### Summary of Interagenc y Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 1 of 7 **Costs and Benefits**

- Can EPA please clarify whether or not the new cost/benefit estimates for the boilers and incinerator rules account for changes made in the NHSM definitions rule, which would affect the scope of units covered b y each of the other rules? If not, does the agency have a sense for how much those changes would affect the costs/benefit estimates?

- How long would it take for EPA to provide an updated RIA for the rule? Given the magnitude of the changes made from the prior final rule, the level of detail on the costs and benefits in the RIA cover memo is insufficient.

- In a change from the proposal, EPA is not extending the compliance deadlines for units that are Gas 1 (natural gas/refinery gas), limited use, or has heat input capacity < 10 MMBtu/h and subject to the tune - up requirement. Can y ou explain for us why this change is not anticipated to cause compliance feasibility problems for these units? (For example, are these categories of units ones that need less lead time due to the nat ure of their compliance requirements?) Is this change based on comments received during the public comment period? **CEMS Feasibility and Hg Limit**

- In the proposed final rule, EPA added the use of continuous emission monitors (CEMS) as an option for meetin g compliance requirements, and it sought comments on that additional option. A commenter notes that the Hg emission limit for new or reconstructed boilers in the final rule may at the lower limit of what commercial CEMS can reliabl y measure. For example, the Hg emission limit for new or reconstructed boilers, as shown in “Table 1 to Subpart DDDDD of Part 63

— Emission Limits for New or Reconstructed Boilers and Process Heaters (Units with heat input capacity of 10 million Btu per hour or greater)” is 8.0 x 10 - 7 Lb /mmBtu heat input. Depending on the boiler efficiency , this may be at the lower limit of what commercial continuous emission monitors (CEMS) can reliably measure, if not below the level at which performance guarantees will be provided by vendors. Ty

pical commercial CEMS can reliably measure mercury

concentrations in the range of 0.5

– 1 microgram per dry normal cubic meter (corrected to 3% O 2 ). At concentrations below this level, the measurements become less accurate. Figure 1 shows mercury concentration in units of pounds per million Btu of heat input (x - axis), and converts that concentration to the units ty picall y measured b y CEMS (microgram per dry normal cubic meter, corrected to 3% O 2 ).

- Figure 1 indicates that the emission limit proposed for new or reconstructed boilers

### Summary of Interagenc y Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 2 of 7 **Figure 1**  **– Mercury Emissions by Coal Type**  **1**

(8.0 x 10 - 7 Lb /mmBtu heat input) may be at, or below, the limit at which commercial CEMS can accuratel y measure. The Hg emission limit for new or reconstructed boilers (8.0 x 10 - 7 Lb/mmBtu heat input) will require activated carbon injection to achieve compliance. The mercury research and development program conducted by DOE concluded that, at best, 80 - 90% continuous Hg removal was possible. Due to the vary ing mercury content of coal, comp liance may not be achievable with some coals. Figure 2 shows the mercury content of various domestic coal ranks. An y coal ty pe that has a mercury con tent of greater than 8 Lb Hg/trillion Btu will require greater than 90% removal, which could effectivel y eliminate those coal ty pes as a fuel source for new and reconstructed coal - fired boilers. The Methodology

for MACT Floor Anal ys is released in Decem ber 2011 with the Proposed Reconsidered Rule appears to only set aside units that have process - specific fuels (i.e. fuels not readil y available to other entities), and it does not construct a calculation that holds open the option for an y U.S. source of co al to be used by a new or reconstructed coal - fired boiler. **It is therefore recommended that this MACT limit for Hg emissions be reconsidered, taking into**  **account both the varying mercury content of coal, and the removal capability of the compliance techno**  **logies that are available.**

2 “Mercury in U.S. Coal

– Ab undance, Distribution, and Modes of Occurrence,” Tew alt, Bragg, and Finkelman; http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs095 - 01/ 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80

2.30E - 07 7.30E - 07 1.23E - 06 1.73E - 06 2.23E - 06 2.73E - 06**m i** **c r** **o g** **r a** **m /** **d r** **y n** **o r** **m a** **l c** **u b** **i c** **m e** **t e** **r (** **3 %** **O 2** **)**

**Lb Hg**  **/mmB tu**  Appa lach ian B it um inous Interior B it umino us We ste rn B itumin ous We ste rn Subbi tumi nous For t Uni on Lign it e Gu lf Co ast Lign it e 1 micr ogram/dry

n or mal c ubi c met er (3% O2 )

0.5 microgram/dr

y nor mal cubi c meter (3% O2 )

8.0 x 10 - 7 Lb Hg/mmBtu

### Summary of Interagenc y Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 3 of 7 **Figure 2**  **– Mercury Content by Coal Type**  **2**

**Energy Efficiency Provisions** 1. Sec. 63.7575 amendment of (b) definitions -- Pg 296, Efficiency credit definition .  Commenters are concerned by the removal of the text “Shutdowns cannot be used to generate credits.” Shutting down a boiler is not an efficiency measure or activity . **Qualifying shutdowns as efficiency is an inadvisable policy precedent.**
 To remed y, commen ters strongl y recommend EPA reconcile the language on pg 296 with the language on pg 232 (Sec. 63.7533 Can I use efficiency credits earned from implementation of energy conservation measures to comply with this subpart?) that states efficiency credits cannot be generated b y boiler shutdowns unless the shutdown comes from energy

savings that resulted from implementing the energy assessment measures. In addition, commenters recommend that EPA add in language on both page 29 6 and page 232 requiring that such a facility provide supporting documentation linking the shutdown to energy conservation measures identified in the energy assessments. 2 “Mercury in U.S. Coal

– Ab undance, Distribution, and Modes of Occurrence,” Tew alt, Bragg, and Finkelman; http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs095 - 01/

### Summary of Interagenc y Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 4 of 7 2. Pg 298

– Energy

management definition , page 47 (IV. Summary of Significant Changes Si nce Proposal, G. Energy Assessment), and page 365 - 67 ( Table 3 to subpart DDDDD of part 63 ).
 A commenter is concerned with the change to allow a facility that has an energy management program to satisfy the energy

assessment requirement. Having an energy management program does not mean that all savings have been identified, and the commenter believes there is value in requiring all affected sources to have an energy assessment as the May

2012 rule did. Traditional energy management programs and measures can lack persistence because they stand alone. **The commenter recommends striking the new language since May 2012 that would relieve a facility from actually**  **performing an energy assessment.**
 A commenter is concerned with edits to the definition of “energy management program” that added specific reference to ”ENERGY STAR guideline for energy management, DOE Save Energy

Now, or I SO 50001 compatible energy management s ys tems.” The list of items that must be included in the energy assessment is most important, and while federal government programs change over time, they will include these items. **A commenter recommends striking reference to the voluntary standards in the**  **definition and adding a sentence that refers to ISO 50001 only:**
“ Energy management program means a program according to the ENERGY STAR guideline for energy management, DOE Save Energy Now, or ISO 50001 compatible energy

management sy stems that includes a set of practices and procedures designed to manage energy use that are demonstrated by the facility ’s energy policies, a facility energy manager and other staffing responsibilities, energy performance measurement and tracking methods, an energy saving goal, action plans, operating procedures, internal reporting requirements, and periodic review intervals used at the facilit y. Facilities may establish their program through energy

management sy stems compatible with I SO 50001.
 If EPA does not strike the edit, for accuracy purposes, replace “Save Energy Now program” with “Superior Energy Performanc e.” 3. Pg 46 **-** IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal, G. Energy Assessment
 A commenter is concerned with the introduction of a maximum limit of “160 technical hours” for an energy assessment. DOE’s energy savings assessments ty picall y are 24 hours in length. Adding a maximum limit to the regulation is not necessary , and setting o ne that is dramaticall y higher than t ypical assessments could signal an expectation that initial energy assessments could create situations where facilities pay

higher costs to meet the regulatory requirement due to private sector companies artificially

in flating their time.

### Summary of Interagenc y Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 5 of 7 4. Pg 48 - IV. Summary of Significant Changes Since Proposal, G. Energy Assessment , page 311 (§63.7575 What definitions apply to this subpart?) , page 365 - 67 (Table 3 to Subpart DDDDD of Part 63

— Work Practice Standards)
 **A commenter is co ncerned that EPA has weakened the definition of “qualified**  **energy assessor.” A commenter recommends that EPA restore the qualifications**  **included in the May 2012 reconsidered proposal.** The May 2012 definition (see below) would assure a minimum level of as sessor expertise that the facilities will receive when they

comply with the rule.
 Basis for concern: The revised text makes the definition more general so that an assessor is only

required to have knowledge and capabilities specific to the processes at t he site, and to clarify

that qualified energy

assessors may

be company

employ ees or outside specialists. In DOE’s experience with energy savings assessments, a third party regularly finds savings that plant personnel do not. A worst case scenario would be with these changes, a facility could have their current plant manager do a plant walk - through / cursory

inspection focused on the processes related to the regulation and make a determination that the plant has no additional opportunities for energy savings . This doesn’t seem to meet EPA’s stated intent in including this requirement in the regulation.
 In addition, by

removing the specific demonstrated qualifications and expertise, facilities may

not be receiving sufficientl y robust assessments from qualifie d experts that can identify

additional savings.
 For reference, below are the new proposed definition and the May 2012 definition:
 **NEW EPA LANGUAGE:** Qualified energy assessor means a person or persons who have demonstrated capabilities to evaluate energy savings opportunities for steam generation, process heat, and major steam and process heat using s ys tems, as applicable to the facility . Qualified energy

assessors may

be comp an y employ ees or outside specialists.
 **MAY 2012 LANGUAGE:** Qualified energy assessor means: (1) Someone who has demonstrated capabilities to evaluate energy savings opportunities for steam generation and major energy using s ys tems, including, but not limite d to: (i) Boiler combustion management. (ii) Boiler thermal energy recovery , including (A) Conventional feed water economizer, (B) Conventional combustion air preheater, and

### Summary of Interagenc y Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 6 of 7 (C) Condensing economizer. (iii) Boiler blowdown thermal energy recovery . (iv) Pri mary

energy resource selection, including (A) Fuel (primary

energy source) switching, and (B) Applied steam energy versus direct - fired energy versus electricit y. (v) Insulation issues. (vi) Steam trap and steam leak management. (vi) Condensate recovery. (viii) Steam end - use management. (2) Capabilities and knowledge includes, but is not limited to: (i) Background, experience, and recognized abilities to perform the assessment activities, data anal ys is, and report preparation. (ii) Familiarit y with operat ing and maintenance practices for steam or process heating s ys tems. (iii) Additional potential steam sy stem improvement opportunities including improving steam turbine operations and reducing steam demand. (iv) Additional process heating s ys tem opportunit ies including effective utilization of waste heat and use of proper process heating methods. (v) Boiler - steam turbine cogeneration sy stems. (vi) Industry

specific steam end - use s ys tems. **Editorial Issues and Clarifications:**

- Page 19, Table 3: Please revise the mercury emission limits in this table, as the information provided for most sources is not complete.

- In Table 3 of the preamble (section III. C.) all of the mercury limits and a couple of the HCl limits are missing the latter portion of the scientific notation. All values in this table should match the values in Tables 1 and 2 to Subpart DDDDD.

- In Section III. D. of the preamble at the bottom of page 24, change the following text to read as follows to be consistent with the changes alread y made the id entical text in Table

### Summary of Interagenc y Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 7 of 7 5 of the rule. “... If you are firing a fuel other than natural gas, refinery gas, other gas 1 fuel, or light liquid fuels, you must engage all of the applicable control technologies except dry scrubber

, fabric filter, and SCR during per iods of startup and shutdown. You must start your dry scrubber , fabric filter, and SCR systems, if present, appropriately to comply with relevant standards applicable during normal operation. You must comply with all applicable emissions and operating limi ts at all times the unit is in operation except for periods that meet the definitions of startup and shutdown in this subpart. You must keep records during periods of startup or shutdown. You must maintain records concerning activities and periods of start up or shutdown, as specified in § 63.7555.”

- Area source rule refers to "ox ygen trim s ys tems" and the major source rule refers to both "ox ygen trim s ys tems" and "continuous oxy gen and CO trim sy stems." If these all refer to the same sy stems perhaps the lan guage should be consistent within and between both rules.

- Footnote “a" in Tables 1, 2, 11, 12, 13 say s “at or 75 percent of” which should probably be “at or below 75 percent of” per 63.7515(b).

- Table 3 item 3 say s all large units (10 MMBtu or greater) are subject to an annual tune up. 63.7540(a)(10) say s large gas 1 and MPF units are subject to an annual tune - up but does not indicate a tune - up requirement for large units in other categories. 63.7540(a)(10) does say this annual frequency

does not appl y to l imited use units and units with trim sy stems which is true but seems to conflict with Table 3 item 3. 63.7540(a)(10) and Table 3 item 3 might both need clarification.

-