#1£BSX
I5SJ
^4 PRQl*-
Technical Support Document for the Proposed
Toxics Rule: Emissions Inventories -
Appendices
-------
-------
EPA-454/B-20-006A
March 2011
Technical Support Document for the Proposed Toxics Rule: Emissions Inventories -
Appendices
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Air Quality Assessment Division
Research Triangle Park, NC
-------
APPENDICES for the Technical Support Document For the Proposed Toxics Rule
Emissions Inventories
APPENDIX A
Inventory Data Files Used for Each Proposed Toxics Rule Air Quality Modeling Cases - SMOKE
Input Inventory Datasets
In any of the following dataset names where the placeholder has been provided, this is intended to
mean 12 separate files with the placeholder replaced with either jan, feb, mar, apr, may, jun, jul, aug,
sep, oct, nov, or dec, each associated with a particular month of the year.
Several inventories are the same in the 2005 base case and all future year cases. These inventories are listed
in the "All Cases" in Table A-l.
-------
A-l
-------
Table A-l. List of inventory data associated with TR modeling cases.
Case
Sector
SMOKE Input Files
All Cases
avefire
arinv_avefire_2002_hap_18nov2008_v0_orl.txt
arinv avefire 2002ce 21dec2007 vO ida.txt
other
arinv_canada_afdust_xportfrac_cap_2006_03feb2009_v0_orl.txt
arinv_canada_ag_cap_2006_03feb2009_v0_orl.txt
arinv_canada_aircraft_cap_2006_04feb2009_v0_orl.txt
arinv_canada_marine_cap_2006_03feb2009_v0_orl.txt
arinv_canada_oarea_cap_2006_02mar2009_v3_orl.txt
arinv_canada_offroad_cap_2006_04feb2009_v0_orl.txt
arinv_canada_rail_cap_2006_03feb2009_v0_orl.txt
arinv_nonpt_mexico_borderl999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txt
arinv_nonpt_mexico_interiorl999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txt
arinv_nonroad_mexico_borderl999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txt
arinv nonroad mexico interiorl999 21dec2006 vO ida.txt
othon
mbinv_canada_onroad_cap_2006_04feb2009_v0_orl.txt
mbinv_onroad_mexico_borderl999_21dec2006_v0_ida.txt
mbinv onroad mexico interiorl999 21dec2006 vO ida.txt
othpt
ptinv_canada_point_2006_orl_09mar2009_v2_orl.txt
ptinv_canada_point_cb5_2006_orl_10mar2009_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_canada_point_uog_2006_orl_02mar2009_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_mexico_border99_03mar2008_vl_ida.txt
ptinv_mexico_interior99_05feb2007_v0_ida.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_offshore_oil_cap2005v2_20nov2008_20nov2008_v0_orl.txt
2005 cases
(2005cr 05b,
2005cr_hgJ)5b)
afdust
arinv_afdust_2002ad_xportfrac_26sep2007_v0_orl.txt
ag
arinv_ag_cap2002nei_06nov2006_v0_orl.txt
alm_no_c3
arinv_lm_no_c3_cap2002v3_20feb2009_v0_orl.txt
arinv_lm_no_c3_hap2002v4_20feb2009_v0_orl.txt
nonpt
arinv_nonpt_cap_2005_TCEQ_Oklahoma_OilGas_28may2010_v0_orl.txt
arinv_nonpt_cap_2005_WRAP_OilGas_04feb2009_v0_orl.txt
arinv_nonpt_pf4_cap_nopfc_28may2010_v3_orl.txt
arinv_pfc_2002_caphap_27dec2007_v0_orl.txt
nonroad
arinv_nonroad_calif_caphap_2005v2__02apr2008_v0_orl.txt
arinv_nonroad_caps_2005v2__revised_08sep2008_v0_orl.txt
arinv_nonroad_haps_2005v2__re vised_05sep2008_v0_orl.txt
on moves runp
m
mbinv_on_moves_runpm_2005cr__06MAY2010_06may2010_v0_orl.txt
onmovesstartp
mbinv_on_moves_startpm_2005cr__06MAY2010_06may2010_v0_orl.txt
-------
Case
Sector
SMOKE Input Files
m
2005 cases
onnoadj
mbinv_on_noadj_MOVES_2005cr__06MAY2010_06may2010_v0_orl.txt
mbinv_on_noadj_nmim_not2moves_2005cr__04MAY2010_04may2010_v0_orl.txt
mbinv_onroad_calif_caphap_2005v2_revised__29jun2010_v0_orl.txt
seca_c3
ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_baf_vochaps_2005_canada_24jun2010_28jun2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_baf_vochaps_2005_us_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_caps_2005_canada_24jun2010_28jun2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_caps_2005_us_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txt
2005cr_05b
ptipm
Annual: ptinv_ptipm_cap2005v2_revisedl2mar2009_15jul2010_v5_orl.txt
Annual: ptinv_ptipm_hap2005v2_allHAPs_revisedl2mar2009_14jul2010_vl_orl.txt
Daily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_cem_2005cr_05b__ida.txt
Daily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_noncem_2005cr_05b__ida.txt
ptnonipm
ptinv_ptnonipm_hap2005v2_revised_08jul2010_v2_orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_xportfrac_cap2005v2_20nov2008_revised_22jul2010_v5_orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_2005hap_vl_from_2005ai_ND_ADM_plant_30jun2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_caphap_ethanol_plant_additions_2005_30jun2010_v3_orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_xportfrac_2005cap_vl_from_2005ai_ND_ADM_plant_30jun2010_v0_orl.txt
2005cr_hgJ)5b
nonpt
arinv_nonpt_2005pf4_hap_nopfc_nobafmpesticidesplus_noboilermacthg_23aug2010_v0_orl.txt
otherhg
arinv_area_canada_hg_2000_noduplicates_23jul2008_v0_ida.txt
othpthg
ptinv_point_canada_hg_2000_08sep2008_vl_ida.txt
ptipm
Annual: ptinv_2005_ptipm_natahg_minus_boilermacticr_17aug2010_v0_orl.txt
Daily: ptday_ptipm_hg_cem_2005cr_hg_05b__ida.txt
Daily: ptday_ptipm_hg_noncem_2005cr_hg_05b__ida.txt
ptnonipm
ptinv_2005_ICR_BoilerMACT_Hg_ptnonipm_20aug2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_2005_ptnonipm_natahg_minus_boilermacticr_17aug2010_v0_orl.txt
2016 cases
(2016cr 05b,
2016cr2_hgJ)5b,
2016cr2 hg controll 05b
)
afdust
arinv_afdust_2016cr_24aug201 OvOorl. tx
ag
arinv_ag_2016cr_24aug2010_v0_orl.txt
alm_no_c3
arinv_lm_no_c3_cap2016cr_24aug2010_v0_orl.txt
arinv_lm_no_c3_hap2016cr_24aug2010_v0_orl.txt
nonpt
arinv_nonpt_2016cr_cap_2008_TCEQ_Oklahoma_OilGas_23sep2010_v0_orl.txt
arinv_nonpt_2016cr_cap_2018PhaseII_WRAP_OilGas_23sep2010_v0_orl.txt
arinv_nonpt_2016cr_hap_nopfc_nobafmpesticidesplus_noboilermacthg_23sep2010_v0_orl.txt
arinv_nonpt_2016cr_pf4_cap_nopfc_23sep2010_v0_orl.txt
arinv_pfc_caphap2016_ 13jul2010_v0_orl.txt
nonroad
arinv_nonroad_calif_caphap_2016_revised__24jun2010_v0_orl.txt
arinv_nonroad_caphap_2016__07jun2010_v0_orl.txt
-------
Case
Sector
SMOKE Input Files
on moves runp
m
mbinv on moves _runpm_2016cr__ 10JUN201010jun2010_v0_orl.txt
2016 cases
onmovesstartp
m
mbinv_on_moves_startpm_2016cr__10JUN2010_10jun2010_v0_orl.txt
onnoadj
mbinvonnoadjMO VES2016cr__ 10 JUN201010jun2010_v0_orl.txt
mbinv_onroad_calif_caphap_2016__09jun2010_v0_orl.txt
ptnonipm
ptinv_ptnonipm_2016cr_hap2005v2_revised_06oct2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_2016cr_xportfrac_cap2005v2_20nov2008_revised_06oct2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_capHG_cementISIS_2016cr_16AUG2010_16aug2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_cornproductsl7031_hap_cap_2008t_27aug2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_2005hap_vl_from_2005ai_ND_ADM_plant_30jun2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_caphap_ethanol_plant_additions_2005_30jun2010_v3_orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm_xportfrac_2005cap_vl_from_2005ai_ND_ADM_plant_30jun2010_v0_orl.txt
seca_c3
ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_baf_vochaps_2016_canada_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_baf_vochaps_2016_us_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_caps_2016_canada_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txt
ptinv_eca_imo_FINAL_c3_caps_2016_us_24jun2010_24jun2010_v0_orl.txt
2016cr_05b
ptipm
Annual:
ptinvPTINVEP A41 OB C_ 15b_summer_2015_w_MH_S CC_edits_emis_reds_22 SEP2010_08oct2010_nf_v l_orl.txt
Daily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_cem_2016cr_05b__ida.txt
Daily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_noncem_2016cr_05b__ida.txt
2016cr2_hgJ)5b
ptipm
Annual:
ptinv PTINV EPA410MACTAQ BC 2b summer 2015 w MH SCC edits emis reds minus boilermacthg 20oct2010
vO orl.txt
Daily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_cem_2016cr2_hg__ida.txt
Daily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_noncem_2016cr2_hg__ida.txt
ptnonipmhg
ptinv 2016cr2 ICR BoilerMACT Hg_ptnonipm 06oct2010 vO orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm 2016cr2 natahg minus boilermacticr 15oct2010 vO orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm capHG cementlSIS 2016cr 16AUG2010 16aug2010 vO orl.txt
2016cr2 hg controll 0
5b
ptipm
Annual:
ptinv PTINV EPA410MACTAQ BC 5d summer 2015 w MH SCC edits emis reds minus boilermacthg 09nov201
0 vO orl.txt
Daily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_cem_2016cr2_hg_controll__ida.txt
Daily: ptday_ptipm_caphap_noncem_2016cr2_hg_controll__ida.txt
ptnonipmhg
ptinv 2016cr2 ICR BoilerMACT Hg_ptnonipm 06oct2010 vO orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm 2016cr2 natahg minus boilermacticr 15oct2010 vO orl.txt
ptinv_ptnonipm capHG cementlSIS 2016cr 16AUG2010 16aug2010 vO orl.txt
-------
APPENDIX B - List of OECA Consent Decrees- Whereby Reductions Were Apportioned to Facilities
in a Particular Corporation
Table B-l. Description of application of OECA Consent Decrees for future-year projections
Corporation
Pollutant
Compliance
Date
Description of reductions
2005
Emissions
(tons/year)
Bunge
NOx
31DEC2005
Combined NOx emissions reduced by 278 tons
per year. Combined is over select Bunge
facilities.
942
PM
31DEC2005
Combined PM emissions reduced by 258 tons per
year. Combined is over select Bunge facilities.
1,266
S02
31DEC2005
Combined SO2 emissions reduced by 574 tons
per year. Combined is over select Bunge
facilities.
2,926
VOC
31DEC2005
Combined VOC emissions reduced by 1,122 tons
per year. Combined is over select Bunge
facilities.
2,761
Cargill
CO
01SEP2010
Combined CO emissions reduced by 10,900 tons
per year. Combined over select Cargill facilities.
11,167
NOx
01SEP2007
Combined NOx emissions reduced by 1,350 tons
per year. Combined over select Cargill facilities.
4,451
S02
01SEP2008
Combined SO2 emission reduced by 2,250 tons
per year. Combined over select Cargill facilities.
10,527
VOC
01SEP2008
Combined VOC emissions reduced by 98% or
10,450 tons per year. Combined over select
Cargill facilities.
6,617
Conoco Phillips
NOx
31DEC2008
Combined NOx emissions reduced by 10,000
tons per year. Combined over select Conoco
Phillips facilities.
17,409
31,003
S02
31DEC2008
Combined SO2 emissions reduced by 37,100 tons
per year. Combined over select Conoco Phillips
facilities
Dupont
S02
01MAR2010
Annual SO2 emissions cap at 123 tons per year at
James River
0
01MAR2012
Annual SO2 emissions cap at 248 tons per year at
Wurtland
2,268
Annual SO2 emissions cap at 281 tons per year at
Fort Hill
2,228
01SEP2009
Annual SO2 emissions cap at 1,007 tons per year
at Burnside.
9,517
Hunt
NOx
31DEC2010
Must meet heat input capacity of 150 mmBTU/hr
or greater such that weighted average is no
greater than 0.044 lbs/mmBTU, applied at
Lumberton, Sandersville, and Tuscaloosa.
350
S02
31DEC2007
No burning of fuel greater than 5 wt% sulfur.
SO2 emissions will not exceed 20ppm or that
weighted average H2S concentrations will not
exceed 162 ppm H2S, applied at Lumberton,
Sandersville, and Tuscaloosa.
939
MGP Ingredients
CO
2009
CO reductions by 90%
31
B-l
-------
Corporation
Pollutant
Compliance
Date
Description of reductions
2005
Emissions
(tons/year)
VOC
2009
VOC reductions by 95%
112
Annual emission limit of 2.2 lbs/ton.
240
01JUL2007
Annual emission limit of 2.5 lbs/ton
396
Must meet SCAQMDR limit (1.71bs/ton or less)
392
01JUL2009
Annual emission limit of 2.2 lbs/ton.
282
Rhodia Inc
S02
01MAY2012
Baton Rouge #1 -> limit of 1.9 lbs/ton. Baton
Rouge #2 -> limit of 2.2 lbs/ton
7,920
2008
Houston #8 -> limit of 2.5 lbs/ton within 1 year
of Date of Entry. Houston #2 -> limit of 1.8
/lbs/ton within 1 year of Date of Entry
9,686
St. Mary's Cement
NOx
30APR2009
Reduce combined NOx emissions by 2,700 tons
per year.
1,700
2006
(Marcus
Hook, PA)
Combined NOx emissions reduced by 4,500 tons
per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities.
746
NOx
31DEC2009
(Toledo, OH)
Combined NOx emissions reduced by 4,500 tons
per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities.
2,339
31DEC2010
(Philadelphia,
PA)
Combined NOx emissions reduced by 4,500 tons
per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities.
3,390
2006
(Marcus
Hook, PA)
Combined PM emissions reduced by 300 tons per
year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities.
34
Sunoco
PM
31DEC2009
(Toledo, OH)
Combined PM emissions reduced by 300 tons per
year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities.
391
31DEC2010
(Philadelphia
, PA)
Combined PM emissions reduced by 300 tons per
year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities.
591
2006
(Marcus
Hook, PA)
Combined SO2 emissions reduced by 19,500 tons
per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities.
3,536
S02
31DEC2009
(Toledo, OH)
Combined SO2 emissions reduced by 19,500 tons
per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities.
9,072
31DEC2010
(Philadelphia
, PA)
Combined SO2 emissions reduced by 19,500 tons
per year. Combined over select Sunoco facilities.
3,353
Total
CO
2007
Annual CO emissions cap at 120 tons per year.
386
Petrochemicals
NOx
31DEC2009
Annual NOx emissions cap at 180 tons per year.
798
USA
S02
2010
Annual SO2 emissions cap at 800 tons per year.
146
B-2
-------
Corporation
Pollutant
Compliance
Date
Description of reductions
2005
Emissions
(tons/year)
Valero
NOx
2011
Combined NOx emissions reduced by 1870 tons
per year. Combined is over facilities: Lima,
Memphis, and Port Arthur.
4,165
31DEC2011
Combined NOx emissions reduced by 4,000 tons
per year. Combined over Valero facilities in
Ardmore OK, Benicia CA, Martinez CA,
Wilmington CA, Denver CO, St. Charles LA,
Krotz Spring LA, Paulsboro NJ, Corpus Christi
TX (east and west), Houston TX, Sunray TX,
Texas City TX, and Three Rivers TX.
13,742
PM
31DEC2011
Combined PM emissions reduced by 526 tons per
year. Combined over Valero facilities listed in
other two lists for NOx and S02.
3,027
S02
2011
Combined SO2 emissions reduced by 1,810 tons
per year. Combined is over facilities: Lima,
Memphis, and Port Arthur.
4,105
31DEC2011
Combined SO2 emissions reduced by 16,000 tons
per year. Combined over Valero facilities in
Ardmore OK, Benicia CA, Martinez CA,
Wilmington CA, Denver CO, St. Charles LA,
Krotz Spring LA, Paulsboro NJ, Corpus Christi
TX (east and west), Houston TX, Sunray TX,
Texas City TX, and Three Rivers TX.
19,618
B-3
-------
Appendix C
Gold Mine Mercy Reductions Due to NESHAP:
DATE FOR PROJECTION FACTOR Assume 2014 (rule done end of 2010 and 3 years
NEISITEID
FIPS
pollco
de
STATE_FACILIT
Y_ ID
Facility Name
FACILIT
Y WIDE
mercury
emission
s (in tons
per
year)*
FACILITY WIDE
PROJECTION
FACTOR
computed from the 2016
emissions, (base year x
Projection Factor =
Future
Year)
2016
emissio ns
(in tons
per
year) **
CRIPPLE CREEK
0811
80860CRPPL275
& VICTOR GOLD
NEI1827
9
199
5S
MINING CO
0.01715
1
0.01715
KENNECOTT
NEI2NV4111
3202
89406KNNCT55
RAWHIDE
Facility wide emissions estimate is
1 6
1
199
MIL
MINING
0.02
0.215
0.0043
based on 2007 emissions test data
CO
SMOKY VALLEY
NEI2NV444.
3202
89045 SMKYV1S
COMMON
Facility wide emissions estimate is
0 1
3
199
MOK
OPERATION
0.03
0.388333333
0.01165
based on 2007 emissions test data
NEI2NVT1824
3201
Facility wide emissions estimate is
2
1
199
T$18242
RUBY HILL MINE
0.018
0.166666667
0.003
based on 2007 emissions test data
NEIAK090997
0224
74399
99737PGMNX38
37PGMNX38
0
76
MIL
POGO MINE
0.0005
1
0.0005
NEIAKT$1366
0209
99707FRTKN IF
0.00006
0
0
199
O
FORT KNOX
0.000065
1
5
RA
MINE
KENNECOTT
GREENS CREEK
NEIAKT$136
0211
99801KNNCT134
MINING
0.00271
65
0
199
01
COMPANY
0.002715
1
5
GOLDEN
3004
59759GLDNS453
SUNLIGHT
NEIMT15320
3
199
MO
MINES
0.00085
1
0.00085
INC.
C-l
-------
NEINV320158 3201
9821CRTZG 5 199
NEINVT$124 3201
98 3
199
89821CRTZGST
A
RA
89414NWMNT3
5MIL
CORTEZ GOLD
MINES
NEWMONT
MINING CORP
TWIN CREEKS
MINE
0.42575
0.296
C-2
0.234879624
0.506756757
-------
Appendix C
Gold Mine Mercy Reductions Due to NESHAP:
DATE FOR PROJECTION FACTOR Assume 2014 (rule done end of 2010 and 3 years
compliance)
NEI SITE ID FIPS
pollco
de
STATE_FACILI
TY ID
Facility Name
FACILIT
Y WIDE
mercury
emission
s (in tons
per
year)*
FACILITY WIDE
PROJECTION
FACTOR
computed from the 2016
emissions, (base year x
Projection Factor =
Future
Year)
2016
emissio
ns (in
tons per
year) **
NEINVT$124
99
NEINVT$125
0
0
NEINVT$125
0
6
NEINVT$125
1 0
3202
7
3202
199
199
3201
3 199
3201
3 199
89418FLRDCEXI
T
1
89419CRRCH180
EX
89438GLMSM3
MILE
89438NWMNTS
TONE
NEINVT$125
23
NEINVT$125
2
4
NEINVT$125
25
NEINVT$125
29
3200
7 199
3203
3 199
3200
7 199
3200
7 199
89801JRRTT50M
IL
89803BLDMN70
MIL
89803BRRCK27
MIL
T$12529
STAND AR
D MINING
INC
COEUR
ROCHESTER INC
GLAMIS
MARIGOLD
MINE
NEWMONT
MINING CORP
LONE TREE
MINE
JERRITT
CANYON MINE
BALD
MOUNTAIN
MINE
BARRICK
GOLDSTRI
KE MINES
INC
NEWMONT
MINING CORP
RAIN AREA
0.069
0.1638
0.311
0.23
0.14
0.35
0.0001
C-3
Facility wide emissions estimate is
0.4 0.032 based on 2008 emissions test data
Facility wide emissions estimate is
1 0.069 based on 2007 emissions test data
0.018315018 0.003
Facility wide emissions estimate is
0.225080386 0.07 based on 2006 emissions test data
Facility wide emissions estimate is
for the 2004-05 timeframe and is
based on the estimate submitted to
Nevada DEP in response to ICR
0.217391304 0.05 survey sent to the company.
Facility wide emissions estimate is
0.214285714 0.03 based on 2008 emissions test data
Facility wide emissions estimate is
0.085714286 0.03 based on 2007 emissions test data
0.0001
-------
MINE
NEWMONT
MINING CORP
NEINVT$125 3201 89822NWMNT6 CARLIN SOUTH
3 1 1 199 MAIL AREA 0.345 0.405797101 0.14
* except for Pogo Mines, the pollutant code used is 199. For Pogo Mines it is 7439976.
** These are projected emissions estimates post-MACT based on analyses of expected reductions done for the 2010 Proposed MACT rule.
C-4
-------
Appendix D
Mercury Emission Reductions,
2005-2016 for Particular NonEGU Categories based on
data/approaches developed by SPPD1
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES (EAFs): Reduction to an emission level of 5 tpy (a 2.3 tpy Hg reduction) by 2016 is estimated
based on the 2007 MACT rule ¥72 FR 74108). The NATA inventory for 2005 shows 7.3 tpy Hg emissions. For the rule, EPA
estimated 5 tpy reductions (from 10 tpy). This is considered a conservative assumption at this time; Hg emissions could go to 0
tpy, if mercury switches are removed from the process, or Hg emissions could move toward 0 tpy based on vehicle fleet turnover
and the increasing use of mercury-free switches. Because the source of
mercury for EAFs is scrap metal containing mercury switches from an aging vehicle fleet that has been replaced with mercury-
free technology, there is the potential that there will be very low levels of mercury by 2016, via mandatory controls and
continuous monitoring as a result of the new MACT rule (an upcoming area source rule that is in the planning stage), and through
vehicle fleet turnover.
We determined a 35.1% reduction was needed from a starting point of 7.3 tons to get to 5 tons.
However, our starting point inventory was actually lower than the NATA value of 5 tons because the following sources were not
in the starting modeling inventory or had different emissions than the 2005 NATA due to other controls applied that would have
contributed to getting to 5 tons in the future
nata_plant
see
nata emis
Starting Emissions in projection
Northwestern Steel & Wire Co (shut
0
down prior to 2005)
30300908
0.337223
Same, but other controls reduce
Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc.
this source
Charlotte Stee
30400701
0.0144
Same, but other controls reduce
Gerdau Ameristeel US Inc.
this source
Charlotte Stee
30400799
0.0005
Texas Industries Inc.
30300908
0.325819
0.059951 (other controls applied)
Because our pre-MACT emissions were 6.6 tons, to get to a projected value of 5 tons, the percent reduction is 24.4% instead of
35.1%,. Therefore our projection resulted in a 2016 value of 4.53 tons instead of 5 tons fortius sector.
However, because the actual emissions for this sector could move towards 0 in the future so the error is much smaller than the
undcertainty. Note that the reductions for this sector were 2.12 tons.
HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTORS (HWCs): A 0.2 tpy reduction of Hg by 2016 is estimated from the 2005 MACT
rule. The 2005 standards are in effect and all HWCs are required to be in compliance with them. The Hg reductions achieved by
the 2005 standards were estimated to be 0.2 tpy. This was due in part to "interimstandards" that were put in place in 2002, which
reduced Hg emissions by 12.9 tpy.
.Note that identifying which HWCs have reductions may not be possible.
We determine that a 6.25% reduction would be needed to achieve a 0.2 ton reduction based on a 2005category-wide sum of 2.3
tons. However, we inadvertently applied a 31.5% reduction and therefore reduced emissions by 0.94 tons instead of 0.2 tons.
Since the 0.74 extra ton reductions are spread across more than 250 counties, this is not expected to impact any one area of the
country significantly.
1 transmitted by Amy Vasu of SPPD on Sept 7 and Sept 8,2010 (email to Madeleine Strum)
D-l
-------
One other issue is that it appeared that some HWCs are part of the ISIS model and that they should not be addressed both by the ISIS
projection and the across-th-board HWC reduction.
Upcoming revised rule. Work to revise the rule (to replace the Hg standards, due to the remand) is at the pre-proposal stage, and
there is not an estimate of reductions that those future standards may achieve. It is not known if the compliance date would be prior
to 2016 for the revised rule.
MERCURY CHLORALKALI PLANTS: Estimated emissions for 2009 are 0.3 tpy; this is a 0.8 T/yr reduction from 2005
levels. Mercury emissions could remain at 0.3 tpy or go to 0 tpy by 2013-2016 due to facility closure or conversion, but is highly
uncertain at this time.
2003 MACT rule. NATA inventory for 2005 shows 1.1 tpy Hg emissions, however, this is inconsistent with the 2005 NATA version
we used because which sums to 3.1 tons. Estimates of mercury emissions under this rule are 0.3 tpy in 2009 through 2012. Four
facilities remain in operation (Augusta, GA; Charleston, TN; New Martinsville, WV; and, Ashtabula, OH). It is estimated that
emissions could go to 0 tpy as early as 2013
ASHTA (Ashtabula, OH facility; Ashtabula County) OLIN -
GA (Augusta, GA facility; Richmond County) OLIN - TN
(Charleston, TN facility; Bradley County) PPG (New
Martinsville, WV facility; Wetzel County)
In order to generate a Mercury Chloralkali estimate consistent with the above, we had to remove Hg from the sources identified as
Mercury chloralkali plants based on their MACT code of 1403. These are shown below; and the sum is
1.4 tons.
In addition, we applied facility specific reductions to the following 4 facilities ASHTA
(Ashtabula, OH facility; Ashtabula County)
OLIN - GA (Augusta, GA facility; Richmond County)
OLIN - TN (Charleston, TN facility; Bradley County)
PPG (New Martinsville, WV facility; Wetzel County)
Such that the resultant emissions would match data provided by rule developers.
Specifically:
NEIOHTS5933 is for ASHTA (Ashtabula, OH facility; Ashtabula County) 2005 Hg is 0.4065 tons (813 lbs) FIPS=39007,
PLANTID= 44004LCPCH3509M, POLL = 7439976 (2 records for this facility)
Final emissions in Amy's table (2008) is 62 pounds. Therefore, percent reduction is 92.4% Actual
final emissions from projection is 61.788 for ashta
NEIGAT$3892 is for OLIN - GA (Augusta, GA facility; Richmond County) 2005 Hg is 0.412 tons (824 lbs) FIPS=
13245 PLANTID= 30913LNGST2402L, POLL = 7439976 (2 records for this facility)
Final emissions in Amy's table (2008) is 95 pounds Therefore, percent reduction is 88.5% Actual
final emissions from projection is 94.76 pounds
NEI10894 is for OLIN - TN (Charleston, TN facility; Bradley County) 2005 Hg is 0.7675 tons (1535 lbs)
FIPS = 47011 PLANTID = ???? check leading zeroes 14??? POLL = 7439976 (2 records for this facility) Final emissions in
Amy's table (2008) is 327 pounds. Therefore % reduction is 78.7%
Actual final emissions from projection is 326.955 pounds
NEI42444 PPG (New Martinsville, WV facility; Wetzel County this is in Marshall county not Wetzel county Boiler
MACT database also has it as Marshall county) 2005 Hg is 0.127 tons (254 lbs)
D-2
-------
FIPS = 54051 PLANTID = 5405100002 check leading zeroes POLL = 199 (2 records for this facility)
Final emissions in Amy's table is 150 pounds per the settlement Decree Amy indicated that limits their emissions to
that level. Therefore % reduction is 40.9%
Actual final emissions from projection is 150 pounds
Overall reduction for the above plants is 1.396249 tons in addition, 1.4 tons were zeroed out so the total reduction is
2.8 tons.
Plants to shut down
nata uniq fips plantid
NEIAL0330002 1033
poll
NEI6076
NEI6076
NEI6076
NEI6076
22019
22019
22019
22019
NEI6076 22019
2 30100802
199
nataemis
Hg (tons)
0.27
neienus
Hg (tons)
emisdiff nata plant
Occidental
NEI26211 10003 1000300030 30100802 7439976 0.1263
5200004 30100802 7439976 0.0795
5200004 30100802 7439976 0.0005
5200004 30100802 7439976 0.5225
5200004 30100802 7439976 0.0005
5200004 30100802 7439976 0.0005
NEILATS10650 22047 70776STFFRRIVE 39999999
R
NEILATS10650 22047 70776STFFRRIVE 39999999
R
7439976 0.36525
7439976 0.024
0.27
NEI26211 10003 1000300030 30100899 7439976 0.002387 0.002387
NEI26211 10003 1000300030 30100899 7439976 5.40E-05 5.40E-05
0.1263
NEI26211 10003 1000300030 30100899 7439976 0.000254 0.000254
0.0795
0.0005
0.5225
0.0005
0.0005
NEI42973 55141 772010470 30100802 7439976 0.00465
0.36525
0.024
0.00465
Chemical
Corporation
OCCIDENTAL
CHEMICAL
CORPORATION
OCCIDENTAL
CHEMICAL
CORPORATION
OCCIDENTAL
CHEMICAL
CORPORATION
OCCIDENTAL
CHEMICAL
CORPORATION
PPG INDUSTRIES
INC/LA
KE
CHARLE
S
COMPL
EX
, five
PPG INDUSTRIES
INC/LA
KE
CHARL
ES
COMPLEX
PPG INDUSTRIES
INC/LA
KE
CHARL
ES
COMPLEX
PPG INDUSTRIES
INC/LA
KE
CHARL
ES
COMPLEX
PIONEER
AMERICAS
LLC/CHLOR-
ALKALI
PLANT
PIONEER
AMERICAS
LLC/CHLOR-
ALKALI
PLANT
ERCO
WORLDWIDE
(USA)
nata mact
code
1403
1403
1403
1403
1403
1403
1403
1403
1403
1403
1403
1403
1403
D-3
-------
ERCO
WORLDWIDE
NEI42973 55141 772010470 30100802 7439976 0.003 0.003 0 (USA) 1403
Pulp and Paper: A Hg emission reduction of 0.7 tpy is estimated as a result of replacement of a smelter at G-P Big Island
(Beford County, VA) with a recovery furnace. This results in 0.4 tpy Hg emissions for Pulp and Paper.
REDUCTION = 0.728172
D-4
-------
Implementation: Zero out Hg emissions from the following unit
nata uniq fips plantid pointid stackid segment see poll nataemis nata plant nata maet
GP Big
NEI42211 51019 00003 10 10 3 30700399 199 0.728172 Island LLC 1626-2
Upcoming rules not vet proposed. Possible future Hg controls (should EPA regulations dictate Hg controls - which remains to be
seen) are activated carbon injection or more likely a wet scrubber applied to recovery furnaces. If we assume a 99% Hg reduction
associated with these controls, then the recovery furnace Hg emissions from the NEI (totaling 0.177 tpy for DCE + NDCE) would be
reduced by 0.175 tpy.
Thus, the best-case Hg reduction estimated for the P&P industry is rounded to 0.18 tpy based on current NEI data (corrected
for a shut-down smelter) and a 99% reduction of Hg emissions from recovery furnaces. These possible future Hg controls are
not currently accounted for in the projections done for nonEGU.
D-5
-------
Appendix E
Ptnonipm (Non EGU) Plant Closures Included in the 2016 Base Case and the Resulting Emissions Changes
Due to the Closures (impacts on emissions from these closures are provided in the main document).
fips
plantid
pointid
stackid
segment
plant
effective date
1073
10730360
U.S. Pipe N. Birmingham , Walter Coke, I
7/31/2010
1073
35207NTDST30003
U. S. PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY LLC.(NO.
B'
12/11/2009
1073
10730350
SLOSSINDUSTRIESCORPORATION-
MINERALW
12/11/2009
1073
35207SLSSN35003
SLOSSINDUSTRIESCORPORATION-
MINERALW
12/11/2009
1073
10730068
W.J. Bullock
10/31/2009
1073
35224WJBLL1501E
W.J. Bullock
10/31/2009
12105
1050059
MOSAICFERTILIZERLLCNEWWALESPLANT
12/31/2008
12105
33860MCFRTHIGHW
MOSAICFERTILIZERLLCNEWWALESPLANT
12/31/2008
12105
TS15385
MOSAICFERTILIZERLLCNEWWALESPLANT
12/31/2008
13051
5100008
TronoxPigments(Savannah)Inc
12/31/2006
13051
31404KMRWCEASTP
TronoxPigments(Savannah)Inc
12/31/2006
17031
031012ABI
CornProductsInternationallnc
6/30/2010
18167
22
INTERNATIONALPAPERCO.
12/31/2007
19111
56-02-004
INTERNATIONAL? APERCORP-
FORTMADISON
8/31/2005
19111
52632THHBNONPR
2
ROQUETTE AMERICA,INC
3/1/2008
19111
56-01-009
242710
ROQUETTE AMERICA,INC
3/1/2008
19111
56-01-009
242802
ROQUETTE AMERICA,INC
3/1/2008
19111
56-01-009
242828
ROQUETTE AMERICA,INC
3/1/2008
22067
1
INTERNATIONALPAPERCO/LOUISIANAMILL
11/30/2008
22067
19200001
INTERNATIONALPAPERCO/LOUISIANAMILL
11/30/2008
22067
71220NTRNT705CO
INTERNATIONALPAPERCO/LOUISIANAMILL
11/30/2008
22079
1
INTERNATIONALPAPERCO/PINEVILLEMILL
5/30/2010
22079
23600001
INTERNATIONALPAPERCO/PINEVILLEMILL
5/30/2010
22079
TS10715
INTERNATIONAL? APERCO/PINEVILLEMILL
5/30/2010
23007
2300700007
WAUSAUPAPEROTISMILL
5/31/2009
23019
1900056
KATAHDINPAPERCO-WESTMILL
8/31/2008
23019
2301900056
KATAHDINPAPERCO-WESTMILL
8/31/2008
25003
0123 8KMBRLGREYL
SCHWEITZERMAUDUITINTERNATIONALINC.
5/31/2008
25003
1170016
SCHWEITZERMAUDUITINTERNATIONALINC.
5/31/2008
25003
1170014
MWCUSTOMPAPERS,LLC-LAURELMILL
7/31/2007
25003
T$14390
MWCUSTOMPAPERS,LLC-LAURELMILL
7/31/2007
25017
01760NTCKP90NMA
NATICKPAPERBOARD
11/30/2005
25017
1190241
NATICKPAPERBOARD
11/30/2005
26121
A4203
SDWARRENMU SKEGONMIOPERATION S
8/31/2009
E-l
-------
fips
plantid
pointid
stackid
segment
plant
effective date
26121
TS7810
SDWARRENMU SKEGONMIOPERATION S
8/31/2009
33007
03570JMSRV650MA
FRASERNHLLC
4/30/2008
33007
3300700001
FRASERNHLLC
4/30/2008
36083
4382800006
BENNINGTONPAPERBOARDCO
4/30/2009
37119
583
CaraustarMillGroup,Inc.
3/31/2009
39153
1677010193
B101
GOODYEARTIRE&RUBBERCO.
12/31/2007
39153
1677010193
B102
GOODYEARTIRE&RUBBERCO.
12/31/2007
39153
1677010193
B103
GOODYEARTIRE&RUBBERCO.
12/31/2007
39153
TS6196
1
GOODYEARTIRE&RUBBERCO.
12/31/2007
47063
197
LIBERTYFIBERSCORPORATION
7/31/2010
47063
37778LNZNGTENNE
LIBERTYFIBERSCORPORATION
7/31/2010
47063
TS4972
LIBERTYFIBERSCORPORATION
7/31/2010
48141
5
ELPASOPLANT
6/1/2010
48141
1
ELPASOPLANT
6/1/2010
55075
438039360
STORAENSONORTHAMERICANIAGARAMILL
12/31/2008
55075
54151NGRFW1101M
STORAENSONORTHAMERICANIAGARAMILL
12/31/2008
55075
TS8508
STORAENSONORTHAMERICANIAGARAMILL
12/31/2008
55141
772010580
DOMTARA.W.CORP.-PORTEDWARDS
6/30/2008
55141
772010580
DOMTARA.W.CORP.-PORTEDWARDS
6/30/2008
55141
TS8586
DOMTARA.W.CORP.-PORTEDWARDS
6/30/2008
E-2
-------
APPENDIX F
Approach to Apply RICE reductions to
project 2005 Emissions in the 2005v4.I
modeling Platform: 2004 and 2010 rules
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES v
1 Introduction 6
2 Source Coverage. 8
3 Spark Ignition (SI) Engines 11
3.1 Four Stroke Rich Burn Engines (4SRB) 13
3.2 Two Stroke Lean Burn Engines (2SLB) 14
3.3 Four Stroke Lean Burn Engines (4SLB) 14
4 Compression Ignition (CI) Engines 15
5 Approach For Addressing Already-Controlled Sources 16
6 Percent Reduction Calculations to be applied to NEI 16
6.1 SI Engines 16
6.2 CI Engines 18
F-iii
-------
7 Percent Reduction Calculations to be applied to NEI accounting for only the 2004 RICE rule
19
7.1 SI Engines 19
7.2 CI Engines 20
8 Results 20
F-iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Summary of Existing Source RICE Reductions Reflected in the Projection Methodology 6
Table 2-1. SCCs representing the point source and non-point source universe of RICE 9
Table 3-1. Distribution of NOX by engine and HP type for major and area sources 12
Table 3-2. Distribution of CO by engine and HP type for major and area sources 12
Table 3-3. Distribution of VOC by engine and HP type for major and area sources 12
Table 4-1. Distribution of CO, PM and VOC emissions from Compression Ignition Engines by Engine and
HP type for major and area sources 15
Table 6-1. Formula for determining the percent reduction to apply to SI SCCs for Projection Years of 2014
and Beyond 16
Table 6-2. Formula for determining the percent reduction to apply to Compression Ignition (CI) SCCs for
Projection Years of 2014 and later 18
Table 7-1. Formula for determining the percent reduction to apply to SI SCCs for the 2012 projection 19
Table 8-1. Summary of Percent Reductions and Emissions reduced from the 2005 Platform resulting from
all 3 RICE rules (Future years 2014 and later) 21
Table 8-2. Summary of Percent Reductions and Emissions reduced from the 2005 Platform resulting from
the 2004 RICE NESHAP 21
Table 9-1. S02 emissions and reductions resulting from ultra low sulfur fuel requirement (compliance date
May 2013) for CI engines greater or equal to 300 HP 24
F-v
-------
1 Introduction
There are three rulemakings for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. These rules reduce hazardous air
pollutant (HAPs) from existing and new stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines
(RICE). In order to meet the standards, existing sources with certain types of engines will need
to install controls. In addition to reducing HAPs, these controls also reduce criteria air pollutants
(CAPs).
This document presents a methodology for incorporating the CAP reductions from the three
RICE NESHAP in the future year projection of the 2005 v4.1 modeling platform. The
methodology addresses the following future years: 2012, and 2014 and beyond. In 2014 and
beyond, all 3 rules' compliance dates have passed; thus all 3 rules are included in the emissions
projection. In 2012 only the earliest rule's compliance date has passed so only one rule is
included.
The rules are listed below:
* National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines; Final Rule (69 FR 33473) published 06/15/04
* National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines; Final Rule (FR 9648 ) published 03/03/10
* National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating
Internal Combustion Engines; Final Rule (75 FR 51570) published 08/20/2010
The difference among these three rules is that they focus on different types of engines, different
facility types (major for HAPs, versus area for HAPs) and different engine sizes based on
horsepower (HP). In addition, the they have different compliance dates. We project CAPs from
the 2005 NEI RICE sources, based on the requirements of the rule for existing sources.. We
consider only existing sources, since the inventory includes only existing sources and the current
projection approach does not estimate emissions from new sources. As indicated earlier, for the
2012 projections, only the requirements associated with the June 15, 2007 compliance date are
incorporated. All of the Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference, requirements are
incorporated in projections for 2014 and beyond.
Table 1-lsummarizes the rule information that was used for the emissions projection. As
indicated earlier, for the 2012 projections, only the requirements associated with the June 15,
2007 compliance date are incorporated. All of the Error! Not a valid bookmark self-
reference. requirements are incorporated in projections for 2014 and beyond.
Table 1-1. Summary of Existing Source RICE Reductions Reflected in the Projection
Methodology
F-6
-------
Engine
Type
Control and
Pollutant
Reductions
Horse Power
Range
Affected
(Existing
Sources
Only)
Publication
Date of the
RICE
NESHAP
Compliance
Date
Reductions for
Existing
Sources, Rule
Documentation
(tons)**
Spark
Ignition:
Four stroke
rich burn
Non-
selective
catalytic
reduction
Non-
emergency,
Major, HP >
500
06/15/04
June 15,
2007
CO: 98,040
NOX: 69,862
VOC:1461***
(SI: 4SRB)
97% NOX,
49% CO *
76% VOC
SI: 4SRB
Same as
above
Non-
emergency,
Area, HP
>500
08/20/10
October 19,
2013
NOX: 96,479
CO: 109,321
SI: Four
stroke lean
burn (4SLB)
Oxidation
Catalyst
94% CO,
71% VOC
Non-
emergency
Major, 100-
500 HP, Area
>500 HP
08/20/10
October 19,
2013
VOC: 30,907
Compression
Ignition (CI)
Oxidation
Catalyst
70% CO and
VOC
30% PM2.5
Non-
emergency
Major and
Area, HP
>300
03/03/10
May 3, 2013
CO: 14,342
VOC: 27,395
PM: 2,844
*% CO used in 6/2004 rule was 90%
**Total Reductions across these rules: NOX (tons)= 166,379; CO (tons)
= 221,703; VOC (tons) = 58,402; and PM (tons) = 2,844.
*** VOC reductions weren't estimated for the 2004 rule. Used 2010
approach: estimated the VOC emissions as a function of the HAP
emissions by dividing HAP by 0.1944 to get the VOC emissions.
Based on analyses done in support of the rules, the RICE NESHAP published 06/15/04 estimated
69,862 tons of NOX would be reduced, and the RICE NESHAP published 08/20/10 estimates
96,479 tons NOX to be reduced. Total NOX to be reduced from existing sources for the two
rules is therefore 166,379 tons. The sum of reductions for all rules for CO is 221,703; for VOC
is 58,402 and for PM is 2,844.
Our projection approaches generally try to maintain the percent reductions for a category rather
than match the absolute mass of the reductions. This is because the inventories used to estimate
reductions from the rules are often inconsistent with the inventories that we use for modeling.
F-7
-------
The rule-specific inventories generally come from industry survey data, and the NEI comes from
state-reported data. So, rather than attempting to remove the tonnages listed in above, we used a
percent reduction approach.
The percent reduction approach is to determine and apply the appropriate percent reductions to
RICE sources in the modeling platform. RICE emissions are identified based on the source
classification codes (SCCs) in the modeling inventory. As explained earlier, because the
modeling inventory was not used as the basis for determining the air impacts of the rule, the
tonnage reductions achieved by applying percent reductions associated with the RICE
requirements to the platform are not expected to provide exactly the values cited above.
The percentage reduction to be applied is determined as a function of the efficiency of the
control device, and the fraction of emissions in the SCC estimated to be impacted by the rule
requirements. The remainder of this document presents the data and equations used to estimate
the overall percent reductions to apply to each SCC. Section 2 discusses the source coverage as
a function of the inventory SCCs. Sections 3 and 4 present the data used to determine the
percentage of emissions from these SCCs to apply the control device efficiencies. Section 5
discusses the approach for addressing the already controlled engines, and Section 6 provides the
equations for percent reduction, and summarizes the values of the parameters used to compute
the percent reduction by pollutant and by engine type for years past 2014; Section 7 provides this
information for the 2012 projection year which includes reductions only from the rule published
in 2004. Section 8 provides a summary of the results.
2 Source Coverage
The engine types affected by the NESHAP are Spark Ignition (SI) and Compression Ignition
(CI). Spark Ignition engines can be classified as Four Stroke Rich Burn Engines (4SRB), Two
Stroke Lean Burn Engines (2SLB) and Four Stroke Lean Burn Engines (4SLB). Because the
requirements of the rules differ between SI engine types, we must be able to distinguish among
these types in the inventory.
The inventory source classification codes (SCCs) that represent SI and CI engines in the NEI are
shown in Table 2-1, along with emissions (50-state sums) from the 2005 modeling platform
(case=2005cr). The SI SCCS are assigned to one of five "reduction" categories depending upon
the specificity of the type of SIC engine. These are: 4SRB, 4SLB, 2SLB and "SI, generic",
"boiler + engine" and "RICE + turbine." Note that all of the gasoline engines are considered to
be 100% 4SRB. A method and data to apportion the fraction of emissions from the non-specific
engine type categories of "SI, generic", "boiler+engine" and "RICE+turbine" to 4SRB and
4SLB engine types is presented in the next section. The CI SCCs only need to be apportioned
to non-emergency engines, and not by any specific CI engine type, therefore the "Category for
Application of Reduction" is CI.
There are also SCCs in the inventory for oil and gas operations that include emissions from the
use of RICE. We denote these as "oil&gas" in Table 2-1. We do not have any data to apportion
the amount of emissions from SI nor CI RICE from these SCCs. Focusing on NOX reductions,
we can determine the amount of NOX reductions needed from the oil&gas SCCs in order to
F-8
-------
bring the total NOX to equal the estimates provided in the rule. The total NOX reductions from
the non oil&gas SCCs sum to 80,597 tons and the total NOX reductions estimated by the two
rules is 166,379 tons. If the remaining NOX from oil&gas SCCs were to make up this
difference, 26% of the total oil&gas NOX would need to be reduced. Since this fraction turns
out higher than the fraction of reduction to be applied to "SI, generic" SCCs, and it is expected
that oil&gas SCCs would have more NOX emitting operations than the "SI,generic" SCCs, we
have chosen to apply the "SI, generic" SCC fraction to the oil&gas SCCS. Because it is likely
that the vast majority of oil&gas VOC is from operations other than RICE, we will not compute
any VOC reduction from oil&gas SCCs. We will use the same fraction as "SI,generic" for CO.
Table 2-1. SCCs representing the point source and non-point source universe of RICE
S( (
Description
Engine
Typo
Category for
Application of
Reduction
NOX 2005
(tons)
( (>
2005 (tons)
VOC 2005
(tons)
PM2.5
2005 (tons)
20100102
Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generalion;Distillate
Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating
CI
CI
17,662
3,792
1,294
645
20100105
Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Distillate
Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Crankcase Blowby
CI
CI
87
22
10
9
20100107
Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Distillate
Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust
CI
CI
221
79
9
10
20100202
Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Natural
Gas;Reciprocating
SI
SI, generic
7,490
3,675
909
115
20100207
Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Natural
Gas;Reciprocating: Exhaust
SI
SI, generic
1
0
0
0
20200102
Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Distillate Oil
(Diesel);Reciprocating
CI
CI
11,785
3,323
908
772
20200104
Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Distillate Oil
(Diesel);Reciprocating: Cogeneration
CI
CI
494
128
18
31
20200107
Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Distillate Oil
(Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust
CI
CI
254
74
15
7
20200202
Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural
Gas;Reciprocating
SI
SI, generic
215,888
74,610
16,560
2,339
20200204
Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural
Gas;Reciprocating: Cogeneration
SI
SI, generic
704
413
110
14
20200207
Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural
Gas;Reciprocating: Exhaust
SI
SI, generic
15
50
1
0
20200252
Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas;2-cycle
Lean Burn
SI
2SLB
153,857
27,103
9,089
2,216
20200253
Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas;4-cycle
Rich Burn
SI
4SRB
66,871
53,724
5,337
512
20200254
Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas;4-cycle
Lean Burn
SI
4SLB
47,932
20,287
5,333
385
20200255
Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas;2-cycle
Clean Burn
SI
2SLB
591
288
70
22
20200256
Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas;4-cycle
Clean Burn
SI
4SLB
1,719
1,924
365
29
20200301
Internal Combustion
Engines;Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating
SI
4SRB
660
1,966
110
26
20200307
Internal Combustion
Engines;Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating: Exhaust
SI
4SRB
56
54
9
3
20201001
Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Liquified Petroleum
Gas (LPG);Propane: Reciprocating
SI
SI, generic
101
130
52
9
20201002
Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Liquified Petroleum
Gas (LPG);Butane: Reciprocating
SI
SI, generic
13
22
0
0
20201702
Internal Combustion
Engines;Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating Engine
SI
4SRB
3
31
9
0
20201707
Internal Combustion
Engines;Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating: Exhaust
SI
4SRB
0
4
0
0
20300101
Internal Combustion
Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil
(Diesel);Reciprocating
CI
CI
4,476
1,512
455
330
20300105
Internal Combustion
Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil
CI
CI
0
0
0
0
F-9
-------
S( (
Description
Engine
Type
Category for
Application of
Reduction
\'< >X 2005
(tons)
( ()
2005 (tons)
V< >C 2005
(tons)
PM2.5
2005 (tons)
(Diesel);Reciprocating: Crankcase Blowby
20300107
Internal Combustion
Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil
(Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust
CI
CI
9
1
0
6
20300201
Internal Combustion
Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Reciprocating
SI
SI, generic
17,532
6,165
1,883
113
20300204
Internal Combustion
Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Cogeneration
SI
generic
170
200
22
4
20300207
Internal Combustion
Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural
Gas;Reciprocating: Exhaust
SI
SI, generic
17
2
1
0
20300301
Internal Combustion
Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Gasoline;Reciprocating
SI
4SRB
348
4,250
245
80
20300307
Internal Combustion
Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Gasoline;Reciprocating:
Exhaust
SI
4SRB
4
21
3
20301001
Internal Combustion
Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Liquified Petroleum Gas
(LPG);Propane: Reciprocating
SI
SI, generic
61
28
12
2
20301002
Internal Combustion
Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Liquified Petroleum Gas
(LPG);Butane: Reciprocating
SI
SI, generic
0
0
0
20400401
Internal Combustion Engines;Engine Testing;Reciprocating
Engine;Gasoline
SI
4SRB
647
11,538
738
44
20400402
Internal Combustion Engines;Engine Testing;Reciprocating
Engine;Diesel/Kerosene
CI
CI
3,935
968
235
163
20400403
Internal Combustion Engines;Engine Testing;Reciprocating
Engine;Distillate Oil
CI
CI
2
1
0
0
31000203
Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production;Natural Gas
Production; Compressors
SI
SI, generic
29,605
10,849
2,333
272
50100421
Waste Disposal; Solid Waste Disposal - Government;Landfill
Dump;Waste Gas Recovery: Internal Combustion Device
SI
SI, generic
914
1,220
103
53
2101004000
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Electric Utility;Distillate
Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines
CI
Boiler+engine
258
60
4
1
2101004002
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Electric Utility;Distillate
Oil;All IC Engine Types
CI
CI
2,218
462
112
9
2101006000
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Electric Utility;Natural
Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines
SI
Boiler+engine
2,413
4,500
1,294
8
2101006002
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Electric Utility;Natural
Gas;All IC Engine Types
SI
RICE+turbine
6,089
1,347
52
148
2102004000
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Distillate
Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines
CI
Boiler+engine
89,906
20,956
3,223
6,494
2102006000
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Natural
Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines
SI
Boiler+engine
150,642
99,171
6,733
775
2102006002
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Natural
Gas;All IC Engine Types
SI
RICE+turbine
14,845
5,791
1,543
9
2103004000
Stationary Source Fuel
Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil;Total:
Boilers and IC Engines
CI
Boiler+engine
43,266
10,520
1,340
6,461
2103006000
Stationary Source Fuel
Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Total:
Boilers and IC Engines
SI
Boiler+engine
138,027
95,914
8,684
933
2199004000
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Total Area Source Fuel
Combustion;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines
CI
Boiler+engine
199
210
12
15
2199004002
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Total Area Source Fuel
Combustion;Distillate Oil;All IC Engine Types
CI
RICE+turbine
11,327
5,227
1,158
797
2199006000
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Total Area Source Fuel
Combustion;Natural Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines
SI
Boiler+engine
2,592
600
124
166
2310020600
Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production;Natural Gas;Compressor Engines
SI
SI, generic
48,393
29,980
5,300
_
2310000000
Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13;All
Processes;Total: All Processes
oil&gas
14,456
2,654
26,308
_
2310000220
Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Exploration and
oil&gas
85,302
26,575
5,579
2,945
F-10
-------
S( (
Description
Engine
Type
Category Ibr
Application of
Reduction
\'< >X 2005
(tons)
( ()
2005 (tons)
V< >C 2005
(tons)
PM2.5
2005 (tons)
Production;.\11 Procossos;Drill Rigs
2310000440
Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production;All Processes;Saltwater Disposal Engines
oil&gas
121
17
7
_
2310001000
Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13;All
Processes : On-shore;Total: All Processes
oil&gas
193,183
226,478
286,654
_
2310002000
Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13;All
Processes : Off-shore;Total: All Processes
oil&gas
1,859
_
310
_
2310020000
Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13;Natural
Gas;Total: All Processes
oil&gas
7,253
3,114
17,584
101
2310023000
Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Exploration and
Production;Natural Gas;Cbm Gas Well - Dewatering Pump
Engines
oil&gas
4,104
3 Spark Ignition (SI) Engines
Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3 provides the distribution of emissions by source type (major
versus area), engine type and HP range for NOX, CO and VOC, respectively. The data are from
the rule analyses and were provided by Melanie King, EPA, Sector Policies and Programs
Division. These tables provide the information needed to apportion the emissions from generic
reciprocating engine SI SCCs in Table 2-1 to the particular engine type requiring controls. For
example, the proportion of NOX emissions from major 4SRB Non-emergency engines from all
major reciprocating engines is 91,657/278,460 = 33%. The emissions in these tables are also
broken out by HP; thus they also provide the data needed to apportion the emissions to the HP
range requiring the controls. Furthermore, we have used them to create a ratio of major to area
emissions for SI engines. We had previously used the NEI's SRCTYPE data field which
indicates the facility's status- major vs area- with respect to HAPs (based on the major/area
definitions in Section 112 of the Clean Air Act). This approach, which used for the
2016crl_hg_05 case and related source apportionment case (both of these were used for the
Boiler MACT Regulatory Impact Assessment, and no other modeling) resulted in major/area
splits heavily weighted to major sources: 77%/23%, 81 %/19% and 75%/25% for 4SRB for
NOX, CO and VOC, respectively and 91%/9% for both CO and VOC for 4 SLB. However, we
have chosen to update this as we have more confidence in the major/area breakout done for the
rule analysis than the value reported in the inventory for which we have discovered errors in the
SCRTYPE value or found it missing. Using the data Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3, we
determine that 27% of the emissions are from major sources and 73% are from area sources.
This is approximately the same for all pollutants, and we also use it for all SI engine types.
The below subjections provide the apportionment factors for both engine type and HP ranges for
the SI engines.
F-ll
-------
Table 3-1. Distribution of NOX by engine and HP type for major and area sources
Baseline NOX emissions from major and area sources (with 20% 4SRB have NSCR), SI engines
HP Range
Total NOx
Emissions-major
sources
2SLB Non-
emergency-
major sources
4SLB Non-
emergency-
major sources
4SRB Non-
emergency-
major
sources
Emerg
ency-
major
sourc
es
Landfill/
Digester Gas
Non-
emergency-
major
sources
Total NOx
Emissions-
area
sources
2SLB-
a rea
sources
4SLB-
a rea
sources
4SRB-
area
sources
Emerge
ncy-
area
sources
Landfill/
Digester
Gas- area
sources
25-50
41,751
12,806
15,054
13,853
38
0
68,56(
21,031
24,72;
22,750
6:
50-100
22,363
6,859
8,063
7,420
21
0
58,98?
18,09;
21,268
19,571
5'
100-175
64,914
19,911
23,405
21,538
60
0
133,06?
40,81?
47,978
44,150
12:
175-300
24,168
7,413
8,714
8,019
22
0
82,35<
25,261
29,69?
27,326
7 (
300-500
25,106
7,700
9,052
8,330
23
0
99,67^
30,57'
35,94(
33,073
9;
500-600
19,426
5,825
6,847
6,301
18
436
69,09'
19,76(
23,228
21,375
5<
4,671
600-750
4,097
1,228
1,444
1,329
4
92
14,438
4,328
5,08'
4,682
i:
32"
>750
76,635
22,971
27,002
24,848
71
1744
227,89C
68,313
80,303
73,896
21(
5,16S
Total
278,460
84,713
99,581
91,637
256
2,272
754,07'/
228,175
268,222
246,822
69<
10,167
Table 3-2. Distribution of CO by engine and HP type for major and area sources
Baseline CO emissions from major and area sources (with 20% 4SRB have NSCR), SI engines
Total CO
2SLB
Non-
emergenc
y-major
sources
4SLB
Non-
4SRB
Non-
emergenc
y-major
sources
Emer
gency
Landfill/
Digester
Gas
Eme
HP
Range
Emissions-
major
sources
emergen
cy-
major
sources
majo
r
sourc
es
Non-
emergen
cy-
major
sources
Total
CO
Emissio
ns- area
sources
2SLB-
a rea
source
s
4SLB-
area
source
s
4SRB-
area
sources
rgen
cy-
area
sour
ces
Landfill/
Digester
Gas- area
sources
25-50
28,798
3,247
5,131
20,368
51
46,898
5,333
8,031
33,450
83
50-100
15,425
1,739
2,748
10,910
27
40,344
4,588
6,909
28,776
71
100-175
44,774
5,049
7,978
31,668
79
91,013
10,350
15,586
64,917
161
175-300
16,670
1,880
2,970
11,791
29
56,331
6,406
9,646
40,179
100
300-500
17,316
1,953
3,086
12,248
30
68,178
7,753
11,675
48,629
121
500-600
13,402
1,477
2,334
9,264
23
303
47,273
5,011
7,546
31,429
78
3,209
600-750
2,826
312
492
1,954
5
64
9,876
1,097
1,653
6,884
17
225
>750
52,851
5,825
9,204
36,535
93
1,194
155,890
17,323
26,086
108,654
275
3,551
Total
192,062
21,482
33,944
134,738
337
1,561
515,803
57,862
87,132
362,918
906
6,985
Table 3-3. Distribution of VOC by engine and HP type for major and area sources
Baseline VOC emissions from major and area sources (with 20% 4SRB have NSCR), SI engines
F-12
-------
HP
Range
Total
VOC
Emissi
ons -
major
sources
2SLB
Non-
emerge
ncy-
major
sources
4SLB
Non-
emergenc
y -major
sources
4SRB
Non-
emergen
cy-
major
sources
Emerge
ncy -
major
sources
Landfill/
Digester
Gas
Non-
emergen
cy-
major
sources
Total
VOC
Emissio
ns - area
sources
2SLB
Non-
emergenc
y- area
sources
4SLB
Non-
emergenc
y- area
sources
4SRB
Non-
emergenc
y - area
sources
Emerge
ncy -
area
sources
Landfill/
Digester
Gas
Non-
emergen
cy - area
sources
25-50
5,696
939
3,513
1,240
3.3
9,354
1,543
5,770
2,036
5.4
50-100
3,051
503
1,882
664
1.8
8,047
1,327
4,964
1,751
4.6
100-175
8,855
1,460
5,463
1,927
5.1
18,153
2,994
11,198
3,951
10.4
175-300
3,297
544
2,034
718
1.9
11,235
1,853
6,931
2,445
6.5
300-500
3,425
565
2,113
745
2.0
13,598
2,242
8,388
2,960
7.8
500-600
2,650
427
1,598
564
1.5
59
9,415
1,449
5,421
1,913
5.0
627
600-750
559
90
337
119
0.3
12
1,969
317
1,187
419
1.1
44
>750
10,450
1,685
6,302
2,224
6.0
233
31,076
5,010
18,742
6,613
17.8
693
Total
37,982
6,213
23,241
8,200
22
305
102,846
16,736
62,600
22,088
58.7
1,364
Note that this table accounts for changes to VOC baseline values made on August 16,2010
3.1 Four Stroke Rich Burn Engines (4SRB)
For 4SRB, non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) is expected to be required to meet the
formaldehyde limit. In addition to reducing NOX, NSCR reduces CO and VOC. The control
device efficiency for NOX, CO and VOC, denoted Rpoii is based on the average value in Table 4
of the memo "CO Removal Efficiency as a Surrogate for HAP Removal Efficiency". For 4SRB,
Rnox = 97%, Rco = 49%; and Rvoc = 76%
As discussed earlier, the point source inventory source classification codes (SCCs) that represent
or could include these engines in the NEI are shown in Table 2-1. To determine the fraction of
4SRB in the "SI, generic" SCCs, we compute the percent of NOX, CO and VOC emissions from
rich burn engines from "baseline estimates" (considering existing controls — 20% 4SRB have
NSCR) of NOX, CO and VOC from 4SRB. We denote this fraction as F4srb, poll. Using the total
NOX emissions from all SI RICE and 4SRB in Table 3-1, the proportion of NOX from 4SRB
from major source SI engines is computed as 91,637/278,460 = 33% and the proportion of
NOX from 4SRB from area source SI engines is computed as 246,822/754,077 = 33%. Thus,
F4srb, nox = 0.33. Using Table 3-2, F4srb, co = 0.7 (same for both major and area sources) and
using Table 3-3, F4srb, voc = 0.216 (same for both major and area sources). As discussed
previously, we use the same F4srb for oil&gas SCCs other than for VOC, for which we use
F4SRB, voc = 0
To apportion the "engine+boiler" SCCs to 4SRB, we use the inventory estimates of boiler and
engine emissions stationary RICE, to apportion to "SI, generic" and then use the factors
discussed above to apportion to 4SRB. Using the 2005 emission estimates for SCCs associated
with natural gas boilers, natural gas RICE and turbine RICE, we compute that 63% of the NOX
are from natural gas RICE, 54% of the CO are from natural gas RICE and 70% of the VOC are
from natural gas RICE. Therefore, for engine and boiler SCCs: F4srb, nox = 0.63x0.33 = 0.21,
F4srb, co = 0.54x0.7 = 0.38 and F4srb, voc = 0.70x0.216= 0.15.
F-13
-------
We apportion "RICE+turbine" SCCs using 2005 Platform emissions as well. In this case, F4srb,
nox = 0.78x0.33 = 0.26, F4srb, co = 0.79x0.7=0.55 and F4srb, voc = 0.89x0.216 = 0.19
The August 2010 regulation requires engines at area sources greater than 500 HP to have NSCR.
Major sources that are of that size are subject to limits that require NSCR from the 2004 rule. To
determine the fraction of 4SRB emissions that are greater than 500 HP, we use the data in Table
3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3. Since the size cutoffs and emissions distributions are different for
major and area sources, we denote the fraction as Fsizecut,major,poll and FSizecut,area,Poii for major and
area sources, respectively. The values from the tables are as follows,
Fsizecut,major,NOX — Fsizecut,major,CO — Fsizecut,major,VOC — 0.354 and
Fsizecut,area,NOX — Fsizecut,area,CO — Fsizecut,area,VOC — 0.405
3.2 Two Stroke Lean Burn Engines (2SLB)
For 2SLB, the only engines that would be required to meet limits based on catalysts would be
new (meaning constructed 2003 and later) non-emergency >500 HP at major sources. As a result,
we will not apply any reductions to 2SLB in the 2005 NEI.
3.3 Four Stroke Lean Burn Engines (4SLB)
These engines will require an oxidation catalyst, which in addition to reducing HAP, reduces CO
and VOC. Per information emailed by Melanie King (7/7/2010): For 4SLB, Rco = 94%; and
Rvoc = 71%
To apportion emissions of "SI,generic" SCCs to 4SLB , we use the total CO emissions from all
SI RICE and 4SLB in Table 3-1. The proportion of CO from 4SLB from major source SI
engines is computed as 33,944 / 192,062 = 18% and the proportion of CO from 4SLB from area
source SI engines is computed as 87,132/515,803 = 17%. Since these values are close, we chose
17%). (F4slb, co = 0.17.) Using Table 3-2, F4slb, voc = 0.61 (roughly the same fraction for both
major and area sources). The F4slb, co value also applies to oil&gas SCCs. F4slb, voc from
oil&gas SCCs =0.
We also need to determine F4slb, co and F4slb, voc for SCCs with categories of
"Boiler+engine" and "RICE+turbine". We can use the same approach as for 4SRB. In this case,
for "Boiler+engine" SCCs, F4slb, co = 0.54x 0.17 = 0.10 and F4slb, voc = 0.70 x 0.61 = 0.43.
For "RICE+turbine" SCCs: F4slb, co = 0.79 x.0.17 = 0.13 and F4slb, voc = 0.89 x0.61 = 0.54.
The August 20, 2010 rule requires existing non-emergency engines 100-500 HP at major
sources and existing non-emergency engines >500 HP at area sources to meet limits based on
oxidation catalyst. Engines greater than 500 HP at major sources were regulated under the 2004
rule and we didn't put any emission limits on them, and therefore would not need an oxidation
catalyst.
To determine the fraction of 4SLB emissions that in those HP ranges, we use the data in Table
3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3. Since these fractions are different for major and area sources, we
F-14
-------
denote the fraction as Fsizecut,major,poll and FSizecut,area,Poii for major and area sources, respectively.
The values from the tables are as follows,
Fsizecut,major ,CO — Fsizecut, major,VOC — 0.41 and Fsizccut,arca,(.'0 — Fsizecut,area, VOC — 0.40
4 Compression Ignition (CI) Engines
Compression ignition engines are not distinguished further (by burn type) as are Spark Ignition.
However, the amount of emissions from emergency engines, for which existing engines would
not be required to apply oxidation catalyst, is significant relative to non-emergency engines.
Therefore the fraction of emissions from non-emergency engines will be applied to all SCCs
identified as CI in Table 2-1 in addition to the fraction that will be subject to oxidation catalyst
based on the size. Since the regulation that promulgated in March would require non-emergency
existing CI engines >300 HP that are located at both major and area sources of HAP to install
oxidation catalyst. Since major and area sources have the same requirements, we can use data on
the proportion of emissions of the total CI population, presented in Table 4-1. The data are from
the rule analyses and were provided by Melanie King, EPA, Sector Policies and Programs
Division.
Table 4-1. Distribution of CO, PM and VOC emissions from Compression Ignition Engines by
Engine and HP type for major and area sources
Sumniiiry of iYhijor Source jiikI Ami Source Baseline Emissions for the KICI^MiSIIAP
Size Range (HP)
Baseline Emissions (tpy)
Baseline Emissions (tpy)
Number of Engines -
nonemergency
CO-
nonemergency
PM-
nonemergency
voc-
nonemergency
Number of
Emergency
Engines
CO
emergency
PM
emergency
VOC
emergency
Major Sources
50-100
18,547
6,454
487
2,010
74,187
1,291
97
402
100-175
24,301
8,457
1,170
4,828
97,206
1,691
234
966
175-300
18,429
6,413
1,532
6,324
73,715
1,283
306
1,265
300-500
9,696
3,374
1,357
5,604
38,785
675
271
1,121
500-600
860
299
165
683
3,438
60
33
137
600-750
440
153
104
429
1,760
31
21
86
>750
971
338
340
1,402
3,882
68
68
280
Total
73,243
25,489
5,155
21,281
292,974
5,098
1,031
4,256
Area Sources
50-100
27,820
9,681
730
3,015
111,281
1,936
146
603
100-175
36,452
12,685
1,754
7,242
145,808
2,537
351
1,448
175-300
27,643
9,620
2,298
9,486
110,573
1,924
460
1,897
300-600
21,816
7,592
3,436
14,186
87,266
1,518
687
2,837
600-750
3,657
1,273
864
3,567
14,628
255
173
713
>750
6,479
2,255
2,268
9,361
25,914
451
454
1,872
Total
123,867
43,106
11,350
46,857
495,470
8,621
2,270
9,371
Per the rule, there would be 70% reduction of HAP, CO, and VOC and 30% reduction of PM
from the catalyst. We also assume that the control achieves the same reduction from PM2.5 as
PM. There are no NOX reductions. Therefore, For CI, Rco = 70%; Rvoc = 70% and Rpm2.5 =
30%.
F-15
-------
The fraction of emissions for CO and VOC that are both non-emergency and greater than 300HP
are computed from the above Table 4-1
FnonE,sizecut,major,CO — 0.14. FnonE,sizecut,major,VOC — FnonE,sizecut,major,PM2.5 —0.32
F noriE ,sizecut,area,CO
0.40 Fnon£
,sizecut,area, VOC FnonE,sizecut,area,PM2.5 0.65
We also need to apportion the fraction of emissions from SCCs with categories of
"Boiler+engine" and "RICE+turbine" that are attributed to CI engines. We can use a similar
approach as for 4SRB and 4SLB. In this case, we only need to break out CI RICE (and not a
type of CI) so we only need the fraction of "Boiler+engine" emissions that are CI RICE. Using
2005 Platform emissions from diesel SCCs for boilers, RICE and turbine engines, we compute
the following fractions to apportion "Boiler+engine" SCCs to CI RICE:, Fci, co = 0.61 and
Fci, voc = 0.84 and Fci, PM2.5 = 0.50
For "RICE+turbine" SCCs: Fci, co =0.83 and Fci, voc = 0.92 and Fci, PM2.5 = 0.78
5 Approach For Addressing Already-Controlled Sources
Although we know that a certain percentage of engines are already controlled (they set the basis
of the MACT floor), we will use the existing control information in the inventory (and the
capability for the software applying the controls to not apply additional controls to already-
controlled sources) rather than account for already-controlled sources by pro-rating the percent
reduction we apply to all sources. While this approach will overestimate reductions for already-
controlled sources that are missing the control information in the inventory, it will be less of an
impact than the pro-rating approach which would underestimate the reductions for the
uncontrolled sources.
6 Percent Reduction Calculations to be applied to NEI That
Account for all Three RICE rules
The next sections provide the calculations and data to determine the percent reductions to apply
to the 2005 v4.1 modeling platform for projecting these emissions to2014 and beyond. By 2014
all three of the RICE rules' compliance dates have passed
6.1 SI Engines
Table 6-lshows the reduction to be applied to the SI engine SCCs identified in Table 2-1 based
on the parameters computed from the baseline emissions in Table 3-1, Table 3-2 and Table 3-3
and discussed in Section 3. The formula for the percent reduction is provided in the first row:
Table 6-1. Formula for determining the percent reduction to apply to SI SCCs for Projection
Years of 2014 and Beyond
PERCENT REDUCTIONsi poi, = PERCENT REDUCTION4Srb,Poii + PERCENT REDUCTION4Slb,Poii
F-16
-------
Where:
PERCENT REDUCTION4srb,poii - RpoiiX F4SRBX Fsizecut?major?poiiX Fmaj0r^p0n H- Rp0nX F^rb x FSjzecu^area?p0n
^ Farea,poll
PERCENT REDUCTION4SLB,poll Rpoll^ F4SLBX Fsizecu^majo^poll^ Fmaj0r,p0ii "I" Rpoll X F4SLB X Fsizecut,area,poll
^ Farea,p0ll
Note that Rpoii Fmaj0r Farea Fsizecut,major,poii FSizecut,area,Poii are all dependent upon the engine (4SRB versus
4SLB) . Values for these and the other parameters are provided below.
Parameter
Description
Value and How Determined, 4SRB
Value and How Determined, 4SLB
Rpoii
The estimated reduction of
pollutant "poll" (e.g.,
NOX, VOC, CO) resulting
from application of the
control device needed to
meet the standard
NSCR: Use same values used in rule.
NOX reduction, Rnox is 97%
CO reduction, Rco is 49%
VOC reduction, Rvoc is 76%
Oxidation Catalyst: Use same
reductions values used in rule.
CO reduction, Rco is 94%
VOC reduction, Rvoc is 71%
r major, poll
the fraction of emissions
from SI engines that
attributable to major
sources
As discussed in Section 3, we used Tables
3-1 to 3-3 to compute the fraction and used
the same for all pollutants and all SI
engine types
Fmajor,NOX —, FmajoiyO Fmajor.VO1' - 0.27
As discussed in Section 3, we used
Tables 3-1 to 3-3 to compute the
fraction and used the same for all
pollutants and all SI engine types
Fmajor,CO —?Fmajor,VOC— 0.27
F area,poll
the fraction of emissions
from rich burn engines
attributable to area sources
1 ~ l or
1 ~ Fmaj0r
F sizecut,major,poll
the fraction of emissions
equal or above the size
cutoff for which the
control device will be
required for major sources
Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3.
Cutoff is 500 HP Compute fraction of
emissions for 4SRB engines at 500 and
above HP to total 4SRB; major sources.
v — V —
r sizecut,major,NOX r sizecut,major,CO
Fsizecut,major,VOC 0.354
Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3.
Assume 100-500 HP. Compute fraction
of emissions for 4SLB engines between
100 and 500HP to total 4SLB; major
sources.
Fsizecut,major,CO — Fsizecut,major VOC — 0.41
F sizecut,area,poll
the fraction of emissions
equal or above the size
cutoff for which SNCR
will be required for area
sources
Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3.
Assume 300 HP (final rule Aug 2010).
Compute fraction of emissions for 4SRB
engines at 300 and above HP to total
4SRB; area sources.
Fsizecut,area,NOX — ^ sizecut,area,CO
Fsizecut,area,VOC —0.405
Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3..
Assume 500 HP. Compute fraction of
emissions for 4SLB engines at 500 and
above HP to total 4SLB; area sources.
Fsizecut,area,CO — F sizecut,area,VOC — 0.40
^4SRB, poll
F4SLB, poll
Fraction of emissions
within the SCC that are
rich burn and 4 stroke lean
burn, respectively
Use 100% for 4SRB SCCs.
For "SI, generic" SCCs, use Table 3-1,
Table 3-2, and Table 3-3. Percent of
emissions of 4SRB out of all SI.
F4srb,nox= -33, F4SRB, co= -70
F4SRB, voc= -216
Note that same values apply to "oil&gas"
SCCs except F4srb, voc= 0
For "Boiler+engine" SCCs" :
F4srb,nox= -21, F4SRB, co= -38
F4SRB, voc= 151
For ""RICE+turbine" SCCs:
F4srb,nox= -26, F4SRBjCO= .55
F4SRB, voc= 192
Use 100% for 4SLB SCCs . For "SI,
generic" SCCs, use Table 3-1, Table
3-2, and Table 3-3. Percent of emissions
of4SLB out of all SI.
F4slb,co= 17, F4SLB,voc= -59
Note that same values apply to
"oil&gas" SCCs except for VOC.
For "Boiler+engine" SCCs" :
F4slb,co= 10, F4SLBjVoc= -41
For ""RICE+turbine" SCCs:
F4slb, co= 13, F4SLBjVOc= -52
F-17
-------
6.2 CI Engines
Table 6-1 shows the reduction to be applied to the CI engine SCCs identified in Error!
Reference source not found, based on the parameters computed from the baseline emissions in
Table 4-1.
Table 6-2. Formula for determining the percent reduction to apply to Compression Ignition (CI)
SCCs for Projection Years of 2014 and later
PERCENT REDUCTIONci,poll = Rpoll* FCI, POLL" Fno„E,sizecut,majorX Fmajor +
RpollX FC|, ponX noiiI' .sizecnt.;tre;t ^ Farea
Parameter
Description
Value and How Determined, CI
Rpoii
the estimated reduction of pollutant "poll"
(e.g., NOX, VOC, CO) resulting from
application of the control device needed to
meet the standard
Oxidation Catalyst: Use same values used in rule.
(specific to CI)
CO reduction, Rco is 70%
VOC reduction, Rvoc is 70%
PM2.5 reduction, Rpm2.s is 30%
F CI, POLL
The fraction of emissions that are CI RICE.
This value is 1 except for CI engines that are
in "Boiler+Engine" or "turbine+RICE"
Use 2005 Platform emissions of RICE, non-
RICE engines and boilers to compute
fractions
Value is 1 except for CI engines that are characterized in
"Boiler+Engine" or "turbine+RICE"
For "Boiler+Engine" SCCs, FCi, co= 0.61 and FCi, voc= 0.84
and Fci,pm2.5 = 0.50
For "RICE+turbine" SCCs: FCi, co= 0.83 and FCi,voc= 0.92
and Fci,PM2.5= 0.78
F
A major
the fraction of emissions from CI engines
attributable to major sources
Based on an analysis of the 2005 NEI using the
"SRCTYPE" field (01 are the major, 02 are area).
Since so much unknown, renormalize
Fmajor,CO — 0.42, Fmajor,VOC— 0.38, Fmajor,PM2.5 — 0.44
That fraction will be used for all pollutants.
F area
the fraction of emissions from CI engines
attributable to area sources
1 ~ I' ni:tj0r
I'mom 1. sizecut,maj or, poll
The fraction of emissions from major sources
from the CI SCCs that will require oxidation
catalyst to meet the standard because they are
non-Emergency and meet the size cutoff.
Table 4-1. The fraction of emissions of non-emergency
engines from major sources equal or above 300 HP
FnonE,sizecut,major,CO — 0.14.
Ti1 17 —n "39
r nonE,sizecut,major,VOC rnonE,sizecut,major,PM2.5 - ¦
Ti1
1 nonE,sizecut,area,poll
The fraction of emissions from area sources
from the CI SCCs that will require oxidation
catalyst to meet the standard because they are
non-Emergency and meet the size cutoff.
Table 4-1. The fraction of emissions of non-emergency
engines from major sources equal or above 300 HP
U Af\
r nonE,sizecut,area,CO •
-^nonE,sizecut,area,VOC — ^nonE,sizecut,area,PM2.5 — 0-65
F-18
-------
7 Percent Reduction Calculations to be applied to NEI
accounting for only the 2004 RICE rule
This section presents the formula and values to use when projecting emissions to 2012; in this
situation, only the SI 4SRB engines greater than 500 HP at major sources are reduced because
the compliance date for the rule that affects these engines in June 2007 which is prior to 2012.
The other engines' reductions are not anticipated until the compliance dates (2013) of the most
recent rules. Because these dates are after 2012, they are not incorporated into the emission
projection for 2012.
7.1 SI Engines
Table 7-1 shows the reduction to be applied to the SI engine SCCs identified in Table 2-1 based
on the parameters computed from the baseline emissions in Table 3-1, Table 3-2 and Table 3-3
and discussed in Section 3. The formula for the percent reduction is provided in the first row:
Table 7-1. Formula for determining the percent reduction to apply to SI SCCs for the 2012
projection
PERCENT REDUCTIONsi poi, = PERCENT REDUCTION4srb,Poii
PERCENT REDUCTION4srb,Poii = Rpoiix F4Srbx FSjZecut,major,poiix Fmiijoi-,p(>M
Parameter
Description
Value and How Determined, 4SRB
Rpoii
The estimated reduction of pollutant "poll"
(e.g., NOX, VOC, CO) resulting from
application of the control device needed to
meet the standard
NSCR: Use same values used in rule.
NOX reduction, Rnox is 97%
CO reduction, Rco is 49%
VOC reduction, Rvoc is 76%
Fmajor,poll
the fraction of emissions from SI engines
that attributable to major sources
Based on an analysis of the 2005 NEI using the "SRCTYPE"
field (01 are the major, 02 are area)
Fmajor,NOX— 0.77, Fm;ljolv o ~0.8 1 . Fmajor,VOC— 0.75
r sizecut, major, poll
the fraction of emissions equal or above the
size cutoff for which the control device will
be required for major sources
Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3. Assume 300 HP (final rule
Aug 2010). Compute fraction of emissions for 4SRB engines at
300 and above HP to total 4SRB; major sources.
v — V —
r sizecut,major,NOX r sizecut,major,CO
F sizecut, major,VOC —0-445
-F sizecut,area,poll
the fraction of emissions equal or above the
size cutoff for which SNCR will be required
for area sources
Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3. Assume 300 HP (final rule
Aug 2010). Compute fraction of emissions for 4SRB engines at
300 and above HP to total 4SRB; area sources.
v — V —
r sizecut,area,NOX r sizecut,area,CO
F sizecut, area,VOC —0.405\
i 4SRB, poll
F-tSlli, poll
Fraction of emissions within the SCC that
are rich burn and 4 stroke lean burn,
respectively
Use 100% for 4SRB SCCs.
For "SI, generic" SCCs, use Table 3-1, Table 3-2, and Table 3-3.
Percent of emissions of 4SRB out of all SI.
F-tsun, vox = -33, F4SRB CO= .7
F4srb,voc= -37
Note that same values apply to "oil&gas" SCCs except F4srb,
voc= 0
For "Boiler+engine" SCCs" :
F-19
-------
F4srb,nox= -21, F4SRBj co = -38
F4srb,voc= -26
For ""RICE+turbine" SCCs:
F-tsun, vox = -26, F4SRBjCO= .55
F4srb,voc= -34
7.2 CI Engines
For a 2012 projection there are no reductions to apply to existing CI engines since they are
impacted only by the 2010 NESHAP.
8 Results
A summary of the percent reductions by Engine Type and Reduction Category for the SCCs
shown in Table 2-1 resulting from the implementation of the RICE rule as amended in August
2010 is presented in Table 8-1. A summary associated with just the 2004 RICE rule (which is
applicable to a 2012 projection) is shown in Table 8-2.
F-20
-------
Table 8-1. Summary of Percent Reductions and Emissions reduced from the 2005 Platform resulting from all 3 RICE rules (Future
years 2014 and later
engine
type
reduction
category
NOX
reductio
n
CO
reducti
on
VOC
reductio
n
PM2.5
Reduct
ion
NOX
2005cr
emis
(tons)
NOXre
duction
s (tons)
CO
2005cr
emis
(tons)
CO reduction
s (tons)
VOC
2005cr
emis
(tons)
VOC reduct
ions (tons)
PM2.5
2005cr emis
(tons)
PM25 reducti
ons (tons)
CI
Boiler+engine
0.0%
12.4%
30.8%
7.6%
133.629
-
31.746
3.942
4.579
1.412
12.971
982
CI
0.0%
20.4%
36.7%
15.1%
38.941
-
9.903
2.016
2.945
1.081
1.974
299
RICE+turbine
0.0%
16.9%
33.8%
11.8%
13.545
-
5.689
961
1.270
429
806
95
oil&gas
12.5%
19.9%
0.0%
0.0%
306.278
38.367
258.838
51.400
336.442
-
3.046
0
SI
2SLB
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
154.448
-
27.391
-
9.159
-
2.238
0
4SLB
0.0%
37.9%
28.6%
0.0%
49.651
-
22.211
8.408
5.698
1.629
414
0
4SRB
38.0%
19.2%
29.1%
0.0%
68.589
26.036
71.588
13.727
6.451
1.919
665
0
Boiler+engine
8.0%
11.1%
16.7%
0.0%
293.674
23.410
200.185
22.165
16.835
2.812
1.882
0
RICE+turbine
9.9%
15.5%
21.2%
0.0%
20.934
2.066
7.138
1.104
1.595
339
157
0
SI, generic
12.5%
19.9%
23.9%
0.0%
320.904
40.199
127.344
25.288
27.286
6.512
2.921
0
Grand
Total
1.400.593
130,078
762.033
129,011
412.260
16,134
27.074
1,376
Table 8-2. Summary of Percent Reductions and Emissions reduced from the 2005 Platform resulting from the 2004 RICE NESHAP
engine
type
reduction
category
NOX
reduction
CO reduction
VOC
reduction
NOX
2005cr
emis
(tons)
NOX_
reductions
(tons)
CO
2005cr emis
(tons)
CO reductions
(tons)
VOC
2005cr emis
(tons)
voc_
reductions
(tons)
CI
Boiler+engine
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
133.629
0
31.746
0
4.579
0
CI
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
38.941
0
9.903
0
2.945
0
RICE+turbine
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
13.545
0
5.689
0
1.270
0
oil&gas
3.1%
3.3%
0.0%
306.278
9.381
258.838
8.495
336.442
0
SI
2SLB
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
154.448
0
27.391
0
9.159
0
4SLB
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
49.651
0
22.211
0
5.698
0
4SRB
9.3%
4.7%
7.3%
68.589
6.366
71.588
3.357
6.451
469
Boiler+engine
1.9%
1.8%
1.1%
293.674
5.724
200.185
3.567
16.835
185
RICE+turbine
2.4%
2.6%
1.4%
20.934
505
7.138
184
1.595
22
SI, generic
3.1%
3.3%
1.6%
320.904
9.829
127.344
4.180
27.286
429
Grand
Total
1.400.593
31,806
762.033
19,782
412.260
1,105
F-21
-------
9 S02 reductions resulting from the Ultra-low Sulfur Diesel
Requirement for CI engines
This section discusses an approach to project the impact of the Ultra-low Sulfur diesel
requirement for CI engines greater than 300 HP that was part of the requirements published
3/30/2010. These reductions were not accounted for in the rule due to the expectation that
engine owners/operators would make the switch anyway because ULSD is what would primarily
be available. On page 9669 of Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4:
We have not quantified the SOX reductions that would occur as a result of engines switching to
ULSD because we are unable to estimate the number of engines that already use ULSD and
therefore we are unable to estimate the percentage of engines that may switch to ULSD due to
this rule. If none of the affected engines would use ULSD without this rule, then we estimate the
SOX reductions are 31,000 tpy in the year 2013. If all of the affected engine would use ULSD
regardless of the rule then the additional SOX reduction would be zero.
We are aware2of several state rules on the books or in the proposal stage that will limit the sulfur
content of home heating oil. However, some do not go into effect until after the RICE ULSD
limits. Because of this timing and because we have received comments on the need to account
for S02 reductions resulting from the RICE ULSD limits (MOG), we have chosen, in addition to
applying applicable state rule fuel sulfur limits, to estimate the reduction due to RICE and apply
the reduction in the future year projection. The RICE limits apply to CI greater than 300 HP.
Based on a summary of Baseline S02 Emissions by Engine Size for the RICE NESHAP
provided by the project lead, Melanie King3, it was determined that approximately 50% of S02
emissions are from engines greater than 300 HP.
We assume that CI use high sulfur fuel (3000 ppm) in 2005 and switch to ULSD by the
compliance date for this RICE requirement (May 2013). In that we don't have the distribution
of S02 emissions from the various size engines as we do other pollutants (see Table 4-1), we
assumed 50% of the S02 comes from 300 HP and larger engines. Note that for other pollutants
the fraction of emissions with size cutoff greater or equal to 300 HP ranges from 14%
(FnonE,sizecut, major, co) to 65% (FnonE,sizecut, major, PM2.5)
A switch from a 3000 ppm sulfur content (home heating oil average) to 15 ppm would result in a
99.5% S02 reduction. We apply this to all diesel RICE and the portion of S02 emission from
RICE-related SCCs that are estimated to be RICE. Using the 2005 point source inventory for
industrial, commercial and institutional diesel boilers and internal combustion engines (turbines
plus RICE) we computed that 81% of the S02 emissions from internal combustion engines are
from RICE and 12% of the S02 emissions from engines+boilers are from RICE. For Oil and gas
production, there is only one SCC with significant S02 emissions: SCC=2310000220 (Industrial
2 Email from Jeff Hertzog, OTAQ, USEPA Nov 22, 2010
3 Email from Melanie King, OAQPS, USEPA, Nov 23, 2010 (filename: Existing CI RICE NESHAP Impacts 2-16-
F-22
-------
10 FINAL 3000 ppm sulfur estimate.xlsx)
F-23
-------
Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13; Drill rigs). Since we have no information to
determine the amount of S02 from RICE versus other S02-emitting processes associated with
drill rigs, we assume that all of the S02 is associated with RICE and that 50% of the emissions
are associated with RICE greater than 300 HP. Therefore, the reductions we apply are the
following:
• CISCCs: 50%*99.5%=49.75%
• CI Boiler+Engine SCCs: 50%*99.5%*12%= 5.97%
• CI RICE + turbine SCCs: 50%*99.5%*81%= 40.30%
• Oil and Gas, SCC=2310000220 (drill rigs): 50%*99.5%=49.75%
F-24
-------
Table 9-1. S02 emissions and reductions resulting from ultra low sulfur fuel requirement (compliance date May 2013) for CI engines greater
or equal to 300 HP in the RICE NESI (75 FR 9648, % reductions Based on: 1) A switch from a 3000 ppm sulfur content (home heating oil average) to 15
ppm would result in a 99.5% S02 reduction and 2) 50% of S02 from RICE are from engines greater than 300HP, and 3) Percent of RICE from SCCs that
see
see desc
2005 S02
(tons)
type
percent
reduction
S02
reduce
d
(tons)
2101004000
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Eleetric Utility;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC
Engines
358.6
boilers+engines
5.97%
21
2101004002
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Electric Utility;Distillate Oil;All IC Engine Types
84.4
engines
40.30%
34
2102004000
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC
Engines
125250.5
boilers+engines
5.97%
7,477
2103004000
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers
and IC Engines
114818.1
boilers+engines
5.97%
6,855
2199004000
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Total Area Source Fuel Combustion;Distillate
Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines
215.8
boilers+engines
5.97%
13
2199004002
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Total Area Source Fuel Combustion;Distillate
Oil;All IC Engine Types
17691.0
engines
40.30%
7,129
2310000000
Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13;A11 Processes;Total: All Processes
0.0
oil and gas
-
2310000220
Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13; Drill rigs
8749.8
oil and gas
49.75%
4,353
2310000440
Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13; Saltwater disposal engines
0.0
oil and gas
49.75%
0
2310001000
Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13;A11 Processes : On-shore;Total: All
Processes
0.0
oil and gas
_
2310002000
Industrial Processes;Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13;A11 Processes : Off-shore;Total: All
Processes
0.0
oil and gas
_
20100102
Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating
267.6
rice
49.75%
133
20100105
Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating:
Crankcase Blowby
7.0
rice
49.75%
3
20100107
Internal Combustion Engines;Electric Generation;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating:
Exhaust
9.8
rice
49.75%
5
20200102
Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating
807.7
rice
49.75%
402
20200104
Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating:
Cogeneration
18.5
rice
49.75%
9
20200107
Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust
14.6
rice
49.75%
7
20300101
Internal Combustion Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil
(Diesel) ;Reciprocating
934.7
rice
49.75%
465
20300105
Internal Combustion Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil
(Diesel);Reciprocating: Crankcase Blowby
0.0
rice
49.75%
0
20300106
Internal Combustion Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil
1.0
rice
49.75%
F-24
-------
(Diesel);Reciprocating: Evaporative Losses (Fuel Storage and Delivery System)
0
20300107
Internal Combustion Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil
(Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust
0.1
rice
49.75%
0
20400402
Internal Combustion Engines;Engine Testing;Reciprocating Engine;Diesel/Kerosene
315.5
rice
49.75%
157
20400403
Internal Combustion Engines;Engine Testing;Reciprocating Engine;Distillate Oil
0.1
rice
49.75%
0
2103004000
Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers
and IC Engines
18.0
boilers+engines
5.97%
1
Total S02 reduced = 27,066 tons
F-25
-------
Appendix G
Mercury Speciation Fractions Used to Speciate the Future Year EGU Mercury
Emissions
l)i\ alcnl
("cilciiorv
Paniculate
(uiseous
Ncmcnlal
Bituminous Coal and Pet. Coke, PC Boiler with ESP-CS
0.0117
0.4656
0.5227
Bituminous Coal, Coal Gasification
0.0051
0.0847
0.9102
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with Dry Sorbent Injection
and ESP-CS
0.0016
0.6710
0.3274
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with ESP-CS
0.0611
0.6820
0.2570
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with ESP-CS and Wet FGD
0.0022
0.0778
0.9200
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with ESP-HS
0.0490
0.5784
0.3726
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with ESP-HS and Wet FGD
0.0063
0.2068
0.7870
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with FF Baghouse
0.0398
0.6258
0.3344
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with FF Baghouse and Wet
FGD
0.0648
0.3300
0.6052
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with PM Scrubber
0.0180
0.1951
0.7869
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with SCR and SDA/FF
Baghouse
0.0506
0.4604
0.4890
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with SDA/FF Baghouse
0.0917
0.2886
0.6197
Bituminous Coal, PC Boiler with SNCR and ESP-CS
0.2032
0.2712
0.5256
Bituminous Coal, Stoker Boiler with SDA/FF Baghouse
0.1996
0.1794
0.6211
Bituminous Coal/Pet. Coke, Cyclone with ESP-CS and
Wet FGD
0.0007
0.1130
0.8863
Bituminous Coal/Pet. Coke, PC Boiler with FF Baghouse
0.0220
0.7841
0.1939
Bituminous Coal/Pet.Coke, Fludized Bed Combustor with
SNCR and FF Baghouse
0.4244
0.2787
0.2970
Bituminous Waste, Fludized Bed Combustor with FF
Baghouse
0.0212
0.3881
0.5907
Lignite Coal, Cyclone Boiler with ESP-CS
0.0004
0.1699
0.8297
Lignite Coal, Cyclone Boiler with SDA/FF Baghouse
0.0995
0.1707
0.7298
Lignite Coal, Fludized Bed Combustor with ESP-CS
0.0137
0.1164
0.8700
Lignite Coal, Fludized Bed Combustor with FF Baghouse
0.0042
0.7118
0.2840
Lignite Coal, PC Boiler with ESP-CS
0.0009
0.0362
0.9629
Lignite Coal, PC Boiler with ESP-CS and FF Baghouse
0.0019
0.6449
0.3532
Lignite Coal, PC Boiler with ESP-CS and Wet FGD
0.0082
0.1345
0.8574
Lignite Coal, PC Boiler with PM Scrubber
0.0016
0.0298
0.9686
Lignite Coal, PC Boiler with SDA/FF Baghouse
0.0036
0.1262
0.8702
Subbituminous Coal, Fludized Bed Combustor with SNCR
and FF Baghouse
0.0027
0.0342
0.9632
G-l
-------
('cllCiil)i'V
Paniculate
l)i\ alcnl
(uiseous
I'lcmcnlal
Subbituminous Coal, PC Boiler with ESP-CS
0.0016
0.3083
0.6901
Subbituminous Coal, PC Boiler with ESP-CS and Wet
FGD
0.0043
0.0294
0.9663
Subbituminous Coal, PC Boiler with ESP-HS
0.0006
0.1252
0.8741
Subbituminous Coal, PC Boiler with ESP-HS and Wet
FGD
0.0117
0.0446
0.9437
Subbituminous Coal, PC Boiler with FF Baghouse
0.0149
0.8283
0.1568
Subbituminous Coal, PC Boiler with PM Scrubber
0.0145
0.0511
0.9344
Subbituminous Coal, PC Boiler with SDA/ESP
0.0032
0.0382
0.9586
Subbituminous Coal, PC Boiler with SDA/FF Baghouse
0.0099
0.0435
0.9467
Subbituminous Coal/Pet. Coke, Cyclone Boiler with ESP-
HS
0.0093
0.0752
0.9155
G-2
-------
Appendix H
Details Regarding the PM2.5 Natural Gas Emission Factor error in IPM Post
Processing
The error came about by attempting to improve estimates of natural gas emissions based on
studies using a new PM test method that directly measures primary PM. Unfortunately, an
incorrect value was taken from the study. It should be noted that it was also discovered that
the correction factor from those studies, while intended to be used in the 2005 year, was
actually not used. Another error was the value for the Gassified Coal turbines, which was
intended to be updated to use newer data (unrelated to the natural gas combustion study) but
was updated with the wrong value.
The Incorrect Emission factors and the SCCs it affected are listed here. The middle two
columns are the emission factors that are consistent with the emission factors that were used
for the base year (2005 inventory), as documented in
ftp://newftp.epa.gov/air/nei/nei criteria summaries/2002summarvfiles/egu2002doc.pdf .
The last two columns are the emission factors that would incorporate the improved
estimates discussed above, and correctly use the newer data on Gasified Coal /Turbines.
see
Description
ERRONE
OUS PMio
Primary
EF Used in
IPM Post
Processing
lb/MMBtu
ERRONEO
US PM2 s
Primary EF
Used in
IPM Post
Processing
lb/MMBtu
PM10
primary
EF
consiste
nt with
2005
lb/MMB
tul
PM25
primary
EF
consiste
nt with
2005
lb/MMB
tu
Corrected
PM10
Primary EF
lb/MMBtu
(using 1000
btu/scf)
Correcte
d PM25
Primary
EF
lb/MMB
tu (using
1000
btu/scf)
10100601
Ext Comb
/Electric Gen
/Natural Gas
/Boilers : 100
Million Btu/hr
except
Tangential
0.068
0.057
7.51E-03
7.51E-03
5.20E-04
4.30E-04
10100604
Ext Comb
/Electric Gen
/Natural Gas
/Boilers < 100
Million Btu/hr
except
Tangential
0.068
0.057
7.51E-03
7.51E-03
5.20E-04
4.30E-04
10100701
Ext Comb
/Electric Gen
/Process Gas
/Boilers : 100
Million Btu/hr
0.06
0.058
5.74E-03
5.74E-03
5.20E-04
4.30E-04
H-l
-------
PM10
PM25
Correcte
ERRONE
ERRONEO
primary
primary
d PM25
OUS PMio
US PM2.5
EF
EF
Corrected
Primary
Primary
Primary EF
consiste
consiste
PM10
EF
EF Used in
Used in
nt with
nt with
Primary EF
lb/MMB
IPM Post
IPM Post
2005
2005
lb/MMBtu
tu (using
Processing
Processing
lb/MMB
lb/MMB
(using 1000
1000
see
Description
lb/MMBtu
lb/MMBtu
tul
tu
btu/scf)
btu/scf)
Int Comb
/Electric Gen
/Natural Gas
20100201
/Turbine
0.046
0.028
6.55E-03
6.55E-03
3.10E-04
1.90E-04
Int Comb
/Electric Gen
/Gasified Coal
20100301b
/Turbine
0.11
0.11
1.57E-02
1.57E-02
1.10E-02
1.10E-02
a. . note that it was determined that the 2005 PM emissions used in the 2005v4 andv4.1 platforms were not
corrected to use updated information posted at
ftp://newflp.epa.gov/air/nei/nei criteria suminaries/pm adjustment 2002 nei.pdf. The updates were
based on testing using a dilution method that is similar to conditional test method (CTM) 39 (Air
Emission Measurement Center) that measures PM10-PRI and PM2.5-PRI directly. The data come
from limited testing sponsored by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA). See ftp://newflp.epa.gov/air/nei/nei criteria suminaries/pm adjustment 2002 nei.pdf for
more documentation and
ftp://newflp.epa.gov/air/nei/nei criteria summaries/ratios to adjust pnwalues in nei for naturalgas c
ombustion082005.xls for the SCCs impacted by the adjustment. The updated factors have been
recommended by Ron Myers but have not been put into AP-42 (for natural gas, it was last updated in
1998)
b. The corrected value comes from: The EPA Tutorial provided by Gary J. Stiegel, Gasification
Technologies Product Manager National Energy Technology Laboratory Nov 5, 2001 (power point
presentation), reports 0.002 lbs of PMlO/MMBtu for a state-of-the-art IGCC unit; for Polk Power
(ORISPL=7242, BLRID=1), they report <0.015 lbs of PMlO/MMBtu; for Wabash River, they report
<0.012 lbs of PMlO/MMBtu; and George Lynch has suggested 0.011 lbs of PM102.MMBtu. It was also
recommended to set PM2.5=PM10
H-2
-------
United States Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Publication No. EPA-454/B-20-006A
Environmental Protection Air Quality Assessment Division March 2011
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC
------- |