April 20, 2004

Mr. Jim Eddinger

Combustion Group

Emission Standards Division (C439-01)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

**Request for Clarification -- National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and
Process Heaters**

Dear Jim,

CIBO appreciates your attendance at our recent Environmental Committee
meeting to present an overview of the final NESHAP rulemaking. As we
discussed, there are a few areas where our review of the final rule and
preamble have raised questions regarding the requirements. We have also
reviewed the Response to Comments draft document obtained through our
efforts with the ICIB/Process Heater Tool Development Partnership Group.
The following are questions and comments identifying those specific
areas where we would appreciate your guidance and clarification. These
are not listed in any particular order.

1.  [Effective Date of the Rulemaking]{.underline}

The preamble states that the rule will be effective 60 days after
publication in the *Federal Register* (Page 191 ). However, several
sections of the final rule appear to contradict this statement.
Specifically, the following sections reference the compliance date as
the "date of publication" as opposed to 60 days after publication
(effective date):

-   §63.7495(a) and (b) -- When do I have to comply with this subpart?

-   §63.7510 (f) -- What are my initial compliance requirements and by
    what date must I conduct them?

-   §63.7545(b) -- What notifications must I submit and when?

In addition, §63.7545(b) is in direct conflict with Table 10.
§63.7545(b) states that the initial notification requirements of
§63.9(b)(1)-(5) apply 120 days [after the date of
publication]{.underline}, whereas Table 10 and §63.9(b)(2) indicate that
the notification is due 120 days [after the effective date]{.underline},
which is 180 days after publication.

CIBO requests that the Agency harmonize these sections to ensure that
the compliance dates are internally consistent with the effective date
and with the referenced General Provisions.

2.  [Immediate Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM)
    Reporting]{.underline}

Table 9, paragraph 2, indicates that an [immediate]{.underline}
"startup, shutdown, and malfunction report" must be submitted when a
source has "a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting
period that is not consistent with" the SSM plan. This requirement is
not in agreement with the NESHAP General Provisions at §63.10(d)(5)(ii)
that requires an [immediate]{.underline} report only if the action taken
is not consistent with the source\'s SSM plan, "**[and]{.underline}**
the source exceeds any applicable emission limitation in the relevant
emission standard." (emphasis added).

CIBO requests that the Agency review this requirement to determine
whether "immediate" notifications are necessary for SSM events that do
not result in an exceedance of any applicable emissions limitation. CIBO
believes that such reporting is more properly included in the
semi-annual compliance report as provided in the NESHAP General
Provisions.

3.  [Establishing Operating Limits for Dry ESP Control
    Systems]{.underline}

Tables 2 and 3 contain requirements for ESP systems and indicate that:
a) a [dry]{.underline} system with an ESP must monitor opacity as the
operating limit; while b) a [wet]{.underline} system with an ESP must
monitor voltage and secondary current or total power input. Although
these monitoring requirements are clearly indicated in Tables 2 and 3,
they are less clearly designated in §63.7530(c)(4)(ii) and Table 8,
paragraph 6, which do not differentiate between ESPs operating with dry
versus wet control systems.

CIBO requests that the Agency confirm that the requirement to monitor
the electrical parameters (*i.e*., voltage, current, and power) of an
ESP, as found in §63.7530(c)(4)(ii) and Table 8, paragraph 6, apply only
to [wet]{.underline} control systems with ESPs.

4.  [Health-Based Compliance Alternative]{.underline}

Appendix A provides a health-based compliance alternative for large,
solid fuel boilers subject to either the HCl or the total select metals
emission limitations. CIBO requests that the Agency clarify the
following requirements of this provision:

-   Paragraph 4(a) requires that an emissions test be conducted "for
    [every]{.underline} emission point covered under subpart DDDDD
    within the affected source facility." The emission rates for all of
    these units are then to be utilized in determining the maximum
    Hazard Index for the specified pollutant.

> That wording appears to require emissions testing of all gaseous,
> liquid, and solid fuel fired units at the facility, regardless of
> subcategory. CIBO requests that the Agency reconsider whether it is
> necessary to conduct emissions tests at those units that are not
> anticipated to emit the subject pollutant. Since the risk-based
> approach only applies to solid fuel boilers, only solid fuel boilers
> should be required to be tested.  The Response to Comments document
> (p.185) uses the term \"affected source\" when discussing the health
> based alternative, so it should follow that the only units to be
> tested are those in the affected source, which is defined as a
> subcategory (in this case large solid fuel fired boilers).  For those
> units that are not anticipated to emit the subject pollutant, the
> requirement to test for these pollutants is an unnecessary and costly
> burden.

CIBO also requests that the Agency allow the permit authority to accept
alternative measures of the emissions from these units. Specifically,
CIBO requests the Agency consider the use of: a) default values; b) fuel
analysis data; c) historical or published emissions data; or d)
representative testing of a subset of the affected units with the
results considered representative of other similar units.

Paragraph 4(b)(2) requires that the emission tests be conducted under
"worst-case" operating conditions. For many sources, the composition of
the fuel mixture will determine the worst-case conditions (e.g., 50
percent bituminous coal and 50 percent tire derived fuel).

CIBO requests that the Agency provide guidance regarding the mechanism
for including a "worst-case" fuel mixture parameter into the Title V
permit. Specifically, CIBO seeks confirmation that the composition of
the \"worst-case\" fuel mixture must be maintained on a monthly basis.
We believe the rule indicates that \"monthly records of fuel mix\" be
kept which is consistent with a monthly averaging time.

-   Equation 2 indicates that the reference concentrations of HCl and
    Cl~2~ can be found at an internet website. Because this website
    includes both long-term (chronic) and short-term (acute)
    dose-response values, CIBO recommends that the Agency specifically
    cite the Table 1 "long-term (chronic) inhalation factors" in
    Equation 2.

-   Referring affected sources to the EPA website for retrieval of the
    reference concentrations, raises the question of future changes to
    those values and how that would need to be handled by affected
    sources using the Health-Based Compliance Alternative. Would those
    using that alternative need to revise their compliance demonstration
    upon future changes to IRIS? This appears to be a cumbersome
    approach. CIBO believes this potential confusion could be eliminated
    by incorporating the reference concentrations from the referenced
    website, Table 1, for HCl and Cl2 into the text of the final rule.
    Should IRIS be changed in the future, those changes could be
    incorporated in a future revision of the rulemaking. CIBO requests
    EPA's consideration of this approach.

5.  [Fuel Sampling Procedures]{.underline}

The fuel sampling requirements cited in the text of the rule are not
consistent with the requirements provided in Table 6. Section 63.7521(c)
provides specific procedures for obtaining fuel samples for analysis.
However, Table 6, paragraphs (1)(a), (2)(a), and (3)(a) allow for the
use of either the procedure described at §63.7521(c) or the ASTM
methods.

CIBO requests that the Agency clarify the regulatory text, at
§63.7521(c), to state that the ASTM standard methods are acceptable for
obtaining fuel samples as indicated in Table 6.

6.  [Compliance Demonstrations]{.underline}

Section 63.7530(a) states that a source may demonstrate initial
compliance by conducting performance tests and establishing operating
limits "according to §63.7520, paragraph (c) of this subsection, and
Tables 5, 7 and 8\..."

CIBO believes that this statement regarding \'[initial]{.underline}'
compliance is in conflict with the purpose of Table 8, which summarizes
the requirements for '[continuous]{.underline}' compliance. CIBO
recommends that the statement at §63.7530(a) be modified to cite "Tables
5 and 7" and omit the reference to Table 8.

7.  [Performance Evaluations of COMS]{.underline}

Section 63.7525(b) states: "each COMS must be installed, operated, and
maintained according to PS 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B." The section
further states that the source "must conduct a performance evaluation of
each COMS according to the requirements in §63.8 and according to PS 1."

CIBO requests that the Agency clarify the applicability of these
requirements for affected sources that have previously installed,
operated, and maintained COMS according to PS 1. Specifically, we
request that the Agency clarify: a) whether existing sources are
required to conduct a performance evaluation of their systems if they
have previously been evaluated according to PS 1; and b) the
applicability of this requirement to COMS that have been installed,
operated, maintained, and evaluated under previous editions of PS 1
(*i.e*., prior to August 2000).

8.  [Availability of Alternative Opacity Limits When Utilizing Emissions
    Averaging]{.underline}

Section 63.7570(b)(2) and Table 7, paragraph (1)(c), provide for the
establishment of an alternative opacity limitation. CIBO requests the
Agency's concurrence regarding the following two items with respect to
this provision:

-   Table 7, paragraphs (1)(c) and (1)(c)(i) cite §63.7530(c)(6)(i) for
    establishing an alternative opacity limitation for an affected
    source. CIBO believes that these cites are in conflict with the
    regulation since §63.7530(c)(6)(i) is not present within the
    regulation. CIBO recommends that the Agency amend Table 7 to cite
    §63.6(h)(9).

-   CIBO seeks clarification of the applicability of the alternate
    opacity limitation for those affected sources that utilize the
    emissions averaging provisions of §63.7522. Specifically, CIBO seeks
    to clarify whether an affected unit with an emission rate that
    exceeds the individual source PM limitation, but complies with the
    NESHAP as part of an emissions averaging group, is eligible to
    obtain an alternative opacity limitation. We believe this should be
    the case to improve compliance flexibility with no loss in
    effectiveness.

9.  [Multiple Sources Utilizing a Common Emission System]{.underline}

Section 63.7520(d) specifies that performance testing be conducted at
the "maximum normal operating load" while burning the fuel mixture that
has "the highest content" of the regulated pollutants. As discussed in
our comments on the proposed rule, (See, Section O, page 83. 03-14-03),
many facilities have complex configurations of equipment where multiple
affected sources (*i.e*., boilers and process heaters) and, possibly,
non-affected sources, are served by a common emission control system
and/or a common exhaust stack. Under these circumstances it may not be
possible to: a) segregate and test emissions from individual units; and
b) readily identify for the system the "maximum normal operating load"
while burning the fuel mixture that has "the highest content" of the
regulated contaminants.

Due to the multiple possible combinations and configurations, CIBO
believes that the appropriate testing protocol for a complex system is
best addressed in the site-specific test plan developed for the affected
source. However, CIBO requests that the Agency provide some general
guidance that can be relied upon since the test plan will be reviewed
and subject to the approval of various enforcement authorities.
Specifically, we request that the Agency address the following
circumstances:

-   In situations where it is not possible to segregate and test
    individual units it will be necessary for the source to demonstrate
    compliance for the entire combined system. Under these
    circumstances, CIBO seeks guidance regarding:

\- Determining the mixture of units to be tested. For example, if three
units are present, but only two units can operate simultaneously, is it
necessary to test all three possible configurations? If two of the units
are identical (or similar), can the results of one test configuration be
considered representative of both units? CIBO's recommendation is to
test a configuration representative of both units.

\- Accounting for the presence of exhaust gases from gaseous or liquid
fuel affected units, or non-subpart DDDDD emission units, in the
combined exhaust gas stream. We recommend the ability to net out these
exhaust gases based on actual operations at the time of the testing.

-   In general, Tables 2, 3, and 8 contain provisions requiring existing
    sources to operate at no more than 20 percent opacity and new
    sources to operate at no more than 10 percent opacity. CIBO requests
    the Agency's guidance regarding the determination of compliance with
    this requirement when the emissions from an affected unit are
    discharged through a common stack with other units, which may
    include other solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel affected units, or
    non-subpart DDDDD units. We believe that as long as other PM
    requirements are met the 10 and 20 percent opacity requirements can
    be applicable for the common stack.

10. [Emissions Averaging Relative to Multiple Boilers Using a Common
    Control Device and Stack]{.underline}

The final rule (§63.7522) specifies the procedures for complying with
the emission standards using the emission averaging option. However,
this does not seem to address the case where several boilers breech into
a common control device and stack. For example, at one large facility,
five coal-fired boilers with different heat input ratings share a common
fabric filter control device. Another facility has two coal-fired
boilers having the same heat input that have individual fabric filter
control devices but share a common stack, the outlet of which complies
with all the MACT emission limitations. Due to the configuration of the
ductwork, it is not possible to perform a valid stack test at the outlet
of individual boilers at either facility because the criteria outlined
in EPA methods 1-5 cannot be satisfied (i.e., the port locations and
flow do not satisfy the requirements necessary to conduct isokinetic
sampling). Can we interpret the requirement in §63.7500(a)(1) to control
"your boiler or process heater" to meet the emission limit and work
practices standards to apply to the control device or stack rather than
to each individual boiler? If so, how would the fuel testing
requirements be addressed if different fuel mixes were fired in various
boilers? Could the facility apportion the fuel mix for each boiler based
on the heat input, or preferably, could the fuel mix be based on all
units serving the common control device and/or stack as a single entity?
Since this is a fairly common configuration at industrial boiler
locations, CIBO requests that the Agency insert a paragraph in the
preamble addressing this concern.

11. [Appendix A, Equation 1 Correction]{.underline}

The text under Equation 1 of Appendix A indicates that the equation is
intended to determine the total maximum hourly emissions in lb/hr for
multiple units. However, the left side of the equation indicates
"AveWeightedEmissions" and the equation divides by total heat input
(MMBtu/hr), so that the equation is determining an average emission rate
in lb/MMBtu. This appears to be an error. For the equation to
appropriately feed into Equation 2, it should just *multiply* the
emission rate by heat input and not divide by heat input.

CIBO requests that EPA review these equations and provide a corrected
equation in the published rule.

12. [Research and Development Boiler Exclusion]{.underline}

[§63.7491(g) states the following]{.underline}: "(g) A boiler or process
heater that is used specifically for research and development. This does
not include units that only provide heat or steam to a process at a
research and development facility." On the surface, these sentences
appear contradictory unless the exclusion is intended to only apply to
those boilers or process heaters that are themselves being evaluated as
R&D units. In that case, any boilers and process heaters associated with
non-boiler/process heater R&D would not meet this exclusion. Please
clarify the intention of this exclusion.

13. [Compliance Schedule]{.underline}

Irrespective of the comment above regarding compliance dates, the
compliance date indicated in the final rule is noted as three years
following publication in the *Federal Register*. However, the Response
to Comments document indicates on pages 56 and 135 that the compliance
schedule is extended from three to four years. Please address this
inconsistency. As stated in our comments, we believe 4 years to comply
is the minimum necessary to comply given the number of sources affected
and competition for qualified construction firms and materials with
other industry such as the utilities.

14. [Fuel Switching Relative to Emissions Averaging]{.underline}

In the Response to Comments document, pages 60-61, the topic of allowing
a solid fuel fired unit that switches fuel to meet the solid fuel
limitations and be included in the emissions average is discussed. If
this is totally deleted from the final rule as you indicated it is, then
this discussion in the Response to Comments document needs to also be
changed to prevent confusion.

15. [Opacity Limit for New Units]{.underline}

Tables 2 and 3 of the Final Rule indicate that the opacity limit for new
boilers and process heaters is 10% on a 1-hour block average basis. The
Response to Comments document, pages 117, 126, and 128, refers to a
three-hour block average for new units. It is assumed that the signed
rule included EPA's final intentions, but we are not certain. Please
address this conflict.

16. [Coal Chlorine Test Methods]{.underline}

Table 6 provides fuel analysis requirements and test methods to be used
for compliance purposes. Table 6, paragraph 3.f, lists only two test
methods for chlorine, SW-846-9250 and ASTM E776-87. SW-846-9250 is
applicable to ground water, drinking, surface, and saline waters, and
domestic and industrial waste. ASTM E776-87 is the [Test Method for
Forms of Chlorine in Refuse-Derived Fuel]{.underline}. Therefore, no
test method for coal chlorine is provided. Both ASTM D2361-02 ([Standard
Test Method for Chlorine in Coal]{.underline}) and ASTM D4208-02
([Standard Test Method for Total Chlorine in Coal by the Oxygen Bomb,
Combustion/Ion Selective Electrode Method]{.underline}) are accepted
test methods for determining total chlorine content in a coal sample.

CIBO requests that you please provide these two ASTM test methods for
coal chlorine in Table 6, paragraph 3.f. We recognize that the
Administrator may be petitioned for approval of other test methods, as
indicated in the Response to Comments on p. 122; however, requiring all
coal firing facilities to file petitions for approval of these two ASTM
methods would be an unjustified burden on all parties.

17. [HCl Emission Reference Methods]{.underline}

Table 5, paragraph 3(e), indicates that either Method 26 or Method 26A
can be used to determine hydrogen chloride emission concentration. This
is consistent with the Response to Comments, page138. However, the
preamble on page 34 states: "(4) Conduct initial and annual stack tests
to determine compliance with the HCl emission limits using EPA Method 26
in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter (for boilers without wet
scrubbers) or EPA Method 26A in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter
(for boilers with wet scrubbers)." The Response to Comments indicates
that EPA recognizes the advantages of being able to use Method 26A for
units other than those with wet scrubbers, and included that option in
Table 5. However, the preamble does not provide that flexibility. CIBO
requests that the preamble be modified to allow the option of using
either Reference Method 26 or 26A for units without wet scrubbers.

For years we have been working closely with the American Forest and
Paper Association. They have developed additional Boiler MACT questions.
We believe our comments and their questions and suggested answers could
help strengthen the cost effectiveness of the rule without loss of
environmental benefit.

We appreciate the Agency's consideration of these questions and
comments, and CIBO offers its assistance in addressing these issues. If
you should require any further information, or if you wish to discuss
these items, please contact me at (703) 250-9042.

Best regards,

Robert D. Bessette

President