[34 Pa.B. 6509]
[Continued from previous Web Page] Internal Combustion (IC) Engines
The Naval Surface Warfare Center Ship Systems Engineering Station located in Philadelphia recommended that naval units that are used to simulate shipboard conditions be exempted. This request was based on several rationales, including technical infeasibility and low utilization rates. Extensive technical data and analysis were provided. The final-form rulemaking does not apply to these units.
One commentator stated that the final-form rulemaking should focus on sources where emission reductions can be achieved instead of infrequently used sources, where the cost of control of NOx reduced can be very high--in one instance, $40,000--$400,000 per ton. The commentator stated that this is not a cost-effective way for the Commonwealth to achieve required emission reductions. The Department responds that the Chapter 145 provisions in the final-form rulemaking allow the use of averaging and allowances to achieve compliance. These provisions allow a source owner or operator to implement the most cost-effective strategy for the affected activities.
One commentator said that both the Chapter 129 and Chapter 145, Subchapter B provisions should include an exemption for emergency gas turbines and firefighting turbines, wet weather storm pumps, and any engine that is used infrequently or for emergencies. The final-form rulemaking exempts facilities that emit less than 0.50 tons of NOx during the ozone season. In addition, the final-form rulemaking includes provisions that allow the use of averaging and allowances to demonstrate compliance. Exemptions for these specific classes of sources are not included in the final-form rulemaking.
One commentator supported exemptions for emergency equipment. The commentator said that the proposed Chapter 145 threshold of 1 ton per day effectively exempts emergency or back-up units that would have much lower control cost-effectiveness. In Chapter 145 of the final-form rulemaking the 1-ton per day threshold was not intended to exempt emergency or back up units. The threshold stems from EPA's NOx SIP Call, which used this cutoff as a way to identify and control sources with enough emissions to reduce the interstate transport of ozone.
One commentator recommended that the Chapter 121 definition of ''emergency stationary internal combustion engine'' be amended to allow emergency equipment to run up to 100 hours for routine testing and maintenance. The Department responds that the final-form Chapter 129 regulations exempt facilities that emit less than 0.50 tons of NOx during the ozone season. In addition, the final-form rulemaking includes provisions that allow the use of averaging and allowances to demonstrate compliance. Exemptions for specific classes of sources are not included in the final-form rulemaking.
One commentator recommended that the definition of ''emergency stationary internal combustion engine'' include specific language, as follows: ''(ii) A stationary internal combustion engine located at a nuclear power plant that operates pursuant to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements.'' The commentator said that these back-up IC engines are generally only operated for testing required by NRC, or during real emergencies. In the 2000 ozone season, NRC-required periodic testing resulted in a total of 9.5 tons of NOx emissions. The commentator stated that an exemption was warranted because the nuclear generators typically produce thousands of megawatts of emission free electricity. The Department responds that the final-form rulemaking does not contain a definition of ''emergency stationary internal combustion engine.'' Back-up IC engines, such as those at the commentator's nuclear facility, are not exempted in the final-form rulemaking. If the ozone season actual emissions from the units exceed the allowable emission requirements in the final-form rulemaking, the owner or operator will be required either to average emissions from other of the owner or operator's affected sources or to obtain allowances to demonstrate compliance. Exemption from the requirements in the final-form rulemaking for these types of sources is not warranted.
One commentator stated that subset engines should be exempted from the Chapter 129 emission limits because they could not afford to run. The commentator claimed that the Department's analysis fails to account for all of the benefits and factors bearing on the permitting and operation of these units, including emission displacement to higher emitting units, and adverse electric market impacts. The Department responds that the final-form Chapter 129 regulations exempt facilities that emit less than 0.50 tons of NOx during the ozone season. In addition, the final-form rulemaking includes provisions that allow the use of averaging and allowances to demonstrate compliance. Exemptions for specific classes of sources are not included in the final-form rulemaking.
Two commentators said that general permits should not be issued for internal combustion engines. The commentators said that permits should contain requirements that are specific to the source to ensure compliance. The commentators explained that it is possible, for instance, that a source could be installed claiming to be for emergency use only, but then be used for non-emergencies. The final-form rulemaking does not exempt emergency use engines.
The same commentators said that the distinction between mobile and stationary can be false. The commentators said that mobile units can fulfill the functions of stationary units and should be covered by these regulations. The final-form rulemaking defines stationary internal combustion engines in a way that ensures that only those engine emissions that occur during operations as mobile air contamination sources are not covered.
One commentator suggested that the proposed IC engine definition should be amended from including engines remaining on one location for 30 days or more to only those engines that remain in one location for 12 months or more. The commentator said that states are precluded by Clean Air Act section 209 from regulating engines that remain in one location for less than 12 months. The commentator suggested that amending the definition of nonroad engine to conform to 40 CFR 90 would remedy this problem. The Department responds that the final-form rulemaking specifies ''in-use'' measures, which are not preempted by the Clean Air Act. Additionally, the final-form rulemaking defines stationary internal combustion engines in a manner that ensures that those engine emissions that occur during operations as mobile air contamination sources, as defined under § 121.1, are not covered.
One commentator asked why the Board used 30 days in the stationary internal combustion engine definition. The intent in the proposed rulemaking was to mirror the OTC model rule. The rationale for eliminating the 30-day criterion in the final-form rulemaking is discussed in the preceding paragraph.
One commentator said that the Chapter 145 IC engine threshold, based on 1995 emissions or those occurring in the future, leaves operators uncertain about control obligations and should be changed to provide certainty. The commentator asked what the deadlines for newly affected engines would be. The final-form rulemaking clarifies that engines that become subject to Chapter 145, Subchapter B, in any year after 2004 must comply with Subchapter B by May 1 of the following calendar year.
Two commentators stated that the applicability criterion of § 145.111 (one-ton per day threshold) poses an unwarranted exemption from the control requirements. The commentators said that a lower threshold is warranted considering the contribution of these sources and the magnitude of the problems we are facing. The final-form rulemaking implements the Federal NOx SIP Call, which uses the 1-ton per day threshold to determine the largest contributors to NOx transport.
One commentator stated that the emission limits for large IC engines may not be feasible for every engine, and that the Department may want to review them in light of recent EPA re-examination of the issue. The commentator suggested that the allowance option would possibly resolve the issue. The Department responds that the final-form rulemaking contains the same level of reductions the EPA determined to be technically feasible, cost-effective, and achievable for lean burn engines and that were used to establish the Phase II NOx SIP Call emission budgets. The final-form rulemaking also includes provisions that allow the use of averaging and allowances to demonstrate compliance.
One commentator suggested that the structure of the IC engine provisions in Chapters 129 and 145 should be amended to remove overlapping and conflicting requirements in a manner that achieves reductions where they are most needed. Specifically, the commentator suggested that the final-form rulemaking retain the 1000-2400 hp requirements in the nonattainment areas as proposed in Chapter 129 and contain separate standards for units above 2,400 hp. In addition, the commentator suggested that the final-form rulemaking establish less stringent standards for those 2,400 hp and above units located in attainment areas. The Department responds that the rules for attainment areas in the final-form rulemaking follow the NOx SIP Call requirements. The rules do not overlap or conflict. The Chapter 129 provisions in the final-form rulemaking state that sources falling under the applicability thresholds of Chapter 129 but that are already subject to Chapter 145 are not covered by Chapter 129 requirements.
The same commentator supported the proposed Chapter 129 standards for IC engines, saying they are achievable with after-treatment technologies. The commentator said that for some older higher emitting engines, however, depending on the costs of local power, the economics may be unfavorable. The commentator said that maximum flexibility should be provided in meeting these limits because of this. The final-form rulemaking authorizes a range of compliance techniques that enables the owner or operator to choose the most cost effective option.
The same commentator said that the Chapter 145 emission limit requiring a 90% reduction from 1990 levels does not give credit for previous control efforts. The commentator said that catalysts, for instance, could have been installed, or rich burn engines replaced, with lower emitting lean burn engines. The commentator believed it may be technologically or economically infeasible to make further reductions, and suggested that specific emission limits would avoid this problem. The commentator said that available technologies can achieve the following: 1.5 g/bhp-hr for rich burn spark ignited engines; 0.9 gm/bhp-hr for lean burn spark ignited engines; and 2.3 gm/bhp-hr for compression ignition engines. The commentator suggested that engines located in attainment areas should have higher limits: 1.5 gm for lean burn and 4.8 for compression ignited (prevailing non-road engine standard). The Department responds that the final-form rulemaking is structured to provide credit for previous control efforts. The emission limits for each class of engine are based on control levels that have been determined to be achievable by the majority of the units in that class.
One commentator recommended that the Chapter 129 and Chapter 145 IC engine controls allow flexible compliance options in order to enable the maximum amount of reductions to be achieved and with more cost-effectiveness. The commentator suggested that more control technology vendors would be able to respond, which would also enhance the cost effectiveness. The final-form rulemaking authorizes a range of compliance techniques that enables the owner or operator to choose the most cost effective option.
Three commentators believed that the emission limitations are more stringent than Federal standards and therefore not permissible under the APCA. The limits in the final-form rulemaking are permissible. The final-form rulemaking is necessary to satisfy the Commonwealth's commitments under the EPA-approved state implementation plan for the five-county Southeast Pennsylvania area (Philadelphia SIP) and establishes emission reductions that are integral to maintaining the EPA's approval of the attainment demonstration contained in the Philadelphia SIP. Full implementation of the reductions is required by May 1, 2005.
One commentator stated that the § 129.203 limit could not be met on most lean-burn engines (1.5 gm/brake hp-hr) whereas a higher limit (3.0 gm/brake hp-hr) could be met. The final-form rulemaking contains the same level of reductions the EPA determined to be technically feasible, cost-effective, and achievable for lean burn engines and that were used to establish the Phase II NOx SIP call emission budgets.
The same commentator stated that it would be difficult to comply with the May 1, 2005, compliance deadline because planning and installation of controls and monitors take from 1 1/2 to 3 years. The commentator stated that pipeline operators request a 2009 deadline because of permitting issues, and retrofit downtime prohibitions of FERC and Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. The final-form rulemaking retains the May 1, 2005, compliance deadline. The emission reductions and budgets established by the NOx SIP call are also integral to maintaining the EPA's approval of the one-hour ozone attainment demonstration contained in the Philadelphia SIP. Full implementation of the NOx SIP call reductions is required by May 1, 2005. The final-form rulemaking includes provisions that allow the use of averaging and allowances to demonstrate compliance. Implementation of these alternatives does not require long lead-time, and most of the controls needed to comply with this final-form rulemaking were already installed in response to the 1995 RACT regulation requirements.
One commentator said that the Board should explain how the lower § 129.203 limit on lean-burn engines (1.5 gm/brake hp-hr) could be met. The final-form rulemaking contains the same level of reductions the EPA determined to be technically feasible, cost-effective, and achievable for lean burn engines and that were used to establish the Phase II NOx SIP Call emission budgets.
The same commentator noted that § 145.115 specifies that records must be maintained at the facility. The commentator asked the Board to explain the need for onsite recordkeeping requirements as opposed to allowing a source to keep records at a centralized location. The Department responds that the requirements for maintenance of records onsite have been deleted from the final-form rulemaking. The final-form rulemaking allows an owner or operator who is not required to use CEMS to use an alternative monitoring and recordkeeping procedure if the Department approves it in writing in advance. Depending on the proposal, onsite recordkeeping will not necessarily be required but the facility will be required to provide the records to the Department upon request.
One commentator noted that the Federal guidance on IC engine control has not been finalized and therefore the EPA does not know what level of control is required under the NOx SIP Call. The commentator felt that the final-form rulemaking should be delayed for this reason. The commentator said that the EPA is preparing to issue a ''Phase II'' NOx SIP Call rule that will likely require the current installed level of control. The commentator thought that the proposed rulemaking would violate the statutory regulatory policy by exceeding Federal requirements. The commentator said that Federal guidelines also allow the limits to be met on an average basis or with allowances rather than individual units as proposed in the regulation. The commentator suggested that, because the limits are based on average engine population, and because engines respond differently to control equipment, this flexibility option would allow operators to meet the limits. The commentator said that it is a key feature of the OTC model rule that makes it feasible and cost-effective. The commentator felt that averaging was not a useful option. The Department responds that the final-form rulemaking is consistent with the EPA's guidance on recommended achievable emission levels for large IC engines. The final-form rulemaking incorporates averaging and allowance surrender as compliance options.
The same commentator said that for lean burn IC engines under the Chapter 145 proposed rules, an 82% reduction is achievable, and has been implemented. The commentator said that the EPA docket supports this finding. The commentator noted that the Department was requiring a 91% reduction in the proposed rulemaking and said the justification for doing so relies on old EPA guidance as opposed to more recent findings. The commentator said that the EPA believes that SCR is not justified. The commentator said that other states have proposed less restrictive rules and as a result the delivery of gas to Pennsylvania may be hampered. The final-form rulemaking contains the same level of reductions the EPA determined to be technically feasible, cost-effective, and achievable for lean burn engines and that were used to establish the Phase II NOx SIP call emission budgets.
The same commentator said that the final-form rulemaking is unnecessary because the pipeline industry has achieved the reductions called for under the proposed Chapter 129 IC engine regulations, and no further emission reduction will be achieved by the proposed rulemaking. The commentator said that increased NOx control requirements for these engines would result in increased VOC emissions, something the commentator thought the Department had not considered. The Department responds that the level of additional control that might be needed to comply with the limits contained in the final-form rulemaking should not result in additional VOC emissions.
The same commentator requested an exemption from NSR for the pipeline industry per the EPA's recent pollution control project rules. The types of possible control project modifications needed to meet the revised emission limits in the final-form rulemaking should not result in emission increases above the NSR applicability thresholds.
One commentator said that Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) should not be required for smaller sources. The commentator said the Department should allow simplified procedures, including those using either the averaging or allowance purchase compliance options. The Department agrees and has incorporated various monitoring options that allow the owner or operator to choose the most efficient monitoring method.
Two commentators said that the CEMS requirement for large IC engines subject to Chapter 145, in conjunction with the control requirements, could render some installations cost-ineffective. The commentators suggested that parametric monitoring should be a specifically authorized alternative in the regulation, rather than requiring an approval process for alternative systems. The commentators felt that this alternative would be readily available and cost-effective. The final-form rulemaking allows alternative monitoring techniques.
One commentator asked whether the Board had considered further exemptions for units that are not run for many hours in the ozone season, such as electric generation peaking units, emergency back up generators and power generation sources used for research, development and testing purposes. The commentator asked how many tons of reductions these sources represented and what the cost per ton was for them to comply. The commentator said the Board should explain the need to regulate these sources and why this is cost effective. The Department responds that the final-form rulemaking does not exempt these units. The affected engines and turbines emit NOx at rates from approximately 0.05 ton to over 1 ton per day. The emissions can quickly become highly significant. It is estimated that these units can emit from 60 to 100 tons per day during high electric demand days, which coincides with and contributes to ozone episodes. There are approximately 120 engines covered by the Chapter 129 regulations, which at the lowest emission rate, 0.05 ton per day, would emit well in excess of 3 tons of NOx if operated for a day. This is equal to the entire amount of reductions this final-form rulemaking needs to achieve. These units, if left uncontrolled, will negate the emission reductions achieved by the other affected sources. Therefore, it is not overall cost effective to exempt these units when they can contribute significant amounts of emissions. The applicability threshold of 0.5 tons for the ozone season ensures that only those operations with significant actual emissions during the ozone season are subject to emission limits. The final-form rulemaking will result in reduction of these emissions by an average of 80% or an equivalent surrender of NOx allowances.
Cement Kilns
One commentator noted that some commentators indicate that low NOx burners are infeasible and cost ineffective. The commentator said that the Board needs to demonstrate that compliance is possible and what equipment will be needed to comply. The commentator said that the Board also needs to demonstrate that technically feasible solutions are not cost prohibitive. The Department responds that controls, including selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR), low NOx burners, mid-kiln firing, and process controls are installed and operating on kilns in this Commonwealth to meet various requirements. While cost effective controls are available for every type of unit evaluated, some units may be inherently uneconomic even without controls. Some of these older kilns are being phased out of operation or the owners have plans for modification of the units. Adding controls may not be a good investment under such circumstances. In such cases, the allowance compliance option allows operation of such units without the need for controls.
Two commentators suggested that the Department should require the most effective control to be used instead of allowing cement kiln operators to choose from among alternative control technologies. The final-form rulemaking allows the owner or operator to choose the most cost effective control option.
Several commentators would like reinstatement of a single kiln-based emission limit expressed in pounds of NOx per ton of clinker produced that the Department had proposed earlier as included in the Federal implementation plan (FIP) proposals. Some commentators also asked that this option also allow that it be achieved on an average basis across the facility as well as from uncontrolled 1990 levels rather than actual levels. The final-form rulemaking incorporates an emission limit and compliance options that provide the requested options.
One commentator stated that its kiln has not installed controls to comply with the 1996 RACT regulations, as presumed in the preamble. The commentator stated that the facility utilizes toxic wastes for some of its fuel and must retain high combustion temperatures to handle these wastes. The commentator said the proposed rulemaking would require substantial modification of the kiln. The final-form rulemaking does not require a source to be modified.
The same commentator stated that short wet kilns cost more per ton to control and, as a result, were not controlled by the proposed FIP. The commentator stated that this represents a cost inequity for short kilns and that because the Federal rules did not require this type of unit to be controlled it should be exempted. The Department responds that the EPA included all kilns in its cost analysis for the proposed FIP for the Commonwealth and included all of the kilns in the NOx SIP Call budget. The emission limit in the final-form rulemaking is designed to protect the budget, as required by the NOx SIP Call. The final-form rulemaking provides for averaging and trading to ensure that costs do not exceed a reasonable threshold. With cost effective compliance mechanisms available to all sources, exemptions would be unnecessary and would create an inequity among competitors.
One commentator asked the Department to change the definition of ''Low NOx Burner'' to, ''A type of kiln burner (a device that functions as an injector of fuel and combustion air into the kiln to produce a flame that burns as close as possible to the center line of the kiln) that has a series of channels or orifices that (1) allow for the adjustment of the volume, velocity, pressure, and direction of the air carrying the fuel (known as primary air) and the combustion air (secondary air) into the kiln, and (2) impart high momentum and turbulence to the fuel stream to facilitate mixing of the fuel and secondary air.'' The ''Low NOx Burner'' definition is not needed in the final-form rulemaking and was eliminated.
The same commentator suggested that the final-form rulemaking should include definitions for malfunction, shutdown, and startup, as provided. The commentator also asked that the final-form rulemaking exempt emissions occurring during these periods. The Department disagrees that these emissions should be exempted. The final-form rulemaking requires the owner or operator to include all actual emissions from the units in the compliance calculations.
The same commentator asked that the final-form rulemaking provide exemptions based on case-by-case cost analysis using the EPA alternative control technology (ACT) document or for those undergoing NSR. The Department responds that the emission limits in the final-form rulemaking would readily be met by a source that applied the recommended controls in the ACT document, or underwent NSR, and was rebuilt to modern standards. The source owner or operator can choose alternative compliance mechanisms available to avoid installing controls if controls are deemed impractical or too expensive.
Two commentators stated that CEMS are not necessary to demonstrate compliance with the final-form rulemaking. The commentators said that monitors are too expensive, and monitors are not required by other states or by the FIP. The commentators said that alternatives to monitoring are allowed in other regulations for compliance demonstrations. The Department responds that the majority of Pennsylvania kilns have CEMS. Monitoring data from cement kilns with CEMS show that emission variability is large and unpredictable over both short and long time scales. It is also not possible to offer flexible compliance alternatives based on averaging or allowance trading without accurate monitoring.
One commentator asked why the Board foreclosed cement kilns from complying by using alternatives to CEMS. The Department responds that there are no sufficiently accurate alternatives for monitoring NOx emissions from cement kilns. Monitoring data from cement kilns with CEMS show that emission variability is large and unpredictable over both short and long time scales. It is also not possible to offer flexible compliance alternatives based on averaging or allowance trading without accurate monitoring.
The same commentator asked why the Board used the actual 1990 emissions as the basis for calculation of emission reductions in the alternative control option of § 145.143(3). The commentator noted that some commentators believe the final-form rulemaking should allow an uncontrolled 1990 baseline. The final-form rulemaking does not include the alternative control option.
Summary of Public Comments on ANFR
Compliance Mechanism/Effectiveness of the Final-Form Rulemaking to Reduce Emissions
Several commentators stated that the draft final-form rulemaking provided adequate compliance and monitoring options to enable operators to comply cost effectively. The Department agrees.
One commentator stated that the regulations should not combine the emission requirements for all sources at a facility, and several commentators stated that the regulations should not absolutely require that allowances be surrendered when the overall facility emissions exceed the allowable rates. The commentators suggested that enforcement and a monetary penalty are appropriate for noncompliance. The Department responds that the final-form rulemaking requires combining of facility emissions to provide for a simple, standard, and accurate basis for averaging. The owner or operator of affected sources can avoid the need to obtain allowances by maintaining overall emissions below the specified limits, by controlling unit emissions, or by averaging with lower emitting units under the owner or operator's control in the five-county Southeast Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area.
One commentator stated that sources should not be allowed to average as permitted in § 129.204(d) because it will make it more difficult to meet the ozone standards. The Department responds that averaging under § 129.204 is not expected to make meeting the ozone standards more difficult because averaging is only allowed among facilities within five-county Southeast Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area.
Two commentators stated that the requirement to surrender allowances will create an undue demand for allowances causing allowance price increases that will harm both source operators and sources subject to the NOx budget requirements. The Department responds that the NOx budget contains more than 500,000 allowances per ozone season. The amount of emission reductions required by the final-form rulemaking is insignificant in comparison. Most of the NOx SIP Call and Chapter 129 controls are already, or will be, in place by May 2005. The allowance demand will be very small in relation to the budget. The maximum number of allowances that would be used to comply with the final-form rulemaking is estimated to be fewer than several hundred allowances per ozone season. The Department does not anticipate that the increased level of demand for allowances that may result from the final-form rulemaking will negatively impact cost and availability of allowances.
Two commentators stated that cement kilns and other sources covered by these regulations are not allowed to participate in the NOx Budget trading program and may be subject to high allowance prices. The Department responds that the final-form rulemaking provides options in addition to the use of allowances to demonstrate compliance. The final-form rulemaking does not require source owners or operators to use the allowance compliance option. An owner or operator may use averaging, install controls, or implement other programs to reduce emissions.
One commentator stated that the efforts made to develop a rule that achieves the level of control required by the NOx SIP Call, while providing flexibility to the cement industry, is appreciated. The commentator supports the basic structure and concept of the rule. The Department concurs.
One commentator expressed support for the Department's efforts to reduce air pollution in the five-county Southeast Pennsylvania ozone nonattainment area from the sources subject to this proposed rule. The Department concurs.
Several commentators stated that the 3:1 compliance penalty for violations should be removed. They stated that it is highly punitive, could drain the market and increase compliance costs for everyone. The Department responds that this type and level of penalty are consistent with existing regulations that provide for compliance with emission limits through allowance surrender. The penalty has to be sufficient that a source owner or operator does not gain advantage by failing to comply. The 3:1 ratio is sufficient. The level of potential noncompliance and relatively small amount of emissions involved, along with the size of the allowance market, ensures the market will not see any discernible impact. Most of the NOx SIP Call and Chapter 129 controls are already in place. The allowance demand will be very small in relation to the NOx budget.
Two commentators stated that if the Department wants to regulate units not currently covered under the Chapter 145 budget program, then a market based regulation with its own budget, monitoring and reporting, and penalties should be developed for those units. The Department responds that a separate trading system for the smaller and more numerous sources covered by the final-form rulemaking is not feasible or cost-effective. The final-form rulemaking takes into account the fact that the population of Chapter 145 NOx budget units has an enormous reserve capacity of available and low-cost allowances. Regulations such as this can draw from that capacity to everyone's benefit. This will provide additional incentive for NOx budget sources, which can profit from their ability to control more cheaply and sell allowances. Owners and operators of sources affected by the final-form rulemaking can benefit by having a less expensive compliance option, if control costs are high or if averaging is not an option. Consumers will see lower prices as a result of the overall efficiency savings to the economy.
Two commentators stated that the 3:1 compliance penalty should be retained, as it is necessary to ensure compliance under a trading program. The Department agrees.
One commentator commended the Department for considering excess emissions as a separate violation for each day of the 153-day ozone season. The Department agrees this is a necessary component of a rule that allows allowances to be used for compliance. This provision is consistent with existing regulations.
Three commentators opposed the separate day of violation provision as unnecessarily punitive. The Department responds that the number of days may be reduced to the actual number of days during which the actual excess emissions occurred, upon satisfactory demonstration to the Department.
One commentator stated that the requirement to surrender only current and future year allowances is needed to ensure the best level of compliance. The Department agrees. The requirement for the surrender of only current and future year allowances is retained in the final-form rulemaking.
One commentator stated that emission limits are not very aggressive; however, given that old and new units must comply, the averages will still deliver significant improvements over the status quo. The Department agrees.
The State of New Jersey believes that the regulation is not as strict as the OTC model rule and with rules that New Jersey plans to promulgate. New Jersey requests that the stringency and applicability of the regulation be increased to the levels contained in the OTC model rule. The Department responds that the OTC model rule was intended to provide states with a common basis to regulate source emissions to assist owners, operators and states by having consistent requirements. The Department has followed the model rule sufficiently to accomplish this goal and to achieve the necessary level of reductions.
One commentator stated that this regulatory action is necessary to achieve and maintain the 1-hour ozone standard by May 15, 2005. The commentator stated that emission averaging, or other compliance method, endangers our ability to achieve the needed controls on time. The final- form rulemaking establishes emission reductions that are integral to maintaining the EPA's approval of the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration contained in the Philadelphia SIP. Full implementation of the reductions is required by May 1, 2005. The ability to use allowances or averaging to demonstrate compliance assures that owners and operators that otherwise might need to install control equipment to meet the limits have additional compliance options.
Two commentators suggested that the Chapter 129 regulations should be year round and Statewide. The Department responds that the final-form rulemaking is needed to establish emission reductions that are integral to maintaining the EPA's approval of the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration contained in the Philadelphia SIP. The attainment demonstration requires emission control from May 1 through September 30. Year round NOx reductions would not assist in satisfying the attainment demonstration requirements. Additional NOx reductions may be necessary as part of the Commonwealth's initiatives to address the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 standards.
One commentator suggested that output based emission limits should be used instead of heat input to encourage energy efficiency and pollution reductions. The Department responds that establishment of output-based limits is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Assessment of the cost impacts of an output-based approach requires data that is not readily available to the Department at this time.
Two commentators expressed support for the Chapter 129 regulations as necessary to the 1-hour ozone standards. The commentators said that the affected sources have long escaped control and should do their share. The commentators stated that the regulations afford adequate flexibility to achieve the emission reduction goals without undue economic hardship. The Department agrees.
One commentator stated that the effective date of the regulation does not provide enough time for implementation of compliance strategies. The commentator said that more time should be provided for operators to achieve compliance. The Department responds that the final-form regulation provides for a variety of compliance options, including averaging and use of allowances. If there is insufficient time to implement a control strategy, the source owner or operator may use allowances or averaging as an interim compliance measure.
One commentator stated that the definition of ''stationary internal combustion engine'' should be moved to one location with the other definitions. The definition is contained in § 121.1 of the final-form rulemaking.
Boilers
One commentator stated that some boilers cannot operate at their design capacity and that the Department should allow derating to avoid applicability of the regulation. The Department responds that the precise rate of boiler firing is not crucial to achieving the needed emission reductions, whereas the boiler rating is used to identify those units that have significant potential emissions. Allowing owners or operators to derate units to avoid regulation would defeat the emission reduction goals of the final-form rulemaking.
The same commentator stated that there should be emission limits for dual fuel use since the emission rates guaranteed by the vendor for the units are usually only at the higher rates. The Department responds that there is no need for dual-fuel limits since the allowable emissions are calculated in terms of the amount of BTU's combusted for each type of fuel. Although the fuels are burned together, the allowable emissions can be calculated separately.
Several commentators stated that the Department has indicated that the regulations do not include municipal waste combustors. The commentators stated, however, that the regulations are not clear on this point. The commentators recommend specific language. The final-form rulemaking clarifies that it does not apply to municipal waste combustors.
Combustion Turbines
Three commentators stated that an exemption for units that take a 5% capacity factor permit should be provided. They stated that in the past, these units have emitted 3 tons or less each during the ozone season. The Department responds that, because these units frequently operate during high ozone days and have high tons-per-day emission rates, they contribute to the ozone problem. Many of the units affected by the final-form rulemaking only emit a small fraction of a ton per day, but collectively their emissions are significant.
One commentator stated that units that take a 5% capacity limit should be exempted because the limit would ensure the emissions from these units would be adequately controlled. The Department responds that the suggestion would result in no emission reductions from these units.
Two commentators stated that the applicability rating for turbines in § 129.202 should be changed from 250 million Btu/hr to 25 MW to be consistent with Chapter 145 applicability. The Department responds that the applicability cutoffs need to be retained because the emission limits were established as achievable for units with the specified heat input ratings.
Internal Combustion (IC) Engines
One commentator stated that the definition of stationary internal combustion engine in § 129.204 may include engines exempt from state regulation under the Clean Air Act. The Department responds that the final-form rulemaking specifies ''in-use'' measures that are not preempted. Additionally, the final-form rulemaking defines internal combustion stationary engines in a manner that ensures that those engine emissions that occur during operations as mobile air contamination sources as defined under § 121.1 are not covered.
One commentator stated that the Chapter 145 requirement for monthly testing of large IC engines was too costly and unwarranted given the data showing that emissions do not vary significantly. Engines that operate less than 500 hours should be exempt from testing. The Department responds that in order to allow averaging, the emission data must be representative of actual emissions. Data submitted to the Department shows that large emission rate variability still occurs with some engines. Some engines already have established data adequate to reduce the testing frequency. Because the amount of operating time is the critical factor in accurately determining the emissions and not simply the passage of time, the final-form rulemaking is amended to specify testing not less frequently than every 735 hours of operation instead of monthly. This frequency can also be reduced to one test per season with a demonstration of sufficiently consistent data. This can be accomplished before the final-form rulemaking becomes effective.
One commentator stated that monthly testing for large IC engines should be retained. The Department amended the final-form rulemaking to reduce the testing burden, as specified in the preceding paragraph, while assuring that the monitoring data adequately reflect actual emissions.
Several commentators stated that emergency and other infrequently used engines should be exempt because their emissions are insignificant and, in terms of technical and cost feasibility, the recordkeeping is an additional burden. The Department responds that stand-alone units with low emission rates will be excluded under the 0.5-ton per ozone season threshold allowed by the final-form rulemaking. The engines that are affected by the final-form rulemaking have high emission rates. The actual emissions in terms of tons per day place them among the very largest sources that are potential contributors to ozone. With the averaging, the 0.5-ton facility waiver, and the allowance compliance mechanism, there is insufficient rationale to exclude these units. The final-form rulemaking adds a minor addition to the existing recordkeeping and emission reporting requirements.
One commentator stated that it is a mistake to allow ''peaking'' units that operate during high electricity demand periods in the summer to rely on seasonal averaging to determine compliance. The commentator explained that this allows diesel units to run at capacity, emitting extremely high levels of NOx and exacerbating unhealthy air on high electricity demand days that often coincide with high ozone days. The commentator urged an averaging scheme that encourages either control or a transition to less polluting peaking generation. The Department responds that in order to generate credit for averaging, units at a facility must run at reduced emission rates. Increased operation is more likely to occur during times of high energy demand for both the controlled and uncontrolled units. The overall effect of averaging, when measured across the entire population of affected sources, should provide sufficient overlap in control to provide a relatively continuous level of reductions. In addition, seasonal averaging is part of the rationale for eliminating ''emergency'' exemptions that could be used to avoid applicability to diesel peaking units. Averaging is preferable because the high dollar-per-ton costs make it difficult to justify outright control requirements on these units. By allowing averaging and including these units, the economics of being accountable for all emissions from them may provide an incentive to use of existing cleaner generation first and an eventual transition to lower emitting technologies.
Two commentators suggested that if the emergency exemption is not reinstated, one should be provided for those units that are integral to nuclear power plants. The commentators stated the impact of those units on air quality is negligible, their emissions cannot be controlled, their emissions were 9.5 tons during the 2000 ozone season, and the recordkeeping would be burdensome. The commentators added that given the large amount of emission free generation provided to the area, this is not a desirable public policy. The final-form rulemaking does not contain a definition of ''emergency stationary internal combustion engine.'' Back-up IC engines, such as those at the commentator's nuclear facility, are not exempted in the final-form rulemaking. If the ozone season actual emissions from the units exceed the allowable emission requirements in the final-form rulemaking, the operator will be required either to average emissions from other of the owner or operator's affected sources or to obtain allowances to demonstrate compliance. Exemption from the requirements in the final-form rulemaking for these types of sources is not warranted.
One commentator stated that retaining the 1.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour emission limit would not be more stringent than the Clean Air Act. The commentator stated that the 1.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour limit should be retained in order to ensure attainment of the ozone standard. The Department responds that the overall level of control provided by the final-form rulemaking will provide a similar level of reductions as the proposed rulemaking.
One commentator stated that the change to 3 grams per brake horsepower for spark ignited engines is supported, and recommended that compression ignited engines be permitted the same rate. The Department responds that the limit for emissions from spark-ignited engines was changed to correspond with the limit selected for the same class of large IC engines. That limit was technically justified as more appropriate and achievable. The compression ignited engine limit is technically justified and was not changed.
The same commentator stated that the 3 grams per brake horsepower limit amendments in Chapters 129 and 145 are achievable, consistent with the anticipated Federal rules and supported. The Department agrees.
The same commentator stated that the additional monitoring options will allow the gas industry to use methods more appropriate to the gas transmission facilities. The Department agrees.
One commentator stated that the applicability requirements for IC engines under Chapter 145 are based on 1995 emissions or any year thereafter. The commentator stated that only units that operated in 1995 should be included because using later years is more stringent than the Federal requirements. The Department responds that this requirement is not more stringent than the Federal requirements. The Federal requirements are to achieve the emission budgets contained in the NOx SIP Call. The budgets were established using 1995 as the base year; however, applying the rule only to units that operated in 1995 does not ensure the budget will be achieved in any year except 1995. The FIP is only a ''stopgap'' proposed rule that may not achieve the budgets if ever implemented. States that invoke the FIP remain obligated to adopt state rules that will achieve the SIP Call budgets.
Three commentators suggested that engines that are replaced with electrically powered equipment should be allowed to include these engines in their compliance determination. The Department agrees. The final-form rulemaking authorizes credit for such a replacement, based upon the difference between the actual emissions that would have resulted from the utilization of the replaced engine and the emissions resulting from the generation of the electricity to power the motor. The electricity generation will be assumed at the nominal rate under the NOx budget program of 1.5 lbs/MWH.
One commentator stated that engines subject to Chapter 145 that did not emit over 153 tons after 1995 could be subject to monitoring requirements, whereas the rule intends only to require monitoring for those that did. The commentator requests that the regulation specifically state this. The final-form rulemaking specifies that a unit that emitted 153 tons or more in any ozone season from 1995 through 2004 must comply with Subchapter B of Chapter 145, including the monitoring requirements, by May 1, 2005. Any unit that did not emit 153 tons or more in any ozone season since 1995, but does so after 2004, is not subject to Subchapter B until the following calendar year.
[Continued on next Web Page]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
