                            Statement of Greg Green
                        Outreach and Information Division
                 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                 Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to the
           Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters

                             Boston, Massachusetts
                               February 26, 2014

Thank you Jim.

As Jim mentioned, my name is Greg Green, and I am the Director of the Outreach and Information Division in EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

We are here today to listen to your comments on our proposal to revise EPA's New Source Performance Standards for Residential Wood Heaters. EPA proposed these revisions January 3, 2014, to strengthen emissions requirements for new wood stoves, while establishing the standards for several other types of new residential wood heaters, including outdoor and indoor wood-fired boilers ( which also are known as hydronic heaters), pellet stoves, forced air furnaces, masonry wood heaters and a type of previously unregulated woodstove know as a "single burn-rate" stove.

EPA issued the existing regulations for wood heaters in 1988. That rule applied to adjustable burn-rate woodstoves and fireplace inserts. Since that time, the technology for reducing emissions from wood heaters has significantly improved and now is available to make a range of wood heaters more efficient and less
polluting.

As Regional Administrator Spalding noted, the proposed updates would make new residential wood heaters significantly cleaner than currently required, reducing emissions of fine particles and other pollutants that can pose significant health problems, especially for people with heart or vascular disease, lung disease, older adults and children.

Under the proposal, manufacturers would meet emissions limits in two phases over five years. This would give manufacturers time to adapt technology to their model lines.

The health benefits of the proposed rule are large: EPA estimates that for every dollar spent to comply with these standards, the American public will see between $118 and $267 in health benefits. EPA estimates the increases in cost to make the cleaner units would range from an estimated 2 percent for pellet stove manufacturers to 6 percent for manufacturers of single burn-rate stoves.

Before I turn things back over to Jim, I want to take a moment to underscore what this rule would NOT cover: The proposal would not affect any wood burning heaters, fireplaces or stoves that are in stores today or are currently in use in homes  -  it only applies to devices manufactured in the future. So if you have a woodstove or other type of wood heater at your house now, this rule will not apply to that stove. The rule also would not apply to outdoor fireplaces, pizza ovens, barbecues or chimineas, and it would not apply to new or existing heaters that are fueled only by oil, gas or coal.

In addition, the proposed rule also would not apply to indoor fireplaces, because fireplaces are not effective heaters. However, EPA is seeking data and comments on this issue.

We will prepare a written transcript of the hearing. The transcript for the hearing will be available as part of the official record for this rule. EPA will consider your comments as we move forward to complete a final rule, which we anticipate issuing by February 2015. We are also accepting written comments on the proposed rule until May 5, 2014. There are handouts with detailed information for submitting written comments available at the registration area.

Now I'm going to turn things back to Jim, who will describe the procedures for today's hearing.


Date:		May 2012

Subject:	Statistical Evaluation of CEMS Data to Determine the NOX Emission Standard (Updated Memo for Final Standard)
		Nitric Acid NSPS Review
      EPA Contract No. EP-D-11-084; Work Assignment No. 0-01
        RTI Project No. 02103199.000.001

From:			Melissa Icenhour

To:			Nathan Topham
        OAQPS/SPPD/MICG (D243-02)
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
      Research Triangle Park, NC  27711

As a result of the Section 114 Information Collection Request (ICR), EPA received continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) data from multiple nitric acid plants. The CEMS data represent NOX emissions from the nitric acid trains during day-to-day operating conditions. A summary of the CEMS data received from the nitric acid trains are shown in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3.
Only data from the most recent year was considered in the analyses. Some facilities only submitted one year of data so we only considered one year of data from all submissions so as not to bias the analysis toward a plant with more data.
As shown in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3, we received CEMS data for three nitric acid trains with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), three nitric acid trains with Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR), and one nitric acid train with Hydrogen Peroxide Injection (HPI). Agrium (North Bend and Sacramento) supplied 2010 data, El Dorado Nitrogen supplied data from July 2010 through June 2011, Dyno Nobel Deer Island and Agrium Kennewick supplied 2009 data, and PCS Geismar supplied 2009 data from Train 5, Train 4, and Train 3.

The CEMS data from JR Simplot were not in terms of the standard (lb NOX/ton acid) and were not supplied as hourly averages. The data were not directly comparable to the data from the other two nitric acid trains using NSCR so the nitric acid train at JR Simplot is not included in the analyses.
Train 3 and Train 4 at PCS Geismar were not included in the analyses because the trains only operated during 15% of 2009. The trains did not operate at all during the months of February, March, April, May, June, July, August, and December. Sufficient data to evaluate the long term performance of controls for this analysis were not available as there are only portions of 4 months of data, No CEMS data from other years were supplied for Train 4.
The other years of CEMS data were not used for Train 3 because the nitric acid plant is not using a best performing SCR. According to a telephone conversation between EPA's Bill Neuffer and Jeremy Richard of PCS Geismar, the SCR is located after the gas expander and is thus an atmospheric SCR. According to Mr. Richard, this prevents optimal mixing of gas and ammonia, leading to higher NOX emissions. He felt that the unit could be improved to meet a lower emissions limit on a consistent basis. The CEMS data include periods of startup and shutdown but exclude non-operating periods. Non-operating periods were indicated by the plants as "Down" or "Plant Down" for the lb/ton acid value (Agrium and El Dorado) or the flow rate of the ammonia feed was zero pounds per hour (PCS Geismar).
Just before the NSPS was proposed, the EPA received CEMS data from Dyno Nobel Deer Island. There was insufficient time to include these data in the analyses prior to proposal. During the comment period, commenters noted a few mistakes in the analyses for the facilities that the EPA did evaluate prior to proposal. Also, the EPA has slightly modified the NOX emissions calculation equation for the 30-day rolling emission rate. The new equation assumes that each hour that the unit was operating during the 30 day period is weighted the same. The equation used at proposal equally weighted each day that the unit was operating regardless of how many hours during each day the unit operated. On partial operating days with startup or shutdown events, the methodology could have caused the emissions during those events to be weighted too heavily in the 30 day rolling emission rate.
As an update to the earlier memo (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0750-0082), this memo shows the 30 day rolling emission rates used at proposal, shows how the 30 day rolling emission rates change after modifying the calculation and includes the updated calculation methodology. Also, the updated memo includes the analyses of data from Dyno Nobel Deer Island and Agrium Kennewick that were not included at proposal.
By selecting an emission limit based on the highest average of emissions data from unit with BSER (which is SCR), we ensure that this limit reflects BSER but is also achievable during all periods by facilities that have BSER equivalent controls. As shown by Table 4, all six units are meeting the current Subpart G NOX emission standard of 3.0 lb NOX/ton acid. All SCR units are meeting the proposed Subpart Ga NOX emission standard of 0.50 lb NOX/ton acid, and one NSCR unit is meeting the proposed Subpart Ga NOX emission standard of 0.50 lb NOX/ton acid. The HPI unit is not meeting the proposed Subpart Ga NOX emission standard of 0.50 lb NOX/ton acid.
In conjunction with the memo entitled Agrium North Bend Analyses, finalizing a NOX emission standard of 0.50 lb/ton NOX/ton acid is recommended.

Table 1. NOX CEMS Data from SCR-controlled Nitric Acid Units

                                    Company
                              Agrium -- North Bend
                Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC
                              El Dorado Nitrogen
                             PCS Nitrogen-Geismar
                                    Train 3
                             PCS Nitrogen-Geismar
                                    Train 5
Basis
                                Hourly averages
                  Requested from plant but have not received
                                Hourly averages
                              15-minute readings
                              15-minute readings
Volume of data
                                    1 year
                  Requested from plant but have not received
                                    1 year
                                    3 years
                      (was only operational 15% of 2009)
                                    3 years

Table 2. NOX CEMS Data from NSCR-controlled Nitric Acid Units

                                    Company
                               Agrium-Sacramento
                      Dyno Nobel-Cheyenne (Acid Plant 1)
                      Dyno Nobel-Cheyenne (Acid Plant 2)
                            Dyno Nobel-Deer Island
                                  JR Simplot
                             PCS Nitrogen-Geismar
                                   (Train 4)
                                     Basis
                                  Hourly ppm
                                      NA
                                      NA
                               1 minute readings
                               (lb NOX/ton acid)
                                Monthly avg ppm
                     15-minute readings (lb NOX/ton acid)
                                Volume of data
                 1 year (only operating about 50% of the year)
                                     None
                                     None
                                    1 year
                                    3 years
                    1 year (only operating 15% of the year)

Table 3. NOX CEMS Data from HPI-controlled Nitric Acid Units

                                    Company
                              Agrium -- Kennewick
Basis
                      2 minute readings (lb NOX/ton acid)
Volume of data
                                    3 years

Table 4. CEMS Data -- Highest Average
                                     Train
                    30 day rolling emission rate--proposal
                               (lb NOX/ton acid)
                    30 operating day rolling emission rate
                               (lb NOX/ton acid)
PCS Geismar-Train 5 (SCR)
                                                                           0.39
                                                                           0.35
Agrium North Bend (SCR)
                                                                           0.50
                                                                           0.41
El Dorado Nitrogen (SCR)
                                                                           0.37
                                                                           0.37
Dyno Nobel Deer Island (NSCR)
                                                                         ------
                                                                           0.21
Agrium Sacramento (NSCR)
                                                                           1.81
                                                                           0.96
Agrium Kennewick (HPI)
                                                                         ------
                                                                           0.72

Figure 1. PCS Geismar Train 5 NOX Emission Data
Figure 2. Agrium North Bend NOX Emission Data
Figure 3. El Dorado Nitrogen NOX Emission Data
Figure 4. Dyno Nobel Deer Island NOX CEMS Data
Figure 5. Agrium Sacramento NOX CEMS Data
Figure 6. Agrium Kennewick NOX CEMS Data


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 57169]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22397]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4527-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

South Dakota; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of South Dakota (FEMA-4527-DR), dated April 5, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on July 6, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Tammy L.
Littrell, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Nancy J. Dragani as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-22397 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request USEPA/ Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2060  0314 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c.

Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one)

a.

Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes

No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a.

Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NESHAP for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG) ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR Number 1687.06 9. Keywords Aerospace, environmental protection, air pollution control, Clean Air Act, depainting operations, catalytic incinerators, HEPA filter systems, carbon absorbers 10. Abstract Respondents are owners or operators of aerospace manufacturing and rework operations. Respondents must submit one time reports of initial performance tests and semi annual reports of noncompliance. Record keeping and parameters related to air pollution control technologies is required. The reports and records will be used to demonstrate compliance with the standards.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c.

Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 136 b. Total annual responses 544 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 10 % c. Total hours requested 141,645 d. Current OMB inventory 3,737,400 e. Difference ( 3,595,755) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment ( 3,595,755) 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 136 c. Total annualized cost requested 136 d. Current OMB inventory 561 e. Difference ( 425) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment ( 425)

15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Application for benefits e. Program planning or management b. Program evaluation f. Research c. General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a.

Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c.

Reporting 1.

On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4.

Quarterly 5.

Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8.

Other ( describe) Initial 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes

No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Leonard Lazarus Phone: 202 564 6369 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3):

( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement. Signature of Program Official Michael S. Alushin, Director Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C. § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( i) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of:

"( i) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number." OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95