From:	King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov
-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/15/2010 09:33PM -----
To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 
From: "Crockett, Steven" <Steven.Crockett@nrc.gov> 
Date: 02/12/2010 05:32PM 
cc: "Imboden, Andy" <Andy.Imboden@nrc.gov>, "Wolfgang, Robert" 
<Robert.Wolfgang@nrc.gov>, "Lombard, Mark" <Mark.Lombard@nrc.gov> 
Subject: RE: latest draft of RICE package 
 
Cortney and Melanie, 
 
I have a comment on the addition -- on pages 43, 167, and 169 -- to the 
language about postponement of maintenance in cases where having the diesel 
unavailable would pose an unacceptable risk. The material added in this latest 
draft would have the source report (to whom?) that maintenance had been 
postponed, and report "the federal, state or local law that *defined* the 
unacceptable risk." I would ask you instead to consider the following 
substitute for the words I just quoted: "the federal, state or local law under 
which the risk was deemed unacceptable."  
 
I would prefer the latter formulation because I'm not sure that our 
maintenance regulation (10 CFR 50.65) or the guidance and inspection documents 
I sent you would exactly be said to "define" unacceptable risk. The regulatory 
program is more case-specific than that. See, for example, section C on page 3 
of the first attachment, and page 2 of the 2d attachment, both of which I sent 
you on 7th. Nonetheless, the risk could rightly be said to have been deemed 
unacceptable under a regulatory program rooted in rule and implemented through 
guidance and close inspection. 
  
-----Original Message----- 
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]  
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:29 AM 
To: Bromberg, Kevin L.; Zwicke, Greg - Portland, OR; Elizabeth Kohl; Grahame, 
Thomas; Crockett, Steven 
Cc: Lee, Amanda I.; Beck, Nancy; Schwab, Margo; Mancini, Dominic J. 
Subject: FW: latest draft of RICE package 
 
Hi all, 
Attached is the latest draft of the RICE preamble.  The RIA will be sent 
separately.  Please let me know if have any questions or comments on the 
revised draft by COB today. 
 
Regards, 
Cortney 
 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov] 
 
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:23 AM 
To: Higgins, Cortney 
Cc: Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov; horowitz.michael@epamail.epa.gov; 
Talcott.Fred@epamail.epa.gov; Sorrels.Larry@epamail.epa.gov 
Subject: latest draft of RICE package 
 
 
Cortney, 
Attached is the revised preamble and regulation text and revised RIA for the 
RICE NESHAP.  Also attached is the revised RIA.  You will notice a few changes 
to the package. 
1) We were still referencing some recordkeeping and reporting requirements ior 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) in the Part 63 General Provisions 
that didn't make sense anymore in light of the recent Court decision on the 
SSM exemption.  Therefore what we have done is instead of referencing those 
sections, we have included the appropriate text from the General Provisions 
directly in subpart ZZZZ itself, and removed the text that wasn't applicable 
anymore.  You will see those changes in 63.6650(c)(4), 63.6655(a)(2), and 
Table 7.  In Table 7 we have removed the requirement for an immediate SSM 
report and limited line 1.c. to malfunction only.  We are not adding new 
requirements, just eliminating ones that didn't make sense to include anymore. 
 OGC also made a few edits to the SSM discussion in the preamble. 
2) OGC preferred that we not the references to subpart E into subpart ZZZZ. 
 They said that it was a freestanding subpart and there was no need to 
reference it here.  We do still mention it in the preamble. 
 
Larry is going to send you the RIA separately. 
 
In response to the issues that are still outstanding with SBA, we reiterate 
that we have focused the requirements for emission controls on a the subset of 
the population of stationary CI engines that has the greatest impact on 
people.  The total estimated population of existing stationary CI engines is 
936,000.  The estimated number of engines that have emission standards based 
on the use of oxidation catalyst control is 44,000, which is 5 percent of the 
total population.  While these engines are only 5 percent of the population, 
they emit an estimated 44 percent of the total HAP emissions from existing 
stationary CI engines. 
We cover the remaining HAP emissions through work or management practice 
standards on the remaining population of stationary CI engines (except the 
100-300 HP engines at major sources which have emission limits that are based 
on data from engines without oxidation catalyst control). 
 
We have made several changes since the proposed rule that further reduce the 
burden of the rule on affected sources.  These changes include: 
1) The final rule has no numerical emission limits for emergency engines and 
for engines <100 HP at major sources 
2) Residential/institutional/commercial emergency engines at area sources are 
not subject to the final rule 
3) We revised the management practice frequencies and added the option to use 
an oil analysis program 
 
We performed economic impact analysis which showed that the rule would not 
result in significant economic impacts for a substantial number of 
small entities.   There have been no facts provided by SBA to support 
the claim that there are tens of thousands of agricultural engines that will 
be heavily impacted by this rulemaking.  The rule imposes management practice 
standards for engines at area sources that are less than 300 HP.  The 
information that we received from comment letters indicated that engines used 
by the agricultural sector were predominately smaller than 300 HP.  See for 
example the comment from the American Farm Bureau Federation (-0174) which 
states "In most instances, the engines are of the compression ignition type 
rated at 300 hp or less."  The comment letter from Southern Gardens Citrus 
Holding Corporation (-0189) stated that they operate 74 stationary RICE, of 
which one is greater than 300 HP.  That means 1.4 percent of their engines are 
>300 HP.  Other commenters provided similar information. 
 
EPA does not believe that a limited use subcategory is warranted or justified. 
 For engines smaller than 300 HP, if we created a limited use subcategory, the 
requirements would not be different than for other non-emergency engines, 
since we are already requiring the MACT floor emission limits for major 
sources and management practices for area sources of that size.  For engines 
greater than 300 HP, we believe that the costs of control are acceptable given 
the reductions that would be achieved from these engines. 
 
We believe a broad national rule that provides equal environmental protection 
to populations in both urban and rural areas is appropriate for stationary CI 
engines.  The emission controls that are the basis of the rule are equally 
available in urban and rural areas, and the cost of 
control is not significantly higher in rural areas.   EPA does not have 
precise information on the location of these engines such that we could do air 
quality modeling on the emissions and impact on specific populations. 
 However, even if the engines are located in rural areas, many of them would 
be upwind of more highly populated areas.  SBA has proposed that rural engines 
be excluded from retrofits if no person resides within 300 meters.  We do not 
find that it is appropriate to incorporate this provision in the rule because 
we do not believe that the emissions from these engines only travel 300 meters 
or less. 
Attached is a document that discusses this issue in much more detail. 
(See attached file: OMB Draft RICE NESHAP FRM Preamble and Reg Text 2-12-
10.doc)(See attached file: OMB Draft RICE NESHAP FRM Preamble and Reg Text 2-
12-10 redline from 2-9 version.doc)(See attached file: 
Response on urban-rural issue.doc) 
 
Thanks, 
Melanie King 
Energy Strategies Group 
Sector Policies and Programs Division 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency 
 
Mail Code D243-01 
RTP, NC  27711 
 
Phone:  (919) 541-2469 
Fax:       (919) 541-5450 
king.melanie@epa.gov

