WPC   3"*ljW_=%*zh߬mL{v`_-+X^T fh,"ē6 6Eq8!$8i4z2*NNWeR%;wn:KH ? 6w) b?jK < o@ G.KL\7cizpvg?3 ;dpD'r,:BKy1 LؓE{u\)GS̸䖅 R/ v⋨uxe^v~tЪ>I:z15x.{Q̋qJuG-NHz@y6lk鋒jF T)R^9.9$b] soEPhTƍ,d4Zڢsz7ڜ~J&"[XM,H!yޢm9hyܰzm# ^ UNi % 0(   q 7@o\pF5"{ CL 0A 0eT* 0Dh~ 0D 0L* 0Dv B*U :f` UFb 0Dba BS. Kb\UHdGbbw(4+?nXNbbbb A 0Do D+ 0K) h1fU@aW hkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk iHP LaserJet IIISiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,,,0rE(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 *OLE*WPC'Z()Z()9!Z()ƚ\ h T  ) )P_wnu]gř֤222hr)4:cn\d$`l4FFF%ZZPP<GZZZXpb@Lnnnc@@0}Sh mPdtHcy,$8NNz`p$i͌}dmtޱ45Z() "--Z()RTimes New Roman_- ------92 e!New Source Performance Standards,5=kk^kk 42 Subpart Da and Db - Summary ofk5kk4kk^^k 42 Public Comments and Responses xwk5^^kk5l  "-- #" "M " """ $"-%"" "-%"" "-%"  %   % %      vvv% vvjv\v2 2 ?2 2 v   %  \  eee%eee\!\!#\!%\!#\!r r #r %r #r 2Times New Roman!- ------ 2 @!Air:V (2 Y#Planning and Standards|5gkl9kg2flo1oBgkogWoN 62 i"Research Triangle Park NC 27711ZN[gV[k1xV:gkg5[1|gVo21ggggg +2 H#Environmental Protectionkg9WgkZkBg61|VgBZ[B:fk 2 v"AgencygZk[g 2 0$ United Statesk:BZo2oBgBZN '2 #$Office of Air QualityBB9[Z2gB1:V2kg69Bg 2 $EPA-453/R-98-005|Bggg9BggBggg 2 "September 1998o[oBZo[V2gggf --'4-j%jjnjt3-$E}ule`YPJC81*$  &/3;ADQQQN LKEC*@1::2D/J(P"[`h mx}888^$-888;=?DHKSU[dmrx     "&&&'8--$E %-6<@IOTVZ _ae&f/g3i;iAiDiQaQ`QVNULLKEE>C6@-:$2/( " dTimes New Roman_- ------ 2 E  2 P  2 A% Courier4--4 WPWin 6.0/OLE 1.0 Prefix Information MarkerFLW3Presentationࡱ> 9C  !"#$%&'()*+,-./012345678;<=>?@ABRoot Entry`t`EKOle 9FLDATAiCompObj{ )F! WPWin61[0] `t`EK Lotus Freelance 97 PresentationFLW Object FormatFLW3Presentation9qX?`t`EKOh+'0T p|  LFreelance Graphics@0tʽ@Y:v@T8FREELANCE ']${nl0Er6.%t.HField1Field2Field3Field4Field5Field6Field7Field8\g ^&} H Ka"Page 1"cZ()0&[(M:\APPS\LOTUS\FLW\MASTERS\BLANK.MASh#'%$$dn   ????X!WBLANK.PAL^5JJdhqKe5hQJd@oKdh@qJXBW2.BWAL^//?_/?_ooo?/_/P_~|wdʌnɀzum]igٮحҡɭ222h t)r@@4::c:|,nx(\`$d4lFFF% FZZQPPmL<G,tDZZZXpppllbT22@cLnnn$o|c@@Nc 0}xSTHh ;-PmЌytdH yck,$y80N[Nz(8v`jppr$@`iی}~d̮ٚmt$fn=?l?r ??,fs=240,fe=0,fc=7,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=0,bu=,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=7,bz=100,f2=7,b2=7,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=Arial,fs=401,fe=0,fc=282,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=100,f2=282,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=1,sc=303,ud=0,uw=1,uc=303,bn=1fn=Arial,fs=381,fe=0,fc=282,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=302,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=100,f2=282,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=1,sc=303,ud=0,uw=1,uc=303,bn=1fn=Arial,fs=356,fe=0,fc=282,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=605,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=100,f2=282,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=1,sc=303,ud=0,uw=1,uc=303,bn=1fn=Arial,fs=331,fe=0,fc=282,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=906,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=100,f2=282,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=1,sc=303,ud=0,uw=1,uc=303,bn=1fn=Arial,fs=306,fe=0,fc=282,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=1208,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=100,f2=282,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=1,sc=303,ud=0,uw=1,uc=303,bn=1fn=Arial,fs=240,fe=0,fc=7,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=0,bu=,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=7,bz=100,f2=7,b2=7,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=Helvetica,fs=304,fe=0,fc=283,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=2,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=0,bu=,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=54,bz=100,f2=283,b2=54,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=Helvetica,fs=284,fe=0,fc=283,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=2,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=0,bu=,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=54,bz=100,f2=283,b2=54,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1 fn=Arial MT,fs=476,fe=0,fc=281,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=2,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=100,f2=281,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1 fn=Arial MT,fs=695,fe=32,fc=280,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=2,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=100,f2=280,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1 fn=Arial MT,fs=437,fe=0,fc=281,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\14,bs=0,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=100,f2=281,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1 fn=Arial MT,fs=387,fe=0,fc=281,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=292,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\12,bs=0,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=100,f2=281,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1 fn=Arial MT,fs=387,fe=0,fc=281,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=584,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\16,bs=0,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=100,f2=281,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=Arial MT,fs=387,fe=0,fc=281,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=291,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\12,bs=0,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=100,f2=281,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=Arial MT,fs=387,fe=0,fc=281,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=583,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\16,bs=0,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=100,f2=281,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=Arial MT,fs=564,fe=32,fc=280,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=2,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=100,f2=280,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=CG Times (WN),fs=206,fe=32,fc=31,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=0,bu=,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=54,bz=100,f2=31,b2=54,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=CG Times (WN),fs=430,fe=32,fc=31,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=0,bu=,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=54,bz=100,f2=31,b2=54,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=CG Times (WN),fs=412,fe=32,fc=31,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=100,f2=31,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=CG Times (WN),fs=412,fe=0,fc=281,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=302,ip=302,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=100,f2=281,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=CG Times (WN),fs=412,fe=0,fc=281,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=605,ip=605,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=100,f2=281,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=Arial MT,fs=619,fe=32,fc=281,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=66,f2=281,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=Arial MT,fs=619,fe=32,fc=281,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=302,ip=302,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=66,f2=281,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=Arial MT,fs=619,fe=32,fc=281,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=605,ip=605,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=462<0L|,bc=286,bz=66,f2=281,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=Arial MT,fs=695,fe=32,fc=280,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=2,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=4,bc=286,bz=100,f2=280,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=Arial MT,fs=476,fe=0,fc=281,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=2,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=4,bc=286,bz=100,f2=281,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=Helvetica,fs=284,fe=0,fc=283,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=2,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=0,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=4,bc=54,bz=100,f2=283,b2=54,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=Arial MT,fs=387,fe=0,fc=281,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=584,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\16,bs=0,pr=0,ll=100,ts=4,bc=286,bz=100,f2=281,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=Helvetica,fs=304,fe=0,fc=283,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=2,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=0,bu=\16,bs=0,pr=0,ll=100,ts=4,bc=54,bz=100,f2=283,b2=54,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=Arial MT,fs=387,fe=0,fc=281,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=583,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\16,bs=0,pr=0,ll=100,ts=4,bc=286,bz=100,f2=281,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1fn=Arial MT,fs=564,fe=32,fc=280,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=2,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=4,bc=286,bz=100,f2=280,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1 fn=CG Times (WN),fs=430,fe=32,fc=31,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=0,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=4,bc=54,bz=100,f2=31,b2=54,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1!fn=CG Times (WN),fs=206,fe=32,fc=31,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=0,ip=0,pl=0,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=4,bc=54,bz=100,f2=31,b2=54,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1"fn=CG Times (WN),fs=412,fe=0,fc=281,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=605,ip=605,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=4,bc=286,bz=100,f2=281,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1#fn=Arial MT,fs=619,fe=32,fc=281,hy=NO,hc=3,qm=0,sh=25,st=25,if=605,ip=605,pl=15,bu=\0,bs=1,pr=0,ll=100,ts=4,bc=286,bz=65,f2=281,b2=286,bl=0,fx=0,sd=0,sw=0,sc=0,ud=0,uw=0,uc=0,bn=1uf$$`Background Images_p$$`NamedStyle objects_$$`Presentation BackdropDs@$#[D%D%6<>Click here to type page title0000910{name=,r=16}{name=Level2,r=16}{name=Level3,r=16}{name=Level4,r=31}{name=Level5,r=31}o  4"$$DD_$$`TitleDl@$$'[!!k<>Click here to type presentation title0000910{name=,r=10}{name=Level2,r=10}{name=Level3,r=10}{name=Level4,r=25}{name=Level5,r=25}o Dl@$!!X $ $   <>Click here to type subtitle0000886{name=,r=9}{name=Level2,r=9}{name=Level3,r=9}{name=Level4,r=26}{name=Level5,r=26}o eDl@$X   <>Click here to add clip art0000886{name=,r=8}{name=Level2,r=8}{name=Level3,r=8}{name=Level4,r=27}{name=Level5,r=27}o _$$` Bulleted ListaPresentation BackdropLl@$#[D%D%6<>Click here to type page title0000910{name=,r=16}{name=Level2,r=16}{name=Level3,r=16}{name=Level4,r=31}{name=Level5,r=31}o Dl@"[U#U#<>Click here to type bulleted text0000910{name=,r=11}{name=Level2,r=12}{name=Level3,r=13}{name=Level4,r=28}{name=Level5,r=28}o _$$`2-Column BulletsaPresentation BackdropHo@$#[D%D%6<>Click here to type page title0000910{name=,r=16}{name=Level2,r=16}{name=Level3,r=16}{name=Level4,r=31}{name=Level5,r=31}o @o@$"[--<>Click here to type bulleted text0000910{name=,r=11}{name=Level2,r=12}{name=Level3,r=13}{name=Level4,r=28}{name=Level5,r=28}o @o@$"[R$$RR<>Click here to type bulleted text0000910{name=,r=11}{name=Level2,r=12}{name=Level3,r=13}{name=Level4,r=28}{name=Level5,r=28}o _$$`1 ChartaPresentation BackdropHh@$#[D%D%6<>Click here to type page title0000910{name=,r=16}{name=Level2,r=16}{name=Level3,r=16}{name=Level4,r=31}{name=Level5,r=31}o e @h@!XZu$Zu$tt <>Click here to create chart0000886{name=,r=7}{name=Level2,r=7}{name=Level3,r=7}{name=Level4,r=29}{name=Level5,r=29}o _$$`2 ChartsaPresentation BackdropHh@$#[D%D%6<>Click here to type page title0000910{name=,r=16}{name=Level2,r=16}{name=Level3,r=16}{name=Level4,r=31}{name=Level5,r=31}o e @h@=XZZ <>Click here to create chart0000886{name=,r=7}{name=Level2,r=7}{name=Level3,r=7}{name=Level4,r=29}{name=Level5,r=29}o f @h@yXZa$Za$ <>Click here to create chart0000886{name=,r=7}{name=Level2,r=7}{name=Level3,r=7}{name=Level4,r=29}{name=Level5,r=29}o _$$`4 ChartsaPresentation BackdropHh@$#[D%D%6<>Click here to type page title0000910{name=,r=16}{name=Level2,r=16}{name=Level3,r=16}{name=Level4,r=31}{name=Level5,r=31}o e @h@Xu{ { uu!<>Click here to create chart0000886{name=,r=7}{name=Level2,r=7}{name=Level3,r=7}{name=Level4,r=29}{name=Level5,r=29}o f @h@XuZZ u u<>Click here to create chart0000886{name=,r=7}{name=Level2,r=7}{name=Level3,r=7}{name=Level4,r=29}{name=Level5,r=29}o g @h@X{ u${ u$!<>Click here to create chart0000886{name=,r=7}{name=Level2,r=7}{name=Level3,r=7}{name=Level4,r=29}{name=Level5,r=29}o h @h@XZu$Zu$  <>Click here to create chart0000886{name=,r=7}{name=Level2,r=7}{name=Level3,r=7}{name=Level4,r=29}{name=Level5,r=29}o _$$`Bullets & ChartaPresentation BackdropLl@$#[D%D%6<>Click here to type page title0000910{name=,r=16}{name=Level2,r=16}{name=Level3,r=16}{name=Level4,r=31}{name=Level5,r=31}o Dl@r"[i(("i"i"<>Click here to type bulleted text0000910{name=,r=11}{name=Level2,r=12}{name=Level3,r=13}{name=Level4,r=28}{name=Level5,r=28}o e Dl@;XL$L$ <>Click here to create chart0000886{name=,r=7}{name=Level2,r=7}{name=Level3,r=7}{name=Level4,r=29}{name=Level5,r=29}o _$$`Bullets & Clip ArtaPresentation BackdropLl@$#[D%D%6<>Click here to type page title0000910{name=,r=16}{name=Level2,r=16}{name=Level3,r=16}{name=Level4,r=31}{name=Level5,r=31}o Dl@r"[i(("i"i"<>Click here to type bulleted text0000910{name=,r=11}{name=Level2,r=14}{name=Level3,r=15}{name=Level4,r=30}{name=Level5,r=30}o eDl@;XL$L$ <>Click here to add clip art0000886{name=,r=7}{name=Level2,r=7}{name=Level3,r=7}{name=Level4,r=29}{name=Level5,r=29}o _$$`Organization ChartaPresentation BackdropLa@$#[D%D%6<>Click here to type page title0000910{name=,r=16}{name=Level2,r=16}{name=Level3,r=16}{name=Level4,r=31}{name=Level5,r=31}o e!Da@!)Xoa$oa$ <>Click here to create organization chart0000886{name=,r=7}{name=Level2,r=7}{name=Level3,r=7}{name=Level4,r=29}{name=Level5,r=29}o _$$`TableaPresentation BackdropHl@$#[D%D%6<>Click here to type page title0000910{name=,r=16}{name=Level2,r=16}{name=Level3,r=16}{name=Level4,r=31}{name=Level5,r=31}o e"@l@!XZu$Zu$tt <>Click here to create table0000886{name=,r=7}{name=Level2,r=7}{name=Level3,r=7}{name=Level4,r=29}{name=Level5,r=29}o _$`Page 1k@$B#[""iii<>New Source Performance Standards,0000910{name=,r=18}{name=Level2,r=18}{name=Level3,r=18}{name=Level4,r=32}{name=Level5,r=32}o @$B [  <>Subpart Da and Db - Summary of0000910{name=,r=18}{name=Level2,r=18}{name=Level3,r=18}{name=Level4,r=32}{name=Level5,r=32}o @$B [ v v <>Public Comments and Responses 0000910{name=,r=18}{name=Level2,r=18}{name=Level3,r=18}{name=Level4,r=32}{name=Level5,r=32}o 4$ # #" " 4$""M M 4$""  4$""?&$d"#?&$d# "?&$d#";?&$d kI ?&$d vI ?J$ dkP       ?J$ dv? k  vjv\v2 2 ?2 2 v?J$ d k%!   \  ?6$delk ee ?&$d\!'!$N!#\!?&$dr 8 #` #r @$B[[ [ A!A!A!<>Air0000910{name=,r=17}{name=Level2,r=17}{name=Level3,r=17}{name=Level4,r=33}{name=Level5,r=33}o @$B[t"t"Z#Z#Z#<>Planning and Standards0000910{name=,r=17}{name=Level2,r=17}{name=Level3,r=17}{name=Level4,r=33}{name=Level5,r=33}o @$B![!K!Kk"k"k"<>Research Triangle Park NC 277110000910{name=,r=17}{name=Level2,r=17}{name=Level3,r=17}{name=Level4,r=33}{name=Level5,r=33}o ;@$B[f"kf"kL#L#L#<>Environmental Protection0000910{name=,r=17}{name=Level2,r=17}{name=Level3,r=17}{name=Level4,r=33}{name=Level5,r=33}o @$B[!$ !$ z"z"z"<>Agency0000910{name=,r=17}{name=Level2,r=17}{name=Level3,r=17}{name=Level4,r=33}{name=Level5,r=33}o @$B[N#( N#( 4$4$4$<>United States0000910{name=,r=17}{name=Level2,r=17}{name=Level3,r=17}{name=Level4,r=33}{name=Level5,r=33}o  @$B[>#>#$$$$$$<>Office of Air Quality0000910{name=,r=17}{name=Level2,r=17}{name=Level3,r=17}{name=Level4,r=33}{name=Level5,r=33}o @$B[ #2$ #2$$$$<>EPA-453/R-98-0050000910{name=,r=17}{name=Level2,r=17}{name=Level3,r=17}{name=Level4,r=33}{name=Level5,r=33}o @$B["3#"3#"""<>September 19980000910{name=,r=17}{name=Level2,r=17}{name=Level3,r=17}{name=Level4,r=33}{name=Level5,r=33}o ;A=4''4A=j%j%A=jjA=njjnA=3jtjt3?2=DdkZD}ule`YPJC81*$  &/3;ADQQQN LKEC*@1::2D/J(P"[`h mx}?=,d8DZ\!,88;=?DHKSU[dmrx     "&&&'8A=?2=DdkZD %-6<@IOTVZ _ae&f/g3i;iAiDiQaQ`QVNULLKEE>C6@-:$2/( " ;@$8[<>E0000910{name=,r=19}{name=Level2,r=20}{name=Level3,r=21}{name=Level4,r=34}{name=Level5,r=34}o @$[  <>P0000910{name=,r=19}{name=Level2,r=20}{name=Level3,r=21}{name=Level4,r=34}{name=Level5,r=34}o @$O[<>A0000910{name=,r=19}{name=Level2,r=20}{name=Level3,r=21}{name=Level4,r=34}{name=Level5,r=34}o  _BOlePartOlePres000:SummaryInformation(N  ) )P_wnu]gř֤222hr)4:cn\d$`l4FFF%ZZPP<GZZZXpb@Lnnnc@@0}Sh mPdtHcy,$8NNz`p$i͌}dmtޱ45Z() "--Z()RTimes New Roman_- ------92 e!New Source Performance Standards,5=kk^kk 42 Subpart Da and Db - Summary ofk5kk4kk^^k 42 Public Comments and Responses xwk5^^kk5l  "-- #" "M " """ $"-%"" "-%"" "-%"  %   % %      vvv% vvjv\v2 2 ?2 2 v   %  \  eee%eee\!\!#\!%\!#\!r r #r %r #r 2Times New Roman!- ------ 2 @!Air:V (2 Y#Planning and Standards|5gkl9kg2flo1oBgkogWoN 62 i"Research Triangle Park NC 27711ZN[gV[k1xV:gkg5[1|gVo21ggggg +2 H#Environmental Protectionkg9WgkZkBg61|VgBZ[B:fk 2 v"AgencygZk[g 2 0$ United Statesk:BZo2oBgBZN '2 #$Office of Air QualityBB9[Z2gB1:V2kg69Bg 2 $EPA-453/R-98-005|Bggg9BggBggg 2 "September 1998o[oBZo[V2gggf --'4-j%jjnjt3-$E}ule`YPJC81*$  &/3;ADQQQN LKEC*@1::2D/J(P"[`h mx}888^$-888;=?DHKSU[dmrx     "&&&'8--$E %-6<@IOTVZ _ae&f/g3i;iAiDiQaQ`QVNULLKEE>C6@-:$2/( " dTimes New Roman_- ------ 2 E  2 P  2 A% Courier4--4$M:\APPS\LOTUS\FLW\MASTERS\BLANK.MAS"New Source Performance Standards, METAFILEPICTN  ) )P_wnu]gř֤222hr)4:cn\d$`l4FFF%ZZPP<GZZZXpb@Lnnnc@@0}Sh mPdtHcy,$8NNz`p$i͌}dmtޱ45Z() "--Z()RTimes New Roman_- ------92 e!New Source Performance Standards,5=kk^kk 42 Subpart Da and Db - Summary ofk5kk4kk^^k 42 Public Comments and Responses xwk5^^kk5l  "-- #" "M " """ $"-%"" "-%"" "-%"  %   % %      vvv% vvjv\v2 2 ?2 2 v   %  \  eee%eee\!\!#\!%\!#\!r r #r %r #r 2Times New Roman!- ------ 2 @!Air:V (2 Y#Planning and Standards|5gkl9kg2flo1oBgkogWoN 62 i"Research Triangle Park NC 27711ZN[gV[k1xV:gkg5[1|gVo21ggggg +2 H#Environmental Protectionkg9WgkZkBg61|VgBZ[B:fk 2 v"AgencygZk[g 2 0$ United Statesk:BZo2oBgBZN '2 #$Office of Air QualityBB9[Z2gB1:V2kg69Bg 2 $EPA-453/R-98-005|Bggg9BggBggg 2 "September 1998o[oBZo[V2gggf --'4-j%jjnjt3-$E}ule`YPJC81*$  &/3;ADQQQN LKEC*@1::2D/J(P"[`h mx}888^$-888;=?DHKSU[dmrx     "&&&'8--$E %-6<@IOTVZ _ae&f/g3i;iAiDiQaQ`QVNULLKEE>C6@-:$2/( " dTimes New Roman_- ------ 2 E  2 P  2 A% Courier4--4 dC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT(Vm$0   (,!$0  0` (#(#  (@$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# ` (3$ !  (WV $   (3$ !  &0 d d<6X9`("Courier 10cpi V '    /XXEPA453/R98005<4 9Z .Courier New Regular"- (3$ !  "- TABLE A d"- <09Z 0Courier (W1) Regular =#Xd#  "- "- V dxU2%3|x<6X9`("Courier 10cpiXx6X@8;X@* `(CG TimesScalableXXw P7XP"- "- "- "- /10&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK(3$ !  'dxd( $ Figure  1  ??"@@"@@"@@ @ @ @ @   @    @    @    @     @""@$"@&"@("@*"@,"@."@0$@1$@2$@3$@4$@5$@6$@7$@8$@9$@:$@ ;  $@!<!!$@"=""$@#>##$@$?$$$@%@%%$@&@&&$@'A''$@(A(($@)B))$@*B**$@+C++$@,C,,$@-D--$@.D..$@/E/@U@/$@0E00$@1F11$@2F22$@3G334G44$@5H55$@6H66$@7I77$@8I88$@9J99$@:J::$@;K;;$@<K<<$@=L==$@>L>>$@?M??"@@M@@ANAA$@BNBB$@COCC$@DODD$@EPEEF@PFF$@GPGG@TABLE A* `(CG TimesScalableTable_A4 4?4@4@4@4"@4&@4(@4*@4,@4 .@4 0@4 45@ !  m. 9)%`|  \ h `[ g Ex0*x0*ee*mX8XXX  7U)XXdd7  8XXX8#1m. 9)%`|0 W, `[ g EWx,x,a ,-m (#(#                                                     $.h)5 $#17U)XXdXXd7  #17U)XXdXXd7  #X8XX8!# 8XXX8NewSourcePerformanceStandards, hX SubpartsDaandDbSummaryofPublicCommentsandResponsesEmissionStandardsDivisionU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyOfficeofAirandRadiationOfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandardsResearchTrianglePart,NorthCarolina27711September1998  h!X# #171XXdXXd7  #X8XX 8 #XXX DISCLAIMER x   ThisReporthasbeenreviewedbytheEmissionsStandardsDivisionoftheOfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards,EPA,andapprovedforpublication.Mentionoftradenamesorcommercialproductsisnotintendedtoconstituteendorsementorrecommendationforuse.  H   #XU)XXX8#X1X X1XXX1̜  X4XXXU)TABLEOFCONTENTS `      Vm  Vm 0     1.0SUMMARY#!!H(#.P P (#(##11Vm ݌  , Ќ  Vm  Vm0     2.0BESTDEMONSTRATEDNOXCONTROLTECHNOLOGY#!!H(#.7(#(##21Vm݌    Ќ  !  !0  0` (#(#    2.1SELECTIVECATALYTICREDUCTION(SCR)#!!H(#.7` (#` (##21!݌ X   Ќ  !  !{0  0` (#(#    2.2SELECTIVENONCATALYTICREDUCTION(SNCR)#!!H(#.;` (#` (##29!{݌ ,|  Ќ  !  !l0  0` (#(#    2.3NATURALGASREBURN#H!H!G(#.&` (#` (##211!l݌ P  Ќ  Vm  VmI0     3.0CONTROLTECHNOLOGYCOSTS#!!H(#.HH'(#(##31VmIe݌   Ќ  !  !0  0` (#(#    3.1ESTIMATEDCOSTSARETOOHIGH#!!H(#.0` (#` (##31!3݌ |  Ќ  !  !0  0` (#(#    3.2ESTIMATEDCOSTSAREREASONABLE#!!H(#.pp2` (#` (##32!݌ P  Ќ  !  !0  0` (#(#    3.3ESTIMATEDCOSTSARETOOLOW#!!H(#./` (#` (##32!݌ $t Ќ  !  !0  0` (#(#    3.4OTHERCOSTISSUES#!!H(#.XX%` (#` (##39!݌ H Ќ    0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   3.4.1FuelSwitchingCosts#!!H(#./ (# (##39݌  Ќ    0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   3.4.2EnergyPricing#H!H!G(#.88) (# (##310݌  Ќ    0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   3.4.3ProposedStandardsNotCostEffective#H!H!G(#.@ (# (##311݌ t Ќ  Vm  Vm0     4.0REGULATORYAPPROACH#!!H(#."(#(##41Vm݌ l Ќ  !  !k0  0` (#(#    4.1APPLICABILITY#!!H(#.xx!` (#` (##41!k݌ @ Ќ    B0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   4.1.1"NoNewExemptions"Policy#!!H(#.5 (# (##41B]݌  Ќ    B0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   4.1.2NOXEmissionsLimitsforExistingBoilers#!!H(#.D (# (##43B]݌  Ќ    W0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   4.1.3ExistingSourcesShouldBeExemptfromNSPS l #!!H(#.  (# (##44Wr݌̌    j0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   4.1.4ModificationCriteria#!!H(#.0 (# (##48j݌ d Ќ    e0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   4.1.5ApplicabilityinNOxAttainmentAreas#!!H(#.@ (# (##49e݌ 8 Ќ  !  !v 0  0` (#(#    4.2FUELNEUTRALAPPROACHVERSUSSUBCATEGORIZATION#!!H(#.B` (#` (##49!v ݌   Ќ    n!0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   4.2.1SupportFuelNeutralApproach#!!H(#.@@8 (# (##49n!!݌   Ќ    q"0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   4.2.2OpposeFuelNeutralApproach#H!H!G(#.7 (# (##410q""݌ d ! Ќ    t#0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   4.2.3DistinguishbetweenClasses,TypesandSizes 8!" #H!H!G(#.  (# (##414t##݌̌  !  !$0  0` (#(#    4.3PROMULGATIONSCHEDULEANDCOORDINATIONWITHICCR#H!H!G(#.D` (#` (##415!$$݌ "0$ Ќ  !  !%0  0` (#(#    4.4OVERALLMONITORING,REPORTING,ANDRECORDKEEPINGREQUIREMENTS#H!H!G(#. ` (#` (##418!%%݌ $& Ќ  Vm  Vm&0     5.0ESTABLISHINGOUTPUTBASEDFORMATFORUTILITYBOILERS#!!H(#.hhC(#(##51Vm&&݌ 0&!( Ќ  !  !w'0  0` (#(#    5.1OVERALLAPPROACH#!!H(#.$` (#` (##51!w''݌ 'T") Ќ    Q(0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   5.1.1SupportOutputBasedFormat#!!H(#.PP6 (# (##51Q(l(݌ '(#* Ќ    R)0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   5.1.2OpposeOutputBasedFormat#!!H(#.5 (# (##51R)m)݌ (#+ Ќ  !  !R*0  0` (#(#    5.2INPUTTOOUTPUTCONVERSIONASSUMPTIONS#!!H(#.00:` (#` (##54!R*m*݌ )$, Ќ    B+0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   5.2.1Supportthe38PercentBaselineEfficiency#!!H(#.X X E (# (##54B+]+݌ T*%- Ќ    R,0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   5.2.2Opposethe38PercentBaselineEfficiency#!!H(#.D (# (##55R,m,݌ (+x&. Ќ    a-0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   5.2.3SupportNetHeatRateof9,000Btu/kWh#!!H(#.xxA (# (##57a-|-݌ +L'/ Ќ    m.0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   5.2.4OpposeNetHeatRateof9,000Btu/kWh#!!H(#.@ (# (##57m..݌  Ќ    x/0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   5.2.5EfficiencyCalculationforCogenerationUnits  #H!H!G(#.  (# (##510x//݌̌  !  !00  0` (#(#    5.3GROSSVERSUSNETOUTPUTVARIABLEINEQUATION#H!H!G(#.@` (#` (##513!00݌ ,| Ќ  Vm  Vm10     6.0REVISEDSTANDARDFORELECTRICUTILITYSTEAMGENERATINGUNITS(SUBPARTDa)#!!H(#. (#(##61Vm11݌   Ќ  !  !20  0` (#(#    6.1SUPPORTTHELEVELOFTHESTANDARD#!!H(#.5` (#` (##61!22݌ |  Ќ  !  !p30  0` (#(#    6.2STANDARDISTOOLENIENT#!!H(#.((+` (#` (##62!p33݌ P  Ќ  !  !Q40  0` (#(#    6.3STANDARDISTOOSTRINGENT#!!H(#.-` (#` (##63!Q4l4݌ $ t  Ќ  Vm  Vm450     7.0REVISEDSTANDARDFORINDUSTRIALCOMMERCIALINSTITUTIONALSTEAMGENERATINGUNITS(SUBPARTDb)#!!H(#.pp2(#(##71Vm45P5݌   Ќ  !  !G60  0` (#(#    7.1EXCLUSIONS#!!H(#.` (#` (##71!G6b6݌ t  Ќ  !  !70  0` (#(#    7.2LEVELOFTHESTANDARD#!!H(#.88)` (#` (##73!767݌ H  Ќ  !  !70  0` (#(#    7.3INPUTBASEDFORMAT#!!H(#.&` (#` (##75!78݌ l  Ќ    80  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   7.3.1SupportInputBasedFormat#!!H(#.5 (# (##7588݌ @  Ќ    90  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   7.3.2OpposeInputBasedFormat#!!H(#.``4 (# (##7699݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm:0     8.0CONTINUOUSEMISSIONMONITORING(CEM)REQUIREMENTS#!!H(#.@(#(##81Vm::݌ l Ќ  !  !;0  0` (#(#    8.1GENERAL#!!H(#. ` (#` (##81!;;݌ @ Ќ  !  !<0  0` (#(#    8.2APPLICABILITYTOSMALL/SEASONALUNITS#!!H(#.9` (#` (##81!<<݌ d Ќ  !  !}=0  0` (#(#    8.3CONSISTENCYBETWEENPROGRAMS#!!H(#.0` (#` (##82!}==݌ 8 Ќ  !  !c>0  0` (#(#    8.4AVERAGINGPERIODS#!!H(#.XX%` (#` (##85!c>~>݌   Ќ    >?0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   8.4.1Support30DayAveragingPeriod#!!H(#.00: (# (##85>?Y?݌  Ќ    C@0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# `   8.4.2Oppose30DayAveragingPeriod#!!H(#.9 (# (##85C@^@݌ d Ќ  !  !GA0  0` (#(#    8.5SUPPORTELECTRONICFILING#!!H(#.-` (#` (##86!GAbA݌ 8 Ќ  !  !*B0  0` (#(#    8.6NEWMONITORINGANDPERFORMANCETESTINGREQUIREMENTS #!!H(#.` ` ` (#` (##88!*BEB݌̌  Vm  Vm!C0     9.0OTHER#!!H(#.` ` (#(##91Vm!C=C݌  Ќ  !  !C0  0` (#(#    9.1COST,ENVIRONMENTAL,ENERGY,ANDECONOMICIMPACTS#!!H(#.X X E` (#` (##91!CC݌ \ Ќ  !  !D0  0` (#(#    9.2EDITORIAL#!!H(#. ` (#` (##92!DD݌ 0  Ќ  !  !E0  0` (#(#    9.3GLOBALWARMING#!!H(#."` (#` (##93!EE݌  T! Ќ  !  !F0  0` (#(#    9.4BESTAVAILABLECONTROLTECHNOLOGY#!!H(#.5` (#` (##93!FF݌  (" Ќ  !  !nG0  0` (#(#    9.5APPLICABILITYOFTHECREDIBLEEVIDENCERULE#!!H(#.?` (#` (##93!nGG݌ !# Ќ  !  !cH0  0` (#(#    9.6ADDITIONOFTECHNICALDOCUMENTSTOTHERECORD#!!H(#.xxA` (#` (##94!cH~H݌ "$ Ќ  !  !ZI0  0` (#(#    9.7FEDERALINTERVENTION#!!H(#.(` (#` (##94!ZIuI݌ T#% Ќ     ($x& 7U)XXdXXd7    1.0SUMMARY J    TheEPAproposedamendmentstosubpartsDaandDbof40CFRpart60onJuly9,1997.ThepurposeofthisdocumentistopresentasummaryofthepubliccommentsreceivedontheproposedamendmentstosubpartsDaandDbof40CFRpart60andtheresponsesdevelopedbytheEPA.Thissummaryofcommentsandresponsesservesasthebasisforrevisionsmadetothestandardsbetweenproposalandpromulgation.  TheEPAreceived70publiccommentlettersontheproposedrulechanges.Thecommentersrepresentthefollowingaffiliations:government(5),utilityindustry(26),industrialboilerusers(13),publicinterestandenvironmentalgroups(7),privatecitizens(4),fuelproducers(11)andother(4).Thisdocumentincorporatesallthecommentsinthedocketandsomeadditionalcommentsthatwillbeaddedtothedocket.Table11presentsalistingofallpersonssubmittingwrittencomments,theiraffiliation,andtheirdocketnumber(ifavailable).Nocommentswerereceivedatthepublichearing.  0) *wddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#w,edd",dd ,dd"+  +!  +TABLE11.LISTOFCOMMENTERSONTHEPROPOSEDREVISIONSTOSUBPARTSDaANDDb G:'8"   GNumbera 7*P" 7Commenter,Addressee,TitleorDescription,etc. :-$t" :DateofDocument RH$$t"    ?1?R1 A75   ?1 ? AJ.Brax,AirQualityIntern,EnvironmentalDefenseCenter,SantaBarbara,CA  4   09/2/97 D:    @2@D2 A75    @2 @ AR.Machaver,RJAssociates,Lincoln,MA    09/3/97 D:   @3@D3 A75T   @3 @ AA.Bodnarik,ICCRBoilerWorkgroupMember,StateofNewHampshireDepartmentofEnvironmentalServicesAirResourcesDivision,Concord,NH    09/5/97 D:T   @4@D4 A758   @4 @ AG.Kamaras,Director,EnergyAdvocacyProgram,LegalEnvironmentalAssistanceFoundation,Tallahassee,FL   08/20/97 %8  %IVD01 "H "J.D.Baird,Manager,EnvironmentalServices,HuntWesson,Inc.,Fullerton,CA   08/5/97 %H %IVD02 "X  "K.Bailey,Chadbourne&Parks,LLP,Washington,DConbehalfoftheAmericanForest&PaperAssociation,Inc.  # 08/7/97 %X$ %IVD03 "h% "R.I.Zvaners,SeniorManager,EnvironmentalPolicy,ChemicalManufacturersAssociation,Arlington,VA  ( 08/20/97 %h) %IVD04 "(x* "F.W.Hottenroth,PrivateCitizen,SealBeach,CA  L, 06/19/97 %(x- %IVD05 "d . "J.W.Clarke,PrivateCitizen,Rockville,MD  8!0 08/20/97 %d 1 %IVD06 ""2 "C.W.Whitmore,Principal,WhitmoreAssociates,ShawneeMission,KS  t#4 08/19/97 %"5 %IVD07 "$, 6 "M.A.Curtis,ExecutiveDirector,NewJerseyEnvironmentalLobby,Trenton,NJ  %!8 08/21/97 %$, 9 %IVD08 "'h": "T.A.Elter,Sr.,EnvironmentalAnalyst,NiagraMohawkPowerCorporation,Syracuse,NY  ($= 08/25/97 %'h"> %IVD09 "(*x%? "R.M.Salmon,Coordinator,EnvironmentalServices/PublicWorksProjects,CityofTampa,FL  + 'B 09/5/97 %(*x%C %IVD10 " d " S.Shell,Manager,Environmental,Safety,andHealth,LockheedMartinUtilityServices,Inc.,Paducah,KY  4  09/5/97 % d %IVD11 " t "T.J.Porter,Director,AirQualityManagement,WheelabratorEnvironmentalSystems,Inc.,Hampton,NH  D  09/5/97 % t  %IVD12 "  "G.K.Crane,ExecutiveVicePresident,Environmental,OgdenProjects,Inc.,Fairfield,NJ  T, 09/5/97 % %IVD13 "  "M.Zannes,President,IntegratedWasteServicesAssociation,Washington,DC  h  09/5/97 %  %IVD14 "  "E.D.Yates,Sr.VicePresident,CaliforniaLeagueofFoodProcessors,Sacramento,CA  x  09/5/97 %  %IVD15 " "D.Hearth,Bracewell&Patterson,L.L.P.,Washington,DC   09/5/97 % %IVD16 "D "J.W.Dwyer,President,LigniteEnergyCouncil,Bismarck,ND   10/3/97 %D  %IVD17 "X! "J.A.Miakisz,DirectorEnvironmentalRegulatoryAffairs,NiagaraMohawkPowerCorporation,Syracuse,NY  ($ 10/2/97 %X% %IVD18 "h& "B.Mathur,Chief,BureauofAir,IllinoisEnvironmentalProtectionAgency  d <( 10/7/97 %h) %IVD19 "!* "A.Lee,SeniorStaffEnvironmentalEngineer,Texaco,Inc.,Beacon,NY  "x, 10/3/97 %!- %IVD20 "$. "B.A.Craig,Director,UtilityandEnvironmentalRegulatoryAffairs,NaturalGasSupplyAssociation,Washington,DC  &\2 10/6/97 %$3 %IVD21 "'4 "L.J.Becker,EnvironmentalAnalyst,SanDiegoGas&Electric,SanDiego,CA  (6 10/3/97 %'7 %IVD22 "(*!8 "N.L.Morrow,ExxonChemicalAmericas,Houston,TX  *!: 10/6/97 %(*!; %IVD23 " d " S.B.PeirceSandner,KPEnvironmentalServices,EastmanKodakCompany,Rochester,NY  4  10/6/97 % d %IVD24 " t "N.Stafki,SeniorEnvironmentalAnalyst,NorthernStatesPowerCompany,Minneapolis,MN  D  10/3/97 % t  %IVD25 "  "N.Ford,SierraClub,OhioChapterEnergyCommittee,Cincinnati,OH  X  10/7/97 % %IVD26 " "J.J.Mayhew,AssistantVicePresidentEnvironmental&PolicyAnalysis,ChemicalManufacturersAssociation,Arlington,VA  d<  10/8/97 % %IVD27 "  "T.Romero,U.S.GeneratingCompany,Bethesda,MD  x  10/7/97 %  %IVD28 " "B.E.Ramsey,ExecutiveDirector,AnthraciteRegionIndependentPowerProducersAssociation,Lemoye,PA   10/7/97 % %IVD29 " "D.W.Marshall,StaffAttorney,ConservationLawFoundation,Concord,NH    10/7/97 %! %IVD30 "T," "K.A.Colburn,Director,AirResourcesDivision,NewHampshireDepartmentofEnvironmentalServices,Concord,NH  % 10/7/97 %T,& %IVD31 "d <' "G.Schaefer,Director,GovernmentIssue&Analysis,ARCOCoalCompany,Denver,CO   "* 10/7/97 %d <+ %IVD32 "t#L, "R.L.White,VicePresident,EnvironmentalServices,TexasutilitiesServices,Inc.,Dallas,TX  %/ 10/7/97 %t#L0 %IVD33 "&\1 "E.S.Roy,VicePresident,IntercontinentalEnergyCorporation/R.D.Ain,SeniorVicePresident,CogenTechnologies  )5 10/7/97 %&\6 %IVD34 "h*@!7 "M.Spurr,LegislativeDirector,InternationalDistrictEnergyAssociation,Washington,DC  ,": 10/7/97 %h*@!; %IVD35 " d " M.R.Robida,ManagerAirQuality,AmericanElectricPower,Columbus,OH  ` 8 10/7/97 % d %IVD36 "  "M.J.Ruffatto,President,NorthAmericanElectricPowerGroup,Ltd.,GreenwoodVillage,CO  p H 10/7/97 %   %IVD37 "  "C.Seidlits,President&CEO,AssociationofElectricCompaniesofTexas,Inc.,Austin,TX  X  10/7/97 % %IVD38 " "S.M.Ruffin,EnvironmentalServicesDepartment,SouthCarolinaElectric&GasCompany,Columbia,SC  h  10/7/97 % %IVD39 "  "M.C.Hall,Manager,LegislativeandRegulatoryAffairs,TrigenEnergyCorporation,WhitePlains,NY  x  10/7/97 %  %IVD40 " "P.Glaser,AttorneyatLaw,Doherty,Rumble&Butler,Washington,DConbehalfofF.D.Palmer,GM&CEO,WesternFuelsAssociation,Inc.,Denver,CO  \ 10/8/97 % %IVD41 " "R.L.Brubaker/C.F.Barry,AttorneysatLaw,Porter,Wright,Morris&Arthur,Columbus,OHonbehalfofOhioEdisonCompany  h@# 10/8/97 %$ %IVD42 "% "D.J.Jezouit,CounseltotheClassof'85RegulatoryResponseGroup,Baker&Botts,LLP,Washington,DC  x!P( 10/8/97 %) %IVD43 ""* "T.L.Fisher,Chairman,AmericanGasAssociation/Chairman,NaturalGasCouncil;L.D.Hall,Chairman,InterstateNaturalGasAssociationofAmerica;L.O.Ward,Chairman,IndependentPetroleumAssociationofAmerica;M.E.Wiley,Chairman,NaturalGasSupplyAssociation  '1 10/8/97 %"2 %IVD44 "@) 3 "R.Cooper,SeniorVicePresident,GovernmentRelations,AmericanGasAssociation,Arlington,VA  *!6 10/8/97 %@) 7 %IVD45 " d " R.C.Kaufmann,Director,AirQualityProgram,AmericanForest&PaperAssociation,Washington,DC  4  10/8/97 % d %IVD46 " t "CoalitionforGasBasedEnvironmentalSolutions,Arlington,VA  p H undated % t  %IVD47 "  "F.W.Brownell/C.S.Harrison,Hunton&Williams,Washington,DConbehalfofUtilityAirRegulatoryGroupandtheNationalMiningAssociation  T, 10/8/97 % %IVD48 "  "S.H.Segal,CounseltotheCouncilofIndustrialBoilerOwners,Bracewell&Patterson,LLP,Washington,DC  d<  10/8/97 %  %IVD49 "  "S.Hedman,EnvironmentalLaw&PolicyCenter,Chicago,IL  x  10/8/97 %  %IVD50 " "J.Grumet,ExecutiveDirector,NortheastStatesforCoordinatedAirUseManagement(NESCAUM),Boston,MA   10/8/97 % %IVD51 " "M.S.Brownstein,Esq.,EnvironmentalPolicyManager,AirQuality,PublicServiceElectricandGasCompany,Newark,NH  l" 10/8/97 %# %IVD52 "$ "B.Green,EnvironmentalManager,KennecottEnergyCompany,Gillette,WY  & 10/8/97 %' %IVD53 "8!( "M.W.Stroben,Manager,EHSTechnicalAnalysisCorporateEnvironment,Safety&Health,DukeEnergyCorporation,Charlotte,NC  #, 10/8/97 %8!- %IVD54 "%. "C.Johnson,DeputyCommissioner,NewYorkStateDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation,Albany,NY  &1 10/8/97 %%2 %IVD55 ",(3 "A.W.Hadder,Manager,EnvironmentalPolicyandCompliance,VirginiaPower  )5 10/8/97 %,(6 %IVD56 " d "M.G.Dowd,McGuire,Woods,Battle&Booth,L.L.P.,Richmond,VAonbehalfofP.J.Margaritis,SeniorVicePresident TractebelPower,Inc.,Houston,TX    10/9/97 % d %IVD57 "p H "M.J.Wax,DeputyDirector,InstituteofCleanAirCompanies,Washington,DC  D  10/7/97 %p H  %IVD58 "  "D.Heminway,AssistantDirector,Citizens'EnvironmentalCoalition,Medina,NY  T, 9/29/97 % %IVD59 "  "L.E.Watkins,Jr.,GeneralCounsel,SunflowerElectricPowerCorporation,Hays,KS  d<  undated %  %IVD60 "  "L.S.Beal,Director,EnvironmentalAffairs,InterstateNaturalGasAssociationofAmerica,Washington,DC  tL 10/8/97 %  %IVD61 " "J.L.Woolbert,EngineeringAssociate,EastmanChemicalCompany,Longview,TX   10/7/97 % %IVD62 " "D.Marrack,M.D.,FortBendMedicalClinic,Houston,TX    10/4/97 %! %IVD63 "T," "W.R.Watson,Sr.EnvironmentalProfessional,IllinoisPowerCompany,Decatur,IL  % 10/6/97 %T,& %IVD64 "d <' "A.Deshmukh,EnvironmentalSpecialistAirQuality,OccidentalChemicalCorporation,Dallas,TX   "* undated %d <+ %IVD65 "t#L, "P.Bailey,Director,HealthandEnvironmentalAffairs,AmericanPetroleumInstitute,Washington,DC  %/ 10/9/97 ,t#L0 ,IVD66 )&\1 )A.Titus,A.Bisantz,PrivateCitizens,Batavia,NY ,X'03 ,7/1/97&&\4 G  &a0  ThedocketnumberforthisrulemakingisA9271.0) 5(#(#   * 6    2.0BESTDEMONSTRATEDNOXCONTROLTECHNOLOGY ԛ    Ӝ  2.1SELECTIVECATALYTICREDUCTION(SCR) ̜  SeveralcommentersraisedconcernsthatthedeterminationthatSCRrepresentsthebestdemonstratedtechnologyisnotadequate.Followingisasummaryoftheircomments,andtheEPAsresponse.̜  Comment:Coalfiredindustrialboilers.CommentersIVD23 b  andIVD26statedthattheEPAshouldnotconsiderSCRasthebestdemonstratedtechnologyforcoalfiredindustrialboilers.CommenterIVD23recommendedthatadequatepilotplanttestingbeconductedfortheseboilers.CommenterIVD31addedthat itisdoubtfulwhetheranyoftheSCRunitsthatEPApointstocouldoperateunderanemissionlimitthislow.CommenterIVD23notedthatSCRisinstalledononly7coalfiredunitsintheU.S.,allofwhichareelectricutilityunits.Inaddition,noneofthe200EuropeanandJapaneseunitswithSCRcitedbytheEPAareindustrialunits.BecausetheEPAhascitednoindustrialunitsthatuseSCRsuccessfully,CommenterIVD23assertedthatthistechnologyisnotadequatelydemonstrated.̜  CommenterIVD48statedthattheEPApresentednoevidence ( ofanycoalfiredindustrialboilersthatemploySCR.Thislackofdemonstratedtechnology doesnotsupportimpositionofSCRastheminimumNSPScontrollevel.ThecommenterrecommendedthattheEPAconsiderthepotentialproblemsassociatedwithSCR,includingcosts,catalystpoisoning,andoilashcoatingthecatalyst,whenfinalizingtheNSPS.ThecommentersuggestedthatthestandardsforcoalandoilfiredboilersbebasedontheuseoflowNOxboilers,stagedcombustion,and/orselective x'"8 noncatalyticreduction(SNCR)whichhavehadsomedemonstrationinindustrialunits.  TwomajorproblemscitedbyCommenterIVD60were 2+&> deactivationofthecatalystfromalkalisulfates,andexcesssulfurtrioxide(SO3)inthefluegas.Thecommentercontended > thattheEPAcasuallydismissedalkalipoisoningwithoutjustification.Accordingtothecommenter,excessSO3canlead j toincreaseddownstreamcorrosionandnegativeimpactsontheheatrateoftheunit.  CommentersIVD38andIVD41statedthat therelevanttechnologicalartisimmature...standardsrootedinitwillnotbeattainableonasustainedbasisunlesstheyareflexible,andthattheresultsoftheEPA'sexaminationofSCRandSNCRwereinconclusive.CommenterIVD38addedthattheflexibilitywouldneedtoaccountforvariabilitiesintheempiricaldata,andneed toaccommodatephenomenaaboutwhichtheEPAhasnodata.CommenterIVD63remarkedthat"thestandardssetinthisrulemakingarebeyondtheenvelopeoftoday'stechnology."  CommentersIVD32andIVD37statedthatthecoalfiredandnaturalgaspowerplantscouldnotmeeta0.15lb/MMBtustandardwithoutimplementingcostlySCRtechnology.ThecommenterremarkedthatthereportedcasesofsuccessfulSCRapplicationsareextremelylimited,withsuccessbeingmeasuredonthebasisofshorttermperformanceandwithoutcostconsiderations.̜  Coalfiredutilityboilers.CommenterIVD52statedthat  T, SCRhasonlybeenappliedtocoalfired[utility]boilersoverthatpasttwoyears.Thecommenteraddedthatthisis indicativeofadevelopmentalphaseoftechnology,notingthat #2 thesesamplesizesarenotvalidforanyverifiablestatisticalcomparisons.ThecommenteralsonotedthatthereappearstobeadiscrepancybetweenwhentheEPAstatedthatSCRandSNCRtechnologies havebeenappliedwidelytocommercialscalegasandoilfiredsteamgeneratingunitsandwhentheEPAexplainedthatstatisticalanalysisofcombustioncontrolwasnotperformed 2+&> sinceeither(1)noapplicableoperatingsubpartDaunitsareknowntoexist,or(2)duringdevelopmentoftheproposal,longtermCEMdatawereunavailable.   ,|   AppropriatenessofSCRatpulpandpapermills.Commenter j IVD45indicatedthatSCRisnotappropriateforindustrialboilers,particularlycombinationboilersatpulpandpapermillsthatburnwoodandfossilfuels.Thecommenterexplainedthatboilersatpapermillsaresubjecttowide,suddenchangesinloadthatcomplicatetheuseofSCR.Otherpotentialproblemsincludehighparticulateloadings,highpotentialforsulfurpoisoningofthecatalyst,anddifficultyinmaintainingthetemperaturesnecessarytominimizeNOXandHAPgeneration. Z    Residualoilfiredboilers.CommentersIVD19andIVD65  statedthattheEPA'sdatahavenotdemonstratedthatSCRtechnologyreducesemissionsfromresidualoilfiringsteamgeneratingunitsfortheDbstandard.Therefore,thecommentersrecommendedthattheEPAretainthecurrentstandardof0.30lbNOX/MMBtu.CommenterIVD19added,thatiftheEPAinsistsona " singleperformancestandardof0.20lbperMMBtu,thattheEPAallowforanannualaveragingperiodforthisperformancestandard.  Response:Thefirstissueraisedbyseveralofthe * commentersisthatEPAsdeterminationthatSCRrepresentsBDTforarangeofboilertypeandoperatingconditionsisnotadequate.TheEPAdisagreesandbelievesthedatabasethatsupportstheBDTdecisionisadequatefortworeasons.First,theproposaldatabaseresultedfromanextensivereviewontheavailabledomesticandinternationalSCRunitsinuseintheindustryatthepresenttime.However,inresponsetothecomments,theEPAhasobtaineddatafromthreemoreutilityboilersthatutilizeSCRandrepresentarangeofoperatingconditionsandcoaltypes.Thefirstutilityboiler(U.S. 2+&> GeneratingCompanysLoganplant)isa225megawattpulverizedcoalcogenerationfacility,andisoperatedundercyclingconditions.Thisfacilitysubmitted3monthsofNOxemission ,| datatoEPA.TheanalysisofthesedataindicatethatthefacilityiscapableofachievingtheinputbasedNOxstandardof   0.15lb/MMBtuandtherevisedoutputbasedstandardof1.6lb/MWhona30dayrollingaverage.(Seesection5.2foradiscussionofthedevelopmentoftherevisedoutputbasedstandard.)ThesecondplantistheBirchwoodPowerFacility(jointlyownedbySouthernEnergyIncorporatedandCogentrix),whichwasdescribedinPowerEngineering(December1997,pp.2830).Birchwoodisa l  240megawattcogenerationfacilitywithcyclingloadthatbeganoperationin1996.BirchwoodisrequiredtomeetaNOxemission  standardof0.10lb/MMBtuona30dayrollingaverage.ActualtestresultsshowthatthefacilityachievesNOxemissionsof &v 0.77lb/MWhatlowloadconditions,easilyattainingtheoutputbasedstandard.Thethirdfacilityisa464megawattutilityboilerfiringbituminouscoal(StantonEnergy,Florida).Thisfacilityiscurrentlymeetingitspermittedemissionlimitof0.17lb/MMBtu.IfthisfacilityweretoimprovetheperformanceofitsSCRto0.15lb/MMBtu,thisfacilitywouldbecapableofmeetingthe200ng/J(1.6lb/MWh)outputbasedlimit.  Second,thisdatabaseisadequatetoevaluatethefactorsthatcanpotentiallyaffectSCRperformanceinawiderangeofoperatingconditions.AccordingtothesubpartDaBackgroundInformationDocument(BID),theperformanceofanSCRsystemisinfluencedbysixfactors:fluegastemperature,NH3/NOXratio, %^ 4 NOXconcentrationattheSCRinlet,gasflowrate,andcatalyst L&!6 condition.LowtemperaturesresultinafailureorslowdowninNOXreduction,whichisaparticularissuewhentheboileris ($: operatingatalowloadcondition.Fundamentally,likeallpostcombustioncontroldevices,SCRisdesignedtorespondtothe D+&> characteristicsofthestackgas.Theprimarydifferencebetweenutilityandnonutilityboilertypesmaybethat,onaverage,nonutilityboilersmaybemorelikelytooperatewithfluctuatingloads.Thisdifferenceinoperatingpatternmayappeartohaveanimpactonthecharacteristicsofthestackgas.However,theNSPSisbasedona30dayaveragingperiodtoaccommodatenormalfluctuationsinperformance.Further,asdiscussedabove,newanalysesoftwofacilitiesthatoperateundercyclingconditionshaveshownthatSCRcanmeettheproposedstandardovera30dayaveragingperiod.TheBirchwoodfacilityreportsdailycyclevariationsfrom32percentto100percentofload.TheLoganfacilitysdailycyclesrangedfrom28percentto84percentinthe3monthperiodforwhichdataweresupplied.  AnotherloadrelatedtechnicalissueraisedinthecaseofpulpandpaperisthedifficultyinmaintainingthetemperaturesnecessarytominimizeNOxandHAPgeneration.Ingeneral,while R designinganSCRsystemforaboiler,theboilerdutyistakenintoconsideration.Specifically,theexpectedtemperaturerangeattheexitoftheeconomizerisfactoredintotheselectionofanSCRcatalystformulation.  ThereareotherstepsthatoperatorscantaketoensurethedesiredSCRperformanceundervariableorlowloadconditions.Forexample,iflowloadcontributestoinsufficientgasvelocitytokeeptheflyashinsuspension,theoperatorcanaddanashhoppertodiverttheashfromthereactorandcatalystface.Alternatively,goodductworksystemdesigncanavoidtheseproblems.Also,lowboilerexittemperaturescanbeavoidedbyaddingaeconomizerbypasstokeepthegastemperaturehigheratlowloads.Finally,goodfluegasmixingcanovercomedifferencesingasflowsandboilerfiringconditions.(Robinson,T.AndCroteau,P., AdaptingtheGermanCoalFiredSCRExperiencetotheU.S.PresentedattheCouncilof 2+&> IndustrialBoilerOwnersNOXControlXIConference,February  1998.)Takingintoconsiderationalloftheabove,ingeneral,theEPAdoesnotbelievethatSCRuseisconstrainedbyboilerduty.  SeveralcommentersraisedcatalystpoisoningasanillustrationthatSCRisnotsuitableforallunits.#XU)XXX4} #X8XXXU)Asaresult  6  ofdevelopmentsincatalysttechnology,formulationsarecurrentlyavailablethatminimizetheimpactofpoisoning.Nevertheless,the#XU)XXX8i#X4XXXU)ԀEPAbelievesthisissueisreallyrelatedto |  thecostofoperatingtheSCR;catalyst;appropriatecatalystmanagementplansnowmakeitpossibletomaximizecatalystlifeunderplantoperatingconditions.  AnotherissueraisedbycommentersisthattheSCRtechnologyisimmatureandinsufficientlydemonstrated.TheEPAdisagreeswiththiscomment.Onerecentstudy(Khan,S.,etal, SCRApplications:AddressingCoalCharacteristicConcerns.PresentedattheEPRIDOEEPACombinedUtilityAirPollutantControlSymposium,August1997)identifiedatleast212worldwideSCRinstallationsoncoalfiredunits,whichcoverdifferenttypesofboilerssubjectedtovaryingoperatingconditionsandfiringavarietyofcoals.SomeoftheseinstallationsweredesignedforandhaveachievedhighNOXreductionlevels, * exceeding90percent.PlantsinEuropehavebeencontinuouslyusingSCRforover10years.(Robinson,T.,andCroteau,P., AdaptingtheGermanCoalfiredSCRExperienceintheU.S.PresentedatPowerGenInternational97,December1997.)Finally,SCRequippedunitslocatedintheU.S.,suchastheLogan,Birchwood,andStantonfacilitiesaremeetingsomeofthemoststringentNOXlimitsinthecountry. T'"8   Comment:Coalrelatedissues.CommenterIVD47provideda (#: rigorousdescriptionofwhatwouldlegallybeconsidered"adequatedemonstration",andconcludedthattheproposedNSPSarenotadequatelydemonstratedforallU.S.coals,particularly L,'@ mediumandhighsulfurcoals.Previously,thecommenterhadurgedtheEPAnottobasetheNSPSonundocumentedexperienceinGermanyorJapan.ThecommenteralsorejectedtheDepartmentofEnergyPlantCristhighsulfurcoaldemonstrationprojectbecauseofitslimitedscope.CommenterIVD60reportedthesamecomment.  Additionally,CommenterIVD47claimedthatEPAsanalysisofU.S.coalusageismisleading.Thecommenternotedthat"EPAclaimsthathighsulfurcoaltechnicalissuesareirrelevant,because85%ofthecoalfiredinthisnationhas2%orlesssulfurcontent."TheEPAreportedcoalconsumptiononamassbasis,whichisbiasedtowardhighmoisture,highashcontentcoal.ThecommenterindicatedthatcoaluseshouldbedepictedonaBtubasis.Additionally,thecommenterstatedthatcoaluseshouldbedescribedonaregionalbasis.Thecommenterclaimedthatananalysisbasedonheatvalueandregionalconsumptionwouldshowthat48percentofthecoalburnedeastoftheMississippiishighsulfurcoal.  CommenterIVD63addedthattheJapanesedemonstrationisonlowdustenvironmentusingahotsideelectrostaticprecipitator(ESP),comparedtomostoftheU.S.boilerswhichusecoldsideESP's.  Response:TheEPAdisagreesthattheuseofSCRforhigh  T, sulfurcoalapplicationsisunsupported.AsnotedintheAcidRainPhaseIINOxRuleResponsetoCommentsDocument(p.171),in "0 additiontoonecoalfiredplantinJapanandanotherinAustriafiringcoalswithsulfurcontentsof2.5percentofhigher,therearetwocoalfiredSCRinstallationsintheU.S.,ChamberWorksandKeystonePlantsinNewJersey,thatarefiringcoalswithsulfurcontentscloseto2percent.Northampton,whichisequippedwithSNCR,successfullyburnswastecoal,andmeetssomeofthemoststringentNOxlimitsintheU.S.(0.10lb/MMBtu).In 2+&> thePlantCristdemonstrationproject,catalystsfromvarioussuppliersperformedsuccessfully.Criteriaforsuccessfulperformanceatthisdemonstrationincludedammoniasliplessthan5ppmandSO2oxidationlessthan0.75percent. j   InviewoftheexperiencebothintheU.S.andabroad,thecommentersconcernsovertheuseofSCRforhighsulfurcoalapplicationsisunsupported.Ingeneralfortheseinstallations,designfeaturessuchaslowammoniaslip,acatalystthatminimizesSO3conversion,andaneconomizerbypasstomaintain   properfluegastemperaturesatlowloadsareprovided.  ThecommenterssaidthattheNSPSwasnotadequatelydemonstratedfortherangeofU.S.coals,particularlymediumandhighsulfurcoalsandthatEPAsanalysisofU.S.coalusageismisleading.First,EPAsanalysisdidspecificallyaddressmediumandhighsulfurcoals.Forexample,page612ofSubpartDa'sBIDestimatesanindirectcostfactorof1.45,whereitstatedthat FortheapplicationofSCRtoboilersburningmediumtohighsulfurcoals,indirectcostsmaybegreaterthan45percentoftheprocesscapitalduetofactorsdiscussedinChapter3.Inanycasethekeyissueistheimpactthatburninglowergrade,highersulfurcoalshasonSCRperformance.Onceagain,thisismoreofacostissuethanaperformanceissue,becausethemajoreffectofburningsomecoaltypesisthattheSCRcatalystmaywearoutmorequicklyorthatproblemssuchaspluggingofthecatalystoradditionalcleaningrequirementsmayaddtothecostsofusingSCRinsomeapplications.Thisissueisdiscussedfurtherinsection3.3.  OnecommenteralsosaysthattheJapanesedemonstrationisonlowdustenvironmentusingahotsideESP,comparedtomostU.S.boilers,whichusecoldsideESPs.Onceagain,thisisacatalystlifeissue .  )D%<   2.2SELECTIVENONCATALYTICREDUCTION(SNCR) i J+&>   OthercommentersarguedthatSNCRwasnotadequatelydemonstrated.  Comment:Fluidizedbedcombustionboilers(FBCs). ,| CommenterIVD56reportedthatSNCRhasnotbeenadequatelydemonstratedforuseoncirculatingFBCs.CommenterIVD56addedthat"duetotheinherentlylowcombustiontemperatureofcirculatingFBCs,SNCRcannotworkproperlyonthattypeofboilerunlesstheboilerisoperatingatitsmaximumcapacityrate."Thecommenterexplainedthatthefluegasmustbe,generally,between1700$Fand1800$F,inorderforthechemical .  reactionthatremovesNOXtooccur.Further,CommenterIVD56 l  reviewedtheEPAquestionnaireandfoundthatthreeofthefiveϜcirculatingFCBsthatuseSNCRstatedthatSNCRdidnotworkproperlywhentheunitswereoperatedatanythinglessthanmaximumcapacity.CommenterIVD56concludedthisdiscussionbystatingthatthe EPAhasnobasiswhatsoeverforextrapolatingϜdataobtainedfromtheapplicationofSNCRtoothertypesofboilerstoconcludethatSNCRisappropriateemissioncontroltechnologyforcirculatingFBCboilersthatcycletheirload.̜  Largeboilers.CommenterIVD56commentedthatSNCR has J& notbeenadequatelydemonstratedtoworkonlargeboilers[witharatedcapacitygreaterthan390MMBtu/hr],whethercirculatingbedornot.CommenterIVD56reviewedthedataandreportedthattheratedcapacityoftheFBCboilersusingSNCRthatwereanalyzedbytheEPAindevelopingtheproposalrangedfrom389MMBtu/hrto290MMBtu/hr.ThecommenterconcludedbystatingthatSNCRcannotbeconsideredanadequatelydemonstratedemissioncontroltechnologyforFBCboilersgreaterthan390MMBtu/hrratedcapacity.  Response:AccordingtothesubpartDbBID(p.343),flue ($: gastemperaturesexitingthefurnacecanrangefrom1,200$C )D%< 110$C(2,200$F200$F)atfullloaddownto1,040$C70$C 2+&> (1,900$F125$F)athalfload.Atsimilarloads,temperatures  canincreasebyasmuchas30to60$C(50to110$F)depending > ontheextentofashdepositiononheattransfersurfaces.Duetothesevariationsinthetemperatures,itisoftennecessarytoinjectthereagentatdifferentlocationsorlevelsintheupperfurnaceorconvectivepassforeffectiveNOXreduction.Arecent  6  publicationsummarizedthesuccessfulretrofitofretractablelancesona100MWecoalfiredutilityboilerequippedwithSNCR,whichgreatlyimprovedlowloadperformance.(Hunt,T.,et.al, UsingRetractableLancestoMaximizeSNCRPerformance.PresentedattheEPRIDOEEPACombinedUtilityAirPollutantControlSymposium,August1997)Finally,asnotedinthesubpartDbBID,theadditionofhydrogenorotherhydrocarbonreducingagentcanbeinjectedwiththeNH3tolowertheeffective & temperaturerange.Similarly,additivescanincreasethetemperaturerangeofurea#XU)XXX4Q#X8XXXU)application.Bytakingthesesortsof R steps,theEPAbelievesthatoperatorscansuccessfullyoperateSNCR,evenunderlowloadconditions.#XU)XXX8#X4XXXU)  "    RecentanalysisofNOxemissionsdatafroma110megawatt, 8$ baseloaded,circulatingfluidizedbedboilerequippedwithSNCR(U.S.GeneratingCompanysNorthamptonplant)indicatesthatthefacilityisquitecapableofmeetingtheproposedstandard.Thisfacilityachievesaverageinputbasedemissionsof0.089lb/MMBtuandoutputbasedemissionsoflessthan0.8lb/MWh,wellbelowtheoutputbasedstandardof1.6lb/MWh.̜  RegardingSNCRonlargeboilers,theAcidRainPhaseIINOx #2 ResponsetoCommentsDocument(p.212)notesthatSNCRhasbeendemonstratedoncoalfiredunitsaslargeas1,230MMBtu/hr(Germany)andonoilfiredunitsaslargeas2,900MMBtu/hr(NiagaraMohawksOswegoStation).TheSNCRapplicationonOswegoshowsthatinjectorscaneffectivelypenetratethecombustiongasflowinlargeboilers.SincetheeffectivenessofinjectingSNCRreagentintolargeboilercasingshasbeenproven, L,'@ andSNCRhasbeenappliedtoavarietyofboilers,theEPAdoesnotseeboilersizeasarestrictionforapplyingSNCRtoNSPSsources.  2.3NATURALGASREBURN Z j   Comment:CommentersIVD19,IVD20,IVD61andIVD65   recommendedthattheEPArecognizenaturalgasreburn,aswellasSCR,asthedemonstratedtechnologybasisforSubpartDasources.ThecommenterspointedoutthatthisapproachwouldbeconsistentwiththeAcidRainNOXprograms.     CommenterIVD61listedseveraladvantagesofreburntechnologyovertheaddoncontrolsproposedbytheEPA:0  (1)lowercapitalcosts(onethirdtoonehalfofSCR); (#(# 0  (2)minimalboilermodificationsrequired; (#(# 0  (3)lowermaintenancerequirements; (#(# 0  (4)nocostlycatalysts; (#(# 0  (5)nodowntimeforcatalystreplacement,and; (#(# 0  (6)demonstratedeffectivenessoncoalfiredindustrialboilersintheU.S. (#(# ThecommentersaidthatEPAsassertionthatthemaximumpotentialemissionreductionsfromthistechnologyisonly50percent,andthereforelessthantheothertechnologiesconsidered,isinerror.ThecommentersaidthatthereareatleastfivecommercialinstallationsofthereburntechnologyintheU.S.,andtheyareachievingNOXemissionreductionsof5877 B!. percent.Inaddition,coal,naturalgasandotherfuelscanbeutilizedinthefuelrichzone.  Response:CommenterIVD61referstoapaperfromthe $L 4 August1997EPRImegasymposium, FieldExperienceReburnNOxControl,whichpresentstheresultsoffivefullscaleretrofitapplicationsofreburntechnology.Thepaperdescribesdesignconsiderationsandadvantagesofthetechnology.Oneunitisbeingequippedwithanitrogenagentinjectionsystem,whichis 2+&> expectedtoreachofgoaloftotalNOxof0.15lb/millionBtu(todatehasachieved0.2lb/millionBtu).OthercommenterswereworriedthatEPAsapparentexclusionofreburnisbasedonfaultyrationaleandcontradictsacidrainrulemakings,whichplaceSCRandreburnonthesamelevelofeffectiveness.  TheEPAagreesthatreburntechnologymaybeaviablealternativetoSCRinsomesituations.Asstructured,theNSPSwouldnotprecludeapplicationofthisorotherinnovativetechnologies,solongastheymeettheemissionstandard.However,theEPAbelievestheexistinganalysissupportingSCRisadequateforpurposesofsupportingtheselectionofBDT.  Z      *3.0CONTROLTECHNOLOGYCOSTS     SeveralcommentsaddressedthecostanalysisperformedbytheEPAinsupportoftheproposedstandards.  3.1ESTIMATEDCOSTSARETOOHIGH   Comment:CommenterIVD39remarkedthattheEPA'sNOX  6  controlcostsaretoohighandgavetworeasonswhy:(1)the $ t  controlcostsshouldnotbebasedonaddoncontroltechnologies;(2)theutilizationoftheindustrialboilersisunderestimated.̜  CommenterIVD57assertedthattheEPAhasoverestimatedthecostofpostcombustionNOXcontrols,andthataggregate l  costsoftheproposedstandardswouldbelessthantheEPAestimates.TheEPAcitescostsof2.13.3mills/kWhandcosteffectivenessestimatesof$1,4602,270/tonforSCRoncoalfiredelectricutilityboilers.ThecommentercitesoneunitwhereactualSCRcostsare0.98mills/kWhandapproximately$1,200/ton.ThecommenteralsostatesthattheEPAhasnotconsideredrecentstridesinreducingreagentuse,andoperatingcost,forSNCRinstallations.Thecommenterreferstoonecoalfiredutilityboilerthatreducedreagentuseby50percentthroughacontrolupgrade,includingcontinuousammoniaandtemperaturemonitors,improvedcontrolhardwareandsoftware,andadditionalinjectorpressurecontrols.  Response:TheEPAconsideredboththeuseofaddon B!. controlsandprocessmodifications,includingfuelswitching,atproposal.ThatanalysisshowedthataddoncontroltechnologyrepresentedBDTinthiscase.TheEPAsanalysisdidconsidertheutilizationrateofindustrialboilers,whichcontributedtotheselectionofahigheremissionlimit(0.2lb/MMBtuvs.0.15lb/MMBtu).AsforcommenterIVD57'sexample,EPAexpectsthatcostsofoperatingSCRwilldecreaseasfacilitiesgainexperienceinmaintainingandoperatingtheseunits.However, 2+&> EPAbelievestheoverallcostanalysispresentedatproposalfairlyrepresentsaveragecoststotheindustry.  3.2ESTIMATEDCOSTSAREREASONABLE   Comment:CommentersIVD19,IVD20,IVD26andIVD65 j voicedsupportoftheAgency'sconclusionthatadditionalcontrolsfornewgasfiredanddistillateoilfiredunitsarenotcosteffective.CommentersIVD19,IVD26andIVD65added"thatisnotclearwhetherEPAhastakenintoaccountthecostof"scopeadders"intheconstructionofanewboilerorreconstructionofanexistingone."Bothcommentersexplainedthatthe"scope"oftheprojectreflectsreconstructionoftheboilerand"scopeadders"mayincludesignificantsitework,reroutingoflines,relocationofotherequipment,and/orthecostsofshuttingdownproduction.Thecommentersaddedthatthesecostsmayadd100percenttothecostsofsimplyconstructingorreconstructingthe[same]boiler(atadifferentsite).  Response:TheAgencyappreciatesthefeedbackfromthe " commenters.Retrofitcostswereincludedinthecostestimation,asnotedinDocketItemIIA21,App.A,page43.̜  3.3ESTIMATEDCOSTSARETOOLOW   Comment:CommenterIVD47contendedthattheEPAcost * estimatesforSCRintheproposedruleweremuchtoolow,andthatthecostanalysiswasinadequate.ThecommenterstatedthattheEPAextrapolatedtheircosts"fromanearlierstudythathadverydifferenttechnicalpremisesforSCR."Thisearlierstudyfocusedonretrofitcostsforexistingplants,anddidnotconsidersitelayout,withboilerconditionsnottypicalofnewunits.ThecommenterreportedthattheEPAestimatesofSCRcapitalcostsareonly65percentofrecentlyestimatedvaluesthatweresummarizedatanEPADepartmentofEnergy(DOE)ElectricPowerResearchInstitute(EPRI)technicalconference. 2+&> Thecommenterassertedthatthe"EPAhasnotmettherequirementsof111andshouldwithdrawitsNSPSproposal."ThecommenterrecommendedthattheEPAanalyzeoptionsotherthanSCRforcoalfiredboilers,andthen"determinewhetheranSCRstandardforcoalfiredunitsisappropriate."  CommenterIVD37reportedthatSCRsystemsrequiremoreenergytooperateduetoapressuredropassociatedwiththecatalystbed.Thecommenterstatedthat"byeffectivelyrequiringtheuseofSCRforsolidfuelfiredunits,EPAisencouragingtheuseofanenergyintensiveemissioncontrolmethodtoachievemarginallylowerNOXemissions..."Inaddition l  totheadditionaloperationalcosts,CommenterIVD37reportedthatthereisfoulingofairheatersurfacesbyammoniumsalts,andwastedisposalcostsforthespentcatalyst.  CommentersIVD23andIVD45pointedoutseveralcostsassociatedwithSCRandfuelswitchingforcoalfiredindustrialboilersthatwerenotconsideredbytheEPAcostestimates.CommenterIVD23provideditems(1)through(5)andCommenterIVD45provideditem(6).0  (1)ThereareseveralcomponentsinU.S.coals(e.g.,alkalinemetals,heavymetals,chlorine,andfluorine)thatcouldsignificantlyshortenthecatalystlife.TheEPAestimateassumedacatalystlifeof5years.Ifthelifespanisreducedto23years,theeffectisadoublinginthecostofthecatalyst,whichisalreadyestimatedtobe30percentoftheSCRcostwitha5yearlifespan. (#(# 0  (2)AshfromSCRinstallationswillhavedifferentcharacteristics,suchashighernitrogencontent,andmayhaveadditionalregulatoryrequirementsandcosts. (#(# 0  (3)SulfurincoalandammoniafromtheSCRcanreacttoformammoniumbisulfate,whichcanplugairheaters.Othercalciumandammoniumsaltscanfoulthecatalyst.The 2+&> commenterstatedthatthecostsofthesemaintenanceproblemswereapparentlynotconsideredintheproposal. (#(# 0  (4)ThecostsassociatedwithstoringlargequantitiesofammoniafortheSCRwerenotadequatelyconsidered.Healthandsafetyhazardsandthepotentialforleakswillnecessitatealarmsystemsandevacuationplans.Additionally,ammoniacancause"fogging"ofphotographicfilm,soSCRwouldbehighlyundesirableatfilmmanufacturingsites. (#(# 0  (5)SCRrequiressignificantopenspaceforthecatalystbed.ThecommenterbelievedthatnewlyconstructedunitscouldaccommodateSCRthroughadvanceplanning.However,forexistingunitslocatedindenseindustrialfacilities,thelackofspacepresentsatechnicalfeasibilityissue. (#(# 0  (6)TheEPAdidnotconsiderthesignificantcostsassociatedwithhandlinganddisposalofspentammoniacatalystfromSCRinstallations. (#(#   CommenterIVD45alsowrotethattheEPAsestimatethatSCRwouldcost$2,000/tonwas"significantlyunderstated."Thecommenterexplainedthatmostpapermillshavesmallersizedandlowercapacityboilersthanelectricutilityunits.ThesesmallerboilersareexpectedtohaveamuchhighercostpertonofNOXreductionassociatedwithSCR.Thecommenterstatedthat  T, "theestimateof$2,000/tonisstilltoohightobeconsideredcosteffectiveforcontrolofacriteriapollutantlikeNOX." "0 М  CommentersIVD26andIVD61didnotagreewiththecosteffectivenessvaluesthattheEPAcalculatedforNOXcontrol $L 4 technologyforcoalfiredindustrialboilers.Thecommenterscitedabestcontroltechnology(BACT)analysisconductedbyaStateregulatoryagencyforaPreventionofSignificantDeteriorationApplicationwrittenin1992.CommenterIVD26quotedthereporttostate:"intransferringSCRtechnologyfrom 2+&> thecommercialapplicationsinJapantoEuropeansources,technicalproblemsarose..."CommentersIVD26andIVD61quoted"itcanbeexpectedthatalmosteveryapplicationwillneedtobeverifiedinapilotplant...Therefore,SCRispresentlynotconsideredtechnicallyfeasible,andthusnotBACT,fortheproposedproject."CommenterIVD26summarizedthefollowingtechnicalconcernsthatresultedfromthe1992BACTanalysis:0  (1)Catalystcostsare"overhalfoftheoperatingandmaintenancecosts..." (#(# 0  (2)ThereactionofSO3withammoniatoformammonium l  bisulfate,whichinturncanfoulthecatalystanddownstreamequipment,and; (#(# 0  (3)Thedifferenceincoalcharacteristicsbetweenforeignanddomesticcoals. (#(#   Inadditiontothecitationsfromthe1992BACTanalysis,CommenterIVD26reportedthefollowingconcernswiththeEPA'sownevaluationoftheuseofSCRforNOXcontrolforcoalfired " industrialboilers.0  (1)TheAgency'sanalysiswasbasedonsevencoalfiredutilityboilerswithSCRintheEasternUnitedStatesonly.TheAgencydidnotdemonstrateasolutiononindustrialboilersforallofthecoalcharacteristicsthatwillbeencounteredintheUnitedStates. (#(# 0  (2)Technologiesutilizedforutilityboilers,especiallymultiplecontroldevicesthatincreasetheriskofbreakdowns,arenotalwaysdirectlytransferabletoindustrialboilers.Thisisbecauseofthedifferentoperatingandmaintenancepracticesbetweenthetwosources.CommenterIVD26explainedthattheunplannedshutdownforautilityboilercanbemanagedbyshiftingtheelectricpowergenerationtootheravailableunitsofpower,which 2+&> canbeboughtfromaregionalpowergrid.However,inthecaseofindustrialboilers,thesteamdemandofthechemicalmanufacturingoperationcannotbemet,whichresultsinshuttingdownthechemicaloperationsandinconsiderableeconomicpenalty. (#(#   CommenterIVD16addedthattheEPAhasnotdemonstratedanywherethatSCRorSNCRcanbeusedcosteffectivelywithNorthDakotalignite.ThecommenterrecommendedthattheEPAnotproceedwiththerulemakingprocessuntilitcanadequatelydemonstratethatSCRandSNCRtechnologiesarecosteffectivewithavarietyofcoalsincludinglignite.  CommenterIVD53statedthatthecosteffectivenessvalueforcoalunitsusingSCRiscalculatedusingabaselineNOX  emissionrateof0.45lb/MMBtu,whichinturn, artificiallyinflatesthecosteffectivenessofSCRfornewcoalfiredunits.ThecommenterstatedthatlowNOXburnerscan easilymeeta R 0.30lb/MMBtuNOXemissionrate.Thecommenterrecommendeda   higheremissionstandardintherangeof0.20to0.25lb/MMBTUforallfuelsources.  Response:SeveralcommenterssaidthattheEPAscost J& estimatesunderstatedSCRcostsandfailedtorepresenttherangeofboilerconditions,particularlyindustrialboilers,intheU.S.TheAgencyissatisfiedthattheproposalcostanalysisadequatelyrepresentstheaveragenationwidecoststocomplywithBDTfornewsources,andhasnotrevisedtheanalysisatpromulgation.However,theAgencywilltakethisopportunitytorespondtothelessgenericcommentssummarizedabove.  CommenterIVD47speculatedthattheEPAextrapolatedcostfromanearlierstudyanddidnotaccountforallthecapitalcostsoftheSCRsystem.PleasenotethatBIDcostestimateswererevisedinamemorandumdatedJune10,1997explainingthatthecostswerebasedonmorerecentinformationobtainedbythe 2+&> AcidRainDivision'scostestimatesfromtheirdraftreportentitled CostEstimatesforSelectedApplicationsofNOXControl > TechnologiesonStationaryCombustionBoilers.TheEPAcostestimatesforSCRusedintheimpactsanalysis,andsummarizedinthepreamble,weredifferentthanthoseusedintheBID.Thecostsinthepreambleandimpactsmemoranda(DocketItems,IIB8,IIB9,andIIB10)weremadeusingactualbaselineemissionsfromtheplanned,newunitsinthecountry.  InresponsetothecommenterwhosaidthatSCRistooenergyintensive,theEPAnotesthatadetailedregulatoryimpactanalysiswasperformed.TheEPAbelievesthattheenergyimpactsofSCR,whichareonly0.4percentoftheboileroutput,arejustified.  TheAgencyoffersthefollowingresponsetoaddressCommenters'IVD23andIVD45sixitems:  (1)TheassertionthatEPAbasedcostsona5yearcatalystlifeisincorrect.TheEPAused3yearsforcoalfiredunits.  (2)TheAgencyrealizesthatashfromSCRinstallationswillhavedifferentcharacteristics(highernitrogencontent)andadditionalregulatoryrequirementsandcosts.TheAgencydidaccountfordifferenttypesofcoal,withvaryingashcontents,inthecostinganalysis.  (3)TheAgencyrealizesthattherearedownstreameffectsfromSCR.Thecostestimatesincludedindirectcoststhataccountedfortheseeffects.Further,sinceproposal,theAgencyhasreceivedcostestimatesfromtwofacilitieswithSCRthatvalidatetheAgencyestimates.TheindirectcostsofSCRmaintenance,ammoniaandcatalystmanagementwereestimatedtobeapproximately1percentofEPA'stotalSCRcapitalcosts.(MemotoProjectFile, IndirectSCRCosts.)  (4)TheadditionalstoragecostsforammoniawereconsideredintheindirectcostsofSNCRandSCR.Because 2+&> anhydrousammoniahasbeenusedsafelyformanyyearsintheU.S.inavarietyofindustrialandagriculturalapplications,theEPAbelievesthatanysafety,environmental,oroperationalconcernscanbefullyaddressedbyproperplanninganddesignoftheammoniahandlingsystem.TheseconcernsarenotafactoragainstadoptingtheemissionlimitsthatarebasedonSCR.  (5)ThisregardingspaceconstraintsissimilartoCommenters'IVD19,IVD20,IVD26andIVD65commentabout"scopeadders"addressedabove.  (6)SpentcatalystcostswerealsoaddressedintheindirectcostsofSCR(BIDforSubpartDb,page611)  CommenterIVD26raisedconcernsabouttheabilityofindustrialunitstooperatereliablywhenequippedwithSCRandtheresultingcostimpactsofdowntimeduetocontroldevicemalfunctions.WhiletheAgencyrealizesthatcontroldevicesdomalfunction,andinfact,accountedforextramaintenancecostsofSCR,bothprocessandcontroldevicemalfunctionsareafactoflifeinanycomplexoperation.Thisiswhymanyfacilitiesareequippedwithbackuporstandbyboilers.Inthecaseofamalfunction,theNSPSprovisionswouldnotapplyduringtheperiodofthemalfunction,assumingthesourceactedtorepairthemalfunctionassoonaspracticable.  WithrespecttoCommenterIVD16'scommentregardingtheuseofSCRorSNCRwithNorthDakotalignite,theEPAscostestimatesdidprojectcostsforligniteuseanddidnotfinditsimpactsdifferentfromtheimpactsofusingdifferentcoaltypes.(DocketItemNo.IIA33.)  Regardingbaselineemissionrate,modelplantsusedahigheremissionrate(0.45.b/MMBtu),buttheimpactsanalysispresentedinthepreambleusedemissionratesbasedonprojectedpermitlimits,whicharelower.Thereisalsoatradeoffinassumingahigheremissionratecomparedtoalowerratewhenlookingat 2+&> costeffectiveness.HigherbaselineemissionswouldrequirealargerSCRandmorecatalyst,whichwouldincreasethecostsideoftheequation.LowerbaselineemissionswouldrequireasmallerSCR,butwouldresultinlowerpotentialemissionreductionsfromthecontrols.  Comment:CommenterIVD52arguedthatEPAprovidedan  6  inadequatebasisforitsconclusions,particularlytheEPA'sassumptionthatbecausegasandoilfiredunitsarenotexpectedtoneedSCR,itwasnotcostedfortheseunits.Thecommentertookexceptiontothisassumptionbecause insufficientdataispresentedtowarrantsuchassumptionsandexclusions.ThecommenteralsostatedthatEPAmustprovidecompletecostandperformancemodels.  Response:Asstatedpreviously,theEPAissatisfiedthat & theproposalcostanalysisadequatelyrepresentstheaveragenationwidecoststocomplywithBDT.BecausegasandoilfiredunitsshouldbeabletoperformclosetoorattheNSPSemissionlimits(particularlyinthecaseofindustrialboilers)withlowNOxburnersorothercombustioncontrols,thebasisfortheEPAs  \$ statementinthepreamblewastheEPAsassumptionthattheseunitswouldchoosetoeitheruseSNCRtomeetthelimitortosimplyimprovetheefficiencyoftheirexistingsystems.TheEPAdidcostSNCRandSCRforoilandgasfiredutilityunitsintheproposalBackgroundInformationDocuments,butsincetheEPAwasimplementingthephilosophyofa"fuelneutral"approachthecosteffectivenesscalculationswereconductedbasedonprojectedcoalfiredsteamgeneratingunitsusingcoal.  3.4OTHERCOSTISSUES t/ԛ̜  3.4.1FuelSwitchingCosts / x'"8   Comment:CommenterIVD23notedthatthecostsoffuel ($: switchingwerenotanalyzedintheproposal.Thecommenterestimatedthatnaturalgascostsmorethantwiceasmuchascoal 2+&> (onaBtubasis)whenpurchasedona"curtailmentbasis"(whichfavorsresidentialcustomersoverindustrialcustomersduringshortages).Naturalgassuppliedona"noncurtailmentbasis"wouldbeprohibitivelyexpensive.ThecommenteradvisedtheEPAthatcapitalretrofitcoststoaccommodateaswitchfromcoaltonaturalgasmaybesignificantforsomeindustrialunits.  Response:Thefuelneutralformatoftheproposedstandards $ t  wouldallowfortheuseofnaturalgas,butwouldnotrequireitincaseswherethecostsofusingnaturalgasexceededthecostsofmeetingthestandardusingalternativemeans,i.e.,theapplicationofSCRorothersimilartechnology.̜  3.4.2EnergyPricing 3 Z    Comment:CommentersIVD24andIVD42notedthatthe  МEPA'seconomicanalysisusedanelectricityratestructurewithaveragecostsbecausemanycorporationsownmultiplefacilities.Bothcommentersagreedthatwithutilityderegulationandrestructuringinthenearfuture,theaveragingofcostsoverseveralfacilitiesisoutdated,unreasonable,andunacceptable.Additionally,CommenterIVD42statedthat"evenifEPA'sanalysiswerecorrect,thattotalannualizedcostsare2.13.3mills/kWhforSCRonacoalfiredunit,thisdoesnotjustifyrequiringsuchtechnologybasedoncost."  Response:TheAgencyseconomicanalysisusedprojected  T, energyratesfromtheDOEsEnergyInformationAdministrationfor1996through2000toserveasthebaselineandprojectedtheincrementalincreaseinelectricityratesforeachyeartobeequaltotheweightedaverageofcompliancecostsacrossaffectedutilityboilers.Thisnationallevelapproachdoesnotaccountforthemorelocalnatureofmarketsunderregulatedmonopolyorderegulation.However,theuncertaintyregardingwhichcustomerswouldbesubjecttohigherratesandthefuturecompetitioninelectricityprovisionnecessitatedthisnationallevelanalysis. 2+&> InSection5oftheRIA,theAgencystatesthatitsapproach"willunderstatetheexpectedincreaseinmarketpricesunderregulatedmonopolyandunderstateoroverstateexpectedpriceincreasesforspecificcustomersduetotheuseofaveragenationalpriceofelectricityandmeasureofcompliancecosts."ThetotalannualizedcostsfromEPAsengineeringcostanalysisvaryfrom0.13to2.9mills/kWhascomparedtotheprojectednationalelectricitypriceof69.0mills/kWh.Althoughbeyondthescopeoftheeconomicanalysis,theAgencydoesexpectthatpricechangesinlocalmarketsunderregulatedmonopolyorderegulationwillvaryaccordingtotheactualcostsincurredbytheutilityboilerservingsthesemarkets.  3.4.3ProposedStandardsNotCostEffective )<    Comment:CommenterIVD48notedthattheincrementalcost & effectivenessnumbersforindustrial,spreaderstokercoalfiredboilerswithSCRandcombustioncontrolsversuscombustioncontrolsaloneareexorbitantandtotallyunjustified.Thecommenterrecommendedthatthestandardberevisedtoimposelimitswhichreflectdemonstratedtechnologyatareasonablecost.  CommenterIVD26quotedcosteffectivenessvaluesforNOX ( removalwithSCRfromaBACTanalysisconductedin1992tobe$11,541/tonofNOXremoved,ascomparedtotherangequotedin  T, Table3oftheNSPS,whichwas$1,4602,270.ThecommenterconcludedthatthecostsoftheSCRforNOXcontrolfor "0 industrialcoalfiredboilersiscurrentlynotcosteffective.  CommenterIVD61statedthatthedocketdoesnotsupporttheEPAsconclusionthatSCRiscosteffectiveforcoalfiredunits.Table4(62FR36953)showstherangeofcosteffectivenessforSCRonindustrialunitsas$0$4,800pertonNOXremoved.Theaverageisshownas$2,030.However,Table3 )D%< (62FR36951)showstherangeofcosteffectivenessforcoal 2+&> firedindustrialunitsas$1,590$8,700perton.ThecommenterwasunabletolocatethebasisfortherangesinTable3.Inthebackgrounddocument,NewSourcePerformanceStandard,SubpartDb ,| ЄTechnicalSupportforProposedRevisionstoNOXStandard,Table | C1showsarangeof$2,780$29,950pertonforincrementalcosteffectivenessforcombustioncontrolsandSCRversuscombustioncontrolsaloneatcoalfiredmodelboilers.ThecommenternotedthatthevaluesinTable3(62FR36951)appeartohavebeentakeninerrorfromthe"CostEffectiveness"columnratherthatthe"IncrementalCostEffectiveness"columninTableC1.ThecommenteralsopointedoutthatthevaluesinTable4(62FR36953)arebasedonanestimateof381newindustrialunitsinthenext5years,andthatonly22ofthesewereprojectedtobecoalfired.Becausethegasanddistillateoilunitswouldnothaveanycontrolcosts,thelowaverageof$2,030obscuresthehighcostsincurredbythefewcoalfiredunits.  Response:CommenterIVD48listedasexorbitantallofthe   incrementalcosteffectiveness(CE)numbersforindustrialcoalfiredboilerswithSCRandcombustioncontrolsversusalltheotherpossiblecontroloptions.However,onlytheincrementalCEofSCRwithcombustioncontrolsversuscombustioncontrolsaloneisrelevant,becausethebaselinelevelofcontroliscombustioncontrols.Thereforethisscenarioistheappropriatebasisforcomparison.  CommenterIVD26comparedtheCEvaluefroma1992BACTanalysisconductedbyaStateagencytothatcalculatedbytheEPAforthisNSPSrevision.TheEPAstandsbehinditsoriginalCEcalculationanddoesnotdeemtheCEtobeexorbitant.  CommenterIVD61'sreportofbeingunabletolocatethebasisfortherangesinTable3isunderstandable.TheEPArealizesthatthederivationofthevaluesinTable3ofthepreamblemaynothavebeendocumentedadequatelyforthe V+&> proposal.TheCEvaluessummarizedinTable3ofthepreambleoriginatedfromtheimpactsmemoforsubpartDb,DocketItemIIB9,Table8.ThecostdataintheBIDTablesC1andC2arefortherangeofboilersizesandcapacityfactors.TheEPAdeterminedthatthecapacityfactorof0.1wastoosmallforcoalfiredboilers,thereforethecosteffectivenessvaluesfromallcoalfiredboilerswiththiscapacityfactorwerenotusedinthecostanalysisorsummarizedintheTable3ofthepreamble.  CommenterIVD61'sspeculationthatthenumbersinTable3ofthePreamblearethe"CostEffectiveness"valuesfromtheBIDinsteadofthe"IncrementalCostEffectiveness"valueswasincorrect,eventhoughitmayhaveappearedthatway.TheEPAusedtheoverallCEnumberswiththecurrentNSPSlevelofcontrolasthebaseline.  CommenterIVD61notedthattheCEvaluesinTable4obscurethelargercoalCEvaluesbecausetheyrepresentasmallerportionofthenewboilerprojections.ThehighnumbersinTable4areCEvaluesforoilfiredboilerswheretheCEvaluesforcoalfiredboilersarewithintherangelistedinTable4.  Comment:CommenterIVD31statedthatEPAaddressedcoal ( firedpowerplantsthatuseSCRtechnologyforthecostanalysis,butfailedtoacknowledgeotherhighperformancepowerplantsthatdonot.ThecommentercitedtheexampleoftheNeilSimpsonIIunit,whichisan80MWconventionalboilerthathasonlylowNOxburnersandachievedanoutputbasedemissionrateof0.18lb/millionBtuinthesecondquarterof1997.CommenterIVD31calculatedthecosteffectivenessoftheNeilSimpsonIIunitusingtheEPA'scostestimateandtheoperationaldatafromthesecondquarterof1997,whichwasextrapolatedtooneyear.Thecommenterreportedthat"theresultsofthisanalysisshowedthattheincrementalcostofreducingNOXwouldbeintherangeof 2+&> $10,600to$16,625perton.ThecommenterquotedthePresident'saddressontheImplementationofRevisedAirQualityStandardsforOzoneandParticulateMatterwhenhesaid:"Itwasagreedthat$10,000pertonofemissionreductionisthehighendoftherangeofreasonablecosttoimposeonasource."  Response:TheEPAappreciatesthedataprovidedbythe  6  CommenterIVD31,however,theEPAdidcostacomparablysizedunit.IntheNationalImpactsMemorandum,DocketitemIIB8,theEPAestimatedthecostimpactsofcontrollingNOXemissions   froman80MWboiler.Thenationalimpactswerecalculatedfromactualfacilitydata,andtheNOXemissionsfromthisunitwere l  controlledwithSNCR.TheEPAwouldnotassumethatSCRwouldbecosteffectiveonsuchasmallunitthatisoperatingatlowboileroutletNOxlevels. &   Comment:CommenterIVD31statedthatthecost d effectivenessofNOXcontrolsonutilitysteamgeneratingunits R isincorrect.ThecommenterexplainedthattheNSPSrepresentsasignificantrelaxationofstandardsfromtheNSRlimitsfornaturalgasunits;therefore,thereshouldbenoincrementalorannualizedcostsfortheseunits.ThecommenterarguesthattheappropriatebaselineforthecostanalysisshouldbetheNSRprogram,nottheNOxlevelsbeingachievedwithtechnologiestomeetthecurrentNSPS.  Response:TheEPAusedtwodifferentbaselinesinits B!. analyses.InthemodelplantanalysistheexistingNSPSlevelofcontrolwasthebaselineused.However,fortheimpactsanalysis,theresultsofwhicharepresentedintheproposalpreamble,thebaselinelimitsusedwerecurrent/expectedpermitlimits,whichweremorestringentthanthebaselinelimitsusedforthemodelplantanalysispresentedintheBID.Further,newunitstendtohavelimitsbasedonNSRdecisions,andtheEPAbelievesthatthelimitsusedfortheimpactsanalysisreflect 2+&> NSRdecisionsinmostcases.  > +*   4.0REGULATORYAPPROACH eZ   4.1APPLICABILITY Z  4.1.1"NoNewExemptions"Policy Z j   Comment:CommenterIVD49recommendedthattherule   "expresslystatethat[the]NSPSmustbemetincaseswhereautilityplantistransferredtoanewowner."CommenterIVD49referredtothisconceptas"nonewexemptions."Thisrecommendationwasmadeinresponsetothederegulationoftheelectricityproductionindustry.Thecommenterspeculatedthatutilitieswillstarttomarketelectricityfrom"grandfathered"(preexisting,andthereforeexemptfromtheNSPS)powerplantstocustomersoutsideoftheirserviceterritories,and,insomecases,sellentirepowerplantstootherutilitiesorindependentpowerproducers.  CommenterIVD49recommendedthattheEPAadopta"nonewexemptions"policyintwoareas:0  (1)Theruleshouldrequireutilitiestocountallemissionincreasesattributabletooffsystemsaleswhencalculatingincreasedemissionsassociatedwithamajormodification.EPAcurrentlyexemptsemissionincreasesattributabletoincreaseddemandinautility'sserviceterritory,becauseoftheutility'sobligationtoserve.Thisrationaledoesnotapplyinthecaseofoffsystemsales,whicharewhollydiscretionary.Ifautilitymakesamajormodificationtoupgradeaplanttosellpoweroutsideofitsserviceterritory,thecostsofthatdecisionshouldbebornebytheutility'sstockholdersnottheenvironment.RequiringsuchautilitytocountallemissionincreasesattributabletooffsystemsalesasincreasedemissionswouldtriggerthenewNSPSforNOx,therebypreventingtheutilityfrom )D%< externalizingatleastsomeenvironmentalcostsassociated 2+&> withpowerplantNOXemissions.(#(# 0  (2)Theruleshouldalsoexpresslystatethat[the]NSPSmustbemetincaseswhereautilitypowerplantistransferredtoanewowner.Whenautilitypurchasesapowerplantfromanotherutilityasishappeningwithincreasingfrequencythepowerplantis"new"fromtheperspectiveofthenewowner,and[the]NSPSshouldapply.Inthistypeofsituation,thenewownerhasachoicebetweenpurchasingapowerplantorbuildingapowerplant.Inthelattercase,theplantwouldhavetomeet[the]NSPS.Toexempttheformer"newsource"from[the]NSPSwouldbecontrarytotheexpresspurposeofTitleIVoftheCleanAirAct,toreducetheadverseeffectsofNOxemissionsfrom  fossilfuelcombustionbyimplementingstandardsofperformancethatreflectimprovementsinmethodsforreductionofNOXemissions.R(#(#   Response:TheCleanAirActitselflimitsthescopeof   changesconsideredmodificationto anyphysicalchangein,orchangeinthemethodofoperationof,astationarysourcewhichincreasestheamountofanyairpollutantemittedbysuchsourceorwhichresultsintheemissionofanyairpollutantnotpreviouslyemitted.[Section111(c)(4)]Section60.14oftheSubpartAGeneralProvisionsprovidesadditionalguidanceonEPAsinterpretationofthisdefinition,andspecificallyexcludeschangesinownershipofanexistingfacilityfrombeingconsideredamodification.Inaddition,akeyaspecttothedefinitionofmodificationisthatthechangetothefacilitymustresultinanemissionsincrease.Iftheowneroroperatorcanoffsettheincrease,anNSPSmodificationisnotestablished.  ThecommenteralsonotedthattheEPAcurrentlyexemptsemissionincreasesattributabletoincreaseddemandinautility'sserviceterritory,becauseoftheutility'sobligation 2+&> toserve.Thecommentersaidthatthis exemptionshouldnotapplyinthecaseofoffsystemsales,whicharewhollydiscretionary.TheEPAbelievesthattheguidingexemptionistheabilityofthesourcetoincreaseitsloadincaseswhere:(1)theincreasecanbeaccomplishedwithoutacapitalexpenditure,(2)theincreaseresultsfromanincreaseinthehoursofoperationofthefacility,or(3)theuseofanalternativefuelorotherrawmaterialtakesplaceatafacilitythatwaspreviouslydesignedtoaccommodatethealternativeuse.Noneofthesechangeswouldbeconsideredmodifications.  4.1.2NOXEmissionsLimitsforExistingBoilers Dl l    Comment:Commenters1,4,IVD05,andIVD07statedthat Z  thenewsourcestandards"donotaddresstheoverwhelmingproblemofNOXemissionsfromutilitypowerplantsthatwerebuiltprior & to1977."Thecommenternotedthatthesesourcesconstitute70percentoftheutilityfossilfuelplants.CommenterIVD05addedthatanemissionreductionfromthesesourceasproposedintheNSPSwouldresultinroughlya75percentreductioninNOx " emissions.  CommenterIVD50recommendedthattheEPAexplorehowthecurrentproposalcanbeinterfacedwithexistingunits,whichoperatewithawiderangeofefficiencies,haveanextremelylowretirementrate,andwillcontinuetogeneratemostoftheelectricityinthefuture.  CommenterIVD33recommendedthattheoutputbasedstandardshouldbeappliedtoallexistingfacilities.Thecommenternotedthatoutputbasedstandardswouldpromoteeconomicdevelopmentbyremovingmarketbarriersfornewgenerators.Thecommenterfeltthatanoutputbasedstandardcombinedwithemissionallowancetradingmechanismswouldensurecosteffectiveemissionreductions.  Response:Thecommenterssuggestionsarebeyondthescope 2+&> ofthisrulemaking.Inanycase,NOxcontrolsdevelopedundertheacidrainprogram,theOTAGprogram,ozoneSIPcalls,etc.arealldesignedtospecificallyaddressexistingsources.  4.1.3ExistingSourcesShouldBeExemptfromNSPS r j   Comment:CommentersIVD22,IVD32,IVD35,IVD47,IV   D55,andIVD63expressedoppositiontotheapplicabilityoftheNSPStomodifiedunits.CommentersIVD32andIVD63bothexplainedthatinSection111oftheCAA,"CongresswascarefultolimittheapplicabilityofNSPStosourcesthatcouldbedesignedtoincludestateoftheartpollutioncontroltechnology."CommentersIVD32andIVD63continuedbyexplainingthat"NSPSwerenotmadeapplicabletoexistingsourcesbecauseCongressrecognizedthedifficultyandexpenseofretrofittingcontroltechnologyonsuchsources"addingthat"thecapitalcostsofretrofittingSCRatexistingnaturalgasorcoalfiredboilersarefarmoreexpensivethanthecostsofdeployingSCRatnewnaturalgasorcoalfiredboilers."CommentersIVD47andIVD55agreed.  CommenterIVD41saidthattheEPAwas actingunlawfullybyfailingtoconsiderthecoststhatwillbeincurredbyexistingsourcesthatbecomethesubjectoftheproposedNOx ( standard.Thecommenterproposedthatexistingcoalfiredsourcesarelikelytobecomesubjecttothisruleeventually,unlesstheyarespecificallyexcluded.Ifthisoccurs,theexistingsourceswillbefacedwithexcessiveretrofitcostsinordertoattainthestandard.Thecommenteraddedthatbecausetheproposedstandardswerenotbasedonsoundscience,theyconflicted withprinciplesadoptedbythePresidentandVicePresidentforReinventingEnvironmentalRegulationandendorsedthroughtheAdministratorsCommonSenseInitiative.  CommenterIVD55statedthat theinstallationofSCRonexistingunits...wouldbeeconomicallyinfeasible."Apossible 2+&> solutionproposedbyCommenterIVD55wasthattheEPAproposeastandardthatmodifiedunitscouldmeetwithoutSCR,orjustifytheuseofthesamestandardsasfornewunits.CommenterIVD47reasonedthat"sinceEPAstatesthatfewmodifiedsourceswillbeaffected,addingspecificlanguageclarifyingthatsuchunitsarenotsubjecttotheNSPSwouldraisefew,ifany,policyimplications."AnotherpossiblesolutionpresentedwasthattheEPAspecificallyexcludemodifiedboilersfromthefinalNSPS.  CommentersIVD16andIVD17statedthatmodifiedcoalfiredboilersshouldbeexplicitlyexcludedfromtheSubpartDastandard.ThereasonreportedwasbecausethecapitalcostsofretrofittingSCRtoanexistingsourceissignificantlymorethanapplyingtheSCRtechnologytoanewsource.CommenterIVD17quotedtheEPA'sestimatethatitis27percentlessexpensivetooutfitanewsourcecomparedtoretrofittinganoldplant.  CommenterIVD22statedthattheproposedNOXemission R limitwasnotdemonstratedfornongasfiredmodifiedsourcesandthatthenewlimitshouldnotapplytosourcesthatcomeundertheNSPSthroughmodification.Insituationswhereliquidorsolidfuelisfired,itisnotalwayspossibleorreasonabletocomplywiththeproposedlimit.Forinstance,thecommenterhasaresidualoilfiredboilerthatcouldnotberetrofittedtomeettheproposedstandard,andaddoncontrolswouldnotbefeasiblebecauseoflimitedspaceandunreasonablecost.  CommenterIVD35wrotethattheEPAclaimedthiswasnotaconcernintheproposal.However,thecommenterpointedoutthatEPAisaggressivelypursuingbusinessesthathavemadeefficiencyimprovementstoforcetheunitstomeetNSPSunderthemodificationprovisionsin40CFR60.ThecommenterstatedthattheEPA"clearlyhasthediscretionanddutytodistinguishbetweennewandexistingsourceswhichbecomesubjecttothisrule." 2+&>   Response:Asdescribedintheresponsetothecommentunder  section4.1.1,theGeneralProvisionsalreadyprovideseverallimitationstochangesthatmightbeconsideredmodifications.Forexample,sourcesthatoffsettheirincreasedemissionsarenotsubjecttotheNSPSbecauseofmodification.Theseprovisionsservetoeffectivelylimittheapplicationofthemodificationprovisionstoexistingsources.  Section111(b)(1)(B)oftheCleanAirAct(the Act)requirestheAdministratortopromulgatestandardsofperformancefor newsourcesineachcategoryofsourceswhichintheAdministratorsjudgmentcauses,orcontributessignificantlyto,airpollutionwhichmayreasonablybeanticipatedtoendangerpublichealthorwelfare.Section111(a)(2)oftheActdefines newsourcetoincludestationarysourceswhicharemodifiedafteranapplicablestandardofperformanceisproposed.TheEPAfindsnothinginthecommentsthatwouldjustifyignoringthisclearstatutorymandate.Indevelopingstandardsofperformance,section111(a)(1)oftheActdoes,however,allowtheAdministratortotakeintoconsiderationthecostofachievingtherequiredreductionandanynonairqualityhealthandenvironmentalimpactandenergyrequirements.Asnotedatproposal,theefficiencyofmostexistingelectricutilitysteamgeneratingplantsrangesfrom24to38percentefficient.TheEPAselected38percentefficiencyasthebaselinereflectiveofNSPSunits.TheEPAbelievesthatselectingthe38percentefficiencylevelfornewelectricutilitysteamgeneratingunitswasanappropriateexerciseofitsdiscretionbasedontheavailableinformation.TheEPArealizes,however,thatexistingunitsarelikelytooperateinthelowerendofthisrange,withhigherassociatedheatrates,whichwouldmakeitmoredifficulttomeetanoutputbasedstandard.Thesesourceswouldhavetocompensatewithhighercontroldeviceperformance(uptoa40 2+&> percentincreaseinperformance),whichwouldbemorecostly.Asaresult,asdiscussedbelowinsection5.2.2,theEPAwillallowexistingunitsthatbecomesubjecttotheNSPSbecauseofmodificationorreconstructiontomeetanequivalentinputbasedstandardof0.15lb/MMBtu.Thischangewilleliminatetheconcernthatlowerboilerefficienciesatexistingunitscouldadverselyaffectasourcesabilitytomeetanoutputbasedstandard.ThislevelofcontrolrepresentsthesameoveralllevelofSCRperformancethatwouldberequiredofnewunits,butlacksthebenefitsattributedtopromotingenergyefficiencythattheoutputbasedformatprovides.  Comment:CommenterIVD42expressedconcernthatthe Z  currentNSPS,newsourcereview(NSR),andpreventionofsignificantdeterioration(PSD)programspunishunitownersforimprovingtheefficiencyandperformanceofexistingunits.Thecommenterpointedoutthatifacoalfiredunitchangedburnersystemstoimproveheatrateandannualavailability,theownercouldbesubjecttoNSR,technologyanalysis,preconstructiondelays,administrativecosts,potentialemissioncontrolupgrades,emissionoffsets,andcompliancewiththeproposedNSPSlimit.ThecommenterproposedthattheEPA"couplethecurrentNSPSproposalforanefficiency-basedstandardwithanenforceablepolicythatphysicalchangestoexistingfossilfuelfiredsteamgeneratingunitswhichresultinareductioninthelbs/MWhofpollutantemissionswouldnottriggerNSRorPSD."Thecommenterwouldsupporttheefficiencybasedstandardifefficiencyupgradesforexistingunitswerenotpenalized.  Response:Areductioninmaximumhourlyemissionswouldnot :&!6 triggertheNSPSmodificationprovisions.AsforapplicabilityunderNSR,theapplicabilitycriteriaforutilityboilersaswellasforothersourcesisthesubjectofanongoingNSRrulemaking,whichwasproposedonJuly23,1996(see61FR38250).The 2+&> commentperiodforthatrulehasclosed,andthefinalrulemakingwilladdresstheissueofNSRapplicabilityforutilityboilersandothersources.  4.1.4ModificationCriteria ϒ j   Comment:CommenterIVD06notedthat,intheapplicability   exemptionstotherule, nomentionismadeofroutinemaintenance,repairandreplacement.Thecommenterexplainedthattheroutinereplacementofboilersteamtubesmayresultinincreasedefficiency.Thisincreasedefficiencymayincreasetheheatinputcapacity,andthehourlyemissions,giventhesameemissionsrates.ThecommenteraskedifthischangewouldmaketheboilersubjecttotherevisedNSPSasamodification.  Response:TheEPA,uponrequest,willdeterminetherules  applicabilityonacasebycasebasisinaccordancewiththerequirementsofsections60.14and60.15ofthepart60GeneralProvisions.  4.1.5ApplicabilityinNOxAttainmentAreas ,     Comment:CommenterIVD59saidthatthenewemissionlimit " isnotneededinportionsoftheUnitedStatesthatalreadycomplywithcurrentairstandardsforNOX.CommenterIVD59 J& concludedthat,incertainregionsoftheUnitedStates,theproposedlimits donotresultinanyimprovementinairquality.Further,thecommenterstatedthattheproposedrulewouldpenalizeunitswhichalready payaproductionpenaltyduetotheinstallationofthesamecontrolequipment.  Response:TheNSPSprogramisintendedtobeanational #2 programthatserves,inpart,to leveltheplayingfieldbetweensimilarsourcesandtocontributetonationwideattainment(andmaintenanceofattainment)ofthecriteriapollutants,ofwhichNOxisone.Inaddition,inrevisingthe ($: NationalAmbientAirQualityStandards(NAAQS)inJuly1997,theAgencyrecognizedtheregionalrolethatNOxemissionsplayin 2+&> ozoneformation.  4.2FUELNEUTRALAPPROACHVERSUSSUBCATEGORIZATION ך  4.2.1SupportFuelNeutralApproach ) ,|   Comment:Commenters1,IVD05andIVD07supportedacap j onNOXemissionsatthesamelevelfornearlyallfueltypes.   CommentersIVD05andIVD07reasonedthatthisallowsfuelswitchingasacontroltechnology.Commenter1addedthatitwasan"importantandpositivesteptowardcleanerair...acrosstheϜnation."  Commenters4,IVD20,IVD25,IVD29,IVD44andIVD46alsoexpressedsupportfortheproposedfuelneutralstandard.Thecommentersstatedthatcurrently,naturalgasfiredunitsaresubjecttothemoststringentstandardwhilecoalandresidualoilareallowedtoemitmuchlargerquantitiesofNOX.The & proposedrulewillremovethedisincentivetowardnaturalgasthathasbeencreated.Onecommenterwrotethatafuelneutralstandardwouldnotpenalizeanyparticularindustry,butwouldencouragecompetitionfornewefficientboilersandcogenerationunits,andwouldbeconsistentwiththeEPA'semphasisonpollutionprevention.  CommenterIVD50generallysupportedthefuelneutralproposalbecauseit"providesalevelplayingfieldfordifferentfuelsandpromotestheuseofnaturalgasandcleanoilbasedfuels,whileatthesametimeitavoidsunnecessaryburdensoncoalfiredunits."Commenters4andIVD29addedthatauniformemissionlimitisneededtoencouragefuelswitchingasacontroloption.  Response:TheAgencyappreciatesthecommenterssupport. :&!6   4.2.2OpposeFuelNeutralApproach  x'"8   Comment:CommentersIVD17andIVD31opposedthesame ($: NOXemissionlimitforallfueltypesbecause EPAsproposal )D%< setsalowerthanlowestachievableemissionrate(LAER)level 2+&> forcoalfiredboilers,whilesignificantlyrelaxingstandardsfornaturalgasunitsbyafactoroftwotofourtimes.CommenterIVD31notedthatBACTforcoalfiredboilersiscurrentlyabout0.230.25lbNOX/MMBtu,andLAERisabout0.15 j lb/MMBtu;whereastheproposedstandardappearstobe0.130.14lb/MMBtu.Further,fornaturalgasunits,BACTiscurrentlyaround0.070.08lb/MMBtuandLAERisontheorderof0.03to0.04lb/MMBtu.  CommenterIVD50notedthattheEPAisrequiringmuchlessstringentcontrolforgasandoilfiredunits.ThecommenterpointedoutthatanumberofgasandoilfiredunitsintheU.S.currentlyachieveapproximatelyonetenthoftheproposedlimitwiththeapplicationofSCR.  CommentersIVD16,IVD24,IVD28,IVD56andIVD61statedthatthe"proposalviolatestheActbyprovidinganoverwhelmingincentivefornewandmodifiedelectricgeneratingunitstoburnnaturalgastotheexclusionofcoal."CommenterIVD56continuedbystatingthat"theplainpurposeofthepercentreductionrequirementwastoprotectAppalachianandMidwesternhighsulfurcoal...byrequiringallnewmodifiedcoalfiredunitstobescrubbed."Further,CommenterIVD56reportedthattheSO2allowancetradingprogramcreatedbythe1990 * Amendmentswasintendedinparttocreateflexibilityforsourcestocontinuetousehighsulfurcoal..."CommenterIVD56recommendedthattheEPAwithdrawtheproposal.  "0   CommenterIVD24pointedoutthat"avariedmixofenergy #2 sourcesshouldbesupportedforthestabilityoftheU.S.generationsystem."Thecommenterstatedthatcoaluseshouldnotbediscouraged,andthatnaturalgascouldmeetaNOXlimit x'"8 lowerthatthoseforotherfuels.  CommenterIVD61expressedoppositiontothefuelneutralapproachbecauseoffuelavailabilityandcostfactors.The 2+&> commenternotedthatthenaturalgasindustryhasnotadequatelysuppliedareasoftheU.S.thathaveanabundantsupplyofcoal.Thecommenterstatedthatnaturalgasisnotuniformlydistributedandevenlyavailabletoallindustrialusers.Thecommenterassertedthattheproposedemissionlimit"favorsindustrialdevelopmentinregionsthathaveanamplesupplyofnaturalgasandpenalizesregionsthathavenopracticaloptionforsteamproductionatindustrialfacilitiesotherthancoal."  CommenterIVD59saidthatthefuelneutral emissionrate   mayinadvertentlybeadisbenefittotheintroductionoflowNOX @  technology.Thecommenterpostulatedthat theresultthenmightbecontinuedoperationofoldermorepollutingsourcesthanmightotherwiseoccur.  Response:TheEPAdisagreeswiththecommenterswhocontend 8 thattheproposedfuelneutralformatcreatesanoverwhelmingordisproportionateincentivetousefuelsotherthancoal.TheEPAsapproachisdesignedtoallowthecontinueduseofcoalasafuelinthosecaseswhereitisdesirable.Atthesametime,thestandardwouldnotprecludeconversiontonaturalgaswhereitmakessenseintheindividualapplication.  TheEPAbelievesthefuelneutralapproachwouldexpandthecontroloptionsavailabletoownersandoperatorsbyallowingtheuseofcleanfuelsasamethodforreducingNOXemissions.Since  f, projectednewutilitysteamgeneratingunitsarepredominantlycoalfired,theuseofcleanfuels(i.e.,naturalgas)asamethodofreducingNOXemissionsfromthesecoalfiredsteam # 2 generatingunitsmaygivetheregulatedcommunityamorecosteffectiveoptionthantheapplicationofSCRformeetingtheNOx L&!6 limit.Similarly,forindustrialunits,theuseofcleanfuelsasamethodofreducingemissionsmaybeacosteffectiveapproachforcoalfiredandresidualoilfiredindustrialsteamgeneratingunits. D+&>   Thefuelneutralapproachalsofitswellwithsection101(a)(3)oftheCleanAirActsemphasisonpollutionprevention,whichisoneoftheEPAshighestpriorities.Becausenaturalgasisessentiallyfreeofsulfurandnitrogenandwithoutinorganicmattertypicallypresentincoalandoil,SO2,NOX,inorganicparticulate,andairtoxiccompoundemissions  6  canbedramaticallyreduced,dependingonthedegreeofnaturalgasuse.Withtheseenvironmentaladvantages,gasbasedcontroltechniquesshouldbeviewedasasoundalternativetofluegastreatmenttechnologiesforcoaloroilburning.  Finally,theproposedamendmentsdonotrelaxtheexistingNSPSfornaturalgasunits.Infact,the0.15lb/millionBtuheatinputreflectsa50and25percentreductioninNOX  emissionsoverthecurrentSubpartDalimitsforoilfiredandgasfiredunits,respectively.RevisedSubpartDbwouldnotrequireanyadditionalcontrolsfornewgasfiredanddistillateoilfiredunitsoverthecurrentNSPSbecauseofthecostsassociatedwithadditionalcontrols.However,subpartDbdoesnotrelaxtheexistingstandardsfortheseunitseither.Historically,projectionsfornewutilityboilershavetendedtobeforcoalfiredunits.StricterNOXcontrolsforgasmight ( makecofiringlessattractive,whileafuelneutralapproachfacilitatesadoptionofsomenaturalgasfiring,whichhasenvironmentalandotherbenefitsoverstraightcoalburningunits.  4.2.3DistinguishbetweenClasses,TypesandSizes  #2   Comment:CommenterIVD17recommendedthattheEPA $L 4 establishseparatestandardsforcoal,oil,andgasfiredunits.ThecommenternotedthatEPAhassubcategorizedutilityboilersbyfueltypeinallpreviousNSPSforNOx.Thecommenter ($: statedthatEPAhaschosentoignoredifferencesbetweencategoriesofsources.Thecommentervoicedconcernthatthe 2+&> proposedstandardwillresultinabiastowardnaturalgasinelectricgeneration,whichcouldbeariskconsideringsupplyandavailabilityfactors.Additionally,thecommenterdidnotagreewithestablishingastandardthat"stretchesonesourcecategory(coal)tothelimitsofeconomicefficiency,whilerequiringlittlefromtheothersourcecategories(oilandgas)."̜  CommentersIVD47,IVD52,andIVD63assertedthattheEPAhasnotjustifieditsdecisiontoabandonfuelspecificstandardsinfavorofthefuelneutralapproach.Thecommentersnotedthattherewas"littlediscussionoranalysisconcerningcost,feasibilityandotherissuesregardingthesubcategorizationoftypesofcoals."CommenterIVD47notedthattheEPAsRegulatoryImpactAnalysisdidnotconsideranyoptionthatwouldhavesubcategorizedtypesofcoal,oranycontroltechnologyotherthanSCR.Thecommenterstatedthat"BecauseCongressgaveEPAdiscretiontosubcategorizeonthebasisoffueltype,andbecauseEPAhaspreviouslydeterminedthatsubcategorizationisnecessarytosatisfythe111decisionmakingcriteriainthecaseofNOXstandardsforutilityboilers,  \$ theAgencyhasanobligationtoexplainwhyithasdecidedtorejectitspriorrulemakingconclusionsthatsubcategorizationisnecessarytosatisfythe111statutorycriteria."  CommentersIVD38andIVD52notedthattheproposaldidnotdistinguishbetweenclasses,typesandsizeswithincategories.CommenterIVD52statedthattheapproachtakeniscountertoallpreviousNSPSrulemakingsforNOX,andrequested #2 thattheEPAexplainwhy.  CommenterIVD35statedthattheEPAhasnotjustifiedtherationalefornotcreatingsubcategoriesamongcoalfiredunitsbasedonfuelsulfurcontent.  Response:Pastregulatoryapproacheswerebasedonboiler )D%< modificationtechniques,whichmadefuelselectionmoreclosely 2+&> relatedtoperformancecomparedtothepostcombustioncontroltechniquesthatcomprisethecurrentlyproposedsubpartsDaandDb.TheperformancecharacteristicsoftheSCRtechnologydonotjustifythecreationofsubcategoriesbasedonsulfurcontentofcoal(althoughtheEPAhasrevisitedsomeofthecostanalysesrelatedtothecatalystlifeissue,seesection3.3.).Section111(b)(2)oftheCleanAirActallowstheAdministratortodistinguishamongclasses,typesandsizesofsources,butdoesnotrequiretheAdministratortodoso.Asdiscussedelsewhere,theEPAdoesnotbelievethattheformatoftheproposedrulescreatesabiasintheuseofnaturalgasinelectricalgeneration,butrather,providesownersandoperatorswithadditionalflexibilityinmeetingtheNOxlimit.    4.3PROMULGATIONSCHEDULEANDCOORDINATIONWITHICCR #  Comment:CommenterIVD30expressedoppositiontoany d furtherdelaysinthepromulgationandimplementationoftheproposedNOXNSPS.Thecommenterpointedoutthat"EPAshould   havepromulgatedthisNOXNSPSover3yearsagoandfurther " delaysatthistimeareunjustified."ThecommenterurgedEPAtoadopttheproposedrevisionsassoonaspossibleinordertoachieveneededreductionsinNOXemissionsfromallsectors. (   CommentersIVD30andIVD62statedthat"EPAshouldnotdelaytheimplementationoftheproposedNOXNSPSinorderto  T, coordinateitwithotherongoingactionssuchastheIndustrialCombustionCoordinatedRulemaking(ICCR)process."CommenterIVD30speculatedthattheNSPScouldbeusedasaNOXbenchmarkin #2 theICCRprocesswhenestablishingtheMACTfloor.  Incontrast,CommenterIVD47notedthatExecutiveOrder12866directsregulatoryagenciesto"avoidregulationsthatareinconsistent,incompatible,orduplicativewithitsotherregulations."CombinedcycleunitsemitNOXfromacombustion )D%< turbineandaductburner.Atthistime,thecombustionturbine 2+&> emissionsareregulatedbyNSPSSubpartGG,whiletheductburneremissionsareregulatedbySubpartDaorDb.ThecommenterstatedthatitwouldbedifficultforcombinedcycleunitstoshowcompliancewiththeproposedoutputbasedSubpartDastandard.ThecommenternotedthattheICCRisconsideringrevisingSubpartGG.ThecommenterurgedtheEPAto"undertakeaseparaterulemakingthatresultsinasinglerulethatregulatesallNOXemissionsfromsuchunits." b    CommenterIVD26explainedthattheICCRcommitteewasestablishedtocoordinatetherulemakingforindustrialcommercialinstitutionalcombustionsourcesunderSection111,112and129oftheCleanAirAct.ThecommenterstatedthattheproposedNOXwasdraftedoutsideoftheICCRprocess,and  recommendedthattheEPAdeterminehowthemodifiedNSPSwillimpacttheICCRprocessandwhethertheICCRshouldalterthescopeofitsrulemaking.  CommentersIVD45andIVD48recommendedthattheproposedSubpartDbNOXNSPSshouldbecombinedwiththeEPA'sICCR " procedure.CommenterIVD61recommendedthattheNOXNSPS  \$ proposalforindustrialcommercialinstitutionalboilersshouldbewithdrawnandconsideredaspartoftheICCR.IftheEPAissuestheproposedNSPSandtheICCRanalysisresultsinaproposalthatwouldbedifferent,theEPAwouldhavetorevisetheNSPSagain."Thiswouldcausetheregulatedcommunityunduehardshipintryingtocomplywithmultipleandpossiblydifferingcontrolrequirements."  However,Commenter3statedthattheindustrialportionoftheNOXNSPSshouldnotbeincludedwithintheICCRandgavesix :&!6 reasons:0  (1)ItisnotappropriateforeithertheU.S.EPAortheICCRtoattempttocircumventthecourtordereddeadlinesbyusingtheICCRasanexcuse.2+&>(#(# 0  (2)NOXreductionsareneededfromallsectors,including  nonutilityunits,assoonaspossibleinordertoreducethecurrentozoneproblem... (#(# 0  (3)TheEPAhasalreadyperformedanadequateanalysisoftheimpactoftheproposedNOXNSPSonasource'sabilityto   controlotherairpollutants. (#(# 0  (4)TheEPAhasalreadyperformedanadequatecostanalysisonthecostimpactsoftheruleforbothutilityandnonutilityunitsandhasalreadyproposedtosubstantiallyreducethecostimpactfornewindustrialsteamgeneratingunits,byabout70%,byproposingNOXemissionlimitat0.20 l  lb/millionBturatherthan0.15lb/millionBtu. (#(# 0  (5)TheproposedNSPScanbeusedbytheICCRboilerworkgroupasaNOXbenchmarkwhenestablishingtheMACT & floorandthereforeneednotconflictwithanyoftheworkalreadyperformedbytheICCR. (#(# 0  (6)ThesimplestwaytoavoidanyconflictbetweentheproposedNOXNSPSandtheICCRBoilerWorkgroup'sworkisto " accepttheproposedNOXNSPSastheNOXemissionlimitfor  \$ fossilfuelfiredboilerswhenestablishingtheMACTfloorfortheseunits. (#(#   Response:TheEPAisunderacourtordereddeadlineto * promulgaterevisionstotheNSPSbySeptember1998.TheJuly1997promulgationofrevisionstotheozoneNAAQSlendsincreasingurgencytothedevelopmentofnationalstandardsandothertoolsthatwillassisttheStatesindevelopingimplementationplanstomeetthenewstandards.TheNOxNSPS $L 4 revisionsareonesuchtoolthatwouldbeusedbytheStatesintheirattainmentplanning.However,theEPAagreeswithcommentersthattheoutcomeoftheNSPSshouldbeconsideredintheICCRprocess.  TheEPAagreesthatICCRdrivenrevisionstosubpartGG, 2+&> standardsofperformanceforstationarygasturbines,poseapotentialconflictwiththesubpartsDaandDbstandards,iftheyextendtheapplicabilityofsubpartGGtotheductburner,whichiscurrentlycoveredbysubpartsDaandDb.Therefore,theEPAwillrevisesubpartsDaandDbtoexemptsourcesthatmayalsobecomesubjecttosubpartGG,shouldsuchrevisionstosubpartGGoccur.  4.4OVERALLMONITORING,REPORTING,ANDRECORDKEEPINGREQUIREMENTS X  Comment:CommenterIVD01notedthatsmallunits(maximum .  heatinputof100MMBtu/hrorless,butgreaterthanorequalto10MMBtu/hr)subjecttoSubpartDchavenoNOXlimit,monitoring Z  orrecordkeepingrequirements.ThecommenterrecommendedNOX  requirementsthatareintermediatetothoseofSubpartDc(none)andthecurrentrequirementsofSubpartDb(extensive)forlowemittingunitssubjecttoSubpartDb.  Response:TheEPAbelievesthecurrentSubpartDb   requirementsaretheminimumneededtoensurecompliancewiththestandard.However,ownersoroperatorsoflowemittingboilerssubjecttotherequirementsofthisrulemaypetitiontheU.S.EPARegionalofficesforalternativemonitoringmethods,accordingtosection60.13(i)ofthepart60GeneralProvisions.TheEPAwillconsiderthesepetitionsonacasebycasebasis.  Comment:CommenterIVD21recommendedthatlanguagebe B!. addedto40CFRPart60to exemptfrommeasuringandreportinggasand/oroilfiredboilersthatcurrentlymeetanystateorlocalNOxemissionstandardthatisequivalenttoormore $L 4 stringentthanthefederalregulation.  Response:SinceStateandlocalregulationsareusuallynot x'"8 Federallyenforceable,EPAregulationsmustbeenforced.IftheState/localregulationsaremorestringentthantheapplicableEPAregulations,theaffectedfacilitiesmayindividually 2+&> petitiontheEPAforreliefunderthealternativemonitoringprovisions.Alternatively,TitleVstreamliningcancoordinatetheStateandFederalrequirements.  j ,+   5.0ESTABLISHINGOUTPUTBASEDFORMATFORUTILITYBOILERS     5.1OVERALLAPPROACH q  5.1.1SupportOutputBasedFormat  j   Comment:Severalcommenters(1,4,IVD05,IVD07,IVD   18,IVD19,IVD20,IVD25,IVD27,IVD29,IVD33,IVD34,IVD39,IVD42,IVD43,IVD44,IVD46,IVD49,IVD50,IVD51,IVD54,IVD60,andIVD65)expressedsupportfortheoutputbasedformatoftheproposedstandard.Thesecommentersindicatedthattheoutputbasedformatwouldrewardenergyefficientgenerators.  CommenterIVD39citedtheuseofthefollowingdesignoptionstoimproveefficiency:airorwaterpreheaters,economizers,fans,and/orheatexchangers.Thecommenteraddedthatitis commontodayforboilerefficiencytodeteriorateoverthelifeoftheunit,andtheefficiencycalculationwouldensurethattheoperatorproperlymaintainedtheunit."     Response:TheEPAappreciatesthecommenterssupport. "   5.1.2OpposeOutputBasedFormat   \$   Comment:CommentersIVD11,IVD17,IVD32,IVD36,IV J& D37,IVD47,IVD53,andIVD63opposedtheoutputbasedformatnotingthefollowingreasons:0  (1)Theincentivestobeefficienthaverecentlyincreasedduetothenewlycompetitivenatureoftheindustry,andwillcontinuetoincreasewithoutoutputbasedstandards. (#(# 0  (2)Theformatwouldaddsignificantburdenstoanalreadycomplicatedmonitoringsystemforutilities. (#(# 0  (3)ThereareinconsistenciesbetweentheproposedNSPSoutputbasedformatandthefollowinginputbasedregulationsalsoapplicabletothesesources:existingboilersNOXunits,sulfurdioxideandparticulatematter )D%< limits,electricgeneratingunitsunderNSPSSubpartD, 2+&> existingregulationsimplementingreasonableavailablecontroltechnology(RACT)forNOXinozonenonattainment > areas,proposedNOXlimitationsforstatesincludedinthe ,| OzoneTransportAssessmentGroup(OTAG),andtheNOX j EmissionReductionProgramunder40CFR76,andSection407oftheAcidRainProgramrequiresoutputbasedreporting. (#(# 0  (4)NOXaveragingofNSPSunitswithexistingunitswould $ t  beverycomplicated. (#(# 0  (5)Theoutputbasedformatisinappropriateandinaccurateforcogenerationfacilitiesthatproducesteaminadditiontoorinplaceofelectricgeneration.Thecommenterexplainedthatcustomersdictatethetemperatureandpressureconditionsofthesteamthatisproduced.Thegeneratorhasnochoiceandmustproducethedesiredproduct.ThecommenterindicatedthattheEPAmethodofequatingsteamproductiontoelectricproductionwasoversimplifiedandpunitiveinthatitdoesnotconsiderallofthepotentialsteamproductionconditions.Thecommenterreportedthatthiswouldincreasethecostofefficientcogeneration.Thecommenterconcludedthattheinputbasedstandardismoreappropriate,fair,andenvironmentallyprotective. (#(# 0  (6)AnoutputbasedNSPSdoesnotpromoteenergyefficiencybecauseit"makesnoallowancefortheuseoflowBtufuels(suchaswastecoal)thatwouldotherwisegounused...ByencouragingconsumptionoflessexpensivelowBtufuels,theEPAwouldpromotegenerationofelectricpoweratcostsbelowthosepresentlyrealized."CommenterIVD36addedthatnot"penalizing"utilitiesforburninglowBtufuelswouldpromotediscoveryandutilizationofthesefuels,andtherebycontributetonationalenergyselfsufficiency.Further,commenterIVD36arguedthattheproposedNSPS"is 2+&> notkeepingwithrecentutilityderegulation,"because"animportantgoalofrecentutilityderegulationwastoallowmarketforcestominimizethecostofelectricpowertoconsumers,withouterodingenvironmentalprotection." (#(# 0  (7)TheEPA'sproposalshouldencourageconsumptionoflowcostfuels. (#(#   Response:TheEPAcontinuestobelieveinthebenefits $ t  associatedwithanoutputbasedstandardfornewsourcesthatencouragesenergyefficiency.Thechangesintheoutputbasedformat,discussedbelowinsection5.2,willsimplifythecompliancedemonstrationforsourcesbyeliminatingtheneedtoconvertinputvaluestooutputvalues.While,theEPAisconcernedaboutapparentinconsistenciesinmonitoringrequirementsassociatedwithvariousprogramstowhichindividualsourcesmightbesubject,theEPAalsofeelsthattherequirementsoftheNSPSstandontheirownmerits.TheNSPSprovisionsdonotrequireanyadditionalmonitoringatsourcesbeyondwhatisalreadyrequiredbytheAcidRainprogram.Insomeinstances,theTitleVpermitprocessandactivitiessuchaspermitstreamliningmayproviderelieftosourcesonacasebycasebasis.Inaddition,theEPAwillcontinuetoexploreadditionalwaystoprovidemonitoringreliefthatdonotcompromisetheabilityofEPAtoadequatelyenforceFederalstandards.  Asdiscussedbelowinsection5.2.5,theEPAdidexaminepossibilitiestorevisionstothesteamcreditallowanceforcogenerationfacilities.Theseissuesarefurtheraddressedinthatsection.  Finally,theEPAbelievesthatlowcostfuelscanbeusedeffectivelyatfacilitiessubjecttothefinalstandards.Asdiscussed,theU.S.GeneratingCompanysNorthamptonfacilityiscurrentlyperformingbetterthanwouldberequiredunderthe 2+&> amendedNSPSanduseswastecoalasitssoleenergysource.  5.2INPUTTOOUTPUTCONVERSIONASSUMPTIONS ԛ̜  TheEPAhasdecidedtorevisethecompliancedemonstrationforaffectedsources,basedonanalysisofcommentssubmittedontheinputtooutputconversionassumptions.Asdiscussedindetailinthissection,theEPAwillfinalizethestandardfornewsourcesatalevelof200ng/J(1.6lb/MWh)grossenergyoutput.Thischangeincorporatesconcernsrelatedtooverallheatrates,steamcreditsforcogenerationfacilities,andgrossversusnetoutput.Inaddition,thekeyunderlyingassumptioninherentintheselectionofthelevelofthefinalstandardsat200ng/J(1.6lb/MWh)grossoutput,i.e.,theinputbasedstandardof0.15lbNOx/millionBtu,ismaintained.Theeffect  ofthischangeisthatsourceswouldnolongerberequiredtocalculateoutputemissionsbasedonameasurementofinputconvertedtotheoutputformat.TheEPAbelievesthischangewillbesimplerforsourcestocomplywithandforenforcementagenciestomonitorcompliance.  5.2.1Supportthe38PercentBaselineEfficiency 6  \$   Comment:CommentersIVD34,IVD50,andIVD54noted J& thattheapplicationofabaselineefficiencyfactorwasanappropriatemeansofestablishingtheoutputbasedlimit.CommentersIVD18,IVD34,IVD50andIVD54statedthatthe38percentefficiencyfactorwasreasonable.  CommenterIVD20didnotchallengetheEPAsselectionof38percentefficiencyfornewboilers,correspondingtoaheatrateof9,000Btu/kWh.However,thecommenterbelievedthatEPAshouldbeconsistentand"choosearepresentative,sustainableheatratefornewboilersafter5yearsofoperation." x  x'"8   Response:Asdiscussedbelow,theselectionofabaseline ($: efficiencyvalueisintimatelytiedtotheselectionofacorrespondingheatrate.Basedoninformationreceivedby 2+&> commenters,theEPAhasdecidedtorevisittheheatrateissue.  5.2.2Opposethe38PercentBaselineEfficiency  >   Comment:CommentersIVD19andIVD65statedthattheEPA ,| adoptionofasingleheatratewasindefensible.ThecommentersremarkedthattheEPA"hadampletime"toconverteachboiler'sinputbasedemissiondatatoanoutputbasedemissionrate.Further,thecommentersnotedthattheEPA"mustbecarefulinchoosingthesingleheatratefactorforconversion;"addingthat"merelypickinga38percentefficiencybasedonanecdotalevidenceisnotsufficientlyrigorous."  Response:Asdiscussedbelow,theEPAhasusedinformation l  providedinthepubliccommentperiodtoreevaluateitsassumptionsregardingtheunderlyingassumptionsintheoutputconversionequation.Webelieveouranalysisisadequateandsufficienttodemonstratethefeasibilityofthefinalapproach.  Comment:CommenterIVD36statedthat"theproposedNSPS R definesaNOxemissionlimitthatisafunctionofNOxemission   ratesandplantwidethermalefficiencyandinsodoing,favors " watercooledcondensersoveraircooledcondensers."Thereasonisthat"theaircooledheatrejectionsystemsareinherentlylessthermallyefficientthanwatercooledsystems."ThecommenterexplainedthatinthewesternUnitedStateswaterisatapremium,addingthatthe"bestallocationofwaterresourcesintheseareasdoesnotalwaysincludewatercooledpowerplants."Thecommenterrecommendedthat"someallowancesmustbemade,"andofferedthepossibilityofsecondequationforaircooledunits,"replacingtheassumed38percentthermalefficiencyinthecurrentequationwitharepresentativeaircooledefficiency(probablyintheorderof31percent)."̛  Response:Theproposedoutputbasedstandardhasbeen ($: revisedto1.6lb/MWhgrossoutput.Thisstandardcorrespondstoagrossheatrateof10,667Btu/kWhandagrossthermal 2+&> efficiencyof32percent,whichshouldsatisfythecommenter'sconcernsaboutaircooledunits.̜  Comment:Asdiscussedinsection4.1.3.,severalcommenters ,| wereconcernedabouttheabilityofexistingboilerstocomplywiththeNSPSshouldtheybecomeaffectedsourcesthroughmodificationorreconstruction.̛  Response:TheEPAagreeswiththeconcernsraisedby $ t  commentersthattheinherentefficienciesofexistingboilersmaybelessthantheefficiencythatnewboilersarecapableofachieving.Lowerboilerefficiencytranslatestohigheraverageheatrates,whichwouldmakeitmoredifficultforexistingsourcestomeetanoutputbasedstandardwithoutincreasingSCRperformancesignificantly(uptoa40percentimprovementcouldberequired.)Therefore,theEPAhasrevisedthefinalruletoallowexistingboilersthatmightbecomesubjecttotheNSPSthroughmodificationorreconstructiontomeetanequivalentinputbasedstandardof65ng/J(0.15lb/MMBtu).ThislevelofcontrolrepresentsthesameoverallNOxreductionefficiencythat " wouldberequiredofnewunits,butlacksthebenefitsattributedtopromotingenergyefficiencythattheoutputbasedformatprovides.Theactualenvironmentalimpactofthechangeshould,therefore,benegligible.̜  5.2.3SupportNetHeatRateof9,000Btu/kWh g  T,   Comment:CommenterIVD50supportedtheEPA'sassumed B!. "baseline"efficiencyof38percent,whichcorrespondstoaheatrateof9,000Btu/kWh.ThecommenternotedthatmostU.S.boilerheatratesrangefrom9,000to13,000Btu/kWh.BecausetheintentoftheEPAistoencourageefficiency,the9,000Btu/kWhheatrateisappropriate. x'"8   Response:Asdiscussedbelow,theEPAhasreconsideredthe ($: heatrateassumption,basedondataobtainedbytheEPAsinceproposalandreceivedfromcommenters. 2+&> М  5.2.4OpposeNetHeatRateof9,000Btu/kWh A    Comment:CommentersIVD17,IVD19,IVD27,IVD28,IV > D37,IVD47,IVD52,IVD53,andIVD65questionedtheproposedheatratestandardof9,000Btu/kWh.Thecommentersstatedthatthe proposalfailstoprovidenecessarydiscussionsjustifyingtheselectionofthehighlyrestrictivebaselinethresholdof9000Btu/kWhr.Further,CommenterIVD52recommendedthattheEPAreviewallavailableheatratedataforU.S.utilities,andreconsiderapplicablemodificationstotheproposedbaseline...Onecommenternotedthattheratemaybeappropriateforgasfiredcombinedcycleunits,butwoulddiscouragetheuseofcoalandwastecoal.CommenterIVD37specifiedthatheatratesinthe9,000Btu/kWhraretypicallylimitedtothoseoperatingatsupercriticalsteampressuresandtemperaturesalongwithcombinedcyclegasturbine(CCGTs)units.CommenterIVD37continuedbystatingthat"becausemanyDaunitsaresubcriticalandfiresolidfuel,impositionofaonesizefitsallnetefficiencyconstitutesabiasagainstthesetypesofunits."  CommenterIVD28stated"theonlytypeofsolidfuelfacilitythatcouldmeetalowheatratestandardof9,000Btuwouldbeahuge(1,000MW)supercriticalcoalunitwithextremelyhighoperatingtemperatures.Smallwastecoalfacilitieswithcirculatingfluidizedbedboilerscouldnotmeetthisstandard."CommenterIVD55elaboratedbystatingthatoneoftheirpulverizedcoalfiredutilitypowerplantshasanaveragenetheatrateof9,808Btu/kWh. CommenterIVD27stated $L 4 thattheircoalburningfacilitiesarestateoftheartfromanemissionsstandpoint,andoperateatheatratesofupto11,000Btu/kWh.Thisfigureagreeswithconceptualdesignsforafuturecoalfiredplant,whichassumedheatratesof9,900to13,757Btu/kWh.Thecommenterstatedthatthesedatasuggestthatan D+&> outputbasedstandardof1.35lb/MWhisequivalenttoaninputbasedstandardof0.1to0.137lb/MMBtu,not0.15lb/MMBtuasassumedbytheEPA.  CommenterIVD53reportedthatthenetheatratefornewcoalfiredgenerationwillfallintherangeof9,400to9,600Btu/KWhatfullload,9,600to11,000Btu/KWhatmidloadandover13,000Btu/KWhatminimumload.Thecommenterrecommendedabaselineefficiencyof10,500Btu/KWh.CommentersIVD17,IVD47andIVD37statedthat,assumingonetypicalheatrateisappropriate,ananalysisofdatafromSubpartDaboilersindicatesthataheatrateof10,500Btu/kWhwouldbemoreappropriate,whereasCommenterIVD27recommendedaheatrateof10,000Btu/kWh.Thiswouldresultinanoutputbasedlimitof1.58lbNOX/MWhforthe10,500heatrateand1.5lb/MWhforthe & 10,000Btu/kWhheatrate.  CommentersIVD16andIVD63statedthatthereisnodatabyEPAtoshowa9,000BTU/kWhheatratecanbeobtained.  Response:Theproposedheatratewasamajorconcernof " bothcommentersandtheEPA.InlightofadditionaldatasuppliedbycommentersandcollectedbyEPA,theEPAhasdecidedtorevisetheassumedheatrate.First,theoutputbasedstandardisnowbasedongrossoutputinsteadofnetoutput,sothefollowingdiscussionwillbeintermsofgrossheatrates.Thedecisiontoswitchfromnettogrossoutputisdiscussedinsection5.3.  Thecommentersindicatedthatnetheatratesof10,000to10,500Btu/kWharetypicalofstateoftheartunits.TheEPAcollecteddatafromfouradditionalutilityboilerthatareconsideredtobenewandstateoftheartfromanemissionsstandpoint.Thefirstboilerwasabaseloaded,fluidizedbedcombustioncogenerationunitthatfiredwastecoalandwasequippedwithSNCR(Northampton).Thisunit'saveragegrossheat 2+&> rate(with50percentcreditforexportsteam)waslessthan9,000Btu/kWh.Thesecondunitwasapulverizedcoalfired,cogenerationunitthatoperatedundercyclingloadandwasequippedwithSCR(Logan).Thisunit'saveragegrossheatrate(with50percentcreditforexportsteam)wasapproximately10,250Btu/kWh.Thethirdutilityboiler(Stanton)hadanaverageheatrateof10,250Btu/kWh.TheBirchwoodcogenerationunit,thefourthfacility,reportedthattheycyclebetweenheatratesofapproximately10,700Btu/kWhat32percentloadand9,000Btu/kWhat100percentload.TheheatratesreportedbytheBirchwoodcogenerationunitarebasedona100percentcreditforexportsteam.  TheEPAconductedstatisticalanalysesinwhichtheobjectivewastoassesslongtermNOxemissionlevels,onan & outputbasis,thatcanbeachievedcontinuously.Statistically,#XU)XXX4#X8XXXU)Logan,Northampton,andBirchwood#XU)XXX8*#X4XXXU)Ԁcanmeettherevisedoutput R basedstandardof1.6lb/MWh(gross)ona30dayrollingaverage.  5.2.5EfficiencyCalculationforCogenerationUnits + "   Comment:CommentersIVD18,IVD19,IVD34,IVD39,IV  \$ D44,IVD53andIVD65assertedthatusingonly50percentofthethermalenergyfromthesteamgeneratedatcogenerationfacilitiesincalculationsofoutputbasedemissionratesisinappropriate.Thecommentersreportedthatthe50percentallocationisfromasectionofthePublicUtilityRestructuringPolicyAct(PURPA)inwhichthe50percentthermaloutputisusedaspartofadefinitionofaPURPAqualifyingfacility.Further,thecommenterstatedthatthecalculationshoulduseeithertheelectricoutputconvertedtoMMBtuplustheenthalpyofthefullsteamorhotwateroutputinMMBtu,ortheelectricoutputinMWhelplustheenthalpyofthefullsteamorhotwateroutputin ($: МMWhth.Further,CommenterIVD39reportedthattheefficiency )D%< ofnewindustrialboilerstypicallyrangesfrom78to83percent 2+&> dependingonfuelandotherdesignfeatures.Thecommentersreasonedthateachapplicationwoulddifferinefficiency,andcreditshouldbegivenfortheheatactuallyused.CommentersIVD19andIVD65addedthattherestrictionofthesteamcreditto50percentis arbitraryandcapricious.̜  CommentersIVD20,IVD44,andIVD46supportedtheoutputbasedstandardandstatedthatthe"appropriateoutputmeasureforindustrialboilerswouldbepoundsofNOXpermillion b  Btuofsteamproducedattheboilersteamheader."Thecommenterssawnoreasontopenalizecogenerationunitsbycalculatingoutputaselectricoutputplus50percentofthethermaloutput,assuggestedbyEPA.Theoutputcalculationshouldgivefullvaluetothesteamproduced.Outputfromacogenerationunitshouldbemeasuredastheelectricoutputplusthefullthermaloutputinconsistentunits.  CommenterIVD46saidthat"theoutputforacogenerationfacilityshouldbetheelectricoutputandthefullthermaloutputexpressedinconsistentunits(MWhorMMBtu)where1kWh=3413Btu."  CommentersIVD39andIVD46insistedthatefficiencyshouldnotbeusedasacompliancemeasure.Thecommenterexplainedthattheefficiencycalculationisanextra,unneededstep.Thecommentersreportedthatallthatisneededisacontinuousemissionmonitoringsystem(CEMS)todirectlymeasureNOXandanelectricorthermalmeasurementforoutputinunitsof "0 MMBtuorMWh.  Response:TheEPAconsideredthreeapproachestoresolve $L 4 theissueofsteamcreditforcogenerationfacilities:1)Allowcreditforsteamasifitwerebeingconvertedintoelectricity;2)Allowcreditintheformof50percentofthethermalvalue(enthalpy)ofthesteam;and3)Allowcreditforgreaterthan50percentofthevalueofthesteam,upto100percent. 2+&>   TheEPAdecidednottoallowcreditforsteamasifitwerebeingconvertedintoelectricitybecausetheEPAwantstoencouragecogeneration.Allowingcreditasifelectricitywouldonlyprovidecreditforupto38percentofthevalueofthesteam,whichisthereportedmaximumoftheefficiencyofsteamtoelectricityconversion.  TheEPAalsodecidednottoallowforgreaterthan50percentcreditforthesteam.Basedonanalysisofheatratesfromcogenerationfacilities,theEPAhasdeterminedthatonceyouexceed50percentandapproach100percentcreditforthesteamthereisadisproportionateloweringeffectonheatrate,particularlyathighsteamexportrates.ThiswouldresultinartificiallylowNOxemissionrates.Asanotheroption,theEPA  consideredallowing100percentcreditforsteam,butcappingtheamountofsteamforwhichcreditcouldbereceivedtoacertainpercentageoftotaloutput.Thisapproachwasdeemedtobetoocomplexfromamonitoringstandpoint.  Therefore,theEPAhasdecidedtoretaintheproposed50percentcreditforexportsteamfromcogenerationfacilitiesonthebasisthatitencouragescogeneration,willnotartificiallylowerNOxemissions,andwillnotrequirecomplexmonitoring. (   Comment:CommenterIVD39reportedthatsteammeteringhas * beenwellestablished,especiallyforcompaniesthatsellthermalaswellaselectricenergy.CommenterIVD39estimatedthecostofthermalmeasurementequipmenttorangefrom$7,000to$15,000perboilerdependingonthespecificrequirementsofthesystem.Thecommenteralsoprovidedtwopagesofcostdata.  Response:Ownersoroperatorswouldbeallowedtorequest x'"8 theapprovalofalternativemonitoringprocedures.However,withthechangeintheformatofthestandard,theuseoftheproposedinputtooutputconversionequationwouldnolongerbe 2+&> necessary.TheEPAanticipatesthatmostsourceswillcomplywiththestandardthroughthecontinuousmonitoringofNOxoutlet > emissions.  5.3GROSSVERSUSNETOUTPUTVARIABLEINEQUATION @  Comment:CommenterIVD54supportedtheuseofthenet   outputformat.Thereasongivenwasthatthisformatwillencourageownersandoperatorstolowertheauxiliarypowerrequirementsatthefacility.CommenterIVD50addedthattheemissionlimitshouldbebasedonthenetenergyleavingthefacility.  CommenterIVD46statedthattheoutputbasedstandardsshouldbedefinedaslbsNOX/MWhnetforutilityboilersorlb Z  NOX/MMBtuatthesteamheaderforotherboilers.    Incontrast,CommentersIVD37andIVD42opposedbasingtheoutputstandardonthenetoutputterm.CommenterIVD37specifiedthatthecertifiedmonitoringofelectricpoweroutputwouldaddanotherlayerofmonitoringrequirementswhileproviding"norealbenefit."Further,CommenterIVD37reportedthattheoutputbasedformatwould"requiresignificantandcostlychangestothesoftwareofmonitoringandreportingsystems."Further,thecommenterexplainedthattheissueofmeasurementlocationisunresolvedbynotingthediscrepancyinthedefinitionas"thenetelectricaloutput(i.e.netbusbarpowerleavingtheplant)fromtheturbinegeneratorset."Theterm"net"meansthesumofthepowerleavingthegeneratingunitsminusthepowerrequiredtodriveauxiliaryequipment.CommenterIVD42recommendedbasingthestandardsongrossratherthannetoutputtoaccountforthepowerdrainassociatedwithmanytypesofcontroltechnologies.̜  CommentersIVD36andIVD47reportedthatelectricaloutputcannotbemeasureddirectlybecauseitisdependentonthe"electricalusagebyhundredsofmotorsandotherauxiliary 2+&> equipmentlocatedthroughouttheplants."Thecommenterclaimedthatnetgenerationcannotbemeasured"bysimplyinstallingawattmeter."̜  Response:TheEPAhasreconsidereditsposition,andhas j decidedtofinalizetherulebasedontheuseofgrossoutputbecauseofthemonitoringdifficultiesinherentinthenetoutputmethodology.Inparticular,measuringnetoutputatfacilitieswithbothaffectedandnonaffectedunitscouldbeproblematic,becauseasinglemeterontheelectricityleavingthefacilitycouldnotsufficientlyallocatetheelectricityleavingtheaffectedboiler.TheEPAreservestheopportunitytorevisitthisissueshouldEPAdevelopamethodologytodeterminethenetheatoutputinallcircumstances.  Comment:CommentersIVD32,IVD37,IVD47,IVD52,IV & D54,andIVD55protestedthattheproposaldidnotincludeaspecificmethodologyfordeterminingtheunitnetoutput,butthatamethodologywillbeinthefinalrule.Onecommenterpointedoutthatthisdoesnotprovideforasubsequentcommentperiodona significantcomponentoftheproposal.CommenterIVD52urgedtheEPAto withdrawthisproposaluntilacompleteandthoroughpackagecanbeprovidedforfullpublicreviewandcomment,asrequired.  Response:Thechangesmadeinthefinalstandardmakethe  T, commentersconcernsaboutaspecificmethodologytodetermineunitnetoutputimmaterial.  #2 -,   6.0REVISEDSTANDARDFORELECTRICUTILITYSTEAMGENERATINGUNITS(SUBPARTDa) YNԛ  ̜  6.1SUPPORTTHELEVELOFTHESTANDARD N  Comment:CommentersIVD07,IVD33,andIVD57   supportedthelevelofthestandard.CommenterIVD57statedthattheproposed1.35lb/MWhstandardwasachievableforelectricutilitysteamgeneratingunitswithpostcombustionNOX b  controls,eitheraloneorcombinedwithcombustioncontrols.ThecommenterpointedoutthatoilandgasfiredunitsinCaliforniauseSCRandhaveemissionsbelow1.0lb/MWh.Thecommenteralsoindicatedthattherearecoalfiredunitsthatemitlessthantheproposedstandard.OneexampleisanewcoalfiredboilerinVirginiathatachievesSCRreductionsof6065percentandhasoutletemissionsbelow0.08lb/MMBtu(heatinput).CommenterIVD07complimentedtheEPAonthefactthatthesestandardsarestricterthanallofthepreviousnongasstandards.  InsupportoftheEPA'sanalysis,CommenterIVD51referredtoareportentitled FuelChoiceforNewElectricGeneratingCapacityintheNextCentury:CoalorNaturalGas,andprovidedacopyofthisreportforEPAreview.CommenterIVD51statedthatthereportconfirmedtheapplicationofSCRorFBCwithSNCRcanachieve80to90percentNOXremoval,yieldinga  T, representativeemissionrateof0.05lb/MMBtuto0.20lb/MMBtu.Thecommenteralsostatedthatemissionreductionsfromexistingutilityplantswouldberequiredtoachievethenewfederalstandardforozone,andthatretrofitofexistingplantstomeettheproposedstandardwouldbefeasibleandcosteffective.  Commenter1supportedtheproposedNOxlimitof1.35lb/MWh. x'"8 However,thecommenternotedthatonly17newutilityboilerswereplannedforthenextfiveyearsandthat"therealNOx )D%< problemwilllikelycomefromindustrialboilers." 2+&>   Response:TheEPAappreciatesthecommenterssupport.    6.2STANDARDISTOOLENIENT V >   Comment:CommenterIVD58statedthattheproposed ,| standardismuchtoolenientanddoesnotreflectthe bestdemonstratedtechnology.CommenterIVD58reportedreviewingNOXdataforPhase1andPhase2coalfiredunitsandfoundthat  6  theaverageBtuweightedemissionsratein1995was0.58lb/MMBtu.CommenterIVD58thenassumedan80percentNOX b  removalrateforSCR,andcalculatedacontrolledemissionrateof0.12lb/MMBtu,whichislowerthanthepresumptivelimituponwhichtheproposedstandardisbased.However,anewboiler,whichshouldbeequippedwithlowNOxburners,shouldhaveamuch Z  loweruncontrolledbaseline,resultinginmuchloweremissionsfromtheSCR.Thecommenterbelievesanemissionlimitof0.08lb/MMBtuisachievable,especiallybecause25percentofallcoalfiredboilersintheEPAsAcidRainPrograminventoryhaveaNOXemissionrateof0.40lb/MMBtu,andwhenreducedby80   percent,yields0.08lb/MMBtu.Thecommenteraddedthat1995CEMSdatashowthat41percentofthoseunitsintheEPASAcidRaindatabaseemittedat0.05lb/MMBtuorlower.Foroilfiredunits,commenterIVD58notedthatintheAcidRaindatabasetheaverageNOXemissionratewas0.184lb/MMBtu,with35percentof * thefacilitiesinthedatabasebelowtheNSPSlimit.CommenterIVD58concludedbystatingthatis inappropriateforEPAtoestablishlimitsthatcanalreadybemetbyasubstantialportionoftheexistingfossilfuelfiredpopulation.  Response:Thecommentersassumptionofan80percentNOX $L 4 removalrateisbasedonaunitthatemitsmoreNOXthanwouldbe :&!6 emittedatbaselinebyunitsconsideredundertheNSPSanalysis.Forexample,theLoganSCRhasanaverageNOXremovalrateof65 ($: percent.Therefore,toapproachtheNSPSlimitwitharequirementforthishighlevelofremovaldoesnotreflect 2+&> actualconditionsatnewunits.Also,thereareadditionalcostsassociatedwithmeetingmorestringentlimits,especiallywithrespecttotheamountofammoniaandcatalystrequiredandtheincreaseinammoniaslip.  6.3STANDARDISTOOSTRINGENT `̛  Comment:CommentersIVD16,IVD25,andIVD59stated  6  thatthestandardistoorestrictive.CommenterIVD25speculatedthatastandardthatistoostrongmightdiscourageconstructionofnew,clean,andefficientplants,oreliminatetheuseoflignite.Thecommenterrecommendedreviewingthestandardsifnonewplantsarebuilttoconformtothemwithintwoyearsoffinalization.  CommenterIVD59alsonotedthatthestandardimposeda35percentemissionreductionfornaturalgasfiredunits,andthispercentemissionreductionshouldalsobeappliedtocoalfuelemissionrates.Thecommenterrecommendedanemissionlimitforcoalfiredunitsof0.35lb/MMBtu.  CommenterIVD31reportedthattheNSPSlevelforcoalfiredboilersislowerthanthelowestemitterinthedatabase.ThecommenterreviewedtheEPAAcidRaindatabaseontheInternetforthefacilitiesintheNSPSdatabase.ThecommenterfoundthattheMerrimack2,fromtheNSPSdatabase,isnotanewboiler,butanSCRretrofitonanoldercycloneboiler.Further,theStanton2plant'semissionrateof0.163lbNOX/MMBtu(second B!. quarter1997)whichequatedtoanemissionrateof1.67lbNOX/MWhr.ThisemissionrateishigherthantheEPA'sproposed #2 limitof1.35lbNOX/MWhr.Thecommenterasked,"HowdoesEPA $L 4 justifyaratelowerthanastateoftheartplant?"  Response:Asdiscussed,theEPAhasrevisitedtheformatof x'"8 thefinalstandardandhasreviseditaccordingly.RegardingtheperformanceoftheStantonplant,theEPAsanalysisshowsthatitwouldmeettherevisedstandardof1.6lb/MWh,basedona30 2+&> dayrollingaverage.  > !-   7.0REVISEDSTANDARDFORINDUSTRIALCOMMERCIALINSTITUTIONALSTEAMGENERATINGUNITS(SUBPARTDb) ghԛ  ̜  7.1EXCLUSIONS hԛ  Comment:CommentersIVD22andIVD26statedthattheEPA   Мshouldnotapplytheproposedstandardtomodifiedandreconstructedwasteheatboilers.ThecommenterssaidthesewasteheatsystemsaretypicallyinstalledintheductworkofagasturbineexhaustandarenotamenabletosignificantmodificationforNOxcontrolbecauseoftheirconfiguration. .  Accordingtothecommenters,tubesaretightlypacked,spaceforreconfigurationisextremelylimited,andpossiblebackpressureimpactsontheupstreamdeviceareamajorconcern.ApplyingtheNSPSwouldrequirethecombinedsystemtomeetthenewstandard,becausetheNOxfromtheupstreamdevice(i.e.,combustion d turbine)cannotbeseparatedfromthesteamgeneratorNOxfor R purposesofaddoncontrol.Thecommenterssaidthataddoncontrolsarenotdemonstratedforsuchsystems.̜  Response:Asdescribedintheresponsetothecommentunder  \$ section4.1.1,theEPAisnotawareofanyinstanceswheremodifiedorreconstructedsourcesofanytypehavebecomesubjecttotheNSPS,nordoestheEPAanticipatesuchinstancesinthefuture.TheGeneralProvisionsalreadyprovideseverallimitationstochangesthatmightbeconsideredmodifications.Forexample,sourcesthatoffsettheirincreasedemissionsarenotsubjecttotheNSPSbecauseofmodification.Theseprovisionsservetoeffectivelylimittheapplicationofthemodificationprovisionstoexistingsources.  ThesystemsdescribedbythecommenterswouldbesubjecttosubpartGG,standardsofperformanceforstationarygasturbines.Asdiscussedearlier,theEPAagreesthatICCRdrivenrevisionstosubpartGGcouldposeapotentialconflictwiththesubparts 2+&> DaandDbstandards,iftheyextendtheapplicabilityofsubpartGGtotheductburner,whichiscurrentlycoveredbysubpartsDaandDb.Therefore,theEPAwillrevisesubpartsDaandDbtoexemptsourcesthatmayalsobecomesubjecttosubpartGG,shouldsuchrevisionstosubpartGGoccur.̛  Comment:CommentersIVD09,IVD11,IVD12,IVD13,IV  6  D15,andIVD45notedthattheproposedrevisionappearstoapplytoallsteamgeneratingunits,includingunitsthatareexcludedfromthecurrentstandardbecausetheyfire10percentorlessfossilfuel.ThecommentersdidnotbelievethattheEPAintendedthattherevisedNOxlimitshouldapplytofacilities l  thatcombustalimitedamountoffossilfuel.Severalcommenterssuggestedclarifyingthefollowinglanguagetoattheendof40CFR60.44b(l)(1):"...86ng/J(0.20lb/millionBtu)heatinputunlesstheaffectedfacilityhasanannualcapacityfactorfor d coal,oil,andnaturalgasof10percent(0.10)orlessandissubjecttoaFederallyenforceablerequirementthatlimitsoperationofthefacilitytoanannualcapacityfactorof10percent(0.10)orlessforcoal,oil,andnaturalgas;or.... T$   Response:TheEPAdidnotintendtoremovethe10percent & exemptionfromtherevisedNSPS.TheEPAwilladdthesuggestedregulatorylanguagetoclarifythatthisexemptionstillholds.  Comment:Inadditiontorecommendingtherevisedlanguage ^ , citedabove,commentersIVD09,IVD12,andIVD13pointedoutthat,aswritten,theproposedNOxrevisionswouldinclude "*0 municipalsolidwastecombustorsthatonlyusealimitedamountoffossilfuelsforstartuppurposesandsupplementalfuelduringthoseperiodswhentheheatcontentofthewasteislow,inordertomaintaingoodcombustionconditions.ThecommentersstatedthattheproposedSubpartDbNOxemissionlimitrevisionswould )`$: beapproximately120partspermillion,byvolume,dry(ppmdv)(correctedto7%O2),ascomparedtotherevisedNSPSforlarge +&> municipalwastecombustors(MWC)units(December19,1995,FederalRegister40CFR60SubpartEb)thatlimitsNOxemissions > to150ppmd,correctedto7%O2(dailyarithmeticaverage)after ,| threeyearsofoperation.CommenterIVD09addedthatexistinglargeMWCunitswillberequiredundertheEmissionsGuidelines(EG)in40CFR60SubpartCbtomeetaNOXemissionslimitof205  6  ppmdvcorrectedto7%O2(dailyarithmeticaverage).The $ t  commenterssuggestedthattheadditionofthe10percentexemption,discussedabove,wouldalleviatethisconcern.Inaddition,commenterIVD09suggestedthatitmightmakemoresensetoexemptfacilitiesentirelythataresubjecttothesubpartEbandCbrequirements.  Response:Asdiscussedabove,theEPAhasincludedthe  languageregardingthe10percentexemptiontothefinalrule,whichshouldcoverthesetypesofsources.InadditiontheEPAwillrevisethefinalruletoexemptunitsthataresubjecttosubpartEbtoavoidanypossibleconflicts.̜  7.2LEVELOFTHESTANDARD }ԛ  Comment:CommenterIVD57statedthattheproposed  \$ standardof0.20lb/MMBtuforindustrialandcommercialunitswasquitereasonable.Accordingtothecommenter,severalunitsburningawidevarietyoffuelscurrentlyuseSCRandothertechnologiestoachieveNOXemissionsbelowthislevel.  T,   CommenterIVD26recommendedthattheEPAadoptaflexiblenumericalstandardtoencourageinnovationinpollutionprevention.Thecommenterstatedthatthe0.20lb\MMBtuNOX #2 limitwouldrequiretheapplicationofatleastonecontroltechnologyoracombinationofthetechnologiescitedinthepreamble,statingthatsuchacombinationofcontroltechnologieswilladdcomplexitytotheoperationoftheaffectedsource.Thecommenterwasunabletodetermineanappropriaterecommendationwithinthecommentperiod;however,heiswillingtoworkwith 2+&> theEPAinordertodevelopareasonablevaluethatallowsthenecessaryflexibility.̛  Commenter1statedthattheNOxemissionlimitof ,| 0.2lb/MMBtuwasnotadequate.ThecommenterpointedoutthattheEPAhasestimatedthat381newindustrialboilerswillbebuiltinthenextfiveyears(293naturalgas/distillateoil,66residualoil,and22coal).Thecommenterindicatedthatthenewstandards,ascurrentlyproposed,wouldignorethe293newnaturalgasanddistillateoilunitsthatarepredictedoverthenextfiveyears.Thecommenterrequestedthatthestandardbesetat0.15lb/MMBtu(exceptforlowheatgasanddistillateoilunits),andenforcedusingthebestavailablecontroltechnology.CommenterIVD05agreedwiththiscomment,reasoningthata0.15lb/MMBtuemissionlevelwasachievableforindustrialsourcesstatingthatthebestavailabletechnologyshouldbeusedonallnewsources.̜  Response:TheEPAbelievesthattheproposed0.20lb/MMBtu   istheappropriatelevelforthesubpartDbstandard,andwillfinalizethislimitinthepromulgatedstandard.TheEPAevaluatedthecostsassociatedwithcontrollingnaturalgasanddistillateoilunitstothe0.15lb/MMBtulevel,andfoundthattheirsmallersizeandlowercapacityfactorsresultedinmuchhighercosteffectivenessvaluesassociatedwiththeapplicationoffluegastreatmentthandocoalfiredunits.AsstatedintheproposalFederalRegisternotice,the0.20lb/MMBtulimitwould "0 resultinapproximatelya70percentreductionintheannualnationwidecostsfornewindustrialsteamgeneratingunitscomparedtoestablishingalimitat0.15lb/MMBtuforallnewunits.Howeverthe0.20lb/MMBtulimitreflectsabouta50to70percentreductioninNOXemissionsoverthecurrentsubpartDb ($: limitsforcoalfiredandresidualoilfiredunits.Basedonthesecostconsiderations,theEPAhasdeterminedthat 2+&> establishingalowerlimitfornaturalgasanddistillateunitsisnotjustified.  7.3INPUTBASEDFORMAT pԛ̜  7.3.1SupportInputBasedFormat  j   Comment:CommentersIVD10,IVD19,IVD22,IVD24,IV   D26,IVD36,IVD37,IVD45,IVD64,andIVD65supportedtheinputbasedformatandrecommendedthatthestandardcontinuetobeinputbased.CommenterIVD22opposedtheoutputbasedstandardforindustrialboilers,becausetheyoperatecomplexplantswithextremelycomplicatedsteam,power,andheatsystems.Thecommenterwrotethat"itwouldbeextremelydifficult,ifnotimpossible,toreliablymonitoranoutputbasedstandard."#XU)XXX4B+#"X8XXXU) Z  #XU)XX"X8P#X4XXXU)  Thecommentersreportedthatanewformat(outputbased)  wouldaddcomplicationforthefollowingreasons:0  (1)Permitlimits,TitleIVlimits,andotherregulationsareininputbasedformat. (#(# 0  (2)Theoutputbasedstandardcannotbeappliedequitablytoallsourcesbecausethestandardusedarateof9,000Btu/kWh,whichcannotbeachievedbymanyunits. (#(# 0  (3)TheNSRprogramwouldbeadisincentivetoimprovingefficiency.Further,ifanoutputbasedstandardisset,itwasrecommendedthatitbeinunitsoflb/MWhgross,notnet,toaccountforpowerdrainfrompollutioncontrolϜequipment. (#(# 0  (4)Itwouldrequiretheinstallationofadditionalmonitoringequipment. (#(# 0  (5)Theindustrialsectorcontainseconomicdriverstoencourageefficiency. (#(# 0  (6)Implementationofanoutputstandardwouldbealmostimpossiblefortheindustrialsectorduetothevarietyofusesforindustrialsteamgeneration.CommentersIVD22andIVD26addedthatdownstreamconditionslimitthe 2+&> achievableefficiencyoftheboiler,addingthattheymayberequiredtoreducethepressureofthesteamgeneratedinordertosupplysteamatalowerpressureforaparticularprocess.Theseconstraintsbytheproductionprocesseslowersthecalculatedefficiencyoftheboiler.Also,steamisgeneratedfromwasteheatsystemswherepossible.Wasteheatavailabilityishighlyvariable,whichmeanstheefficiencyofawasteheatsystemishighlyvariable. (#(#   Response:TheEPAappreciatesthecommenterssupport.The   EPAcontinuestobelievethattheinputbasedformatisappropriateforindustrialboilers.  7.3.2OpposeInputBasedFormat E Z    Comment:CommentersIVD18,IVD39,andIVD54  recommendedthattheEPAconsideranoutputlimitforindustrialsteamgeneratingunits.CommenterIVD18recommendedthatthelimitbedeterminedonacasebycasebasis,whereitcanbeappliedasanalternativetotheinputlimit.Incontrast,commenterIVD54recommendedaunilaterallimitbecauseitwouldgivepreferencetohigherefficiencysystemsandbecausetheowner/operatorwouldbemoreattentivetoplantoperationsto ensureefficientoperation.  CommenterIVD39saidthatalongeraveragingperiod,i.e.,12months,wouldaddresstheloadvariabilityissuesassociatedwithindustrialboilersmeetinganoutputbasedstandard.Thecommenteralsoarguedthatoutputbasedstandardswillpromoteimprovedboilerefficiencyatbothinitialinstallationandoverthelifeoftheboiler.Thecommentersaidthatfactorssuchasbasiccombustiondesign,useofairorwaterpreheaters,economizers,fans,andheatexchangersallaffectefficiencyandwillbethebasisforefficiencyimprovementiftheregulationsprovidetheincentive.Inaddition,anoutputbasedstandardwillencouragetheowneroroperatortomaintaintheefficiency 2+&> ofhisorhernewboileroverthelifeoftheunitortofindwaystooffsetdecreasesinefficiency.Finally,thecommenterarguedthatthemeasurementissueisaddressediftheoutputismeasuredasthefullenthalpyofthermalenergy(steamorhotwater)leavingtheboiler.Theenthalpycanbecalculatedautomaticallyfromthetemperatureandpressuresensorsthatarepartofthesteamflowmeteringsystem.Accordingtothecommenter,thecostofthermalmeasurementequipmentcanrangefrom$7,000to$15,000perboiler.  CommenterIVD50notedthatthecurrentinputbasedstandardshavenotprovidedincentivesforefficiencyandpollutionprevention.Thecontinuationofinputbasedstandardswouldnotencourageefficiencyinplannedunits.  Response:TheEPAcontinuestobelieveinthevaluein & promotingpollutionpreventionandenergyefficiencyintheregulatoryprocess.Unfortunately,inthiscase,thenatureofindustrialboilersandtheirusepatternsseemstoprecludethepracticalapplicationofanoutputbasedformat.Asstatedatproposal,theEPAdidconsideranoutputbasedformatoptionoflbNOx/millionBtusteamoutput,whichcouldbeapplicabletoall J& newindustrialboilers.However,thisoutputbasedformatoptionprovidestheownerswithonlyminimalopportunitiesforpromotingenergyefficiencyattheirrespectivefacilities,becauseitaccountsonlyforboilerefficiencyandignoresboththeturbinecycleefficiencyandtheeffectsofenergyconsumptioninternaltotheplant.Theboilerefficiencyismainlydependentonfuelcharacteristics.Beyondtheselectionoffuels,plantownershavelittlecontroloverboilerefficiency.Inaddition,anoutputbasedformatwouldrequireadditionalhardwareandsoftwaremonitoringrequirementsformeasuringthestackgasflowrate(fordeterminingthemassrateofNOXemissions),steam )D%< productionrate,steamquality,andcondensatereturnconditions. 2+&> Instrumentationtoconductthesemeasurementsmaynotgenerallyexistatindustrialfacilitiesastheydoatutilityplants.  CommenterIVD18'ssuggestiontoallowtheuseofanoutputbasedformatasanalternativetotheinputbasedformatonacasebycasebasiswouldovercomethedifficultiesassociatedwiththevariabilityinbaselineefficienciesofindustrialboilers.Insomecases,energyefficiencymightbeeffectivelyencouraged,butthedifficultiesassociatedwithmonitoringsuchsystemsonaroutinebasiswouldstillbepresent.Therefore,theEPAhasnotchangedtheruletoreflectthisoption.However,theNSPSwouldnotprecludeindividualStatesorsources(throughTitleVpermitstreamlining)frompursuingthisoptionwhenitcanbedemonstratedthatequivalentemissionreductionscouldbeobtainedasundertheNSPS.  Regardingtheproposaltomeasuresteamoutputfromtheboilerasthemeansofdemonstratingcompliancewiththeoutputstandard,ownersoroperatorscouldrequestuseofsuchalternativemeansonacasebycasebasisunderthepart60GeneralProvisions.  J&  $!   8.0CONTINUOUSEMISSIONMONITORING(CEM)REQUIREMENTS    8.1GENERAL   Comment:CommenterIVD08requeststhattheEPAmakethe j referencetoPart75CEMSmuchbroader,sothatitisreadilyapparentthatallaspectsofPart75(spangases,instrumentranges,qualityassurance,etc.)satisfySubpartDaandDbprovisions.  Response:Inthepast,theEPAdeterminedthatAcidRain   CEMScanbeusedasNSPSSubpartDaCEMS.ThatdeterminationisavailableontheOfficeofEnforcementandComplianceAssurancesswebsite.However,alloftheseCEMSmustgeneratereportsaccordingtotherequirementsoftheapplicablesubpartandthereportmustbesubmittedtotheappropriateauthority(State)intheregulatoryformatandbymeansacceptabletothatauthority.TheEPAisaddinglanguagetobothsubpartsDaandDbtoclarifytherelationshipbetweenthepart75requirementsandthepart60requirements.  8.2APPLICABILITYTOSMALL/SEASONALUNITS   Comment:CommenterIVD14requestedthattheCEM J& requirementsfornewlowNOxsteamgeneratorsbeeliminatedor ( reviewed,especiallyforboilersonlyusedonaseasonalbasis.CommenterIVD14explainedthatCaliforniahas"verystrict"nitrogenoxideemissionlimitsonoldandnewboilersthat"farexceedthelimitscontemplatedintheproposal."CommenterIVD14continuedbystatingthat"suchrequirementsonfoodprocessorsinCaliforniaprovidenoaddedassuranceofcompliance,butmerelyaddsignificantcostswhicharenotneeded."  Response:Asdiscussedinsection7.1,theEPAis ($: reinstatingthe10percentutilizationexemption.Thisexemptionshouldalsoaddresstheconcernsofsmall,seasonalboilers. 2+&>   Comment:CommenterIVD01recommendedthattheEPA  eliminatetheCEMSrequirementsandassociatedreportingandrecordkeepingrequirementsinSubpartDbforsteamgeneratingunitsthathaveaheatinputcapacityof250MMBtu/hyorless,firenaturalgas,andwhoseNOXemissionsare30ppm(0.037   lb/MMBtu)orless;and,insteadrequireonlyinitialandannualemissiontesting.ThecommenternotedthattheirproposedemissionlimitforCEMSrequirementisaboutonethirdofthe0.1lb/MMBtulimitandonefifthofthe0.2lb/MMBtulimitintheproposal.ThecommenterexplainedthatthisemissionrateisthelimitinCalifornia.CommenterIVD01statedthatthetesting,monitoring,reporting,andrecordkeepingrequirementsforsteamgeneratingunitsregulatedbySubpartDbareextensiveaswellascostly.ThecommenteralsonotedthatthiswouldgivethefacilitythechoicebetweeninstallingalowNOXemitter(NOX d emissionsof30ppm(0.037lb/MMBtu)orless)orahigherNOX R emitterwithaCEMS.Further,thecommenterprovidedrecommendedlanguagetorevisetheproposedNSPS.  Response:Asdiscussedatproposal,theEPAbelievesthe  \$ monitoringcostsassociatedwithSubpartDbarereasonableandnecessary.Inanycase,lowemittershaveanoptiontopetitiontheEPAforalternativemonitoringmethodsaccordingtosection60.13(i)ofthepart60GeneralProvisions.  8.3CONSISTENCYBETWEENPROGRAMS W  Comment:Commenter2statedthat"severalSubpartDbNOx "0 monitoringprocedurescouldbenefitfromrevisionorelaborationtoclarifyambiguitiesintheexistingruleandeliminateinconsistencieswithoverlappingspecificationimposedbyotherprograms,suchasAcidRain,NOxBudget,andNOxRACT."The x'"8 issuescommenter2identifiedaswarrantingreviewincludedatavalidationprocedures,continuousemissionsmonitoringsystem(CEMS)configurationspecifications,andmethodsofcompliance 2+&> determination.Additionally,commenterIVD54recommendedthattheEPAadopttheTitleIVrequirementswhenevertherearecommonrequirementsbetweentheNSPSandTitleIV.  DataValidation.Fordatavalidationofthemonitoring j process,commenter2indicatedthattherequirementsforSubpartDbdiffercomparedtothecriteriaundertheAcidRainandNOx  6  Budgetmonitoringprograms.Commenter2statedthattwoparalleldataprocessingsystemsanddatabaseswouldhavetobemaintainedtomeetthedifferentrequirements.  DefinitionofOperatingStatus.Commenter2reportedthat .  thedefinitionoftheoperatingstatusofpartialoperatinghoursalsodiffersbetweenSubpartDbandtheAcidRainandNOxBudget Z  Programs.Specifically,commenter2reportedthatforSubpartDb,anyhourinwhichacombustionunitisonlineforlessthan30minutesshouldbeignoredforpurposesofmonitoringcompliance.However,boththeAcidRainandNOxBudgetPrograms R requirethatalloperatingtimebeaccountedfor,sothatnoCEMSdatacanbeignoredduringonlineperiods.Asinthedatavalidationcasestatedabove,thecommenterindicatedthatthesedifferencesleadtoapparentreportingconflicts.  SpanValueoftheCEMS.Commenter2noteddifferencesin ( thespanvalueoftheCEMS.Commenter2explainedthatthespanvalueoftheCEMSistheprimarydeterminantoftheallowabledailycalibrationdrift.Commenter2continuedbystatingthatSubpartDbestablishes500ppmasthespanforNOxifoilorgas "0 arebeingcombusted,and1000ppmifcoalisbeingfired.Thecommenterreportedthatthisvalueis"markedlylowerthan500ppm"fornewboilersundertheAcidRainprocedures.Commenter2concludedthatitispossibleforthemeasureddailycalibrationerrortobesmallenoughtobeacceptableunderNSPS,butlargeenoughtotriggeranoutofcontrolconditionunderAcidRain,NOxBudgetorNOxRACT. 2+&>   ComplianceDetermination:Commenter2addressedthe  differenceincompliancedeterminationdependingonthefuelused.Commenter2reportedthatunderSubpartDbcomplianceisevaluatedona30dayrollingaveragebasis;however,therearedifferentcompliancedeterminationperiodsforlowheatreleaseunitsthatfiregasanddistillate,andthosethatfireotherfuels.Hepointedoutthisdiscrepancy,presumablytoallowtheEPAtobettercoordinatethecompliancedeterminationbetweenthedifferentfueltypes.  TreatmentofEmissionLimitsDuringHoursofInvalidData .  Collection.Commenter2reportedthatthereisnoexplicit l  guidanceonthetreatmentofemissionlimitsduringhoursofinvaliddatacollection.Commenter2recommendedthatifnovalidmeasurementdataareavailableforanhour,thentheaccompanyingemissionlimitshouldalsobeomittedinthecalculationofthe30dayaverage.Donethisway,commenter2indicatedthattheemissionrateandemissionlimitwouldbecalculatedusingthesamehourlydataset(i.e.,consideringvalidCEMShoursonly).  Response:AsubpartDbboilerequippedwithanacidrain J& CEMScanusethisCEMSasasubpartDbCEMS.ThereportsgeneratedbythisCEMSmustbegeneratedaccordingtotheprovisionsofsubpartDbandsubmittedtotheauthorityinchargeoftheNSPSprogram,becausetheNSPSandacidrainprogramshavedifferentrequirementsandaremanagedbydifferentauthorities.Regardingdatavalidationprocedures,theEPAheadquartersalreadymaintainstheacidraindatabaseandtheAIRSdatabase,whichissuitableforreportsfromnonacidrainprograms.Inaddition,severalStatesmaintaintheirowndatabases.TheEPAbelievesthatthedatavalidationissueshouldnotleadtoanyconflictsconsideringthattheacidrainandthesubpartDbreportformatsmustfollowtheirownrequirements. 2+&>   TheEPAheadquartershasaddressedafewspanrelatedissuesuponrequestandwillcontinuethispracticeunderthepart60GeneralProvisions.  Finally,emissionlimitsduringhoursofinvaliddatamustbemetusingothermeansthanCEMSdataaccordingtotherequirementsofsection60.47a(f)orsection60.48(b),asapplicable.Asdiscussedabove,theEPAhasaddedlanguagetosections60.47a(c)and60.48b(b)toclarifytherelationshipbetweensubpartsDaandDbandtheabilitytouseapart75CEMStodemonstratecompliancewiththepart60standards.  8.4AVERAGINGPERIODS   8.4.1Support30DayAveragingPeriod  Z    Comment:CommentersIVD18,IVD27,IVD42andIVD54  statedthatthe30dayrollingaverageperiodshouldbesufficienttoaccountforoperatingefficiencyvariability.  CommentersIVD08andIVD42saidthattheEPAshouldmakecompliancerequirementsconsistentunderSubpartsDandDa,addingthatSubpartDunitsshouldbeallowedtodemonstratecompliancebyusingCEMSona30dayrollingaverage.CommenterIVD08addedthat"itdoesn'tmakesensethattheaveragingperiodisshorterforanolderstandard."  Response:TheEPAappreciatesthecommenterssupport. * However,expandingtheaveragingperiodinsubpartDisbeyondthescopeofthisrulemakingandwillnotbeconsideredatthistime.  8.4.2Oppose30DayAveragingPeriod g #2   Comment:CommenterIVD50stated"EPAshouldrecognizethe $L 4 needforcontrollingNOXemissionsonadailybasis,evaluatethe :&!6 pastexperienceofcontrollingNOXemissionsfrompowerplantson x'"8 adailybasis,andinvestigatethefeasibilityofrequiringanemissionlimitona24hrbasis."  CommentersIVD19,IVD20,IVD24,IVD34,IVD39,IV 2+&> D42,IVD44,IVD46,IVD52,andIVD65expressedconcernthata30dayrollingaveragemaybeinsufficienttoaccountforvariabilityinoperatingefficiency.CommentersIVD19,IVD24,IVD34,IVD39,IVD42,IVD44,IVD46andIVD65recommendeda12monthaveragingperiod,whilecommenterIVD52recommendeda6monthperiod.ThecommentersexplainedthatthisperiodisconsistentwiththeNOXstandardsundertheAcidRain $ t  Program.CommentersIVD19andIVD65explainedthatthe12monthperiodwillbe"environmentallyneutral"explainingthatthemassofemissionsisequivalentregardlessoftheaveragingperiod.AnotherreasonstatedbycommentersIVD19,IVD20,andIVD65wasthatalongeraveragingperiodwillallowfurtheropportunitiesforpollutionprevention.AnotherreasongivenbyCommenterIVD39wasthattheeffectofpartialloadoperationontheefficiencycanbeaccommodatedwitha1yearaveragingperiod.  Response:TheEPAhasnotproposedanychangetothe   averagingperiodintheNSPS,andwillnotdosonow.Asdemonstratedbythefourfacilitiesanalyzedafterproposalwhoallmeettherevisedoutputstandards,30daysissufficienttoaccountforoperationalvariability.  8.5SUPPORTELECTRONICFILING   Comment:CommenterIVD47supportedtheEPA'sattemptto  T, streamlinereportingbyallowingquarterlyelectronicreportsandconsolidationofNSPSSubpartDaandPart75reportingrequirements.However,thecommenter"doesnotbelievethattheproposedlanguageprovidesameaningfulstandardfordeterminingwhenreportsareacceptableorforresolvinganyoftheissuesthatarelikelytoariseinimplementingconsolidatedreporting."ThecommenterstatedthatiftheEPAintendstolimitthenewoptiontoreportingunderaspecificformat,theEPAshouldproposelanguageindicatingthat,and"committoworkingwith 2+&> utilitiestoensurethattheformatisconsistentwithexistingformats,likePart75."Additionally,thecommenteremphasizedthe"importanceofensuringthatthisformofreportingremainsoptional."  CommentersIVD24,IVD37,IVD42,IVD44,IVD52,andIVD55supportedtheEPA'sdecisiontoallowelectronicreportingforSubpartDaandDbunits.ThecommentersstatedthatthisactionwillreducetheburdenonaffectedunitsandallowsubmissionofreportsinamannerconsistentwiththatoftheAcidRainProgramrequirementsunder40CFR75.Thefollowingrecommendationsweremade:0  (1)TheEPAshouldclarifythatotheritemsrequiredforreportingunderSubpartDa(inletSO2andCO2  concentrations,SO2removalefficiency)besubmittedin & electronicformatalongwithoutletemissionparameters. (#(# 0  (2)TheEPAshouldclarifyhowunitsthatusethemissingdataalgorithmrequiredbyPart75shouldtreatperiodsofmissingorinvaliddataforthepurposesofelectronicreportingunderSubpartDa. (#(# 0  (3)ExistingSubpartDunitsbeallowedtofileelectronically,astheyshouldnotberequiredtofilewrittenreportswhileexistingSubpartDaandDbunitscanswitchtoelectronicreporting. (#(#   CommenterIVD54recommendedthattheEPAadopttheTitleIVrequirementswhenevertherearecommonrequirementsbetweentheNSPSandTitleIV.  CommenterIVD59notedthatthevoluntaryprovisionforfilingofelectronicreportsshouldnotseektoimposeanyadditionalreportingrequirementsthanmightalreadyberequiredforaspecificsource.Thecommenternotedthattheopacitydata,nototherwiserequired,shouldnotbeaprerequisiteforsubmittingotherrequireddatainelectronicformat. 2+&>   Response:Ingeneral,theEPAsupportselectronicsubmittal  ofthereports,providedthatthosereportsaregeneratedintheformatrequiredunderallapplicableregulationsandsubmittedtotheappropriateauthorities.AfacilitychoosingtosubmitreportselectronicallymustobtainanagreementfromtheEPARegionalofficesandtheStateauthority.  Themissingdataproceduresrequiredbypart75arenotacceptableundersubpartDa.  Asdiscussedabove,theEPAhasaddedlanguagetosection60.47a(c)toclarifythat #XU)XXX4#X8XXXU)Iftheowneroroperatorhasinstalled .  anitrogenoxidesemissionratecontinuousemissionmonitoringsystem(CEMS)tomeettherequirementsofpart75ofthischapterandiscontinuingtomeettheongoingrequirementsofpart75ofthischapter,thatCEMSmaybeusedtomeettherequirementsofthissection,exceptthattheowneroroperatorshallalsomeettherequirementsof60.49a.Datareportedtomeettherequirementsof60.49ashallnotincludedatasubstitutedusingthemissingdataproceduresinsubpartDofpart75ofthischapter,norshallthedatahavebeenbiasadjustedaccordingtotheproceduresofpart75ofthischapter.#XU)XXX8#X4XXXU)Similarlanguagehas & alsobeenaddedtosection60.48b(b)toclarifytheuseofpart75CEMSwithsubpartDbaffectedfacilities.  8.6NEWMONITORINGANDPERFORMANCETESTINGREQUIREMENTS C  AtaFebruary18,1998meetingwithrepresentativesfromtheUtilityAirRegulatoryGroupandtheNationalMiningAssociation,representativesidentifiedthefollowingissuerelatedtothepotentialvariabilityindatafrommonitoringsystems.Acompletesummaryofthismeetingisintheprojectdocket.  Comment:Mr.KanarynotedthatwhentheEPAAcidRain &&"8 Divisionstudiedtheproblemofheatinputtheybackcalculatedtheheatinputfromtheflowmonitorsandthecarbonmonoxidemonitors.Theyfoundthattherewasadifferenceofasmuchas20percentbetweentheCEMdataandthefuelanalysis.Mr. +'@ Wilsonreportedthatthedifferencesvaryfromsitetositebecausetheerrordependsonthelocationofthemonitorandthedesignoftheductwork.Thisdifferenceistheresultofflowmetererrors.Flowmetersaredesignedforlaminarflow,andactualductconditionsarenotlaminarflow.  Mr.Wilsonexplainedthattohaveanaccurateflowmeterreading,theductworkwouldneedtobeextremelylongandstraightanduselargerfans.Thistypeofductworkwouldbeextremelycostlytoimplement,assumingthatspacewasnotanissue,whichitoftenis.Asanalternativeflowmeasurementapproach,Mr.Wilsonrecommendedusingventurinozzletomeasurethepressuredrop.Mr.Harrisonconcludedthediscussionofthistopicbystatingthattherewasnoproposalonthetableonhowtoresolvetheissueandaddedthatheisrequesting3weekstocommentonwhatevermethodtheAgencyproposes.  Response:UnderPart75,flowmonitorsareusedwithSO2 R CEMstodetermineSO2massemissionsandtoverifythatutility   unitsmeettheirallowanceobligationseachyear.Recently,utilitieshaveexpressedconcernthatTestMethod2,EPAsreferencemethodforcertifyingflowmonitors,maycauseflowmonitorstoreadhighundercertainflowconditions.ThiscouldcauseSO2emissionstobeoverreported.Becauseflowmonitors * andCO2CEMsareusedbyutilitiestocalculateheatrate,there  T, isalsoconcernthatsomeheatratesmaybeoverestimated.  Becauseoftheseconcerns,theAcidRainProgramconductedthreefieldstudiesthispastsummerattwogasfiredandonecoalfiredpowerplanttotesttheperformanceofsevenprobesandseveralnewproceduresbeingconsideredforrevisionstoTestMethod2.Inaddition,severalwindtunnelstudieshaveorwillbeperformed,includingpreandposttestprobecalibrationsatNorthCarolinaStateUniversity,posttestprobecalibrationsattheNationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology,possible 2+&> ReynoldsNumber(temperature)effectsonprobecalibrationatavariabledensitywindtunnelattheMassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,andtestinginanElectricPowerResearchInstituteswirlwindtunneltodetermineprobeperformanceundercontrolledyawandpitchconditions.  WorkisunderwayonadraftfindingsreportalongwithdraftTestMethodrevisions.ThesedocumentswillbepeerreviewedinthenextseveralmonthsandwillbethebasisforTestMethod2revisions,whichareexpectedtobepublishedbytheendof1998.  Inthemeantime,ifautilityhasswirlingflow,andsuspectstheirflowmonitormeasurements,flowstraightenersmaybeinstalled,withoutpressuredroppenaltyinmanyinstances.Severalutilitieshaveinstalledflowstraightenersandhavefoundreductionsintheirvolumetricflowmeasurementsandheatratedisparity.OtherutilitieshavereportedimprovementsthroughtheuseofautomatedimplementationsofMethod2andthroughtakingmeasurementsatmoretraversepointsthantheminimumrequiredunderMethod1.Heatratedisparitiescanalsobereducedthroughtighterqualityassuranceof(1)fuelsamplingandanalysisprocedurestoensurethattheircalculationsarenotbiasedlow,and(2)ofCO2CEMstoensurethattheirmeasurements * arenotbiasedhigh.  Finally,theEPAbelievesthatnewunits,whicharetheprimarytypesofsourcestobeaffectedbytheNSPS,canbedesignedtoovercomemeasurementproblems.  #2   %$   9.0OTHER    9.1COST,ENVIRONMENTAL,ENERGY,ANDECONOMICIMPACTS (ԛ  Comment:CommentersIVD31,IVD38,IVD42,IVD47,and j IVD52statedthattheEPAdidnotadequatelyperformthenonairquality,healthandenvironmentalimpactandenergyrequirementsanalysis.CommenterIVD63quotedSection111oftheCleanAirActtosaythatrulemakingmustbalancetheenvironmentalandcostfactors.Thecommenterstatedthatthisrulemaking"doesnotproduceanytangiblehealthandwelfarebenefits,"andwouldcauseanincreaseinenergycosts.  CommenterIVD50suggestedthattheEPAexpandontheenvironmentalimpactsdiscussedinSectionVIoftheproposal.ThecommenterencouragedtheEPAtonotetheroleofNOXinlocal & andregionalozoneformation.̜  Response:Asdemonstratedbytheregulatoryimpact R analysis,theEPAbelievesthattheimpactanalysis,withthemodificationsconductedastheresultoftheevaluationofpubliccomments,issufficienttosupportourregulatorydecisions.  Comment:CommenterIVD40urgedtheEPAnottoadoptthe J& proposedNSPSbecausetherulescouldhaveanegativeeffectonthecostofproducingelectricity,particularlyinthecaseofcoalfiredelectricutilities.Thecommenterassertedthatanincreaseinthecostofelectricitywouldreducetheuseofelectrotechnologiesthroughouttheeconomy.Thecommenterstated,"Byreducingeconomicgrowth,theproposedruleswouldhindertheabilityofAmericanstopurchaseasaferenvironmentandimprovedhealthcare.Andbyraisingtherelativepriceofelectricity,theproposedruleswouldimpedemarketpenetrationofawidearrayoftechnologiesthatcouldproducemajorbenefitsforAmericanhealthandsafety."  Response:TheEPAbelievesthattheimpactsofthe 2+&> standardshavebeenadequatelyaddressed,thatthefinalruleisjustifiedbasedontheseimpacts,andthatnorevisionstotheimpactsanalysisareneeded.  9.2EDITORIAL   Comment:CommenterIVD27pointedoutthattheequationin   sectionIII.D.oftheproposalpreambleusedtocalculatetheoutputbasedstandardisincorrect.ThecommenterstatedthattheequationshouldbeEo=(Ei)(n)/1000. b  М  Response:Thecommentercorrectlynotedtheerrorinthe   equation.TheEPAhasusedthecorrectequationintheactualanalyses.̛  Comment:CommenterIVD50requestedclarificationofthe Z  unitsforemissionlimits.TheproposedunitsarepoundsNOXper  MWhorMMBtu.ThecommenternotedthatmostNOXisemittedasNO & andasmallfractionisNO2.Thecommenterstatedthatitwould d be"usefultoclearlystatethattheNSPSlimitsareinpoundsofNOXasNO2,asistraditionallydone."   М  Response:Asnotedbythecommenter,thecurrentsection " 60.44adoesnotdistinguishNOXasNO2,nordidtheproposed  \$ amendments.However,section60.44b,bothinitscurrentversionandasproposeddoes.Inordertocorrectthisdiscrepancy,theEPAwillrevisethefinalsection60.44atoexpressNOXasNO2. * Л  Comment:CommenterIVD47requested"thattheregulatory  T, languagein60.44a(d)explicitlystatethatthebasisforcomplianceisa30dayrollingaverage."Thecommenternotedthat"Theproposedruleissomewhatambiguous,andthementionofthe30dayrollingaveragein60.44a(a)onitsfaceonlyappliestothestandardsin60.44a(a)."  Response:TheEPAagreesthattheadditionofthelanguage x'"8 specifyingthattheemissionlimitsaretobebasedona30dayrollingaveragetosection60.44a(d)isausefulclarification.Thischangewillbemadeinthefinalrule. 2+&> М  9.3GLOBALWARMING   Л  Comment:CommenterIVD04warnedthat"allairtemperature > readingsonwhichdecisionsonmatterspertainingtoglobalwarmingaremadearesuspect."ThecommenterrecommendedthatthereadingsincludehumidityasafactoranddecisionsregardingglobalwarmingandNOXcontrolregulationsberevised  6  Мaccordingly.Further,thecommenterwarnedagainstestablishingpolicyandregulationsbasedon"suspect"data.  Response:TheEPAappreciatesthecommentersinput.The   EPAdoesitsbesttoensurethatitsregulationsarebasedonsoundscience.  9.4BESTAVAILABLECONTROLTECHNOLOGY   Z    Comment:CommenterIVD37recommendedthattheEPAissue  guidancestatingthatgasfiredboilersandgasfiredcombustionturbineswithductfiring,whichareabletomeetthenewNOX d standard,constitutebestavailablecontroltechnology(BACT)forthepurposesofPreventionofSignificantDeterioration(PSD)permitting.  Response:Thisrequestisbeyondthescopeofthe  \$ rulemaking.  9.5APPLICABILITYOFTHECREDIBLEEVIDENCERULE   Comment:CommenterIVD47notedthattheEPArecently * amendedPart60toincludethecredibleevidence(CE)rule.ThecommenterexpressedoppositiontotheCErule.BecausetheproposedNSPSclearlyindicateshowcomplianceisdetermined,thecommenterbelieves"thattheCErulehasnoapplicationtothisNSPS,"andrequestedthattheEPAclearlystateso.  ThecommenterstatedthatiftheEPAintendsfortheCEruletoapplytothisNSPS,theEPAmustsupplementtheproposalandallowadditionalcommentregardingapplicationoftheCErule.Thecommenterrequestedclarificationastowhatkindofinformationcouldbe"consideredtobeevidenceofaviolationof 2+&> thisNSPS."Thecommenteralsorequestedadiscussionoftheeffectofdataotherthancompliancemethoddataontheabilityofsourceownersoroperatorstodeterminecompliance,andtocertifycomplianceunderTitleV,forthisNSPS.  Response:TheCEruleisapplicabletoallNSPS   regulations,aswellastootherprograms,asdeterminedintherule.ThepubliccommentperiodfortheCErulewasclosedafewyearsago.TheNOxlimitcompliancedeterminationmethodunder b  thisNSPSNOxruleisaNOxCEMS.Inaddition,othercredible   evidencesuchasevidenceoftamperingwiththeCEMSordestructionofvaliddata,couldalsobeusedtoallegenoncompliance.  9.6ADDITIONOFTECHNICALDOCUMENTSTOTHERECORD V  Comment:CommenterIVD47attached"alargenumberof & pertinenttechnicalreportsandstudiesthatarenotintherulemakingrecord"alongwiththecomments.ThecommenterurgedEPAto"reviewandevaluateallpertinenttechnicalliterature,notsimplythosepapersthatmightsupportapreconceivedposition."  Response:TheEPAhasconsideredallofthematerial J& providedbycommentersindevelopingthefinalrules.  9.7FEDERALINTERVENTION   Comment:CommenterIVD66supportedfederalintervention  T, inregulationsthatimprovethehealthandenvironmentoftheAmericancitizens.  Response:TheEPAappreciatesthecommenterssupport. #2 #XU)XXX4#      $L 4  p 5XP XXXU)XXX*q46 dHdedd"dd dd"X%X%q, td ,ktd ,td ,ktd ,att +  9&  W9@  TECHNICALREPORTDATA  Nn @ (PleasereadInstructionsonreversebeforecompleting) M<$4T  W  M1.REPORTNO.  ЀEPA453/R98005 6%6 62.   ;(6 ;3.RECIPIENT'SACCESSIONNO. Q@$    Q4.TITLEANDSUBTITLE   ̜NewSourcePerformanceStandards,SubpartDaandDbϜSummaryofPublicCommentsandResponses L9*   L5.REPORTDATE   ЀSeptember1998 A7$(H   A .  8 .6.PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONCODE    O@$* J   O7.AUTHOR(S)   Ѐ ;(, L  ;8.PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONREPORTNO.    Q@$, L    Q9.PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONNAMEANDADDRESS   ̀EC/RIncorporated̀2327EnglertDrivèDurham,NC27513 L9*ZZL L10.PROGRAMELEMENTNO.    A7$.N    A . v  .11.CONTRACT/GRANTNO.  68D60008̀ Q@$n   +Q12.SPONSORINGAGENCYNAMEANDADDRESS  ̀U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencỳEmissionStandardsDivisioǹOfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards̀ResearchTrianglePark,NC27711 L9*($O L13.TYPEOFREPORTANDPERIODCOVERED % ЀFinal A7$p& +  +A . +K& .14.SPONSORINGAGENCYCODE ' М̀EPA/200/04 S@$#C) +  S15.SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES * М󀀀PublishedinconjunctionwithpromugatedrevisedairemissionstandardsforNOxemissionsfromutility %E+ andnonutilityboilers.EPAContact:JamesEddinger,9195415426 S@$ +,   S16.ABSTRACT - 0 $ ThisdocumentpresentsasummaryofpubliccommentsregardingdevelopmentofrevisedairemissionstandardsforNOxemissionsfromelectricutilityboilersandindustrialboilersandEPAsresponsestothosecomments. $%$% Ѐ S@$ 3   S17.@NNKEYWORDSANDDOCUMENTANALYSIS O@$"# 4   Oa.@   DESCRIPTORS 7(#;!5 7b.IDENTIFIERS/OPENENDEDTERMS 7$#;!6 7c.COSATIField/Group L=!#;!7   FLNitrogenOxide(NOx)EmissionsNOxControlTechnologyUtilityBoilers̜IndustrialBoilers̀ 7('%< 7AirPollutioncontrol 7$3$S"= 7 N=!3$S"> F  N18.DISTRIBUTIONSTATEMENT C)c'? ̀ReleaseUnlimited H9**(AttQ H19.SECURITYCLASS(Report) C)c'B ЀUnclassified 7$)'C 721.NO.OFPAGES C)c'D Ѐ98@O"O"IO" >4!)'E   > , *(E ,20.SECURITYCLASS(Page) E+e)F ЀUnclassified 7$+)G 722.PRICE1'%E+e)H     1 EPAForm22201(Rev.477)  ` PREVIOUSEDITIONISOBSOLETE#XU)X X5XP#