. AMS proposed as RACT for Boiler 1the existing RACT NOx emissions limit as approved by EPAunder the 1-hour ozone standard: 0.43 lbs/MMBTU when firing No.6 oil, 0.37lbs/MMBTU when firing natural gas, and a total NOx emission limit of 121 tons perrolling 12-monthperiod. To support this proposal, AMS should demonstrate that each ofthe emissionrates approved as RACT represent the lowest achievable rate that is feasible for Boiler 1.
Temple University- Health Sciences Campus 1. As part ofthis proposed submission, AMS

**sh~mld** clearly describe the currently applicable RACTrequirements for Temple Health, as approved in the SIP underthe 1- hour ozone standard, as well as any other currently applicableNOx requirements not approved byEPA for inclusion into the SIP, but approved byAMS. OnDecember 15,2001 (65 FR78418), EPA approved AMS PlanApproval 05198, effective onMay 27, 1995, (hereafterthe 1-hourRACT PlanApproval) as case-by-case RACT for Temple University- Health Campus (Temple- Health). On April 26, 2008, AMS issued modifications to PlanApproval 05198 with the purpose ofreplacing the RACT requirements for Boilers 1, 2, and 3 at Temple Health. Specifically, the modified Plan Approval 05198 required physical modifications to Boilers 1and 3 to replace the fuel governing device limiting the heat input ofeachboiler to 50 MMBTU/hr, and to Boiler 2 to upgrade the burners to achieve reductions equivalentto those than should have been achieved with implementation ofFGR. The modified PlanApproval 05198 requires the following NOx emissions limits for each boiler: (1) WhenburningNo.6 fuel oil, 0.25 

## +

# e·07 ; 059) 

### * (N- 0.25), where X is the MMBTU/gal ofthe fuel oil and N is the percentnitrogen inthe fuel oil; for N less than 0.25, the NOx emissions are limited to 0.25 lbs/MMBTU; and (2) whenburning natured gas, 0.067lbs/MMBTU. Theplan approval also included a combined NOx emissions limit of56.3 lbs/hr and a combinedheat input limit of673,894 MMBTU perrolling 12- month period.

11This modified Plan Approval was never submitted to EPA as a revision to the SIP to be evaluated and approved as RACT. Therefore, the NOx RACT requirements ofthe 1-hour RACT PlanApproval continue to represent RACT for Temple Health until a SIP revision is submitted and approved by EPA. 2. AMS is notproposing as RACT, for Boilers 1, 2, and 3, the existing requirements ofthe modified Plan Approval 05198 issued on April 26, 2008. AMS should furtherjustify why the existing permitrequirements are not adequate to satisfy RACT, ifthey intended to replace the SIP-approved RACT requirements for restricting the heat input ofBoilers 1 and 3, and for operating the FGRon Boiler 2. 3. AMS is proposing significant revisions to the applicable RACTrequirements ofBoilers 1, 2, and 3 ofTemple Health, as approved into the SIP. Whenever a state chooses to revise its SIP, the state must demonstrate that the revision would not interfere with air quality goals, in accordance with section 110(1) ofthe CAA. Accordingly, AMS should explain howthe proposed SIP revision that is modifying existing SIP-approved RACT control measures does notinterfere with attainment ofthe applicable ozone NAAQS, including both 1-hour ozone standard and the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and any applicable reasonable further progress requirements. In evaluating whether a given SIP revision would interfere with attainment or maintenance, as required by CAA section 110(1), EPA generally considers whether the SIP revision will allow for an increase in actual emissions into the air over what is allowed under the existing EPA-approved SIP. Thus, inproposing to modify the SIP-approved requirements for Boilers 1, 2, and 3 in Temple Health, AMS must demonstrate thatthe proposed revision provides equivalent or additional emissions reductions, in accordance with CAA section 110(1). EPA finds that the emissions demonstration provided is technically incorrect for a number ofreasons. EPA finds that the emissions factors used for estimating NOx emissions from burningNo. 6 fuel oil ofBoilers 1, 2, and 3 under boththe existing and proposed RACT requirements
are inadequate or need to be furtherjustified. In estimating NOx emissions from the existing RACT conditions, AMS uses an AP-42 emissions factor for No.6 fuel oil that is
a function ofnitrogen content (N). AMS assumes a "worst-caseN content" of55%, but does not provide any informationto support this assumption. In estimatingthe emissions from theproposed requirements, AMS uses an emissions factor for No.6 fuel oil that is based onthe NOx limit PlanApproval 05198 as revised onApril 26, 2008. AMS is not proposing this emissions limit as RACT; therefore, the emissions estimated are irrelevant to the 110(1) emissions demonstration. The emissions demonstrationprovided by AMS does not completely address the proposed RACT requirements included in the SIP revision. Onpage 85 ofthe proposed SIP, AMS proposes as RACT the following requirement: "During the ozone season; (between May 1-September 30), each boiler shall bumnatural gas as theprimary fuel. Each boiler may only burn No. 6 fuel oil during periods ofgas cmtailment or gas supply interruption." AMS has not provided anyjustificationthat this requirement should adequately represent RACT. Additionally, the estimated emissions from the proposed RACTrely onthe assumption thatthe maximum allowed emissions result from burningNo.6 fuel oil throughout the
12year (8760 hours per year), yet the proposedrequirement would restrict burningNo. 6 fuel oil during ozone season. Thus, the emissions calculations provided are incorrect. If proposing this restriction for burning No.6 fuel oil as RACT, AMS would need to consider the emissions from burning primarily natural gas during ozone season and No.6 fuel oil during the remaining oftheyear in the 110(1) emissions demonstration.
4. EPA believes thatthejustificationprovided onpage 83 for determining that the installation ofULNB on Boilers 1, 2, and 3 is technically infeasible is insufficient.
5. Per 25 PaCode 129.91, a RACT proposal should be provided for each emissions source at a major facility subjectto this regulation. AMS has identified each ofthe boilers as an emissions source, thus RACT should be evaluated for eachboiler. AMS estimated costeffectiveness for controlling the combined NOx emissions from Boilers 1, 2, and 3, thus, EPA finds this analysis to be inconsistent with Pennsylvania's source-specific RACT requirements. Consistently, in evaluating cost-effectiveness ofcontrols for each boiler, AMS should consider the most stringent Federally Enforceable allowable emissions rate that applies to each ofthe boilers. Thus, AMS needs to identify what is the most stringentNOx emissions level that is currently allowed from the boilers. AMS does notprovide sufficient information to evaluate howthe baseline emissions for eachboiler was calculated. 6. AMS has evaluated switching completely from No.6 fuel oil to No.2 oil for Boilers 1-3
as a control measure. EPA agrees that fuel switching mayresult in significantNOx emissions reductions. In evaluating fuel switching as RACT for Boilers 1, 2, and 3, AMS should consider the cost ofretrofitting orreplacing the existing burners and any incremental costs for operating the boilers withNo. 2 fuel oil, rather than withNo. 6 fuel oil. Fuel switching should notrequire significant incremental costs inoperation ofthe boiler, otherthan any increases in fuel cost. AMS has estimated incremental costs of fuel, but needs tojustifythe fuel prices assumed inthe analysis provided. EPA recommends AMS to consider costs from modifying the existing burners to accommodate the combustion ofNo.2 fuel oil. 7. AMS evaluated switching completely from No.6 fuel oil to natural gas for Boilers 1, 2, and 3 as a control measure. EPA understands that Temple musthave a back-up fuel to be able to provide uninterrupted services to a healthcare facility. However, EPA finds that it is reasonable for Temple to take fuel restrictions to limitthe amount ofNo. 6 fuel oil allowed to be burned onBoilers 1, 2,

**a~d** 3, as this would result in significantNOx emissions reductions. This control option would allowTemple to continue to have a back-up fuel at all times, especially when natural gas supply is interrupted. AMS has proposed to restrict burning No. 6 fuel oil during ozone season, except in the events of natural gas curtailment. However, AMS does not provide anyjustificationto support this control option as RACT

. In addition, AMS has notproperly evaluated any otherpossible restrictions in burning No.6 oil in determining RACT.

Sunoco PartnerMarketing & Terminals L.P.- Belmont Terminal 

### 131. In the memorandum (page 91), AMS refers to MIPC, LLC facility when intending to list the emission sources for this facility. Please clarify whether this is an editorial error and, ifso, make the necessary corrections.
2. In general when evaluating RA T for emissions sources, AMS should only rely on regulations that have been submitted as RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, or existing regulations approved under the

-1-hour ozone standard, whichAMS has certified

as RACT forthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard. AMS should specify under what regulation the leak detection and repair (LDAR) program for the VOC fugitive emissions in the facility is required, and explainthatthis regulation has been approved or submitted

as RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

Aker Philadelphia Shipyard, Inc.

- Plula. Naval Business Center
1. AMS lists 22 baghouses and 10 dust collectors as the facility's control devices related to VOC emissions. Baghouses and dust collectors are not VOC control devices.

Allied Tube & Conduit 1. AMS should identify whichportion of25 Pa Code 129.93(c) is applicable to the five space heaters listed inthe table onpage 98 oftheproposed SIP revision.

Cardone Industries 1. Under the 1-hourozone standard, AMS submitted separate RACT determinations for two facilities in Philadelphiaidentified as'Cardone Industries, one facility on Rising Sun Avenue (PLID- 3887) andthe second facility on Chew Street (PLID 2237). Please clarify whether the technical memorandum submitted is intendedto address RACT for either one ofthese facilities, or both. This should be clearly explained inthe memorandum. Ifthe memorandum intends to address RACT for only one ofthe facilities, then AMS

**w~uld** still needto provide a RACT evaluation for the remaining facility.
2. The memorandum andtheproposed revisions to the RACT Plan Approval are inconsistent. AMS isproposingrevisions to the SIP-approved RACT Plan Approval for the Rising Sun Avenue facility, but the revisions are not mentioned orproposed in the memorandum.

MIPC, LLC- PhiladelphiaTerminal
1. AMS did not address RACT for three additive storage tanks thatwere identified as VOC emission sources in the memorandum.

University ofPennsylvania
141. Onpage 106 ofthe proposed SIP revision, AMS lists the heaters and furnaces and the presumptive RACT requirement that applies to eachunit. AMS should clarify which portion of25 Pa Code 129.93(c) is applicable to each unit.

PhiladelphiaPrison System 1. AMS should clarify thatthe capacities ofemergency generators, subjectto presumptive RACT requirements of25 PACode 129.92(c)(2), that are listed onpage 111 ofthe proposed SIP revision are in units ofhorsepower (HP) and not ofMMBTU/hr.

Kinder Morgan Liquids Terminal (Formerly GATX Terminals Corporation) 

### 1. Onpage 113, the capacities ofBoilers 1and 2 are given as 12.5 HP and 13.4 HP, respectively, and as 12.5 MMBTU/hr and 13.4 MMBTU/hr. Please, clarify and correct the working units for the capacity ofeachboiler. 2. On page 114, AMS should correctthe typographical error onthe effective date ofthe 1- hour RACT PlanApproval for GATXTerminals. 3. Onpages 115-116, AMS lists the RACT applicable requirements for storage tanks. AMRV Section II is listed, butnot described. Please, further describe applicability of this requirement. 4. Underthe 1-hour RACT, AMS identified as a VOC source the fugitive emissions from flanges, valves, and pumps leaks, for which case-by-case RACT requirements were established. The RACT Plan Approval included the following conditions: Condition 2E: "Theimplementation ofa quarterly leak detection and repair program on all pumps, valves and flanges containing VOC;" and Condition 5A: "GATX [Kinder Morgan] shall monitor all valves, pumps, and flanges quarterly for visual leaks. GATX shall also monitor valves, pumps, and flanges whichprocess organic liquid greater than orequal to 4 RVP for leaks ofgreater than 10,000 ppmv."
AMS also identifies AMRV SectionXIII as an applicable RACT requirement for VOC fugitive emissions. AMRV SectionXIII applies to fugitive emissions from "leaking flanges, gaskets, seals, connections,joints, fittings or otherprocess equipment components not involving moving parts," as well as VOC emissions from "leaking valves, pumps, compressors, safety pressure reliefdevices or otherprocess equipment components involving moving parts." The regulation prohibits VOC emissions from any ofthese leaking process equipment component greater than 10,000 partpermillion by volume (ppmv) inconcentration. AMS has contradictory concluding statements onpages 117 and 118 ofthe memorandum about the stringency ofthese two requirements for fugitive emissions. Please clarify. Althoughbothrequirements are similar, EPA finds that AMRV SectionXIII also applies to additional VOC fugitive emission sources that are not controlled by the case-by-case requirement. Please, explain whether AMS has considered fugitive VOC emissions from "leaking flanges, gaskets, seals, connections,joints, fittings or otherprocess equipment

15components not involving moving parts" in Kinder Morgan and howRACT should be addressed for these fugitive emissions, as notprovided by the RACT Plan Approval. AMS interprets Condition SA ofthe SIP-approved RACT Plan Approval to be broadly applicable to fugitive emissions from leaks ofbothVOC and non-VOC products. Consequently, AMS is requesting to modify this conditionto require only monitoring of VOC emissions. Condition SA is proposed to be revised to: "The Permittee shall monitor all valves, pumps, and flanges in VOC service quarterly for visual leaks for greater than 10,000 ppmv." The proposedrevision removes the previous specification for the requirement to apply to processing oforganic liquids with Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of4.0 pounds per square inch (psi) or greater. Please explain howremoving this requirement relates to AMS intended clarification ofthe condition only applying to the control ofVOC emissions. AMS must also demonstrate that the proposed SIP revision will not allow for an increase in actual emissions into the air over what is allowed under the existing EPA-approved SIP, consistent withthe section 110(1) ofthe CAA. S. AMS should verify the provided citations to Pennsylvaniaregulations on page 120 that would apply to tanktruck/tank car loading operations atthe facility.
6. The tank truck/tank car loading operations in Kinder Morgan are subjectto the VOC source-specific requirements ofthe RACT Plan Approval, which were approved in the SIP as RACTunderthe 1-hour ozone standard. AMS is proposing various revisions to the applicable SIP requirements to allowmore flexibility to the facility in operating the loading racks. AMS must demonstrate that the proposed SIP revisions will not allow for
an increase in actual emissions into the air over what is allowed under the existing EPAapproved SIP, consistent with the section 110(1) ofthe CAA.
EPA believes that the emissions demonstration provided to satisfy section 110(1) CAA is inconclusive. First, AMS's demonstration does not address emission changes from the proposed SIP revisions listed in the memorandum on page 120 and the proposed limitation to each loading position ofthe loading racks. Second, AMS does notprovide sufficient information to assess the emissions estimation provided. EPArecommends including at leastthe following information: Loading capacity ofeach loading rack, VOC emissions factors used, the capacity and level of control ofthe thermal oxidizer, assumptions onhours ofoperations, and any other relevant assumptions. Additionally, emissions are provided for the "controlled" and the "uncontrolled" racks, where they should have beenprovided for each identified emission source, in this case, for each loading rack.
7. As part ofthe emissions demonstration, AMS interprets the existing RACT requirements to allow uncontrolled loading ofliquids with RVP under 4 psi on loading racks connected to the thermal oxidizer. In support ofthis interpretation, please explain why the requirements of2S Pa Code 129.S9 would allow uncontrolled VOC emissions from loading racks A, B, E, F, M, and V, per condition 2C ofthe RACT PlanApproval, while



### 16condition 1A(l) and 2B would require the operation oftheNAO Thermal Oxidizer.
8. In pages 120-121, AMS states that "(r)acks A, B, E, F, M, and V have control capabilities; however, not all loading positions are connected to the NAO Thermal Oxidizer since these positions do not load materials that are required to have control (e.g. benzene NESHAP) or load materials with a vapor pressure great than 4 psiaRVP." This statement is inconsistent withthe SIP approved RACTrequirements. Condition 1A(1) of the RACT Plan Approval specifically requires loading racks A, B, E, F, M, and V to be connectedto the NAO Thermal Oxidizer. Ifsome ofthe loading positions at these racks
are not physically connected to the control unit, howis the facility able to comply with the applicable RACT requirement? Also, AMS should specify what materials, other than those with RVP oflessthan 4.0 psi, would notrequire to have controls. 9. EPA recommends AMS to further revise the proposed condition 2C for additional clarification ofthefollowing requirements: (1) The continuous operation oftheNAO Thermal Oxidizerwhen loading products with RVP greaterthan orequal to 4.0 psi; (2) the applicable emissions limit when operating the NAO Thermal Oxidizer; and (3) the flexibility ofnot operating the thermal oxidizer only when loading organics with RVP less than 4.0 psi. EPA recommends the condition should read as follows: "Organic liquids with a Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) greater than or equal to 4.0 psi shall onlybe loaded at racks A, E, F, M, or D and shall comply with the requirements of25 PaCode 129.59(a) by continuously operating NAO Thermal Oxidation Unit. TheNAO Thermal OxidationUnit shall be operated suchthat 0.0668 pounds (30.3 grams) oforganic liquids (measured as propane) are emitted to the atmosphere for every 100 gallons (380 liters) of gasoline loaded. Uncontrolled loading at racks A, E, F, M, and D shall be allowed when loading organic liquids with a RVP less than 4.0 psi." EPA does not agree with the proposed modification to Condition 2D. AMS must continue to identify those racks that are not connected to a control unit, and must continue to restrict the loading ofliquids with RVP less than 4 RVP to those racks, in orderfor these racks to not be subjectto 25 PaCode 129.59. EPA recommends AMS to modify the existing condition as follows: "Tank car/truck loading racks- B, C, G, H, N, 0, P, R, R-1, T, V & X which are uncontrolled shall be limited to processing organic liquid with vaporpressure lowerthan 4 RVP." EPA recommends to further revise the proposed Condition 3A(1), for additional clarification, as follows: "Loading oforganic liquids withRVP > 4 psi at all tank car/truck loading positions at the facility shall be limited to 129 tons ofVOC per year."
10. The RACT evaluationfor the loading racks is technically incorrect for various reasons. First, AMS provides two analyses for ' uncontrolled loading ofracks, but itis not clear for what specific loading racks the analyses is provided. AMS is proposing to allow loading racks that are connected to the thermal oxidizer, A, E, F, M, or D, to remain uncontrolled whenever loading is limited to organic liquids with less than 4.0 psi ofRVP. AMS is also proposingto maintain the loading oforganic liquids with less than 4.0 psi ofRVP on
17racks that are notphysically connectedto the thermal oxidizer. AMS has evaluated on pages 122-123 the feasibility of"adding a control device while loading VOC materials with an RVP < 4.0 psi." According to AMS's estimatedpotential emissions, uncontrolled emissions ofloading racks A, E, F, M, orD from liquids with RVP of4.0 psi or less would produce significant potential emissions ofVOC. Thus, EPAbelieves AMS must determine RACT for the uncontrolled operation ofthese racks. Additionally, AMS must evaluate the appropriateness ofthe existing RACTrequirements for loading racks A, E, F, M, or Din determining RACT. In evaluating RACT, AMS should evaluate the feasibility ofthe existing controls (theNAO thermal oxidizer and/or the applicable emissions limits) and additional reasonably available controls. Second, AMS has evaluated RACTper loading position. In accordance with 25 Pa Code 129.92, AMS must evaluate and determine RACT for each emissions source in a major facility. Perthe existing and proposed RACT conditions, AMS has consistently defined

· the emissions source as the loading racks, notthe loading positions withinracks. In

evaluating RACT, ifAMS finds that no available controls are technically and economically feasible for eachrack, EPA finds itwouldbe acceptable to evaluate controls for emissions ofcombined emissions sources. The control ofVOC emissions from racks A, B, E, F, M, and V with a single thermal oxidizer suggests that this is a reasonable control option for multiple loading racks. Baseline emissions used inthe cost-effectiveness analyses should be based onthe existing Federally-enforceable emissions restrictions that apply to the particular emissions source. Consequently, AMS cannotrely on a limitthat is beingproposed as RACT. Sincethere is no applicable Federally-enforceable limitationfor each ofthe loading racks, the baseline emissions shouldbe based onthe unrestricted maximum capacity ofeachrack. AMS provides different and inconsistent control efficiencies for the thermal and catalytic oxidizer throughout the analysis provided. 11. AMS is proposing a 70 tonper year emissions limit for each ofthe loading positions of the loading racks. To easepracticable enforceability, EPArecommends any emissions limit to be applied on a short-term averaging basis. Also, AMS should establish limits on the emission sources themselves, which has been consistently identified as the loading racks not the loading positions. AMS mustprovide furtherjustificationfor determining thatthis proposed limit adequately represents RACT. Plains ProductTerminal LLC
1. In general, when evaluating RACT for emissions sources, AMS should only rely on regulations that have been submitted as RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, or existingregulations approved under the 1-hour ozone standard, which AMS has certified
as RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Onpage 137, AMS should specify under whatregulation the LDARprogram is required for controlling fugitive emissions from pumps, valves, and flanges in the facility, and explain thatthis regulationhas been

18approved or submitted as RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Navy Foundry and Propeller Center 1. AMS indicates in the memorandum (page 138) that "(t)he 1-hourozoneRACTin the RACT PlanApproval dates April20, 1999 was issued to PhiladelphiaNaval Shipyard." EPA does nothave any record ofthe PhiladelphiaNavy Shipyardhaving a 1-hourRACT determination approved in the SIP for this facility. Please, clarify.

Grays Ferry Cogeneration Partnership 1. The proposed NOx RACT limits for the combustion turbine excludes startup and shutdown emissions. These limits are inappropriate for approval into the SIP. The CAA does not allow for exemptions from otherwise applicable SIP emission limitations, whether automatic orthroughthe exercise ofa state official's discretion. In accordance with the requirements ofCAA section 110(a)(2)(A), SIPs must contain emission limitations and, in accordance with the definition of"emission limitations" in CAA section 302(k), such emission limitations must be continuous. Thus, any excess emissions above the level ofthe applicable emission limitation must be considered violations, whether ornot the state elects to exercise its enforcement discretion. SIP provisions that create exemptions such that the excess emissions during startup, shutdown, malfunction, or emergencies are not violations ofthe applicable emission limitations are inconsistent with the fundamental requirements ofthe CAA with respect to emission limitations in SIPs and interfere with citizen suit enforcement ofCAA violations. EPAbelieves thatthe inclusion ofsuch an exemption is a substantial inadequacy and renders anyproposed provisionfor a SIP impermissible. 2. The methodology provided in page 148 for estimating emissions ofammonianecessary for the SCR and the selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) systems is incorrect. Thus, the ammoniacosts estimates for SCR and SNCRprovided onpages 144 and 147 are also incorrect. Please refer to EPA's comment 8 for Honeywell International- Frankford Plant.
Temple University- Main Campus 1. Temple has 3boilers firing natural gas andNo. 2 fuel oil, with 91.3 MMBTU/hr and 86.8 MMBTU/hr ofheat input capacity for each fuel, respectively. The boilers are currently required to operate LNB and FGR. Each boiler is subjectto the NOx emissions limit of 0.036lbs/MMBTUwhile burning natural gas and 0.110 lbs/MMBTUwhile burning No. 2 fuel oil for eachboiler, in addition to the combined emissions limit of 15.5 tons per rolling 12-monthperiod. Based onheat input capacity, continuous operation ofthe boilers, and the NOx permitted

19rates for each fuel, each boiler canpotentially emit 41.8 tons per year when burning No; 2 fuel oil alone, or 14.4 tons per year when burning natural gas alone. The combined emissions limit for the three boilers is significantly more stringent, considering the potential emissions achieved for each boiler alone when burning either ofthe fuels allowed. Howis the facility able to comply with such stringent combined emissions limit? Is the facility operating these boilers continuously during the year?
2. The methodology provided inpage 156 for estimating emissions ofammonianecessary for the SCRandthe SNCR systems is incorrect. Thus, the ammonia costs estimates for SCR and SNCRprovided on pages 158 and 159 are also incorrect. Please refer to EPA's comment# 8 for Honeywell International- Frankford Plant.

VeoliaEnergy Efficiency 1. The methodology provided in page 167 for estimating emissions ofammonianecessary for the SCR system is incorrect. Thus, the ammonia costs estimate for SCRprovided on pages 163 is also incorrect. Pleaserefer to EPA's comment # 8 for Honeywell International- Frankford Plant. 2. Each boiler at VeoliaEnergy Efficiency has the following NOx emission limits in a plan approval, each on a rolling 30-day average: O.Ollbs/MMBTU while burning gas as during normal operation; 0.08 lbs/MMBTU while burning oil during normal operation; 0.036lbs/MMBTU while burning gas during startup, shutdown, or malfunction; and 0.08 lbs/MMBTU while burning oil during startup, shutdown, or malfunction. The boilers have a combinedNOx emission limit of52.31 tons per rolling 12-monthperiod. AMS' Memo indicates theseNOxrates are proposed as RACT for the facility.
The CAA does not allow for exemptions from otherwise applicable SIP emission limitations, whether automatic or throughthe exercise ofa state official's discretion. In accordance with the requirements ofCAA section 110(a)(2)(A), SIPs must contain emission limitations and, in accordance with the definition of"emission limitations" in CAA section 302(k), such emission limitations must be continuous. Thus, any excess emissions above the level ofthe applicable emission limitation must be considered violations, whether or notthe state elects to exercise its enforcement discretion. SIP provisions that create exemptions such that the excess emissions during startup, shutdown, malfunction, or emergencies are not violations ofthe applicable emission limitations are inconsistent with

**th~** fundamental requirements ofthe CAA with respect to emissionlimitations in SIPs and interfere with citizen suit enforcement ofCAA violations. EPA believes that the inclusion ofsuch an exemption is a substantial inadequacy and renders any proposedprovision for a SIP impermissible. AMS is proposing to exempt automatically emissions between 0.01- 0.036lb/MMBTU when the boilers combust gas during startup, shutdown or malfunction. AMS is proposing a "separate" rate for startup/shutdown/malfunction when the boilers combust oil; however, presently, it appears the rate is identical to the rate for normal state for combustion ofoil.

20IfAMS adjusts that rate for oil to a higher limit during startup, shutdown ormalfunction (SSM) (ifitbelieves it made a mistake), then such alternative rate would also exempt automatically emissions between 0.08 lb/MMBtu and anyhigherrate selected. IfAMS corrects the rate for periods ofSSM for the boilers while combusting oil by creating a higherrate than during normal operations, such a change would be impermissible if submitted for SIP approval.
EPA notes that while the CAA does not allow for exemptions for excess emissions, it does allow states to develop alternative emission limitations or other forms of enforceable control measures ortechniques thatapplyduringstartup orshutdown. EPA emphasizes this alternative rate may not apply to malfunctions. See Memorandum from StevenA. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA on State ImplementationPlans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdownto Regional Administrators, Regions I-X (Sept. 20, 1999) (1999 Memorandum). EPAhas affirmed this in a separate rulemaking proposal concerning Startup/Shutdown/Malfunctionprovisions in state SIPs. See 78 FR 12460 (February 22, 2013). However, in Section III.A ofthe 1999 Memorandum, EPA recommended very specific criteriathat air agencies should consider including as part of any SIP provisionthat was intended to apply to sources during startup and shutdown in lieu ofthe otherwise applicable emission limitations. In orderto revise the otherwise applicable emission limitation inthe SIP, EPA recommended that in orderto be approvable (i.e., meet CAArequirements), the new special requirements applicable to the
source during startup and shutdown shouldbe narrowly tailored andtake into account considerations such as the technological limitations ofthe specific source category and the control technology that is feasible during startup and shutdown.
EPA continues to recommendthe seven specific criteria enumerated in Section III.A of the Attachmentto the 1999 SSM Guidance as appropriate considerations for SIP provisions that apply to startup and shutdown. AMS has so far not explained howthese criteria apply to the boilers at VeoliaEnergy Efficiency. These criteria are: (1) The revision mustbe limitedto specific, narrowly defined source categories using specific control strategies (e.g., cogeneration facilities burning natural gas and using selective catalyticreduction); (2) use ofthe control strategy for this source category must be technically infeasible during startup or shutdownperiods; (3) the frequency and duration ofoperation in startup or shutdownmode must be minimizedto the maximum extent practicable; (4) as part ofitsjustificationofthe SIP revision; the state should analyze the potential worst-case emissions that could occur during startup and shutdown; (5) all possible steps must betaken to minimize the impact ofemissions during startup and shutdown on ambient air quality; (6) at all times, the facility mustbe operated in a manner consistent with goodpractice for minimizing emissions, and the source must have used best efforts regarding planning, design, and operating procedures to meetthe otherwise applicable emission limitation; and (7) the owneroroperator's actions during

21startup and shutdownperiods mustbe documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence. See 78 FR 12460 (February 22, 2013).
AMS's limitations for Veolia do not comply with the EPA'spolicy on SSM. Automatic exemptions for SSM which AMS has created are impermissible for the SIP as explained above. In addition, AMS has not explained any alternative emission limitations for VeoliaEnergy Efficiency for startup and shutdown in accordance with the criteria in the 1999 Memorandum. EPA believes thatthe inclusion ofthese alternative limitations and automatic exemptions, which do not comply with the requirements ofthe CAA, render these provisions for Veolia Energy Efficiency impermissible for RACT and impermissible as a SIP provision.

22