Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0056-5741
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-02-22T05:00Z

February
17,
2005
1
February
17,
2005
MEMORANDUM
From:
William
H.
Maxwell
CG/
ESD
(
C439­
01)

To:
Utility
rulemaking
e­
docket
OAR­
2002­
0056
Subject:
Meeting
with
Alliant
Energy,
February
17,
2005
Attendees
Alliant
Energy:
Michele
Pluta,
Alliant
Energy
Phil
Moeller,
Alliant
Energy
Michael
Rossler,
Edison
Electric
Institute
EPA:
Bill
Wehrum,
OAR/
AA
Jason
Burnett,
OAR/
AA
Bill
Maxwell,
OAR/
OAQPS
(
by
phone)

Discussion
The
attached
materials
related
to
applicability
and
definition
of
an
"
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit"
were
discussed.

Attachment
February
17,
2005
2
Applicability
of
Maximum
Achievable
Control
Technology
(
MACT)
Rules
There
are
two
MACT
rules
to
consider,
one
final
and
one
proposed:

1)
Final
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
(
40
CFR
63
Subpart
DDDDD)

Reference
Name
­
Industrial
Boiler
(
IB)
MACT
Final
Rule
­
November
12,
2004
(
effective
date)
Initial
Notification
of
Affected
Units
­
March
12,
2005
Compliance
with
Emissions
Standards
­
September
12,
2007
Applicability
­
Industrial
Boilers
less
than
25
MW
Regulates
­
Mercury,
Total
Select
Metals,
and
Hydrogen
Chloride
 
Mercury
"
Hg"
=
9
lbs/
TBtu;
 
Hydrogen
Chloride
"
HCl"
=
0.09
lbs/
mmBtu;
and,
 
Total
Select
Metals
"
TSM"
=
0.001
lbs/
mmBtu
(
may
be
monitored
as
Particulate
Matter
"
PM"
=
0.07
lbs/
mmBtu)

2)
Proposed
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants;
and,
in
the
Alternative,
Proposed
Standards
of
Performance
for
New
and
Existing
Stationary
Sources:
Electric
Utility
Steam
Generating
Units
Reference
Name
­
Utility
MACT
Final
Rule
­
March
15,
2005
(
issuance
required
by
court­
order)
Compliance
­
2008
(
alternative,
2010
&
2018)
Applicability
 
Electric
Utility
Steam
Generating
Units
Regulates
­
Mercury
 
5.8
lbs/
TBtu
(
subituminous)
by
2008
facility­
wide;
or,
 
alternative
two­
phase
trading
rule
~
70%
by
2018
Issue
Summary
The
issue
is
how
units
co­
located
at
the
same
facility
are
subject
to
either
the
"
IB
MACT"
versus
the
"
Utility
MACT"
when
there
is
a
common
steam
header.

 
Electric
utility
steam
generating
units
are
not
subject
to
the
final
IB
MACT
rule.
 
Historical
Acid
Rain
determinations
have
considered
<
25
MW
units
as
"
Utility"
when
there
is
a
common
steam
header
from
multiple
boilers
physically
connected
to
a
same
steam
turbine
generator
of
greater
than
25
MWe
output
capacity.
February
17,
2005
3
Question
to
EPA
Headquarters
Is
there
a
position
on
treatment
of
units
with
combined
steam
headers
for
the
IB
MACT
versus
Utility
MACT?

Recommended
policy
solution
is
that
combustion
units
less
than
25
MW
(
nameplate)
that
are
currently
classified
as
"
existing
utility
units"
under
Acid
Rain
regulations
(
40
CFR
72.2)
­­­
because
of
common
steam
header
piping
systems
serving
a
turbine
generator
of
greater
than
25
MWe
output
capacity
­­­
may
also
be
classified
as
"
electric
utility
steam
generating
units"
to
be
regulated
under
the
forthcoming
Utility
MACT.

Reasons
to
Support
Recommended
Policy
Solution
 
There
should
be
a
consistent
regulatory
interpretation
of
what
is
considered
a
"
Utility"
unit
in
the
situation
of
combined
steam
headers
serving
turbine
generators
of
greater
than
25
MWe
output
capacity.
 
Units
will
comply
with
a
more
stringent
mercury
limit
under
Utility
MACT.
 
Units
will
be
subject
to
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
(
CAIR)
that
should
address
other
emissions
standards
covered
by
IB
MACT
(
but
not
in
Utility
MACT).
 
Classification
of
all
units
at
a
plant
under
one
set
of
rules
provides
for
streamlined
compliance
and
eliminates
issues
of
apportionment
of
emissions
standards
between
differing
standards.

Industrial
Boiler
MACT
Explanation
(
from
FINAL
Rule
Preamble)

D.
What
Is
the
Relationship
Between
the
Final
Rule
and
Other
Combustion
Rules?

The
final
rule
regulates
source
categories
covering
industrial
boilers,
institutional
and
commercial
boilers,
and
process
heaters.
These
source
categories
potentially
include
combustion
units
that
are
already
regulated
by
other
MACT
standards.
Therefore,
we
are
excluding
from
the
final
rule
any
combustion
units
that
are
already
or
will
be
subject
to
regulation
under
another
MACT
standard
under
40
CFR
part
63.
Combustion
units
that
are
regulated
by
other
standards
and
are
therefore
excluded
from
the
final
rule
include
solid
waste
incineration
units
covered
by
section
129
of
the
CAA;
boilers
or
process
heaters
required
to
have
a
permit
under
section
3005
of
the
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Act
or
covered
by
the
hazardous
waste
combustor
NESHAP
in
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
EEE
1;
and
recovery
boilers
or
furnaces
covered
by
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
MM.

With
regards
to
solid
waste
incineration
units
covered
by
section
129
of
the
CAA,
EPA
solicited
on
February
17,
2004
(
69
FR
7390)
public
comments
on
the
definition
of
``
commercial
and
industrial
solid
waste
incineration
unit''
for
the
purpose
of
determining
which
combustion
sources
to
regulate
under
section
129
and
which
to
regulate
under
section
112
(
e.
g.,
boilers
and
process
heaters).
As
stated
above,
combustion
units
covered
under
section
129
are
not
subject
to
the
final
rule.

Electric
utility
steam
generating
units
are
not
subject
to
the
final
rule.
An
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit
is
a
fossil
fuel­
fired
combustion
unit
of
more
than
25
megawatts
that
serves
a
generator
that
produces
electricity
for
sale.
A
fossil
fuel­
fired
unit
that
cogenerates
steam
and
February
17,
2005
4
electricity
and
supplies
more
than
one­
third
of
its
potential
electric
output
capacity
and
more
than
25
megawatts
electrical
output
to
any
utility
power
distribution
system
for
sale
is
considered
an
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit.
Non­
fossil
fuel­
fired
utility
boilers
and
electric
utility
steam
generating
units
less
than
25
megawatts
are
covered
by
the
final
rule.

In
1986,
EPA
codified
the
NSPS
for
industrial
boilers
(
40
CFR
part
60,
subparts
Db
and
Dc)
and
revised
portions
of
them
in
1999.
The
NSPS
regulates
emissions
of
particulate
matter
(
PM),
sulfur
dioxide,
and
nitrogen
oxides
from
boilers
constructed
after
June
19,
1984.
Sources
subject
to
the
NSPS
are
also
subject
to
the
final
rule
because
the
final
rule
regulates
sources
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
while
the
NSPS
does
not.
However,
in
developing
the
final
rule
for
industrial,
commercial,
and
institutional
boilers
and
process
heaters,
EPA
minimized
the
monitoring
requirements,
testing
requirements,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
to
avoid
duplicating
requirements.

Because
of
the
broad
applicability
of
the
final
rule
due
to
the
definition
of
a
process
heater,
certain
process
heaters
could
appear
to
fit
the
applicability
of
another
existing
MACT
rule.
We
have,
therefore,
included
in
the
list
of
combustion
units
not
subject
to
the
final
rule
refining
kettles
subject
to
the
secondary
lead
MACT
rule
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
X);
ethylene
cracking
furnaces
covered
by
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
YY;
and
blast
furnace
stoves
described
in
the
EPA
document
entitled
``
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Integrated
Iron
and
Steel
Plants
 
Background
Information
for
Proposed
Standards''
(
EPA
 
453/
R
 
01
 
005).

Utility
MACT
Explanation
(
from
PROPOSED
Rule
Preamble)

B.
What
is
the
relationship
between
the
proposed
rule
and
other
combustion
rules?

The
EPA
has
previously
developed
two
other
combustion­
related
MACT
standards
in
addition
to
today's
proposed
rule
for
coal­
and
oil­
fired
Utility
Units.
The
EPA
proposed
standards
for
industrial,
commercial,
and
institutional
boilers
and
process
heaters
(
IB)
on
January
13,
2003
(
68
FR
1660)
and
promulgated
standards
for
stationary
combustion
turbines
(
CT)
in
2003.
These
regulations
have
been
issued
pursuant
to
CAA
section
112,
but
not
under
CAA
section
112(
n)(
1)(
A),
as
is
today's
proposal,
because
section
112(
n)(
1)(
A)
is
uniquely
applicable
to
Utility
Units
as
defined
by
the
CAA.

All
three
of
the
rules
pertain
to
HAP
emission
sources
that
combust
fossil
fuels
for
electrical
power,
process
operations,
or
heating.
The
differences
among
these
rules
are
due
to
the
size
of
the
unit
megawatts
electric
(
MWe)
or
British
thermal
unit
per
hour
(
Btu/
hr))
they
regulate,
the
boiler/
furnace
technology
they
employ,
or
the
portion
of
their
electrical
output
(
if
any)
for
sale
to
any
utility
power
distribution
systems.

Section
112(
a)(
8)
of
the
CAA
defines
an
"
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit"
as
"
any
fossil
fuel
fired
combustion
unit
of
more
than
25
megawatts
that
serves
a
generator
that
produces
electricity
for
sale."
A
unit
that
cogenerates
steam
and
electricity
and
supplies
more
than
one­
third
of
its
potential
electric
output
capacity
and
more
than
25
MWe
output
to
any
utility
power
distribution
system
for
sale
is
also
considered
an
Utility
Unit.
All
of
the
MWe
ratings
quoted
in
the
proposed
rule
are
considered
to
be
the
original
nameplate
rated
capacity
of
the
unit.
Cogeneration
is
defined
February
17,
2005
5
as
the
simultaneous
production
of
power
(
electricity)
and
another
form
of
useful
thermal
energy
(
usually
steam
or
hot
water)
from
a
single
fuel­
consuming
process.
Today's
proposed
section
112
MACT
rule
would
not
regulate
a
unit
that
meets
the
definition
of
an
Utility
Unit
but
combusts
natural
gas
greater
than
98
percent
of
the
time.

The
CT
rule
regulates
HAP
emissions
from
all
simple
cycle
and
combined­
cycle
turbines
producing
electricity
or
steam
for
any
purpose.
Because
of
their
combustion
technology,
simple­
cycle
and
combined­
cycle
turbines
(
with
the
exception
of
integrated
gasification
combined
cycle
(
IGCC)
units
that
burn
gasified
coal
gas)
are
not
considered
Utility
Units
for
purposes
of
today's
proposed
rule.

Any
combustion
unit
that
produces
steam
to
serve
a
generator
that
produces
electricity
exclusively
for
industrial,
commercial,
or
institutional
purposes
is
considered
an
IB
unit.
A
fossil­
fuel
 
fired
combustion
unit
that
serves
a
generator
that
produces
electricity
for
sale
is
not
considered
to
be
a
Utility
Unit
under
the
proposed
rule
if
its
size
is
less
than
or
equal
to
25
MWe.
Also,
a
cogeneration
facility
that
sells
electricity
to
any
utility
power
distribution
system
equal
to
more
than
one­
third
of
their
potential
electric
output
capacity
and
more
than
25
MWe
is
considered
to
be
an
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit.
However,
a
cogeneration
facility
that
meets
the
above
definition
of
an
Utility
Unit
during
any
portion
of
a
year
would
be
subject
to
the
proposed
rule.

Because
of
the
similarities
in
the
design
and
operational
characteristics
of
the
units
that
would
be
regulated
by
the
different
combustion
rules,
there
are
situations
where
coal­
or
oil­
fired
units
potentially
could
be
subject
to
multiple
MACT
rules.
An
example
of
this
situation
would
be
cogeneration
units
that
are
covered
under
the
proposed
IB
rule,
potentially
meeting
the
definition
of
a
Utility
Unit,
and
vice
versa.
This
might
occur
where
a
decision
is
made
to
increase/
decrease
the
proportion
of
production
output
being
supplied
to
the
electric
utility
grid,
thus
causing
the
unit
to
exceed
the
IB/
electric
utility
cogeneration
criteria
(
i.
e.
greater
than
one­
third
of
its
potential
output
capacity
and
greater
than
25
MWe).

The
EPA
solicits
comment
on
the
extent
to
which
this
situation
might
occur.
Given
the
differences
between
rules,
how
should
EPA
address
reclassification
of
the
sources
between
the
two
rules,
particularly
with
regard
to
initial
and
ongoing
compliance
requirements
and
schedules?
(
As
noted
above,
EPA
is
proposing
to
consider
as
a
Utility
Unit
any
cogeneration
unit
that
meets
the
definition
noted
earlier
at
any
time
during
a
year.)

Another
situation
could
occur
where
one
or
more
coal­
or
oil­
fired
Utility
Unit(
s)
share
an
air
pollution
control
device
(
APCD)
and/
or
an
exhaust
stack
with
one
or
more
similarly­
fueled
IB
units.
To
demonstrate
compliance
with
two
different
rules,
the
emissions
have
to
either
be
apportioned
to
the
appropriate
source
or
the
more
stringent
emission
limit
must
be
met.
Data
needed
to
apportion
emissions
are
not
currently
required
by
the
proposed
rule
or
the
proposed
IB
rule.

The
EPA
solicits
comment
on
the
extent
to
which
this
situation
might
occur.
Given
potential
differences
between
rules,
how
should
EPA
address
apportionment
of
the
emissions
to
the
individual
sources
with
regard
to
initial
and
ongoing
compliance
requirements?
The
EPA
specifically
requests
comment
on
the
appropriateness
of
a
mass
balance­
type
methodology
to
determine
pollutant
apportionment
between
sources
both
pre­
APCD
and
post­
APCD.