## 1 B

- 1 APPENDIX A

Inventory Data Files Used for Each TR Modeling Case - SMOKE Input Inventory Datasets

In any of the following dataset names where the pla ceholder <mon> has been provided, this is intended to

mean 12 separate files with the <mon> placeholder r eplaced with either jan, feb, mar, apr, may, jun, j ul, aug,

sep, oct, nov, or dec, each associated with a parti cular month of the year.

Several inventories are the same in the 2005 base c ase and all future year cases. These inventories a re listed

in the “All Cases” in Table A-1.

## B2Table A-1.List of inventory data associated with TR modeling cases.Case Sector SMOKE Input FilesAll Casesavefirearinv_avefire_2002_hap_18nov2008_v0_orl.txtarinv_avefire_2002ce_21dec2007_v0_ida.txtotherarinv_canada_afdust_xportfrac_cap_2006_03feb2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_canada_ag_cap_2006_03feb2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_canada_aircraft_cap_2006_04feb2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_canada_marine_cap_2006_03feb2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_canada_oarea_cap_2006_02mar2009_v3_orl.txtarinv_canada_offroad_cap_2006_04feb2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_canada_rail_cap_2006_03feb2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonpt_mexico_border1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txtarinv_nonpt_mexico_interior1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txtarinv_nonroad_mexico_border1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txtarinv_nonroad_mexico_interior1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txtothonmbinv_canada_onroad_cap_2006_04feb2009_v0_orl.txtmbinv_onroad_mexico_border1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txtmbinv_onroad_mexico_interior1999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txtothptptinv_canada_point_2006_orl_09mar2009_v2_orl.txtptinv_canada_point_cb5_2006_orl_10mar2009_v0_orl.txtptinv_canada_point_uog_2006_orl_02mar2009_v0_orl.txtptinv_mexico_border99_03mar2008_v1_ida.txtptinv_mexico_interior99_05feb2007_v0_ida.txtptinv_ptnonipm_offshore_oil_cap2005v2_20nov2008_20nov2008_v0_orl.txt2005 cases(2005cr_05b,2005cr_hg_05b)afdustarinv_afdust_2002ad_xportfrac_26sep2007_v0_orl.txtagarinv_ag_cap2002nei_06nov2006_v0_orl.txtalm_no_c3arinv_lm_no_c3_cap2002v3_20feb2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_lm_no_c3_hap2002v4_20feb2009_v0_orl.txtnonptarinv_nonpt_cap_2005_TCEQ_Oklahoma_OilGas_28may2010_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonpt_cap_2005_WRAP_OilGas_04feb2009_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonpt_pf4_cap_nopfc_28may2010_v3_orl.txtarinv_pfc_2002_caphap_27dec2007_v0_orl.txtnonroadarinv_nonroad_calif_caphap_2005v2_<mon>_02apr2008_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonroad_caps_2005v2_<mon>_revised_08sep2008_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonroad_haps_2005v2_<mon>_revised_05sep2008_v0_orl.txton_moves_runpm mbinv_on_moves_runpm_2005cr_<mon>_06MAY2010_06may2010_v0_orl.txton_moves_startpmbinv_on_moves_startpm_2005cr_<mon>_06MAY2010_06may2010_v0_orl.txt

## B3Case Sector SMOKE Input Filesm2005 caseson_noadjmbinv_on_noadj_MOVES_2005cr_<mon>_06MAY2010_06may2010_v0_orl.txtmbinv_on_noadj_nmim_not2moves_2005cr_<mon>_04MAY2010_04may2010_v0_orl.txtmbinv_onroad_calif_caphap_2005v2_revised_<mon>_29jun2010_v0_orl.txtseca_c3ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_baf_vochaps_2005_canada_24jun2010_28jun2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_baf_vochaps_2005_us_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_caps_2005_canada_24jun2010_28jun2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_caps_2005_us_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txt2005cr_05bptipmAnnual: ptinv_ptipm_cap2005v2_revised12mar2009_15jul2010_v5_orl.txtAnnual: ptinv_ptipm_hap2005v2_allHAPs_revised12mar2009_14jul2010_v1_orl.txtDaily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_cem_2005cr_05b_<mon>_ida.txtDaily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_noncem_2005cr_05b_<mon>_ida.txtptnonipmptinv_ptnonipm_hap2005v2_revised_08jul2010_v2_orl.txtptinv_ptnonipm_xportfrac_cap2005v2_20nov2008_revised_22jul2010_v5_orl.txtptinv_ptnonipm_2005hap_v1_from_2005ai_ND_ADM_plant_30jun2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_ptnonipm_caphap_ethanol_plant_additions_2005_30jun2010_v3_orl.txtptinv_ptnonipm_xportfrac_2005cap_v1_from_2005ai_ND_ADM_plant_30jun2010_v0_orl.txt2005cr_hg_05bnonptarinv_nonpt_2005pf4_hap_nopfc_nobafmpesticidesplus_noboilermacthg_23aug2010_v0_orl.txtother_hgarinv_area_canada_hg_2000_noduplicates_23jul2008_v0_ida.txtothpt_hgptinv_point_canada_hg_2000_08sep2008_v1_ida.txtptipmAnnual: ptinv_2005_ptipm_natahg_minus_boilermacticr_17aug2010_v0_orl.txtDaily: ptday_ptipm_hg_cem_2005cr_hg_05b_<mon>_ida.txtDaily: ptday_ptipm_hg_noncem_2005cr_hg_05b_<mon>_ida.txtptnonipmptinv_2005_ICR_BoilerMACT_Hg_ptnonipm_20aug2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_2005_ptnonipm_natahg_minus_boilermacticr_17aug2010_v0_orl.txt2016 cases(2016cr_05b,2016cr2_hg_05b,2016cr2_hg_control1_05b)afdustarinv_afdust_2016cr_24aug2010_v0_orl.txagarinv_ag_2016cr_24aug2010_v0_orl.txtalm_no_c3arinv_lm_no_c3_cap2016cr_24aug2010_v0_orl.txtarinv_lm_no_c3_hap2016cr_24aug2010_v0_orl.txtnonptarinv_nonpt_2016cr_cap_2008_TCEQ_Oklahoma_OilGas_23sep2010_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonpt_2016cr_cap_2018PhaseII_WRAP_OilGas_23sep2010_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonpt_2016cr_hap_nopfc_nobafmpesticidesplus_noboilermacthg_23sep2010_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonpt_2016cr_pf4_cap_nopfc_23sep2010_v0_orl.txtarinv_pfc_caphap2016_13jul2010_v0_orl.txtnonroadarinv_nonroad_calif_caphap_2016_revised_<mon>_24jun2010_v0_orl.txtarinv_nonroad_caphap_2016_<mon>_07jun2010_v0_orl.txt

## B4Case Sector SMOKE Input Fileson_moves_runpm mbinv_on_moves_runpm_2016cr_<mon>_10JUN2010_10jun2010_v0_orl.txt2016 caseson_moves_startpm mbinv_on_moves_startpm_2016cr_<mon>_10JUN2010_10jun2010_v0_orl.txton_noadjmbinv_on_noadj_MOVES_2016cr_<mon>_10JUN2010_10jun2010_v0_orl.txtmbinv_onroad_calif_caphap_2016_<mon>_09jun2010_v0_orl.txtptnonipmptinv_ptnonipm_2016cr_hap2005v2_revised_06oct2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_ptnonipm_2016cr_xportfrac_cap2005v2_20nov2008_revised_06oct2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_ptnonipm_capHG_cementISIS_2016cr_16AUG2010_16aug2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_ptnonipm_cornproducts17031_hap_cap_2008t_27aug2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_ptnonipm_2005hap_v1_from_2005ai_ND_ADM_plant_30jun2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_ptnonipm_caphap_ethanol_plant_additions_2005_30jun2010_v3_orl.txtptinv_ptnonipm_xportfrac_2005cap_v1_from_2005ai_ND_ADM_plant_30jun2010_v0_orl.txtseca_c3ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_baf_vochaps_2016_canada_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_baf_vochaps_2016_us_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_caps_2016_canada_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_caps_2016_us_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txt2016cr_05bptipm Annual:ptinv_PTINV_EPA410_BC_15b_summer_2015_w_MH_SCC_edits_emis_reds_22SEP2010_08oct2010_nf_v1_orl.txtDaily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_cem_2016cr_05b_<mon>_ida.txtDaily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_noncem_2016cr_05b_<mon>_ida.txt2016cr2_hg_05bptipm Annual:ptinv_PTINV_EPA410MACTAQ_BC_2b_summer_2015_w_MH_SCC_edits_emis_reds_minus_boilermacthg_20oct2010_v0_orl.txtDaily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_cem_2016cr2_hg_<mon>_ida.txtDaily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_noncem_2016cr2_hg_<mon>_ida.txtptnonipm_hgptinv_2016cr2_ICR_BoilerMACT_Hg_ptnonipm_06oct2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_ptnonipm_2016cr2_natahg_minus_boilermacticr_15oct2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_ptnonipm_capHG_cementISIS_2016cr_16AUG2010_16aug2010_v0_orl.txt2016cr2_hg_control1_05bptipm Annual:ptinv_PTINV_EPA410MACTAQ_BC_5d_summer_2015_w_MH_SCC_edits_emis_reds_minus_boilermacthg_09nov2010_v0_orl.txtDaily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_cem_2016cr2_hg_control1_<mon>_ida.txtDaily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_noncem_2016cr2_hg_control1_<mon>_ida.txtptnonipm_hgptinv_2016cr2_ICR_BoilerMACT_Hg_ptnonipm_06oct2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_ptnonipm_2016cr2_natahg_minus_boilermacticr_15oct2010_v0_orl.txtptinv_ptnonipm_capHG_cementISIS_2016cr_16AUG2010_16aug2010_v0_orl.txt

## C

- 1 Appendix B

Ptnonipm (Non EGU) Plant Closures Included in the 2 016 Base Case and the Resulting Emissions Changes

Due to the Closures

fips plantid pointid stackid segment plant effective_date

1073 10730360 U.S. Pipe N. Birmingham , Walte r Coke, I 7/31/2010

1073 35207NTDST30003 U. S. PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY LLC.(NO.

B' 12/11/2009

1073 10730350 SLOSSINDUSTRIESCORPORATIONMINERALW 12/11/2009

1073 35207SLSSN35003 SLOSSINDUSTRIESCORPORATIONMINERALW 12/11/2009

1073 10730068 W.J. Bullock 10/31/2009

1073 35224WJBLL1501E W.J. Bullock 10/31/2009

12105 1050059 MOSAICFERTILIZERLLCNEWWALESPLAN T 12/31/2008

12105 33860MCFRTHIGHW MOSAICFERTILIZERLLCNEWW ALESPLANT 12/31/2008

12105 T$15385 MOSAICFERTILIZERLLCNEWWALESPLAN T 12/31/2008

13051 5100008 TronoxPigments(Savannah)Inc 12/ 31/2006

13051 31404KMRWCEASTP TronoxPigments(Savannah)Inc 12/31/2006

17031 031012ABI CornProductsInternationalInc 6/30/2010

18167 22 INTERNATIONALPAPERCO. 12/31/2007

19111 56-02-004 INTERNATIONALPAPERCORPFORTMADISON 8/31/2005

19111 52632THHBNONPR 2 ROQUETTEAMERICA,INC 3/1/ 2008

19111 56

- 01

- 009 242710 ROQUETTEAMERICA,INC 3/1/2008

19111 56-01-009 242802 ROQUETTEAMERICA,INC 3/1/ 2008

19111 56-01-009 242828 ROQUETTEAMERICA,INC 3/1/ 2008

22067 1 INTERNATIONALPAPERCO/LOUISIANAMILL 11 /30/2008

22067 19200001 INTERNATIONALPAPERCO/LOUISIANA MILL 11/30/2008

22067 7122ONTRNT705CO INTERNATIONALPAPERCO/LOUISIANAMILL 11/30/2008

22079 1 INTERNATIONALPAPERCO/PINEVILLEMILL 5/ 30/2010

22079 23600001 INTERNATIONALPAPERCO/PINEVILLE MILL 5/30/2010

22079 T$10715 INTERNATIONALPAPERCO/PINEVILLEM ILL 5/30/2010

23007 2300700007 WAUSAUPAPEROTISMILL 5/31/200 9

23019 1900056 KATAHDINPAPERCO-WESTMILL 8/31/2 008

23019 2301900056 KATAHDINPAPERCO-WESTMILL 8/3 1/2008

25003 01238KMBRLGREYL SCHWEITZERMAUDUITINTERNATIONALINC. 5/31/2008

25003 1170016 SCHWEITZERMAUDUITINTERNATIONALI NC. 5/31/2008

25003 1170014 MWCUSTOMPAPERS,LLC-LAURELMILL 7 /31/2007

25003 T$14390 MWCUSTOMPAPERS,LLC-LAURELMILL 7 /31/2007

25017 01760NTCKP90NMA NATICKPAPERBOARD 11/30/ 2005

25017 1190241 NATICKPAPERBOARD 11/30/2005

26121 A4203 SDWARRENMUSKEGONMIOPERATIONS 8/31/2009

26121 T$7810 SDWARRENMUSKEGONMIOPERATIONS 8/3 1/2009

## C

- 2

fips plantid pointid stackid segment plant effective_date

33007 03570JMSRV650MA FRASERNHLLC 4/30/2008

33007 3300700001 FRASERNHLLC 4/30/2008

36083 4382800006 BENNINGTONPAPERBOARDCO 4/30/ 2009

37119 583 CaraustarMillGroup,Inc. 3/31/2009

39153 1677010193 B101 GOODYEARTIRE&RUBBERCO. 12 /31/2007

39153 1677010193 B102 GOODYEARTIRE&RUBBERCO. 12 /31/2007

39153 1677010193 B103 GOODYEARTIRE&RUBBERCO. 12/31/2007

39153 T$6196 1 GOODYEARTIRE&RUBBERCO. 12/31/200 7

47063 197 LIBERTYFIBERSCORPORATION 7/31/2010

47063 37778LNZNGTENNE LIBERTYFIBERSCORPORATIO N 7/31/2010

47063 T$4972 LIBERTYFIBERSCORPORATION 7/31/20 10

48141 5 ELPASOPLANT 6/1/2010

48141 1 ELPASOPLANT 6/1/2010

55075 438039360 STORAENSONORTHAMERICANIAGARAMILL 12/31/2008

55075 54151NGRFW1101M STORAENSONORTHAMERICANI AGARAMILL 12/31/2008

55075 T$8508 STORAENSONORTHAMERICANIAGARAMILL 12/31/2008

55141 772010580 DOMTARA.W.CORP.-PORTEDWARDS 6 /30/2008

55141 772010580 DOMTARA.W.CORP.

- PORTEDWARDS 6/30/2008

55141 T$8586 DOMTARA.W.CORP.-PORTEDWARDS 6/30 /2008



## Impacts of Plant Closures – criteria polls (Emissio n Reductions = 2005 Emissions)

CO NH3 NOX PM10 PM2_5 SO2 VOC

Row

Labels 2005

emissions

(tons) 2005

emissio

ns

(tons) 2005

emission

s (tons) 2005

emissio

ns

(tons) 2005

Emissions

(tons) 2005

emissio

(tons) 2005

emissions

(tons) Mercury

2005

emissions

(tons) Chlorine

(tons

2005) Hydrochlo

ric Acid

(tons

2005)

Alabama 7,649 6 153 1,885 1,708 594 571 0.024975

63

Florida 28 230 461 252 159 8,469 0.0045

Georgia 1,751 60 41 27 482

Illinois* 187 2,452 726 640 19,572 517 0.013405 206.00

Indiana 438 0 541 193 82 4,530 94 0.009350

573 9.21

Iowa 374 789 213 37 3,227 10

Louisiana 3,035 127 1,878 1,026 787 4,114 4,061 0.00 39.03 0.00

Maine 35 12 1,145 340 143 3,572 146

Massachu

setts 32 6 385 68 35 1,303 39

Michigan 1,366 4 2,606 509 332 2,076 398 0.16 99.07 0.16

New

Hampshir

e 101 212 75 65 669 10 0.02 0.50 0.02

New York 5 1 48 16 11 217 14

North

Carolina 12 1 94 25 17 379 7

## C

- 3

Ohio 29 809 74 32 6,705 4 72.98

Tennessee 47 0 2,057 169 94 5,377 9,059 0.01 91.10 0.01

Texas 220 71 38 35 35 18

West

Virginia 3,770 1 498 48 46 4,893 207

Wisconsin 479 28 1,953 436 297 7,672 349 96.66

Grand

Total 19,557 415 16,213 6,135 4,546 73,886 15,504 0.12751 0.18 614.54

For one “closure” in Illinois, we added in 2008 emi ssions due to a replacement of several units with a new PSD unit. The added emissions

are: 246 tons CO, 0.52 tons NH3, 719.3 tons NOX, 51 5 tons PM10, 418 tons PM2.5 and 2,203 tons SO2 and 100 tons HCL



## Impacts of Plant Closures – Mercury , Chlorine and Hydrochloric Acid

(Emission Reductions = 2005 Emissions)

State Mercury 2005

emissions (tons) Chlorine (tons 2005) Hydrochloric Acid

(tons 2005)

Alabama 0.02497563

Florida 0.0045

Illinois 0.013405 206.00

Indiana 0.009350573 9.21

Iowa 0.000237168

Louisiana 0.00133515 0.00 39.03

Maine 0.000951418

Massachusetts 0.000284184

Michigan 0.033772148 0.16 99.07

New

Hampshire 0.015327969 0.02 0.50

New York 7.94535E-05

North Carolina 0.000166432

Ohio 0.00484886 72.98

Tennessee 0.011907 0.01 91.10

Wisconsin 0.006371563 96.66

Grand Total 0.127512549 0.18 614.54

## C

- 1 APPENDIX C – List of OECA Consent Decrees- Whereby Reductions Were Apportioned to Facilities

in a Particular Corporation

Table C-1. Description of application of OECA Consent Decree s for future-year projections

Corporation Pollutant Compliance

Date Description of reductions 2005

Emissions

(tons/year)

Bunge NO X 

## 31DEC2005 Combined NO X 

## emissions reduced by 278 tons

per year. Combined is over select Bunge

facilities. 942

PM 31DEC2005 Combined PM emissions reduced by 258 tons per

year. Combined is over select Bunge facilities. 1,266

SO 2 

## 31DEC2005 Combined SO 2 

## emissions reduced by 574 tons

per year. Combined is over select Bunge

facilities. 2,926

VOC 31DEC2005 Combined VOC emissions reduced by 1

, 122 tons

per year. Combined is over select Bunge

facilities. 2,761

Cargill CO 01SEP2010 Combined CO emissions reduced by 10

, 900 tons

per year. Combined over select Cargill facilities. 11,167

NO X 

## 01SEP2007 Combined NO X 

## emissions reduced by 1

, 350 tons

per year. Combined over select Cargill facilities. 4,451

SO 2 

## 01SEP2008 Combined SO 2 

## emission reduced by 2

, 250 tons

per year. Combined over select Cargill facilities. 10,527

VOC 01SEP2008 Combined VOC emissions reduced by 98% or

10,450 tons per year. Combined over select

Cargill facilities. 6,617

Conoco Phillips NO X 

## 31DEC2008 Combined NO X 

## emissions reduced by 10

, 000

tons per year. Combined over select Conoco

Phillips facilities. 17,409

SO 2 

## 31DEC2008 Combined SO 2 

## emissions reduced by 37

, 100 tons

per year. Combined over select Conoco Phillips

facilities 31,003

Dupont SO 2 

## 01MAR2010 Annual SO 2 

## emi ssions cap at 123 tons per year at

James River 0

01MAR2012 Annual SO 2 

## emi ssions cap at 248 tons per year at

Wurtland 2,268

Annual SO 2 

## emi ssions cap at 281 tons per year at

Fort Hill 2,228

01SEP2009 Annual SO 2 

## emissions cap at 1

, 007 tons per year

at Burnside. 9,517

Hunt NO X 

## 31DEC2010 Must meet heat input capacity of 150 mmBTU/hr

or greater such that weighted average is no

greater than 0.044 lbs/mmBTU, applied at

Lumberton, Sandersville, and Tuscaloosa. 350

SO 2 

## 31DEC2007 No burning of fuel greater than 5 wt% sulfur.

SO 2 

## emissions will not exceed 20ppm or that

weighted average H 2 

## S concentrations will not

exceed 162 ppm H 2 

## S, applied at Lumberton,

Sandersville, and Tuscaloosa. 939

MGP Ingredients CO 2009 CO reductions by 90% 31

VOC 2009 VOC reductions by 95% 112

## C

- 2

Corporation Pollutant Compliance

Date Description of reductions 2005

Emissions

(tons/year)

Rhodia Inc SO 2 

## 01JUL2007 Annual emission limit of 2.2 lbs/ton. 240

Annual emission limit of 2.5 lbs/ton 396

Must meet SCAQMDR limit (1.7lbs/ton or less) 392

01JUL2009 Annual emission limit of 2.2 lbs/ton. 282

01MAY2012 Baton Rouge #1

- > limit of 1.9 lbs/ton. Baton

Rouge #2 -> limit of 2.2 lbs/ton 7,920

2008 Houston #8

- > limit of 2.5 lbs/ton within 1 year

of Date of Entry. Houston #2 -> limit of 1.8

/lbs/ton within 1 year of Date of Entry 9,686

St. Mary's Cement NO X 

## 30APR2009 Reduce combined NO X 

## emissions by 2

, 700 tons

per year. 1,700

Sunoco NO X 

## 2006

(Marcus

Hook, PA) Combined NO X 

## emissions reduced by 4,500 tons

per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 746

31DEC2009

(Toledo, OH) Combined NO X 

## emissions reduced by 4

, 500 tons

per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 2,339

31DEC2010

(Philadelphia,

PA) Combined NO X 

## emissions reduced by 4,500 tons

per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 3,390

PM 2006

(Marcus

Hook, PA) Combined PM emissions reduced by 300 tons per

year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 34

31DEC2009

(Toledo, OH) Combined PM emissions reduced by 300 tons per

year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 391

31DEC2010

(Philadelphia

, PA) Combined PM emissions reduced by 300 tons per

year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 591

SO 2 

## 2006

(Marcus

Hook, PA) Combined SO 2 

## emissions reduced by 19,500 tons

per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 3,536

31DEC2009

(Toledo, OH) Combined SO 2 

## emissions reduced by 19

, 500 tons

per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 9,072

31DEC2010

(Philadelphia

, PA) Combined SO 2 

## emissions reduced by 19,500 tons

per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities. 3,353

Total

Petrochemicals

USA CO 2007 Annual CO emissions cap at 120 tons per year. 386

NO X 

## 31DEC2009 Annual NO X 

## emissions cap at 180 tons per year. 798

SO 2 

## 2010 Annual SO 2 

## emissions cap at 800 tons per year. 146

## C

- 3

Corporation Pollutant Compliance

Date Description of reductions 2005

Emissions

(tons/year)

Valero NO X 

## 2011 Combined NO X 

## emissions reduced by 1870 tons

per year. Combined is over facilities: Lima,

Memphis, and Port Arthur. 4,165

31DEC2011 Combined NO X 

## emissions reduced by 4

, 000 tons

per year. Combined over Valero facilities in

Ardmore OK, Benicia CA, Martinez CA,

Wilmington CA, Denver CO, St. Charles LA,

Krotz Spring LA, Paulsboro NJ, Corpus Christi

TX (east and west), Houston TX, Sunray TX,

Texas City TX, and Three Rivers TX. 13,742

PM 31DEC2011 Combined PM emissions reduced by 526 tons per

year. Combined over Valero facilities listed in

other two lists for NOx and SO2. 3,027

SO 2 

## 2011 Combined SO 2 

## emissions reduced by 1

, 810 tons

per year. Combined is over facilities: Lima,

Memphis, and Port Arthur. 4,105

31DEC2011 Combined SO 2 

## emissions reduced by 16

, 000 tons

per year. Combined over Valero facilities in

Ardmore OK, Benicia CA, Martinez CA,

Wilmington CA, Denver CO, St. Charles LA,

Krotz Spring LA, Paulsboro NJ, Corpus Christi

TX (east and west), Houston TX, Sunray TX,

Texas City TX, and Three Rivers TX. 19,618C-1Appendix DGold Mine Mercy Reductions Due to NESHAP:DATE FOR PROJECTION FACTORAssume 2014 (rule done end of 2010 and 3 years compliance)NEI_SITE_ID FIPSpollcodeSTATE_FACILITY_ID Facility NameFACILITY WIDEmercuryemissions (intons peryear)*FACILITY WIDEPROJECTION FACTORcomputed from the 2016emissions. (base year xProjection Factor = FutureYear)2016emissions (intons peryear) **NEI182708119 19980860CRPPL2755SCRIPPLE CREEK &VICTOR GOLDMINING CO 0.01715 1 0.01715NEI2NV41111632021 19989406KNNCT55MILKENNECOTTRAWHIDE MININGCO 0.02 0.215 0.0043Facility wide emissions estimate isbased on 2007 emissions test dataNEI2NV444.0132023 19989045SMKYV1SMOKSMOKY VALLEYCOMMONOPERATION 0.03 0.388333333 0.01165Facility wide emissions estimate isbased on 2007 emissions test dataNEI2NVT1824232011 199 T$18242 RUBY HILL MINE 0.018 0.166666667 0.003Facility wideemissions estimate isbased on 2007 emissions test dataNEIAK09099737PGMNX3802240743997699737PGMNX38MIL POGO MINE 0.0005 1 0.0005NEIAKT$1366002090 19999707FRTKN1FORA FORT KNOX MINE 0.000065 10.000065NEIAKT$1366502110 19999801KNNCT13401KENNECOTTGREENS CREEKMININGCOMPANY 0.002715 10.002715NEIMT1532030043 19959759GLDNS453MOGOLDENSUNLIGHT MINESINC. 0.00085 1 0.00085NEINV3201589821CRTZG32015 19989821CRTZGSTARACORTEZ GOLDMINES 0.42575 0.234879624 0.1NEINVT$1249832013 19989414NWMNT35MILNEWMONTMINING CORPTWIN CREEKSMINE 0.296 0.506756757 0.15NEINVT$1249 3202 199 89418FLRDCEXIT STANDARD 0.08 0.40.032 Facility wide emissions estimate isC-2Appendix DGold Mine Mercy Reductions Due to NESHAP:DATE FOR PROJECTION FACTORAssume 2014 (rule done end of 2010 and 3 years compliance)NEI_SITE_ID FIPSpollcodeSTATE_FACILITY_ID Facility NameFACILITY WIDEmercuryemissions (intons peryear)*FACILITY WIDEPROJECTION FACTORcomputed from the 2016emissions. (base year xProjection Factor = FutureYear)2016emissions (intons peryear) **971MINING INCbased on 2008 emissions test dataNEINVT$1250032027 19989419CRRCH180EXCOEURROCHESTER INC 0.069 1 0.069Facility wide emissions estimate isbased on 2007 emissions test dataNEINVT$1250632013 19989438GLMSM3MILEGLAMISMARIGOLD MINE 0.1638 0.018315018 0.003NEINVT$1251032013 19989438NWMNTSTONENEWMONTMINING CORPLONE TREE MINE 0.311 0.225080386 0.07Facility wide emissions estimate isbased on 2006 emissions test dataNEINVT$1252332007 19989801JRRTT50MILJERRITT CANYONMINE 0.23 0.217391304 0.05Facility wide emissions estimate isfor the 2004-05 timeframe and isbased on the estimate submittedto Nevada DEP in response to ICRsurvey sent to the company.NEINVT$1252432033 19989803BLDMN70MILBALD MOUNTAINMINE 0.14 0.214285714 0.03Facilitywide emissions estimate isbased on 2008 emissions test dataNEINVT$1252532007 19989803BRRCK27MILBARRICKGOLDSTRIKEMINES INC 0.35 0.085714286 0.03Facility wide emissions estimate isbased on 2007 emissions test dataNEINVT$1252932007 199 T$12529NEWMONTMINING CORPRAIN AREA MINE 0.0001 1 0.0001NEINVT$1253132011 19989822NWMNT6MAILNEWMONTMINING CORPCARLIN SOUTHAREA 0.345 0.405797101 0.14*except for Pogo Mines, the pollutant code used is 199. For Pogo Mines it is 7439976.** These are projected emissions estimates post-MACT based on analyses of expected reductions done for the 2010 Proposed MACT rule.

## C

- 1 

# Appendix E

Mercury Emission Reductions,

2005-2016 for Particular NonEGU Categories based on

data/approaches developed by SPPD 1



### ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES (EAFs): Reduction to an emission level of 5 tpy (a 2.3 tpy Hg reduction) by 2016 is

estimated based on the 2007 MACT rule )(72 FR 74108). The NATA inventory for 2005 shows 7.3 tpy Hg emissions.

For the rule, EPA estimated 5 tpy reductions (from 10 tpy). This is considered a conservative assump tion at this time;

Hg emissions could go to 0 tpy, if mercury switches are removed from the process, or Hg emissions coul d move

toward 0 tpy based on vehicle fleet turnover and th e increasing use of mercury-free switches. Becau se the source of

mercury for EAFs is scrap metal containing mercury switches from an aging vehicle fleet that has been replaced with

mercury-free technology, there is the potential tha t there will be very low levels of mercury by 2016, via mandatory

controls and continuous monitoring as a result of t he new MACT rule (an upcoming area source rule that is in the

planning stage), and through vehicle fleet turnover

.

We determined a 35.1% reduction was needed from a s tarting point of 7.3 tons to get to 5 tons.

However, our starting point inventory was actually lower than the NATA value of 5 tons because the fol lowing sources

were not in the starting modeling inventory or had different emissions than the 2005 NATA due to other controls

applied that would have contributed to getting to 5 tons in the future



## nata_plant scc nata_emis Starting Emissions in projection

Northwestern Steel & Wire Co (shut

down prior to 2005) 30300908 0.337223 0

Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. Charlotte

Stee 30400701 0.0144 Same, but other controls reduce

this source

Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc. Charlotte

Stee 30400799 0.0005 Same, but other controls reduce

this source

Texas Industries Inc. 30300908 0.325819 0.059951 (other controls applied)

Because our pre-MACT emissions were 6.6 tons, to ge t to a projected value of 5 tons, the percent reduc tion is 24.4%

instead of 35.1%,. Therefore our projection result ed in a 2016 value of 4.53 tons instead of 5 tons for this sector.

However, because the actual emissions for this sect or could move towards 0 in the future so the error is much smaller

than the undcertainty. Note that the reductions fo r this sector were 2.12 tons.

HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTORS (HWCs): A 0.2 tpy reduction of Hg by 2016 is estimated f rom the 2005

MACT rule . The 2005 standards are in effect and all HWCs ar e required to be in compliance with them. The Hg

reductions achieved by the 2005 standards were esti mated to be 0.2 tpy. This was due in part to "inte rim standards"

that were put in place in 2002, which reduced Hg em issions by 12.9 tpy.

.Note that identifying which HWCs have reductions m ay not be possible.

We determine that a 6.25% reduction would be needed to achieve a 0.2 to n reduction based on a 2005 category-wide

sum of 2.3 tons. However, we inadvertently applied a 31.5% reduction and therefore reduced emissions by 0.94 tons

instead of 0.2 tons. Since the 0.74 extra ton redu ctions are spread across more than 250 counties, th is is not

expected to impact any one area of the country sign ificantly.

1 

### transmitted by Amy Vasu of SPPD on Sept 7 and Sept 8, 2010 (email to Madeleine Strum)

## C

- 2

One other issue is that it appeared that some HWCs are part of the ISIS model and that they should not be addressed

both by the ISIS projection and the across-th-board HWC reduction.

Upcoming revised rule . Work to revise the rule (to replace the Hg stand ards, due to the remand) is at the pre-proposal

stage, and there is not an estimate of reductions t hat those future standards may achieve. It is not known if the

compliance date would be prior to 2016 for the revi sed rule.

MERCURY CHLORALKALI PLANTS: Estimated emissions for 2009 are 0.3 tpy; this is a 0.8 T/yr reduction from

2005 levels. Mercury emissions could remain at 0.3 tpy or go to 0 tpy by 2013-2016 due to facility cl osure or

conversion, but is highly uncertain at this time.

2003 MACT rule . NATA inventory for 2005 shows 1.1 tpy Hg emissio ns, however, this is inconsistent with the 2005

NATA version we used because which sums to 3.1 tons . Estimates of mercury emissions under this rule a re 0.3 tpy in

2009 through 2012. Four facilities remain in opera tion (Augusta, GA; Charleston, TN; New Martinsville , WV; and,

Ashtabula, OH). It is estimated that emissions cou ld go to 0 tpy as early as 2013

ASHTA (Ashtabula, OH facility; Ashtabula County)

OLIN - GA (Augusta, GA facility; Richmond County)

OLIN - TN (Charleston, TN facility; Bradley County)

PPG (New Martinsville, WV facility; Wetzel County)

In order to generate a Mercury Chloralkali estimate consistent with the above, we had to remove Hg fro m the sources

identified as Mercury chloralkali plants based on t heir MACT code of 1403. These are shown below; and the sum is

1.4 tons.

In addition, we applied facility specific reduction s to the following 4 facilities

ASHTA (Ashtabula, OH facility; Ashtabula County)

OLIN - GA (Augusta, GA facility; Richmond County)

OLIN - TN (Charleston, TN facility; Bradley County)

PPG (New Martinsville, WV facility; Wetzel County)

Such that the resultant emissions would match data provided by rule developers.

Specifically:

NEIOHT$5933 is for ASHTA (Ashtabula, OH facility; Ashtabula County) 20 05 Hg is 0.4065 tons (813 lbs)

FIPS=39007, PLANTID= 44004LCPCH3509M, POLL = 74399 76 (2 records for this facility)

Final emissions in Amy’s table (2008) is 62 pounds. Therefore, percent reduction is 

## 92.4%

Actual final emissions from projection is 61.788 fo r ashta

NEIGAT$3892 is for OLIN - GA (Augusta, GA facility; Richmond County) 2005 Hg is 0.412 tons (824 lbs)

FIPS= 13245 PLANTID= 30913LNGST2402L, POLL = 7439976 (2 records for thi s facility)

Final emissions in Amy’s table (2008) is 95 pounds Therefore, percent reduction is 

## 88.5%

Actual final emissions from projection is 94.76 pou nds

NEI10894 is for OLIN - TN (Charleston, TN facility; Bradley County) 2005 Hg is 0.7675 tons (1535 lbs)

FIPS = 47011 PLANTID = ???? check leading zeroes 14??? POLL = 7439976 (2 records for this facility) Final

emissions in Amy’s table ( 2008) is 327 pounds. Therefore % reduction is 

## 78.7 %

Actual final emissions from projection is 326.955 pounds

NEI42444 PPG (New Martinsville, WV facility; Wetzel County this is in Marshall county not Wetzel county Boiler

MACT database also has it as Marshall county) 2005 Hg is 0.127 tons (254 lbs)

FIPS = 54051 PLANTID = 5405100002 check leading z eroes POLL = 199 (2 records for this facility)

## C

- 3

Final emissions in Amy’s table is 150 pounds per the settlement Decree Amy indicated that limits their emissions to

that level. Therefore % reduction is 40.9%



## Actual final emissions from projection is 150 po unds

Overall reduction for the above plants is 

## 1.396249 tons in addition, 1.4 tons were zeroed out so the tot al reduction is

2.8 tons.

Plants to shut down

nata_uniq fips plantid scc poll nata_emis

Hg (tons) nei_emis

Hg (tons) emis_diff nata_plant nata_mact

code

NEIAL0330002 1033 2 30100802 199 0.27 0.27 0 Occidental

Chemical

Corporation 1403

NEI26211 10003 1000300030 30100899 7439976 0.002387 0.002387 0 OCCIDENTAL

CHEMICAL

CORPORATION 1403

NEI26211 10003 1000300030 30100899 7439976 5.40E-05 5.40E-05 0 OCCIDENTAL

CHEMICAL

CORPORATION 1403

NEI26211 10003 1000300030 30100802 7439976 0.1263 0.1263 0 OCCIDENTAL

CHEMICAL

CORPORATION 1403

NEI26211 10003 1000300030 30100899 7439976 0.000254 0.000254 0 OCCIDENTAL

CHEMICAL

CORPORATION 1403

NEI6076 22019 5200004 30100802 7439976 0.0795 0.079 5 0 PPG INDUSTRIES

INC/LAKE

CHARLES

COMPLEX 1403

NEI6076 22019 5200004 30100802 7439976 0.0005 0.000 5 0 , five 1403

NEI6076 22019 5200004 30100802 7439976 0.5225 0.522 5 0 PPG INDUSTRIES

INC/LAKE

CHARLES

COMPLEX 1403

NEI6076 22019 5200004 30100802 7439976 0.0005 0.000 5 0 PPG INDUSTRIES

INC/LAKE

CHARLES

COMPLEX 1403

NEI6076 22019 5200004 30100802 7439976 0.0005 0.000 5 0 PPG INDUSTRIES

INC/LAKE

CHARLES

COMPLEX 1403

NEILAT$10650 22047 70776STFFRRIVER 39999999 7439976 0.36525 0.36525 0 PIONEER

AMERICAS

LLC/CHLOR-ALKALI

PLANT 1403

NEILAT$10650 22047 70776STFFRRIVER 39999999 7439976 0.024 0.024 0 PIONEER

AMERICAS

LLC/CHLOR-ALKALI

PLANT 1403

NEI42973 55141 772010470 30100802 7439976 0.00465 0 .00465 0 ERCO

WORLDWIDE

(USA) 1403

NEI42973 55141 772010470 30100802 7439976 0.003 0.0 03 0 ERCO

WORLDWIDE

(USA) 1403



### Pulp and Paper: A Hg emission reduction of 0.7 tpy is estimated as a result of replacement of a smelter at G-P Big

Island (Beford County, VA) with a recovery furnace. This results in 0.4 tpy Hg emissions for Pulp and Paper.

REDUCTION = 0.728172

Upcoming rules, not yet proposed. Possible future Hg controls (should EPA regulatio ns dictate Hg controls - which

remains to be seen) are activated carbon injection or more likely a wet scrubber applied to recovery f urnaces. If we

## C

- 4

assume a 99% Hg reduction associated with these con trols, then the recovery furnace Hg emissions from the NEI

(totaling 0.177 tpy for DCE + NDCE) would be reduce d by 0.175 tpy.

Thus, the best-case Hg reduction estimated for the P&P industry is rounded to 0.18 tpy based on current NEI data

(corrected for a shut-down smelter) and a 99% reduc tion of Hg emissions from recovery furnaces. These possible

future Hg controls are not currently accounted for in the projections done for nonEGU.

## F-v 

# APPENDIX F



# Approach to Apply RICE reductions to

project 2005 Emissions in the 2005v4.1

modeling Platform : 2004 and 2010 rules

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................

................................................... ................................. vii

1 Introduction ......................................

................................................... .................................... 8

2 Source Coverage ...................................

................................................... ............................. 10

3 Spark Ignition (SI) Engines .......................

................................................... ....................... 13

3.1 Four Stroke Rich Burn Engines (4SRB) ..............

................................................... ................................. 15

3.2 Two Stroke Lean Burn Engines (2SLB) ...............

................................................... ................................ 16

3.3 Four Stroke Lean Burn Engines (4SLB) ..............

................................................... ................................ 16



## 4 Compression Ignition (CI) Engines .................

................................................... ................. 17

5 Approach For Addressing Already-Controlled Sources

................................................... ... 18

6 Percent Reduction Calculations to be applied to NEI

.................................................. ....... 18

6.1 SI Engines ........................................

................................................... ................................................... ... 18

6.2 CI Engines ........................................

................................................... ................................................... .. 20

## F- vi 7 Percent Reduction Calculations to be applied to NEI accounting for only the 2004 RICE rule

21

7.1 SI Engines ........................................

................................................... ................................................... ... 21

7.2 CI Engines ........................................

................................................... ................................................... .. 22



## 8 Results ...........................................

................................................... ...................................... 22

## F- vii 

# LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Summary of Existing Source RICE Reducti ons Reflected in the Projection Methodology ....... ..... 8

Table 2-1. SCCs representing the point source and non-point source universe of RICE ................. .............. 11

Table 3-1. Distribution of NOX by engine and HP ty pe for major and area sources ..................... ................ 14

Table 3-2. Distribution of CO by engine and HP typ e for major and area sources ...................... ................... 14

Table 3-3. Distribution of VOC by engine and HP ty pe for major and area sources ..................... ................. 14

Table 4-1. Distribution of CO, PM and VOC emission s from Compression Ignition Engines by Engine and

HP type for major and area sources ................

................................................... ............................................... 17

Table 6-1. Formula for determining the percent re duction to apply to SI SCCs for Projection Years of 2014

and Beyond ........................................

................................................... ................................................... ......... 18

Table 6-2. Formula for determining the percent red uction to apply to Compression Ignition (CI) SCCs f or

Projection Years of 2014 and later ................

................................................... ................................................ 20

Table 7-1. Formula for determining the percent red uction to apply to SI SCCs for the 2012 projection ....... 21

Table 8-1. Summary of Percent Reductions and Emiss ions reduced from the 2005 Platform resulting from

all 3 RICE rules (Future years 2014 and later) ....

................................................... .......................................... 23

Table 8-2. Summary of Percent Reductions and Emiss ions reduced from the 2005 Platform resulting from

the 2004 RICE NESHAP ..............................

................................................... ................................................. 2 3

Table 9-1. SO2 emissions and reductions resulting from ultra low sulfur fuel requirement (compliance date

May 2013) for CI engines greater or equal to 300 HP

. ................................................. ..................................... 1

## F-8



# 1 Introduction

There are three rulemakings for National Emission S tandards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAP) for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engi nes. These rules reduce hazardous air

pollutant (HAPs) from existing and new stationary r eciprocating internal combustion engines

(RICE). In order to meet the standards, existing s ources with certain types of engines will need

to install controls. In addition to reducing HAPs, these controls also reduce criteria air pollutants

(CAPs).

This document presents a methodology for incorporat ing the CAP reductions from the three

RICE NESHAP in the future year projection of the 20 05 v4.1 modeling platform. The

methodology addresses the following future years: 2012, and 2014 and beyond. In 2014 and

beyond, all 3 rules’ compliance dates have passed; thus all 3 rules are included in the emissions

projection. In 2012 only the earliest rule’s compl iance date has passed so only one rule is

included.

The rules can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/at w/rice/ricepg.html and are listed below:

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollu tants for Reciprocating Internal

Combustion Engines; Final Rule (69 FR 33473) publi shed 06/15/04

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollu tants for Reciprocating Internal

Combustion Engines; Final Rule (FR 9648 ) published 03/03/10

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollu tants for Reciprocating Internal

Combustion Engines; Final Rule (75 FR 51570) publis hed 08/20/2010



## The difference among these three rules is that they focus on different types of engines, different

facility types (major for HAPs, versus area for HAP s) and different engine sizes based on

horsepower (HP). In addition, the they have differ ent compliance dates. We project CAPs from

the 2005 NEI RICE sources, based on the requirement s of the rule for existing sources ,. We

consider only existing sources, since the inventory includes only existing sources and the current

projection approach does not estimate emissions fro m new sources. As indicated earlier, for the

2012 projections, only the requirements associated with the June 15, 2007 compliance date are

incorporated. All of the Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. requirements are

incorporated in projections for 2014 and beyond.

Table 1-1summarizes the rule information that was u sed for the emissions projection. As

indicated earlier, for the 2012 projections, only t he requirements associated with the June 15,

2007 compliance date are incorporated. All of the Error! Not a valid bookmark selfreference. requirements are incorporated in projections for 2 014 and beyond.

Table 1-1. Summary of Existing Source RICE Reductions Reflecte d in the Projection

Methodology

## F-9

Engine

Type Control and

Pollutant

Reductions Horse Power

Range

Affected

(Existing

Sources

Only) Publication

Date of the

RICE

NESHAP Compliance

Date Reductions for

Existing

Sources, Rule

Documentation

(tons)**

Spark

Ignition:

Four stroke

rich burn

(SI: 4SRB) Nonselective

catalytic

reduction

97% NOX,

49% CO *

76% VOC Nonemergency,

Major, HP >

500 06/15/04 June 15,

2007 

## CO: 98,040

NOX: 69,862

VOC:1461***

SI: 4SRB Same as

above Nonemergency,

Area, HP

>500 08/20/10 October 19,

2013 

## NOX: 96,479

CO: 109,321

VOC: 30,907 SI: Four

stroke lean

burn (4SLB) Oxidation

Catalyst

94% CO,

71% VOC Nonemergency

Major, 100-

500 HP, Area

> 500 HP 08/20/10 October 19,

2013



## Compression

Ignition (CI) Oxidation

Catalyst

70% CO and

VOC

30% PM2.5 Nonemergency

Major and

Area, HP

>300 03/03/10 May 3, 2013 

## CO: 14,342

VOC: 27,395

PM: 2,844

*% CO used in 6/2004 rule was 90%

**Total Reductions across these rules: NOX (tons)= 166,379; CO (tons)

= 221,703; VOC (tons) = 58,402; and PM (tons) = 2 ,844.

*** VOC reductions weren't estimated for the 2004 r ule. Used 2010

approach: estimated the VOC emissions as a functi on of the HAP

emissions by dividing HAP by 0.1944 to get the VOC emissions.

Based on analyses done in support of the rules, the RICE NESHAP published 06/15/04 estimated

69,862 tons of NOX would be reduced, and the RICE N ESHAP published 08/20/10 estimates

96,479 tons NOX to be reduced. Total NOX to be red uced from existing sources for the two

rules is therefore 166,379 tons. The sum of reduct ions for all rules for CO is 221,703; for VOC

is 58,402 and for PM is 2,844.

Our projection approaches generally try to maintain the percent reductions for a category rather

than match the absolute mass of the reductions. Th is is because the inventories used to estimate

reductions from the rules are often inconsistent wi th the inventories that we use for modeling.

## F-10

The rule-specific inventories generally come from i ndustry survey data, and the NEI comes from

state-reported data. So, rather than attempting to remove the tonnages listed in above, we used a

percent reduction approach.

The percent reduction approach is to determine and apply the appropriate percent reductions to

RICE sources in the modeling platform. RICE emissi ons are identified based on the source

classification codes (SCCs) in the modeling invento ry. As explained earlier, because the

modeling inventory was not used as the basis for de termining the air impacts of the rule, the

tonnage reductions achieved by applying percent red uctions associated with the RICE

requirements to the platform are not expected to pr ovide exactly the values cited above.

The percentage reduction to be applied is determine d as a function of the efficiency of the

control device, and the fraction of emissions in th e SCC estimated to be impacted by the rule

requirements. The remainder of this document prese nts the data and equations used to estimate

the overall percent reductions to apply to each SCC . Section 2 discusses the source coverage as

a function of the inventory SCCs. Sections 3 and 4 present the data used to determine the

percentage of emissions from these SCCs to apply th e control device efficiencies. Section 5

discusses the approach for addressing the already c ontrolled engines, and Section 6 provides the

equations for percent reduction, and summarizes the values of the parameters used to compute

the percent reduction by pollutant and by engine ty pe for years past 2014; Section 7 provides this

information for the 2012 projection year which incl udes reductions only from the rule published

in 2004. Section 8 provides a summary of the resul ts.



# 2 Source Coverage

The engine types affected by the NESHAP are Spark I gnition (SI) and Compression Ignition

(CI). Spark Ignition engines can be classified as Four Stroke Rich Burn Engines (4SRB), Two

Stroke Lean Burn Engines (2SLB) and Four Stroke Lea n Burn Engines (4SLB). Because the

requirements of the rules differ between SI engine types, we must be able to distinguish among

these types in the inventory.

The inventory source classification codes (SCCs) th at represent SI and CI engines in the NEI are

shown in Table 2-1, along with emissions (50-state sums) from the 2005 modeling platform

(case=2005cr). The SI SCCS are assigned to one of five “reduction” categories depending upon

the specificity of the type of SIC engine. These a re: 4SRB, 4SLB, 2SLB and “SI, generic”,

“boiler + engine” and “RICE + turbine.” Note that all of the gasoline engines are considered to

be 100% 4SRB. A method and data to apportion the fraction of emissions from the non-specific

engine type categories of “SI, generic”, “boiler+e ngine” and “RICE+turbine” to 4SRB and

4SLB engine types is presented in the next section. The CI SCCs only need to be apportioned

to non-emergency engines, and not by any specific C I engine type, therefore the “Category for

Application of Reduction” is CI.

There are also SCCs in the inventory for oil and ga s operations that include emissions from the

use of RICE. We denote these as “oil&gas” in Table 2-1. We do not have any data to apportion

the amount of emissions from SI nor CI RICE from th ese SCCs. Focusing on NOX reductions,

we can determine the amount of NOX reductions neede d from the oil&gas SCCs in order to

## F-11

bring the total NOX to equal the estimates provided in the rule. The total NOX reductions from

the non oil&gas SCCs sum to 80,597 tons and the tot al NOX reductions estimated by the two

rules is 166,379 tons. If the remaining NOX from o il&gas SCCs were to make up this

difference, 26% of the total oil&gas NOX would need to be reduced. Since this fraction turns

out higher than the fraction of reduction to be app lied to “SI, generic” SCCs, and it is expected

that oil&gas SCCs would have more NOX emitting oper ations than the “SI,generic” SCCs, we

have chosen to apply the “SI, generic” SCC fraction to the oil&gas SCCS. Because it is likely

that the vast majority of oil&gas VOC is from opera tions other than RICE, we will not compute

any VOC reduction from oil&gas SCCs. We will use t he same fraction as “SI,generic” for CO.

Table 2-1. SCCs representing the point source and non-point so urce universe of RICE

SCC Description Engine

Type Category for

Application of

Reduction NOX 2005

(tons) CO

2005 (tons) VOC 2005

(tons) PM2.5

200 5 (tons)

20100102 Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Dis tillate

Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating CI CI

17,662 3,792 1,294 645

20100105 Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Dis tillate

Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Crankcase Blowby CI CI

87 22 10 9

20100107 Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Dis tillate

Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust CI CI

221 79 9 10

20100202 Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Nat ural

Gas;Reciprocating SI SI, generic

7,490 3,675 909 115

20100207 Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Nat ural

Gas;Reciprocating: Exhaust SI SI, generic

1 0 0 0

20200102 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Distillate O il

(Diesel);Reciprocating CI CI

11,785 3,323 908 772

20200104 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Distillate O il

(Diesel);Reciprocating: Cogeneration CI CI

494 128 18 31

20200107 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Distillate O il

(Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust CI CI

254 74 15 7

20200202 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural

Gas;Reciprocating SI SI, generic

215,888 74,610 16,560 2,339

20200204 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural

Gas;Reciprocating: Cogeneration SI SI, generic

704 413 110 14

20200207 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural

Gas;Reciprocating: Exhaust SI SI, generic

15 50 1 0

20200252 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas; 2-cycle

Lean Burn SI 2SLB

153,857 27,103 9,089 2,216

20200253 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas; 4-cycle

Rich Burn SI 4SRB

66,871 53,724 5,337 512

20200254 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas; 4-cycle

Lean Burn SI 4SLB

47,932 20,287 5,333 385

20200255 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas; 2-cycle

Clean Burn SI 2SLB

591 288 70 22

20200256 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas; 4-cycle

Clean Burn SI 4SLB

1,719 1,924 365 29

20200301 Internal Combustion

Engines;Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating SI 4SRB

660 1,966 110 26

20200307 Internal Combustion

Engines;Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating: Exhaust SI 4SRB

56 54 9 3

20201001 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Liquified Pe troleum

Gas (LPG);Propane: Reciprocating SI SI, generic

101 130 52 9

20201002 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Liquified Pe troleum

Gas (LPG);Butane: Reciprocating SI SI, generic

13 22 0 0

20201702 Internal Combustion

Engines;Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating Engine SI 4SRB

3 31 9 0

20201707 Internal Combustion

Engines;Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating: Exhaust SI 4SRB

0 4 0 0

20300101 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil

(Diesel);Reciprocating CI CI

4,476 1,512 455 330

20300105 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil CI CI

0 0 0 0

## F-12

SCC Description Engine

Type Category for

Application of

Reduction NOX 2005

(tons) CO

2005 (tons) VOC 2005

(tons) PM2.5

2005 (tons)

(Diesel);Reciprocating: Crankcase Blowby

20300107 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil

(Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust CI CI

9 1 0 6

20300201 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Recipr ocating SI SI, generic

17,532 6,165 1,883 113

20300204 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Cogene ration SI generic

170 200 22 4

20300207 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural

Gas;Reciprocating: Exhaust SI SI, generic

17 2 1 0

20300301 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Gasoline;Reciproca ting SI 4SRB

348 4,250 245 80

20300307 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Gasoline;Reciproca ting:

Exhaust SI 4SRB

4 21 3

-

20301001 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Liquified Petroleu m Gas

(LPG);Propane: Reciprocating SI SI, generic

61 28 12 2

20301002 Internal Combustion

Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Liquified Petroleu m Gas

(LPG);Butane: Reciprocating SI SI, generic

0 0 0

-

20400401 Internal Combustion Engines;Engine Testing;Reciproc ating

Engine;Gasoline SI 4SRB

647 11,538 738 44

20400402 Internal Combustion Engines;Engine Testing;Reciproc ating

Engine;Diesel/Kerosene CI CI

3,935 968 235 163

20400403 Internal Combustion Engines;Engine Testing;Reciproc ating

Engine;Distillate Oil CI CI

2 1 0 0

31000203 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production;Natural Gas

Production;Compressors SI SI, generic

29,605 10,849 2,333 272

50100421 Waste Disposal;Solid Waste Disposal - Government;La ndfill

Dump;Waste Gas Recovery: Internal Combustion Device SI SI, generic

914 1,220 103 53

2101004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Electric Utility; Distillate

Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines CI Boiler+engine

258 60 4 1

2101004002 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Electric Utility; Distillate

Oil;All IC Engine Types CI CI

2,218 462 112 9

2101006000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Electric Utility; Natural

Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines SI Boiler+engine

2,413 4,500 1,294 8

2101006002 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Electric Utility; Natural

Gas;All IC Engine Typ es SI RICE+turbine

6,089 1,347 52 148

2102004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Distil late

Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines CI Boiler+engine

89,906 20,956 3,223 6,494

2102006000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Natura l

Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines SI Boiler+engine

150,642 99,171 6,733 775

2102006002 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Natura l

Gas;All IC Engine Types SI RICE+turbine

14,845 5,791 1,543 9

2103004000 Stationary Source Fuel

Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil; Total:

Boilers and IC Engines CI Boiler+engine

43,266 10,520 1,340 6,461

2103006000 Stationary Source Fuel

Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Tot al:

Boilers and IC Engines SI Boiler+engine

138,027 95,914 8,684 933

219900 4000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Total Area Source Fuel

Combustion;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Eng ines CI Boiler+engine

199 210 12 15

2199004002 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Total Area Source Fuel

Combustion;Distillate Oil;All IC Engine Types CI RICE+turbine

11,327 5,227 1,158 797

2199006000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Total Area Source Fuel

Combustion;Natural Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engine s SI Boiler+engine

2,592 600 124 166

2310020600 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Exploration and

Production;Natural Gas;Compressor Engines SI SI, generic

48,393 29,980 5,300 -

2310000000 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13 ;All

Processes;Total: All Processes oil&gas

14,456 2,654 26,308 -

2310000220 Industrial Proc esses;Oil and Gas Exploration and oil&gas 85,302 26,575 5,579 2,945

## F-13

SCC Description Engine

Type Category for

Application of

Reduction NOX 2005

(tons) CO

2005 (tons) VOC 2005

(tons) PM2.5

2005 (tons)

Production;All Processes;Drill Rigs

2310000440 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Exploration and

Production;All Processes;Saltwater Disposal Engines oil&gas

121 17 7

-

2310001000 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13 ;All

Processes : On-shore;Total: All Processes oil&gas

193,183 226,478 286,6 54

-

2310002000 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13 ;All

Processes : Off

- shore;Total: All Processes oil&gas

1,859

- 310

-

2310020000 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13 ;Natural

Gas;Total: All Processes oil&gas

7,253 3,114 17,584 101

2310023000 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Exploration and

Production;Natural Gas;Cbm Gas Well - Dewatering Pu mp

Engines oil&gas

4,104 -

- -



# 3 Spark Ignition (SI) Engines

Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3 provides the di stribution of emissions by source type (major

versus area), engine type and HP range for NOX, CO and VOC, respectively. The data are from

the rule analyses and were provided by Melanie King , EPA, Sector Policies and Programs

Division. These tables provide the information nee ded to apportion the emissions from generic

reciprocating engine SI SCCs in Table 2-1 to the pa rticular engine type requiring controls. For

example, the proportion of NOX emissions from major 4SRB Non-emergency engines from all

major reciprocating engines is 91,657/278,460 = 33% . The emissions in these tables are also

broken out by HP; thus they also provide the data n eeded to apportion the emissions to the HP

range requiring the controls. Furthermore, we have used them to create a ratio of major to area

emissions for SI engines. We had previously used t he NEI’s SRCTYPE data field which

indicates the facility’s status- major vs area- wit h respect to HAPs (based on the major/area

definitions in Section 112 of the Clean Air Act). This approach, which used for the

2016cr1_hg_05 case and related source apportionment case (both of these were used for the

Boiler MACT Regulatory Impact Assessment, and no ot her modeling) resulted in major/area

splits heavily weighted to major sources: 77%/23% , 81%/19% and 75%/25% for 4SRB for

NOX, CO and VOC, respectively and 91%/9% for both C O and VOC for 4 SLB. However, we

have chosen to update this as we have more confiden ce in the major/area breakout done for the

rule analysis than the value reported in the invent ory for which we have discovered errors in the

SCRTYPE value or found it missing. Using the data Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3, we

determine that 27% of the emissions are from major sources and 73% are from area sources.

This is approximately the same for all pollutants, and we also use it for all SI engine types.

The below subjections provide the apportionment fac tors for both engine type and HP ranges for

the SI engines.

## F-14

Table 3-1. Distribution of NOX by engine and HP type for major and area sources

Baseline NOX emissions from major and area sources (with 20% 4SRB have NSCR), SI engines

HP Range Total NOx

Emissions- major

sources 2SLB Nonemergencymajor sources 4SLB Nonemergencymajor sources 4SRB Nonemergencymajor

source s Emerg

encymajor

sourc

es Landfill/

Digester Gas

Nonemergencymajor

sources Total NOx

Emissionsarea

sources 2SLBarea

sources 4SLBarea

sources 4SRBarea

sources Emerge

ncy area

sources Landfill/

Digester

Gas- area

sources

25-50 41,751 12,806 15,054 13,853 38 0 68,566 21,031 24,722 22,750 63 0

50-100 22,363 6,859 8,063 7,420 21 0 58,985 18,092 21,268 19,571 54 0

100-175 64,914 19,911 23,405 21,538 60 0 133,065 40,815 47,978 44,150 123 0

175

- 300 24,168 7,413 8,714 8,019 2 2 0 82,359 25,261 29,695 27,326 76 0

300-500 25,106 7,700 9,052 8,330 23 0 99,679 30,574 35,940 33,073 92 0

500-600 19,426 5,825 6,847 6,301 18 436 69,094 19,760 23,228 21,375 59 4,671

600-750 4,097 1,228 1,444 1,329 4 92 14,438 4,328 5,087 4,682 13 327

>750 76,635 22,971 27,002 24,848 71 1744 227,890 68,313 80,303 73,896 210 5,169

Total 278,460 84,713 99,581 91,637 256 2,272 754,077 228,175 268,222 246,822 690 10,167



## Table 3-2. Distribution of CO by engine and HP type for major and area sources

Baseline CO emissions from major and area sources ( with 20% 4SRB have NSCR), SI engines

HP

Range Total CO

Emissionsmajor

sources 2SLB

Nonemergenc

y- major

sources 4SLB

Nonemergen

cymajor

sources 4SRB

Nonemergenc

y- major

source s Emer

gency

- majo

r

sourc

es Landfill/

Digester

Gas

Nonemergen

cymajor

sources Total

CO

Emissio

ns- area

sources 2SLBarea

source

s 4SLBarea

source

s 4SRBarea

sources Eme

rgen

cy area

sour

ces Landfill/

Digester

Gas- area

sources

25-50 28,798 3,247 5,131 20,368 51 46,898 5,333 8, 031 33,450 83

50-100 15,425 1,739 2,748 10,910 27 40,344 4,588 6 ,909 28,776 71

100-175 44,774 5,049 7,978 31,668 79 91,013 10,350 15,586 64,917 161

175-300 16,670 1,880 2,970 11,791 29 56,331 6,406 9,646 40,179 100

300-500 17,316 1,953 3,086 12,248 30 68,178 7,753 11,675 48,629 121

500

- 600 13,402 1,477 2,334 9,264 23 303 47,273 5,011 7,546 31,429 78 3,209

600-750 2,826 312 492 1,954 5 64 9,876 1,097 1,653 6,884 17 225

>750 52,851 5,825 9,204 36,535 93 1,194 155,890 17, 323 26,086 108,654 275 3,551

Total 192,062 21,482 33,944 134,738 337 1,561 515,8 03 57,862 87,132 362,918 906 6,985



## Table 3-3. Distribution of VOC by engine and HP type for major and area sources

Baseline VOC emissions from major and area sources (with 20% 4SRB have NSCR), SI engines

## F-15

HP

Range Total

VOC

Emissi

ons -

major

sources 2SLB

Nonemerge

ncy -

major

sources 4SLB

Nonemergenc

y -major

sources 4SRB

Nonemergen

cy -

major

sources Emerge

ncy -

major

sources Landfill/

Digester

Gas

Nonemergen

cy -

major

sources Total

VOC

Emissio

ns - area

sources 2SLB

Nonemergenc

y- area

sources 4SLB

Nonemergenc

y - area

sources 4SRB

Nonemergenc

y - area

sources Emerge

ncy -

area

sources Landfill/

Digester

Gas

Nonemergen

cy - area

sources

25-50 5,696 939 3,513 1,240 3.3 9,354 1,543 5,770 2,036 5.4

50-100 3,051 503 1,882 664 1.8 8,047 1,327 4,964 1,751 4.6

100-175 8,855 1,460 5,463 1,927 5.1 18,153 2,994 11,198 3,951 10.4

175-300 3,297 544 2,034 718 1.9 11,235 1,853 6,93 1 2,445 6.5

300

- 500 3,425 565 2,113 745 2.0 13,598 2,242 8,388 2,960 7.8

500-600 2,650 427 1,598 564 1.5 59 9,415 1,449 5,42 1 1,913 5.0 627

600-750 559 90 337 119 0.3 12 1,969 317 1,187 419 1.1 44

>750 10,450 1,685 6,302 2,224 6.0 233 31,076 5,010 18,742 6,613 17.8 693

Total 37,982 6,213 23,241 8,200 22 305 102,846 16,7 36 62,600 22,088 58.7 1,364

Note that this table accounts for changes to VOC ba seline values made on August 16, 2010



# 3.1 Four Stroke Rich Burn Engines (4SRB)

For 4SRB, non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) is expected to be required to meet the

formaldehyde limit. In addition to reducing NOX, N SCR reduces CO and VOC. The control

device efficiency for NOX, CO and VOC, denoted R poll 

## is based on the average value in Table 4

of the memo “CO Removal Efficiency as a Surrogate f or HAP Removal Efficiency”. For 4SRB,

R NOX 

## = 97%, R CO 

## = 49%; and R VOC = 

## 76%

As discussed earlier, the point source inventory so urce classification codes (SCCs) that represent

or could include these engines in the NEI are shown in Table 2-1. To determine the fraction of

4SRB in the “SI, generic” SCCs, we compute the perc ent of NOX, CO and VOC emissions from

rich burn engines from “baseline estimates” (consid ering existing controls --- 20% 4SRB have

NSCR) of NOX, CO and VOC from 4SRB. We denote this fraction as F 4SRB, poll. 

## Using the total

NOX emissions from all SI RICE and 4SRB in Table 3- 1, the proportion of NOX from 4SRB

from major source SI engines is computed as 91,637 /278,460 = 33% and the proportion of

NOX from 4SRB from area source SI engines is comput ed as 246,822/754,077 = 33%. Thus,

F 4SRB, NOX 

## = 0.33. Using Table 3-2, F 4SRB, CO 

## = 0.7 (same for both major and area sources) and

using Table 3-3 , F 4SRB, VOC 

## = 0.216 (same for both major and area sources). As discussed

previously, we use the same F 4SRB 

## for oil&gas SCCs other than for VOC, for which we use

F 4SRB, VOC 

## = 0

To apportion the “engine+boiler” SCCs to 4SRB, we u se the inventory estimates of boiler and

engine emissions stationary RICE, to apportion to “ SI, generic” and then use the factors

discussed above to apportion to 4SRB. Using the 20 05 emission estimates for SCCs associated

with natural gas boilers, natural gas RICE and turb ine RICE, we compute that 63% of the NOX

are from natural gas RICE, 54% of the CO are from natural gas RICE and 70% of the VOC are

from natural gas RICE. Therefore, for engine and b oiler SCCs: F 4SRB, NOX 

## = 0.63x0.33 = 0.21,

F 4SRB, CO 

## = 0.54x0.7 = 0.38 and F 4SRB, VOC 

## = 0.70x0.216= 0.15.

## F-16

We apportion “RICE+turbine” SCCs using 2005 Platfor m emissions as well. In this case, F 4SRB,

NOX 

## = 0.78x0.33 = 0.26, F 4SRB, CO 

## = 0.79x0.7= 0.55 and F 4SRB, VOC 

## = 0.89x0.216 = 0.19

The August 2010 regulation requires engines at area sources greater than 500 HP to have NSCR.

Major sources that are of that size are subject to limits that require NSCR from the 2004 rule. To

determine the fraction of 4SRB emissions that are g reater than 500 HP, we use the data in Table

3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3. Since the size cuto ffs and emissions distributions are different for

major and area sources, we denote the fraction as F sizecut,major,poll 

## and F sizecut,area,poll 

## for major and

area sources, respectively. The values from the ta bles are as follows,

F sizecut,major,NOX 

## = F sizecut,major,CO 

## = F sizecut,major,VOC 

## = 0.354 and

F sizecut,area,NOX 

## = F sizecut,area,CO 

## = F sizecut,area,VOC 

## = 0.405



# 3.2 Two Stroke Lean Burn Engines (2SLB)

For 2SLB, the only engines that would be required t o meet limits based on catalysts would be

new (meaning constructed 2003 and later) non-emerge ncy >500 HP at major sources. As a result,

we will not apply any reductions to 2SLB in the 200 5 NEI.



# 3.3 Four Stroke Lean Burn Engines (4SLB)

These engines will require an oxidation catalyst, w hich in addition to reducing HAP, reduces CO

and VOC. Per information emailed by Melanie King ( 7/7/2010): For 4SLB, R CO = 

## 94%; and

R VOC = 

## 71%

To apportion emissions of “SI,generic” SCCs to 4SLB , we use the total CO emissions from all

SI RICE and 4SLB in Table 3-1. The proportion of C O from 4SLB from major source SI

engines is computed as 33,944 / 192,062 = 18% and the proportion of CO from 4SLB from area

source SI engines is computed as 87,132/515,803 = 1 7%. Since these values are close, we chose

17%. ( F 4SLB, CO 

## = 0.17.) Using Table 3-2, F 4SLB, VOC 

## = 0.61 (roughly the same fraction for both

major and area sources). The F 4SLB, CO 

## value also applies to oil&gas SCCs. F 4SLB, VOC 

## from

oil&gas SCCs =0.

We also need to determine F 4SLB, CO 

## and F 4SLB, VOC 

## for SCCs with categories of

“Boiler+engine” and “RICE+turbine”. We can use the same approach as for 4SRB. In this case,

for “Boiler+engine” SCCs, F 4SLB, CO 

## = 0.54x 0.17 = 0.10 and F 4SLB, VOC 

## = 0.70 x 0.61 = 0.43.

For “RICE+turbine” SCCs: F 4SLB, CO 

## = 0.79 x.0.17 = 0.13 and F 4SLB, VOC 

## = 0.89 x0.61 = 0.54.

The August 20, 2010 rule requires existing non-eme rgency engines 100-500 HP at major

sources and existing non-emergency engines >500 HP at area sources to meet limits based on

oxidation catalyst. Engines greater than 500 HP at major sources were regulated under the 2004

rule and we didn't put any emission limits on them, and therefore would not need an oxidation

catalyst.

To determine the fraction of 4SLB emissions that in those HP ranges, we use the data in Table

3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3. Since these fractio ns are different for major and area sources, we

## F-17

denote the fraction as F sizecut,major,poll 

## and F sizecut,area,poll 

## for major and area sources, respectively.

The values from the tables are as follows,

F sizecut,major ,CO 

## = F sizecut, major,VOC 

## = 0.41 and F sizecut,area,CO 

## = F sizecut,area,VOC 

## = 0.40



# 4 Compression Ignition (CI) Engines

Compression ignition engines are not distinguished further (by burn type) as are Spark Ignition.

However, the amount of emissions from emergency eng ines, for which existing engines would

not be required to apply oxidation catalyst, is sig nificant relative to non-emergency engines.

Therefore the fraction of emissions from non-emerge ncy engines will be applied to all SCCs

identified as CI in Table 2-1 in addition to the fr action that will be subject to oxidation catalyst

based on the size. Since the regulation that promu lgated in March would require non-emergency

existing CI engines >300 HP that are located at bot h major and area sources of HAP to install

oxidation catalyst. Since major and area sources h ave the same requirements, we can use data on

the proportion of emissions of the total CI populat ion, presented in Table 4-1. The data are from

the rule analyses and were provided by Melanie King , EPA, Sector Policies and Programs

Division.

Table 4-1. Distribution of CO, PM and VOC emissions from Compr ession Ignition Engines by

Engine and HP type for major and area sources

Per the rule, there would be 70% reduction of HAP, CO, and VOC and 30% reduction of PM

from the catalyst. We also assume that the control achieves the same reduction from PM2.5 as

PM. There are no NOX reductions. Therefore, For C I, R CO = 

## 70%; R VOC = 

## 70% and R PM2.5 =



## 30%. Number of Engines -

nonemergency CO -

nonemergency PM -

nonemergency VOC -

nonemergency Number of

Emergency

Engines CO

emergency PM

emergency VOC

emergency

Major Sources

50-100 18,547 6,454 487 2,010 74,187 1,291

97

402

100-175 24,301 8,457 1,170 4,828 97,206 1,691

234

966

175-300 18,429 6,413 1,532 6,324 73,715 1,283

306

1,265

300-500 9,696 3,374 1,357 5,604 38,785 675

271

1,121

500-600 860 299 165 683 3,438 60

33

137

600-750 440 153 104 429 1,760 31

21

86

>750 971 338 340 1,402 3,882 68

68

280

Total 73,243 25,489 5,155 21,281 292,974 5,098

1,031

4,256

Area Sources

50-100 27,820 9,681 730 3,015 111,281 1,936

146

603

100-175 36,452 12,685 1,754 7,242 145,808 2,537

351

1,448

175-300 27,643 9,620 2,298 9,486 110,573 1,924

460

1,897

300-600 21,816 7,592 3,436 14,186 87,266 1,518

687

2,837

600-750 3,657 1,273 864 3,567 14,628 255

173

713

>750 6,479 2,255 2,268 9,361 25,914 451

454

1,872

Total 123,867 43,106 11,350 46,857 495,470 8,621

2,270

9,371 Size Range (HP) Baseline Emissions (tpy) Baseline Emissions (tpy) Summary of Major Source and Area Source Baseline Em issions for the RICE NESHAP

## F-18

The fraction of emissions for CO and VOC that are b oth non-emergency and greater than 300HP

are computed from the above Table 4-1

F nonE,sizecut,major,CO 

## = 0.14. F nonE,sizecut,major,VOC 

## = F nonE,sizecut,major,PM2.5 

## =0.32

F nonE,sizecut,area,CO 

## = 0.40 F nonE,sizecut,area,VOC 

## = F nonE,sizecut,area,PM2.5 

## = 0.65

We also need to apportion the fraction of emissions from SCCs with categories of

“Boiler+engine” and “RICE+turbine” that are attribu ted to CI engines. We can use a similar

approach as for 4SRB and 4SLB. In this case, we on ly need to break out CI RICE (and not a

type of CI) so we only need the fraction of “Boiler +engine” emissions that are CI RICE. Using

2005 Platform emissions from diesel SCCs for boiler s, RICE and turbine engines, we compute

the following fractions to apportion “Boiler+engine ” SCCs to CI RICE:, F CI, CO 

## = 0.61 and

F CI, VOC 

## = 0.84 and F CI, PM2.5 

## = 0.50

For “RICE+turbine” SCCs: F CI, CO 

## = 0.83 and F CI, VOC 

## = 0.92 and F CI, PM2.5 

## = 0.78



# 5 Approach For Addressing Already-Controlled Source s

Although we know that a certain percentage of engin es are already controlled (they set the basis

of the MACT floor), we will use the existing contro l information in the inventory (and the

capability for the software applying the controls t o not apply additional controls to alreadycontrolled sources) rather than account for already -controlled sources by pro-rating the percent

reduction we apply to all sources. While this app roach will overestimate reductions for alreadycontrolled sources that are missing the control inf ormation in the inventory, it will be less of an

impact than the pro-rating approach which would und erestimate the reductions for the

uncontrolled sources.



# 6 Percent Reduction Calculations to be applied to N EI That

Account for all Three RICE rules

The next sections provide the calculations and data to determine the percent reductions to apply

to the 2005 v4.1 modeling platform for projecting t hese emissions to2014 and beyond. By 2014

all three of the RICE rules’ compliance dates have passed



# 6.1 SI Engines

Table 6-1shows the reduction to be applied to the S I engine SCCs identified in Table 2-1 based

on the parameters computed from the baseline emissi ons in Table 3-1, Table 3-2 and Table 3-3

and discussed in Section 3. The formula for the pe rcent reduction is provided in the first row:

Table 6-1. Formula for determining the percent reduction to ap ply to SI SCCs for Projection

Years of 2014 and Beyond

PERCENT REDUCTION SI,poll 

## = PERCENT REDUCTION 4SRB,poll + 

## PERCENT REDUCTION 4SLB,poll

## F-19

Where:

PERCENT REDUCTION 4SRB,poll 

## = R poll 

## x F 4SRB 

## x F sizecut,major,poll 

## x F major,poll 

## + R poll 

## x F 4SRB 

## x F sizecut,area,poll



## x F area,poll



## PERCENT REDUCTION 4SLB,poll 

## = R poll 

## x F 4SLB 

## x F sizecut,major,poll 

## x F major,poll 

## + R poll 

## x F 4SLB 

## x F sizecut,area,poll



## x F area,poll



## Note that R poll 

## F major 

## F

area 

## F sizecut,major,poll 

## F sizecut,area,poll 

## are all dependent upon the engine (4SRB versus

4SLB) . Values for these and the other parameters are provided below.

Parameter Description Value and How Determined, 4SR B Value and How Determined, 4SLB

R poll 

### The estimated reduction of

pollutant “poll” (e.g.,

NOX, VOC, CO) resulting

from application of the

control device needed to

meet the standard NSCR: Use same values used in rule.

NOX reduction, R NOX 

### is 97%

CO reduction, R CO 

### is 49%

VOC reduction, R VOC 

### is 76% Oxidation Catalyst: Use same

reductions values used in rule.

CO reduction, R CO 

### is 94%

VOC reduction, R VOC 

### is 71%

F major,poll 

### the fraction of emissions

from SI engines that

attributable to major

sources As discussed in Section 3, we used Tables

3-1 to 3-3 to compute the fraction and used

the same for all pollutants and all SI

engine types

F major, NOX 

### =, F major, CO 

### =, F major, VOC 

### = 0.27 As discussed in Section 3, we used

Tables 3-1 to 3-3 to compute the

fraction and used the same for all

pollutants and all SI engine types

F major, CO 

### =, F major, VOC 

### = 0.27

F

a rea,poll 

### the fraction of emissions

from rich burn engines

attributable to area sources 1 - F major 

### 1 - F major



### F sizecut,major,poll 

### the fraction of emissions

equal or above the size

cutoff for which the

control device will be

required for major sources Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3.

Cutoff is 500 HP Compute fraction of

emissions for 4SRB engines at 500 and

above HP to total 4SRB; major sources.

F sizecut,major,NOX 

### = F sizecut,major,CO 

### =

F sizecut,major,VOC 

### = 0.354 Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3.

Assume 100-500 HP. Compute fraction

of emissions for 4SLB engines between

100 and 500HP to total 4SLB; major

sources.

F sizecut,major ,CO 

### = F sizecut,major VOC 

### = 0.41

F sizecut,area,poll 

### the fraction of emissions

equal or above the size

cutoff for which SNCR

will be required for area

sources Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3.

Assume 300 HP (final rule Aug 2010).

Compute fraction of emissions for 4SRB

engines at 300 and above HP to total

4SRB; area sources.

F sizecut,area,NOX 

### = F sizecut,area,CO 

### =

F sizecut,area,VOC 

### =0 .4 0 5 Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3..

Assume 500 HP. Compute fraction of

emissions for 4SLB engines at 500 and

above HP to total 4SLB; area sources.

F sizecut,area,CO 

### = F sizecut,area,VOC 

### = 0.40

F 4SRB, poll



### F 4SLB, poll 

### Fraction of emissions

within the SCC that are

rich burn and 4 stroke lean

burn, respectively Use 100% for 4SRB SCCs.

For “SI, generic” SCCs, use Table 3-1,

Table 3-2, and Table 3-3. Percent of

emissions of 4SRB out of all SI.

F 4SRB, NOX 

### = .33, F 4SRB, CO 

### = .70

F 4SRB, VOC 

### = .216

Note that same values apply to “oil&gas”

SCCs except F 4SRB, VOC 

### = 0

For “Boiler+engine” SCCs” :

F 4SRB, NOX 

### = .21, F 4SRB, CO 

### = .38

F 4SRB, VOC 

### = .151

For ““RICE+turbine” SCCs:

F 4SRB, NOX 

### = .26, F 4SRB, CO 

### = .55

F 4SRB, VOC 

### = . 192 Use 100% for 4SLB SCCs . For “SI,

generic” SCCs, use Table 3-1, Table

3-2, and Table 3-3. Percent of emissions

of 4SLB out of all SI.

F 4SLB, CO 

### = .17, F 4SLB, VOC 

### = .59

Note that same values apply to

“oil&gas” SCCs except for VOC.

For “Boiler+engine” SCCs” :

F 4SLB, CO 

### = .10, F 4SLB, VOC 

### = .41

For ““RICE+turbine” SCCs:

F 4SLB, CO 

### = .13, F 4SLB, VOC 

### = .52

## F-20



# 6.2 CI Engines

Table 6-1 shows the reduction to be applied to the CI engine SCCs identified in Error!

Reference source not found. based on the parameters computed from the baseline emissions in

Table 4-1.

Table 6-2. Formula for determining the percent reduction to ap ply to Compression Ignition (CI)

SCCs for Projection Years of 2014 and later

PERCENT REDUCTION CI,poll 

## = R poll 

## x F CI, POLL 

## x F nonE,sizecut,major 

## x F major 

## +

R poll 

## x F CI, POLL 

## x F nonE,sizecut,area 

## x F

area



### Parameter Description Value and How Determined, CI

R poll 

### the estimated reduction of pollutant “poll”

(e.g., NOX, VOC, CO) resulting from

application of the control device needed to

meet the standard Oxidation Catalyst: Use same values used in rule.

(specific to CI)

CO reduction, R CO 

### is 70%

VOC reduction, R VOC 

### is 70%

PM2.5 reduction, R PM2.5 

### is 30%



## F CI, POLL 

### The fraction of emissions that are CI RICE.

This value is 1 except for CI engines that are

in “Boiler+Engine” or “turbine+RICE”

Use 2005 Platform emissions of RICE, nonRICE engines and boilers to compute

fractions V alue is 1 except for CI engines that are characterized in

“Boiler+Engine” or “turbine+RICE”

For “Boiler+Engine” SCCs, F CI, CO = 0.61 and F CI, VOC = 0.84

and F CI, PM2.5 = 0.50

For “RICE+turbine” SCCs: F CI, CO = 0.83 and F CI, VOC = 0.92

and F CI, PM2.5 = 0.78



### F major 

### the fraction of emissions from CI engines

attributable to major sources Based on an analysis of the 2005 NEI using the

“SRCTYPE” field (01 are the major, 02 are area).

Since so much unknown, renormalize

F major, CO 

### =0.42, F major, VOC 

### = 0.38, F major, PM2.5 

### = 0.44

That fraction will be used for all pollutants.

F

a rea 

### the fraction of emissions from CI engines

attributable to area sources 1 - F major



### F nonE,sizecut,major,poll 

### The fraction of emissions from major sources

from the CI SCCs that will require oxidation

catalyst to meet the standard because they are

non-Emergency and meet the size cutoff. Table 4-1. The fraction of emissions of non-emerg ency

engines from major sources equal or above 300 HP

F nonE,sizecut,major,CO 

### = 0.14.

F nonE,sizecut,major,VOC 

### = F nonE,sizecut,major,PM2.5 

### =0.32

F nonE,sizecut,area,poll 

### The fraction of emissions from area sources

from the CI SCCs that will require oxidation

catalyst to meet the standard because they are

non-Emergency and meet the size cutoff. Table 4-1. The fraction of emissions of non-emerg ency

engines from major sources equal or above 300 HP

F nonE,sizecut,area,CO 

### = 0.40.

F nonE,sizecut,area,VOC 

### = F nonE,sizecut,area,PM2.5 

### =0.65

## F-21



# 7 Percent Reduction Calculations to be applied to N EI

accounting for only the 2004 RICE rule

This section presents the formula and values to use when projecting emissions to 2012; in this

situation, only the SI 4SRB engines greater than 50 0 HP at major sources are reduced because

the compliance date for the rule that affects these engines in June 2007 which is prior to 2012.

The other engines’ reductions are not anticipated u ntil the compliance dates (2013) of the most

recent rules. Because these dates are after 2012, they are not incorporated into the emission

projection for 2012.



# 7.1 SI Engines

Table 7-1 shows the reduction to be applied to the SI engine SCCs identified in Table 2-1 based

on the parameters computed from the baseline emissi ons in Table 3-1, Table 3-2 and Table 3-3

and discussed in Section 3. The formula for the pe rcent reduction is provided in the first row:

Table 7-1. Formula for determining the percent reduction to ap ply to SI SCCs for the 2012

projection

PERCENT REDUCTION SI,poll 

## = PERCENT REDUCTION 4SRB,poll



## PERCENT REDUCTION 4SRB,poll 

## = R poll 

## x F 4SRB 

## x F sizecut,major,poll 

## x F major,poll



### Parameter Description Value and How Determined, 4SR B

R poll 

### The estimated reduction of pollutant “poll”

(e.g., NOX, VOC, CO) resulting from

application of the control device needed to

meet the standard NSCR: Use same values used in rule.

NOX reduction, R NOX 

### is 97%

CO reduction, R CO 

### is 49%

VOC reduction, R VOC 

### is 76%

F major,poll 

### the fraction of emissions from SI engines

that attributable to major sources Based on an analysis of the 2005 NEI using the “S RCTYPE”

field (01 are the major, 02 are area)

F major, NOX 

### = 0.77, F major, CO 

### =0.81, F major, VOC 

### = 0.75

F sizecut,major,poll 

### the fraction of emissions equal or above the

size cutoff for which the control device will

be required for major sources Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3. Assume 300 HP (final rule

Aug 2010). Compute fraction of emissions for 4SRB engines at

300 and above HP to total 4SRB; major sources.

F sizecut,major,NOX 

### = F sizecut,major,CO 

### =

F sizecut,major,VOC 

### = 0.445

F sizecut,area,poll 

### the fraction of emissions equal or above the

size cutoff for which SNCR will be required

for area sources Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3. Assume 300 HP (final rule

Aug 2010). Compute fraction of emissions for 4SRB engines at

300 and above HP to total 4SRB; area sources.

F sizecut,area,NOX 

### = F sizecut,area,CO 

### =

F sizecut,area,VOC 

### =0.405 \

F 4SRB, poll



### F 4SLB, poll 

### Fraction of emissions within the SCC that

are rich burn and 4 stroke lean burn,

respectively Use 100% for 4SRB SCCs.

For “SI, generic” SCCs, use Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3.

Percent of emissions of 4SRB out of all SI.

F 4SRB, NOX 

### = .33, F 4SRB, CO 

### = .7

F 4SRB, VOC 

### = .37

Note that same values apply to “oil&gas” SCCs excep t F 4SRB,

VOC 

### = 0

For “Boiler+engine” SCCs” :

## F-22 F 4SRB, NOX 

### = .21, F 4SRB, CO 

### = .38

F 4SRB, VOC 

### = .26

For ““RICE+turbine” SCCs:

F 4SRB, NOX 

### = .26, F 4SRB, CO 

### = .55

F 4SRB, VOC 

### = .3 4



# 7.2 CI Engines

For a 2012 projection there are no reductions to ap ply to existing CI engines since they are

impacted only by the 2010 NESHAP.



# 8 Results

A summary of the percent reductions by Engine Type and Reduction Category for the SCCs

shown in Table 2-1 resulting from the implementati on of the RICE rule as amended in August

2010 is presented in Table 8-1. A summary associat ed with just the 2004 RICE rule (which is

applicable to a 2012 projection) is shown in Table 8-2.F-23Table 8-1.Summary of Percent Reductions and Emissions reducedfrom the 2005 Platform resulting from all 3 RICE rules (Futureyears 2014 and later)enginetypereductioncategoryNOXreductionCOreductionVOCreductionPM2.5ReductionNOX2005cremis(tons)NOX_reductions (tons)CO2005cremis(tons)CO_reductions (tons)VOC2005cremis(tons)VOC_reductions (tons)PM2.52005cremis (tons)PM25_reductions (tons)CIBoiler+engine 0.0% 12.4% 30.8% 7.6% 133,629-31,746 3,942 4,579 1,412 12,971 982CI 0.0% 20.4% 36.7% 15.1% 38,941 -9,903 2,016 2,945 1,081 1,974299RICE+turbine 0.0% 16.9% 33.8% 11.8% 13,545-5,689 961 1,270 429 80695oil&gas 12.5% 19.9% 0.0% 0.0% 306,278 38,367258,838 51,400 336,442 -3,046 0SI2SLB 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 154,448 -27,391 - 9,159 -2,238 04SLB 0.0% 37.9% 28.6% 0.0% 49,651 -22,211 8,408 5,698 1,629 41404SRB 38.0% 19.2% 29.7% 0.0% 68,589 26,03671,588 13,727 6,451 1,919 6650Boiler+engine 8.0% 11.1% 16.7% 0.0% 293,674 23,410200,185 22,165 16,835 2,812 1,882 0RICE+turbine 9.9% 15.5% 21.2% 0.0% 20,934 2,0667,138 1,104 1,595 339 1570SI, generic 12.5% 19.9% 23.9% 0.0% 320,904 40,199127,344 25,288 27,286 6,512 2,921 0GrandTotal1,400,593130,078762,033129,011412,26016,13427,0741,376Table 8-2.Summary of Percent Reductions and Emissions reducedfrom the 2005 Platform resulting from the 2004 RICE NESHAPenginetypereductioncategoryNOXreduction CO reductionVOCreductionNOX2005cremis(tons)NOX_reductions(tons)CO2005cremis (tons)CO_reductions(tons)VOC2005cremis (tons)VOC_reductions(tons)CIBoiler+engine 0.0%0.0%0.0%133,629031,74604,5790CI 0.0%0.0%0.0%38,94109,90302,9450RICE+turbine 0.0%0.0%0.0%13,54505,68901,2700oil&gas 3.1%3.3%0.0%306,2789,381258,8388,495336,4420SI2SLB 0.0%0.0%0.0%154,448027,39109,15904SLB 0.0%0.0%0.0%49,651022,21105,69804SRB 9.3%4.7%7.3%68,5896,36671,5883,3576,451469Boiler+engine 1.9%1.8%1.1%293,6745,724200,1853,56716,835185RICE+turbine 2.4%2.6%1.4%20,9345057,1381841,59522SI, generic 3.1%3.3%1.6%320,9049,829127,3444,18027,286429GrandTotal1,400,59331,806762,03319,782412,2601,105

## F-24



# 9 SO2 reductions resulting from the Ultra-low Sulfu r Diesel

Requirement for CI engines

This section discusses an approach to project the i mpact of the Ultra-low Sulfur diesel

requirement for CI engines greater than 300 HP that was part of the requirements published

3/30/2010. These reductions were not accounted for in the rule due to the expectation that

engine owners/operators would make the switch anywa y because ULSD is what would primarily

be available. On page 9669 of Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4:

We have not quantified the SO X 

### reductions that would occur as a result of engines switching to ULSD because we are unable to

estimate the number of engines that already use ULSD and therefore we are unable to estimate the percentage of engines that may

switch to ULSD due to this rule. If none of the affected engines would use ULSD without this rule, then we estimate the SO X



### reductions are 31,000 tpy in the year 2013. If all of the affected engine would use ULSD regardless of the rule then the additional

SO X 

### reduction would be zero.



## We are aware 2 

## of several state rules on the books or in the propo sal stage that will limit the sulfur

content of home heating oil. However, some do not go into effect until after the RICE ULSD

limits. Because of this timing and because we have received comments on the need to account

for SO2 reductions resulting from the RICE ULSD lim its (MOG), we have chosen, in addition to

applying applicable state rule fuel sulfur limits, to estimate the reduction due to RICE and apply

the reduction in the future year projection. The R ICE limits apply to CI greater than 300 HP.

Based on a summary of Baseline SO2 Emissions by Eng ine Size for the RICE NESHAP

provided by the project lead, Melanie King 3 

## , it was determined that approximately 50% of SO2

emissions are from engines greater than 300 HP.

We assume that CI use high sulfur fuel (3000 ppm) i n 2005 and switch to ULSD by the

compliance date for this RICE requirement (May 2013 ). In that we don’t have the distribution

of SO2 emissions from the various size engines as w e do other pollutants (see Table 4-1), we

assumed 50% of the SO2 comes from 300 HP and larger engines. Note that for other pollutants

the fraction of emissions with size cutoff greater or equal to 300 HP ranges from 14%

(F nonE,sizecut, major, co 

## ) to 65% (F nonE,sizecut, major, PM2.5 

## )

A switch from a 3000 ppm sulfur content (home heati ng oil average) to 15 ppm would result in a

99.5% SO2 reduction. We apply this to all diesel R ICE and the portion of SO2 emission from

RICE-related SCCs that are estimated to be RICE. U sing the 2005 point source inventory for

industrial, commercial and institutional diesel boi lers and internal combustion engines (turbines

plus RICE) we computed that 81% of the SO2 emission s from internal combustion engines are

from RICE and 12% of the SO2 emissions from engines +boilers are from RICE. For Oil and gas

production, there is only one SCC with significant SO2 emissions: SCC=2310000220 (Industrial

2 

### Email from Jeff Hertzog, OTAQ, USEPA Nov 22, 2010

3 

### Email from Melanie King, OAQPS, USEPA, Nov 23, 201 0 (filename: Existing CI RICE NESHAP Impacts 2-16-

10 FINAL 3000 ppm sulfur estimate.xlsx)

## F-25

Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13; Drill rig s). Since we have no information to

determine the amount of SO2 from RICE versus other SO2-emitting processes associated with

drill rigs, we assume that all of the SO2 is associ ated with RICE and that 50% of the emissions

are associated with RICE greater than 300 HP. Ther efore, the reductions we apply are the

following:

• CI SCCs: 50%*99.5%=49.75%

• CI Boiler+Engine SCCs: 50%*99.5%*12%= 5.97%

• CI RICE + turbine SCCs: 50%*99.5%*81%= 40.30%

• Oil and Gas, SCC=2310000220 (drill rigs): 50%*99.5 %=49.75%

## F-1 Table 9-1. SO2 emissions and reductions resulting from ultra low sulfur fuel requirement (compliance date

May 2013) for CI engines greater or equal to 300 HP in the RICE NESHAP ( 75 FR 9648,

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rice/ricepg.html). % re ductions Based on: 1) 

### A switch from a 3000 ppm

sulfur content (home heating oil average) to 15 ppm would result in a 99.5% SO2 reduction and 2) 50% o f SO2 from RICE

are from engines greater than 300HP, and 3) Percent of RICE from SCCs that include RICE and/or boilers and other

engines as a combined SCC was estimated based on an alysis of detailed RICE, engine and boiler SCCs in 2005 platform.

scc scc_desc 2005 SO2

(tons) type

2101004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Electric Utility ;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC

Engines 358.6 boilers+engines

2101004002 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Elect ric Utility;Distillate Oil;All IC Engine Types 84.4 engines

2102004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Disti llate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC

Engines 125250.5 boilers+engines

2103004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Commercial/Insti tutional;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers

and IC Engines 114818.1 boilers+engines

2199004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Total Area Sourc e Fuel Combustion;Distillate

Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines 215.8 boilers+engines

2199004002 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Total Area Sourc e Fuel Combustion;Distillate

Oil;All IC Engine Types 17691.0 engines

2310000000 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Produc tion: SIC 13;All Processes;Total: All Processes 0.0 oil and gas

2310000220 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Produc tion: SIC 13; Drill rigs 8749.8 oil and gas

2310000440 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Produc tion: SIC 13; Saltwater disposal engines 0.0 oil an d gas

2310001000 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 1 3;All Processes : On-shore;Total: All

Processes 0.0 oil and gas

2310002000 Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 1 3;All Processes : Off-shore;Total: All

Processes 0.0 oil and gas

20100102 Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Gener ation;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating 267.6 r ice

20100105 Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Di stillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating:

Crankcase Blowby 7.0 rice

20100107 Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Di stillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating:

Exhaust 9.8 rice

20200102 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Di stillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating 807.7 rice

20200104 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating:

Cogeneration 18.5 rice

20200107 Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Di stillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust 14.6 r ice

20300101 Internal Combustion Engines;Commercial/Institution al;Distillate Oil

(Diesel);Reciprocating 934.7 rice

20300105 Internal Combustion Engines;Commercial/Institution al;Distillate Oil

(Diesel);Reciprocating: Crankcase Blowby 0.0 rice

20300106 Internal Combustion Engines;Commercial/Institution al;Distillate Oil

(Diesel);Reciprocating: Evaporative Losses (Fuel St orage and Delivery System) 1.0 rice

20300107 Internal Combustion Engines;Commercial/Institution al;Distillate Oil

(Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust 0.1 rice

20400402 Internal Combustion Engines;Engine Testing ;Reciprocating Engine;Diesel/Kerosene 315.5 rice

20400403 Internal Combustion Engines;Engine Testin g;Reciprocating Engine;Distillate Oil 0.1 rice

2103004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Commercial/Insti tutional;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers

and IC Engines 18.0 boilers+engines

Total SO2 reduced =F-2Appendix HAs explained in Chapter 3, the emissions utilized for the air quality model were based on interim baseand policy casemodel runs of IPM4.10. The purpose of the table below is to show a comparison of the interim and final results. In addition toIPM model changes to reflect the proposed Toxic Rule policy, the differences between interim and finalinclude corrections to thePM2.5 and PM10 emission factors for natural gas, and the exclusion of the Boiler MACT proposal reductions (about 20,000 tonsof SO2 based on the Boiler MACT proposal) on the small percentage of IPM sources expected to be impacted by that rule.Table H-1. Mercury and Hydrogen Chloride Emissionsfrom EGUs- Interim IPM (used for AQ Modeling) andFinal IPM2016 Interim Emissions --EGUs 2016 Final Emissions - EGUsSTATEBaseHCL(tons)PolicyHCL(tons)HCLreducedBaseHg(tons)PolicyHg(tons)HgreducedBaseHCL(tons)PolicyHCL(tons)HCLreducedBaseHg(tons)PolicyHg(tons)HgreducedAlabama 6,71318197% 1.255 0.192 85% 5,800234 96% 1.102 0.2006 82%Arizona 1296946% 0.749 0.089 88% 58584 86% 0.457 0.0873 81%Arkansas 1,3551399% 0.725 0.066 91% 1,512145 90% 0.797 0.0890 89%California 1416-9% 0.132 0.084 36% 5225 52% 0.125 0.0681 46%Colorado 75719674% 0.083 0.090 -8% 951165 83% 0.091 0.0759 17%Connecticut 188896% 0.007 0.006 7% 10916 85% 0.005 0.0040 20%Delaware 5971-21% 0.009 0.021 -134% 6468 -6% 0.009 0.0185 -106%Florida3,32317695% 0.486 0.193 60% 4,51425294% 0.7430.207172%Georgia 1,20541166% 0.512 0.215 58% 715427 40% 0.288 0.2043 29%IdahoIllinois 2,11832585% 0.488 0.287 41% 1,798434 76% 0.274 0.2997 -9%Indiana 4,17198076% 1.558 0.380 76% 5,671788 86% 0.893 0.4042 55%Iowa 1,48218587% 0.999 0.152 85% 1,553293 81% 0.987 0.1569 84%Kansas 7336292% 0.955 0.097 90% 71757 92% 0.892 0.0936 90%Kentucky 3,81837590% 0.828 0.313 62% 2,553338 87% 0.860 0.3098 64%Louisiana 1,1557494% 1.019 0.166 84% 1,205143 88% 1.000 0.1167 88%Maine 12100% 0.013 0.000 100% 202 90% 0.012 0.0002 98%F-32016 Interim Emissions --EGUs 2016 Final Emissions - EGUsSTATEBaseHCL(tons)PolicyHCL(tons)HCLreducedBaseHg(tons)PolicyHg(tons)HgreducedBaseHCL(tons)PolicyHCL(tons)HCLreducedBaseHg(tons)PolicyHg(tons)HgreducedMaryland 68510485% 0.114 0.116 -1% 660101 85% 0.108 0.1065 1%Massachusetts 291547% 0.009 0.010 -11% 36314 96% 0.012 0.0052 57%Michigan 2,61529289% 1.501 0.174 88% 5,260446 92% 1.049 0.1680 84%Minnesota 41317258% 0.161 0.074 54% 579153 74% 0.165 0.0873 47%Mississippi 78716979% 0.405 0.053 87% 826111 87% 0.222 0.0564 75%Missouri 2,78319993% 1.949 0.242 88% 3,326640 81% 1.817 0.2742 85%Montana 1043764% 0.097 0.045 54% 12814 89% 0.065 0.0374 42%Nebraska 1,2039992% 0.423 0.084 80% 1,189159 87% 0.428 0.0932 78%Nevada 2227666% 0.087 0.056 36% 29879 73% 0.060 0.0604 -1%NewHampshire601182% 0.011 0.011 0% 23512 95% 0.015 0.0153 -2%New Jersey 2062289% 0.026 0.026 0% 11338 66% 0.033 0.0323 2%New Mexico 5564-15% 0.296 0.087 71% 10735 67% 0.299 0.0877 71%New York 42119155% 0.051 0.043 17% 1,294197 85% 0.051 0.0476 7%North Carolina 2,74955080% 0.487 0.207 57% 2,295583 75% 0.484 0.2438 50%North Dakota 5265091% 0.936 0.063 93% 67325 96% 1.014 0.1744 83%Ohio 6,0651,03883% 1.576 0.640 59% 6,378990 84% 1.418 0.5549 61%Oklahoma 1,8673198% 1.028 0.105 90% 1,869195 90% 1.005 0.1153 89%Oregon 116199% 0.008 0.008 0% 11612 90% 0.008 0.0075 6%Pennsylvania 5,48248991% 1.613 0.517 68% 3,758431 89% 1.013 0.4336 57%Rhode IslandSouth Carolina 5,33951290% 0.347 0.142 59% 5,560336 94% 0.334 0.1463 56%South Dakota 1182777% 0.027 0.012 56% 1187 94% 0.027 0.0121 55%Tennessee 1,28314689% 0.743 0.153 79% 1,373220 84% 0.516 0.1322 74%Texas 4,33938891% 3.367 0.536 84% 4,968333 93% 2.643 0.6837 74%Utah 3625186% 0.184 0.078 57% 42035 92% 0.163 0.0746 54%VermontVirginia 2,53815494% 0.284 0.114 60% 2,503849 66% 0.342 0.1024 70%Washington 330% 0.167 0.020 88% 125 58% 0.159 0.0198 88%West Virginia 4,36833692% 0.860 0.505 41% 4,357324 93% 0.838 0.3714 56%F-42016 Interim Emissions --EGUs 2016 Final Emissions - EGUsSTATEBaseHCL(tons)PolicyHCL(tons)HCLreducedBaseHg(tons)PolicyHg(tons)HgreducedBaseHCL(tons)PolicyHCL(tons)HCLreducedBaseHg(tons)PolicyHg(tons)HgreducedWisconsin 1,53427582% 0.870 0.146 83% 1,088192 82% 0.800 0.1523 81%Wyoming58415873% 1.260 0.220 83% 5817687% 1.1870.224581%Grand Total 74,0898,80288% 28.704 6.838 76% 78,26610,085 87% 24.810 6.8561 82%Table H-2. SO2 Emissions from EGUs- Interim IPM (used for AQ Modeling) and Final IPMInterim IPM Final IPMStateSO2 base(tons)SO2policy(tons)SO2reducedSO2 base(tons)SO2 policy(tons)SO2reducedAlabama 172,19838,34678% 172,53367,945 61%Arizona23,14021,6327% 35,60123,39334%Arkansas93,7547,31492% 106,68533,09269%California4,7404,14812% 7,3504,56338%Colorado55,58819,69865% 73,78021,71171%Connecticut2,6432,04123% 3,8831,37265%Delaware1,7173,359-96% 2,0883,921-88%Florida122,12357,43953% 141,63854,08262%Georgia91,88540,76756% 92,25177,20416%Idaho-1821820%Illinois148,93447,40368% 142,61496,23233%Indiana229,248111,74151% 231,755165,55529%Iowa98,51822,20877% 97,87047,98951%Kansas61,62212,78179% 61,62218,41570%Kentucky123,01097,70721% 121,413121,4130%F-5Interim IPM Final IPMStateSO2 base(tons)SO2policy(tons)SO2reducedSO2 base(tons)SO2 policy(tons)SO2reducedLouisiana98,80832,62467% 98,85028,16572%Maine1,123100% 2,3551,45638%Maryland36,21111,52868% 36,10317,73651%Massachusetts4,2362,55640% 9,4122,15677%Michigan169,85327,92284% 169,88254,74268%Minnesota51,95227,80546% 55,19535,63635%Mississippi55,31710,59581% 32,45516,61449%Missouri172,03132,41281% 178,28296,93846%Montana13,2349,07131% 22,8226,11173%Nebraska74,64234,55154% 73,07334,55353%Nevada11,2834,73558% 14,4166,75453%New Hampshire4,34873083% 7,1042,18469%New Jersey8,5076,99718% 10,9705,94146%New Mexico11,3709,35718% 14,29010,06530%New York28,91113,46853% 39,30415,09462%North Carolina82,54434,94658% 93,48569,74125%North Dakota76,08111,95584% 101,95824,34676%Ohio204,29177,85262% 216,305137,43236%Oklahoma139,80014,19690% 138,07244,57168%Oregon11,1021,42387% 11,3363,56569%Pennsylvania152,92973,71452% 153,16992,75739%Rhode Island----F-6Interim IPM Final IPMStateSO2 base(tons)SO2policy(tons)SO2reducedSO2 base(tons)SO2 policy(tons)SO2reducedSouth Carolina128,07035,22372% 124,56540,33368%South Dakota29,7117,49075% 29,7112,43892%Tennessee106,76244,11059% 106,76748,93154%Texas334,63681,00076% 509,955118,13777%Utah31,34314,26155% 33,24616,31451%Vermont2632640%Virginia45,34516,02965% 56,65433,23541%Washington2,8042,8040% 3,4303,4300%West Virginia127,82644,12965% 127,97868,01247%Wisconsin77,87124,48169% 77,47131,75859%Wyoming55,63625,83154% 57,70729,23749%Total3,577,6981,220,37966% 3,897,8531,835,71453%Table H-3. PM2.5 and PM10 Emissions from EGUs- Interim IPM (used for AQ Modeling) and Final IPM2016 Interim IPM2016 Final IPMStatePM10Base(tons)PM10Policy(tons)%reduct.PM25Base(tons)PM2_5policy(tons)%reduct.PM10Base(tons)PM10Policy(tons)%reduct.PM25Base(tons)PM2_5policy (tons)%reduct.Alabama19,96511,81641% 14,8019,82934% 14,1686,10857% 10,7106,077 43%Arizona15,2859,23140% 10,1967,26029% 4,9313,87221% 3,7923,250 14%F-72016 Interim IPM2016 Final IPMStatePM10Base(tons)PM10Policy(tons)%reduct.PM25Base(tons)PM2_5policy(tons)%reduct.PM10Base(tons)PM10Policy(tons)%reduct.PM25Base(tons)PM2_5policy (tons)%reduct.Arkansas4,9973,83023% 3,8052,80326% 3,7211,61857% 3,0191,514 50%California15,50215,2282% 9,7189,5502% 1,0529995% 938895 5%Colorado5,8225,6443% 4,9724,7784% 4,3053,71914% 3,5813,038 15%Connecticut2,2822,1904% 1,6321,5376% 4514354% 417409 2%Delaware9911,059-7% 643815-27% 3862,589-571% 2671,304 -388%Florida39,95628,34529% 26,11420,49422% 22,1987,77065% 14,6097,538 48%Georgia20,14412,60437% 14,41110,64826% 17,93610,76140% 12,9519,553 26%Idaho3073070% 1871870% 38380% 3636 0%Illinois13,52110,39723% 11,1579,23517% 10,8527,19534% 8,9446,534 27%Indiana30,37115,68648% 21,19814,99229% 34,88513,12962% 23,13812,649 45%Iowa6,6664,83228% 5,2234,14821% 5,5943,24642% 4,2132,883 32%Kansas5,5862,79750% 4,6342,75541% 4,3211,69661% 3,3811,671 51%Kentucky18,0999,37848% 13,5989,00934% 16,8199,44944% 12,3949,215 26%Louisiana7,2107,502-4% 5,2195,345-2% 3,4031,57554% 2,8531,558 45%Maine1,1651,1481% 7126992% 312357-14% 302345 -14%Maryland4,9363,53528% 3,7913,06919% 5,1443,45033% 3,9382,966 25%Massachussetts4,2133,67413% 2,7542,45211% 1,34582938% 1,104602 45%Michigan9,9285,71542% 7,1885,17028% 10,6645,93344% 7,7285,759 25%Minnesota12,1255,31856% 9,0114,44051% 3,2133,393-6% 2,7103,007 -11%Mississippi3,7983,5247% 2,5542,583-1% 3,0241,62946% 2,1261,550 27%F-82016 Interim IPM2016 Final IPMStatePM10Base(tons)PM10Policy(tons)%reduct.PM25Base(tons)PM2_5policy(tons)%reduct.PM10Base(tons)PM10Policy(tons)%reduct.PM25Base(tons)PM2_5policy (tons)%reduct.Missouri9,9776,26737% 8,0405,71929% 9,1015,09944% 7,0444,782 32%Montana3,3701,84345% 2,4531,80327% 5,71387685% 3,586851 76%Nebraska3,2644,611-41% 2,6574,024-51% 2,8892,10427% 2,3111,794 22%Nevada12,09912,0071% 10,90310,8161% 2,9382,9320% 2,3902,378 1%NewHampshire1,6491,35118% 1,13891719% 1,34452861% 1,233521 58%New Jersey4,8734,6265% 3,3803,2105% 2,0231,9444% 1,6061,549 4%New Mexico7,1836,21713% 5,7855,2879% 3,8632,93124% 3,1832,719 15%New York11,0599,58013% 7,5806,71911% 3,2052,18032% 2,3661,785 25%North Carolina16,4268,14050% 12,1857,65137% 14,8387,53849% 11,1197,349 34%North Dakota6,2141,92669% 5,3381,78767% 6,7533,42849% 5,8593,193 46%Ohio26,45914,89544% 19,84413,67131% 26,28513,43749% 19,45213,099 33%Oklahoma10,3528,30420% 7,4125,97319% 4,3451,95255% 3,4431,884 45%Oregon2,5832,4286% 1,6531,5486% 39424039% 338232 31%Pennsylvania28,75614,77949% 21,18713,11938% 23,99311,83051% 17,97811,378 37%Rhode Island9831,001-2% 598609-2% 67-17% 44 0%South Carolina16,4569,71041% 11,8317,08540% 16,2268,30649% 11,3086,350 44%South Dakota816 62523% 76856726% 76447038% 737443 40%Tennessee8,4874,82043% 6,6374,75828% 8,9304,61148% 7,0494,603 35%Texas54,12044,60818% 37,32032,18114% 32,98715,03754% 23,93612,125 49%Tribal Data52520% 32320% 01! 01 !F-92016 Interim IPM2016 Final IPMStatePM10Base(tons)PM10Policy(tons)%reduct.PM25Base(tons)PM2_5policy(tons)%reduct.PM10Base(tons)PM10Policy(tons)%reduct.PM25Base(tons)PM2_5policy (tons)%reduct.Utah6,3045,16% 5,0114,39912% 5,5464,64216% 4,2543,789 11%Vermont00-98% 00-98% 6869-1% 6767 0%Virginia9,4668,24013% 7,1416,39111% 7,4594,81535% 6,0554,270 29%Washington2,5152,10916% 1,9271,65014% 1,02061440% 884606 31%West Virginia20,5429,62153% 16,1989,38642% 20,3089,63553% 15,1849,451 38%Wisconsin7,5785,36829% 6,3764,65327% 6,1083,37545% 5,0393,019 40%Wyoming9,0515,95834% 7,4065,29229% 7,4204,53739% 5,6783,761 34%Total523,504358,16532% 384,320291,04424% 383,290202,92947% 285,253184,354 35%