Representing the Interests of America’s Industrial Energy Users since 1978

Council Of Industrial Boiler Owners 6035 Burke Centre Parkway, Suite 360, Burke, VA 22015-3757• Phone: 703-250-9042 Fax: 703-239-9042 E-Mail: cibo@cibo.org June 13, 2008 VIA E-DOCKET

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Mail Code 6102T Washington, DC 20460
Attn: Docket ID N o. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058

Re: Agency Information Collection Activi ties; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Information Co llection Effort fo r Facilities With Combustion Units, EPA ICR Numb er 2286.01, OMB Control No. 2060-New – 73 Fed Reg 27820 (May 14, 2008)

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Council of Industrial Boil er Owners (CIBO) appreciates the opportunity to comment on an Information Collection Request (ICR) submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwor k Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501 et

seq. EPA states that this info rmation collection will be condu cted by the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) to assi st the Administrator of EPA, as required by sections 112(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), in determining the current popula tion of affected combustion units and to develop emission standa rds for these source categories.

CIBO is a broad-based association of industrial boiler ow ners, architect-e ngineers, related equipment manufacturers, and University affili ates with over 100 me mbers representing 20 major industrial sectors. CIBO members have facilities in ev ery region of the country and a representative distribution of almost every type of boiler and fuel co mbination currently in operation. CIBO was formed in 1978 to promot e the exchange of information within the industry and between industry and government relating to energy and environmental equipment, technology, operati ons, policies, law and regulation s affecting industrial boilers. Since its formation, CIBO has been active in the development of technically sound, reasonable, cost-effective energy and environmental regulations for industrial boilers. CIBO supports regulatory programs that provide industry with eno ugh flexibility to modernize – effectively and without penalty – the nation's aging energy infrast ructure, as modernization is the key to cost-effective environmental protection.June 13, 2008 Page 2 of 9

CIBO incorporates by reference and attaches it s comments filed in response to EPA's draft
ICR. 1 In addition to its attached comments , CIBO provides the following additional comments in response to this ICR submitted to OMB for approval.

Supporting Statement

• P.3, 1(b). EPA intends to send the Survey to facilities clas sified as major source in their Title V permit that have a boiler or process heater listed in their permit. While this approach may be inclusive, it creates two difficulties.

1. It will result in unjustified burden on those faci lities whose combustion units are already regulated under another EPA regulation. For example, in promulgated Subpart DDDDD, §63.7491, cert ain boilers and process heaters are specifically identified as not being subject to that subpart. While this information collection request legitimately is applicable to CISWI sources, there are many other types of boilers and process he aters that should not be
included since those units are not viable for inclusio n in the determination of the new rule requirements. In fact, all of t hose units listed in §63.7491 except (e) (CISWI units) should not be re quired to provide responses.

2. It could inadvertently im pose an unjustified burden on sources that are not major HAP emitters. On pages 16 and 23, the Survey clarifies th at it applies to major sources of HAPs. However, in ot her citations this distinction between Major Title V sources and Major HAP em itters is unclear. EPA should clarify
at the outset which sources are obligated to respond to the Surv ey (i.e., those that are major for HAPs, have boilers or process heaters or CISWI units and are not exempt from DDDDD). Resp onses from other sources, CIBO assumes, would be voluntary. EPA sh ould provide some formal method to document each response as voluntary or mandatory. Sources are concerned that if there is no agency record of th eir optional participat ion, they could be subject to an enforcement ac tion for lack of response, when in fact they were under no legal obligation to respond.

Clarifying in the ICR whic h sources must respond will mi nimize unnecessary burden on both the regulated community and regulatory agencies.

• P.3, 1(b). It is stated that the Survey will also be sent to facilities that have
incineration units that were listed as exempt under th e 2000 CISWI standard. This apparently refers to 40 C.F.R. 60.2020 under Subpart CCCC and 40 C.F.R. 60.2555 under Subpart DDDD. Many of those exempt ed units are alread y regulated under other EPA regulations or do not combust commercial or indus trial wastes. Therefore, it is inappropriate for EPA to require those facilities to co mplete the Survey since that
data will not be useful for establishing revi sed Subpart DDDDD or CISWI regulations. To do so would be a waste of resources by bo th the regulated community and regulatory agencies. EPA must speci fically identify appropr iate sources whose

1 72 Fed Reg 69213 (December 7, 2007).June 13, 2008 Page 3 of 9

data is truly appropriate an d critical to the intended pu rposes in order to limit the
burden and cost of the inform ation collection process.

• P.6. EPA notes that some data may not reflec t the current status of boilers. While that may be accurate in some cases, it is importa nt to note that emissions data reflecting any changes that sources made to comply with EPA's promulgated standards should
not be used to set the revise d standards. Using that data would arbitrarily impose a
double enforcement burden on unit s that have already made investments to come into compliance with the promulga ted standards. For this reason, CIBO urges EPA to
solicit all available data an d seek corresponding informa tion from sources that permit EPA to determine whether or not the data reflects changes made to comply with the promulgated standards.

• P.7, 2(b). EPA recognizes the need for fu el/material analysis data to address variability. CIBO strongly supports the need for this da ta to correlate emissions performance with fuel/material fed to the co mbustion device durin g emissions tests. Due to various materials and their compositio n as fed to boilers and process heaters, this variability must be ad equately addressed in the ru lemaking process in order to promulgate a feasible rule.

EPA says “The data collecte d will be used to revise th e population of potentially
affected combustion units unde r §§ 112 and 129 of the Act, ...” EPA should confirm
here that the data will be used to define so urce categories but will not bind any facility providing data to be defined as either a §112 or §129 unit. EPA should restate here that a facility retains the right to discontinue the use of a fuel and thereby subject to neither stack testing for th at fuel under the second co mponent of the ICR, nor redefinition as a §129 unit.

• P.10, 3(c). EPA decided to pr ovide only a 45 day response time to the ICR. CIBO understands the need for EPA to proceed with the rulemaking process in a timely manner. However, this very short timing will undoubtedly result in addi tional burden on responding entiti es simply due to the need to gather data , complete internal reviews, and report in a very short time period. EPA should expect some responses will not meet that time constraint.

• P.10-11, 3(d). CIBO appreciates EPA recognizing the excessi ve burden of the emissions testing and changi ng the intended appr oach, e.g., elimin ating emissions
control device inle t emissions testing, elim inating paired trains. However, CIBO must again stress the inherent li mitations of qualified emissi ons testing contractors to conduct a tremendous number of complex emi ssions tests in a s hort period of time,
and that it is almost certain that availa bility of emissions te sting contractors and
submission of results will be a problem relative to EPA’s projected timeline.

• P.16, 4(a). EPA notes that if a Survey recipient operates an incinerator in addition to boilers and process heaters, the facility will be requested to complete a separate
section to characterize the incinerator. This request needs to specifically excludeJune 13, 2008 Page 4 of 9

incinerators regulated u nder other EPA regulations, such as hazardous waste
incinerators. Those units would provide no useful info rmation since they are not within the scope of the Boiler/P rocess Heater MACT or CISWI.

• P.17, 4(b)(i). EPA states the Survey will re quest data for “other combustion devices”
at the same site as boilers and process heaters. EPA shoul d make clear that this only would be applicable to sources considered to be boilers, pr ocess heaters, or incinerators, and not devi ces such as internal combustion engines, etc.

• P.18, 4(b)(i). During the st ack testing, collecti on and analysis of three as-fired fuel/material samples taken at intervals throughout the testing period w ill be required. The testing protocol should be specific relative to samples, e.g., where three emissions test runs are conducted, one re presentative sample should be provided for each test run if possible.

• Attachment 3B, footnote 6. The costs for conducting stack tests for 15-PAH and organic HAP are not included in the cost estimate. CIBO assumes therefore that none of that testing will be requir ed. However, if EPA intends to require such testing, then
the cost must be accounted for in the burden estimate, especially because that could be a significant cost. CIBO prov ided cost estimates for this testing in its earlier comments. (See attachment at 9.)

• Attachment 3B, footnote 6. CIBO understands the desire to limit emissions testing costs at specific faci lities by not testing for all emission s at every site. However, EPA
needs to somehow account for coincident emission rates at specific design units firing specific fuels. Since there is such a grea t diversity in design, fuel/materials fired, operating parameters, emission s control device design and operation, great care must be exercised in extrapolati ng emissions test results from a limited number of sources across many other units. Ther efore, having emissions data from specific design units firing specific fuels cases woul d have consider able value.

• Attachment 3B. If EPA determines that mercury emissions tes ting from coal fired boilers is required, consider ation should be given to us e of the recently approved Reference Method 30B (sorbent trap method) where applicable in order to reduce testing cost compared to other wet chemistry Reference Methods.

• Attachment 4. It is unclear whether the Agency burden and cost includes contractors. In order to provide total burden and cost , contractor cost ne eds to be included.

• Attachment 4. CIBO believes it is inconceivable that determination of the sites to be selected for testing will take EPA technical resour ces only 8 hours to complete.

• Attachment 4, footnote 5. CIBO believes EPA is overly optimistic regarding the time required to analyze each fac ility response (30 minutes). Since EPA is allowing use of
alternative formats and submi ssion of additional data, EPA will need to analyze andJune 13, 2008 Page 5 of 9

input that data in some manne r so that it can be used in rulemaking determinations.
This will all take additional time and effort.

Part B of the Supporting Document

• Section 1. EPA notes that CO and organic HAP data may be needed form gas fired units. CIBO urges EPA to cons ider and obtain coin cident data for all units relative to CO (and organic HAP where appropriate) and NOx, along with CO2/O2. Low NOx
emission rates with combustion modificatio n can increase CO emissions. That
balance must be considered when establis hing HAP surrogate emission limits. Data
can also be used to determine the CO level below which there are insignificant changes in HAP emissions, so that low CO emission levels are not simply driven by what is possibly seen duri ng a specific test, but by wh at is require d to provide assurance of acceptable HAP emission levels.

• Section 2. Data analysis and evaluati on needs to consider that all prior subcategorizations considered multiple fuel fired units to be associated with the highest-emitting fuel fired, so that coal fired boilers also include those that can also fire gaseous and/or oi l fuels either alone or simultane ously. This is important when considering the inventory of units and the emissions contro ls applied to units. For example, while a coal fired boi ler might be equipp ed with a baghouse, it was installed for controlling particulate em issions from coal firing a nd not for gas or oil firing.

Draft Questionnaire

• Survey Overview. Note genera lly and specifically in secti ons as require d, that units regulated under other EPA re gulations (see comme nt above relative to 40 C.F.R. 63.7491) are not subjec t to this ICR.

• Part I, 6. If the source is not a major HAP source and no t an incinerator, must the source complete the Survey? If no is the answer, the Survey should be optional, and
sources should be told they can stop at this point an d send it in w ithout including
additional information.

• Part I, 10. Specify th at this question applies to units that are not regulated under other EPA regulations, e.g., non RCRA-regulated (non -hazardous waste firing combustion units).

• Part I, 11.a. The Survey re ferences a "list," but does not identify which list. CIBO
assumes this refers to the list of non-fossil fuels listed in definition 10 (Draft Definitions, p. 16 to 18) of the Survey. If s o, this should be refere nced. The document titled BMACT ICR Survey 5 in cludes a different, less-inclusiv e list of non-fossil fuels
than the list of non-fossil fuels provided in the Draft De finitions. Should the two lists be the same, except for the addition of the fossil fuels?June 13, 2008 Page 6 of 9

• Part I, 12. It is very difficult for facilities to answer these qu estions, particul arly 12(c). For 12(c), personnel operating boilers regulated un der section 112 are not likely to be
familiar with the 2000 CISWI rule and its re quirements and management is not likely
to have reviewed the costs and requirements of §129. It is unknown whether and to
what extent the definition of "solid waste" will affe ct the CISWI categories and
standards. Even the even tual boiler MACT categories and standards cannot be known with the degree of confidence needed to provide reasonable answers to this question.
Given all of the unknown factors, it is unlikely that sources would ha ve conducted a study to understand costs. In addition, th e existing Subpart CCCC and DDDD emission limits are in many ca ses simply not attainable by well contro lled boilers firing fossil fuel, so that cofiring of thos e non-fossil or other ma terials might not be possible in that case. Ther efore, responses to the ques tion as posed may not provide
useful information. EPA s hould either eliminate the que stion or provide a "unknown" option. At a minimum, EPA should make cl ear the answer provide d is non-binding to the facility. For 12(b), an option should be added for generating additional steam from other boiler(s) at the site.

• Part I, 13. As with the pr ior question, CIBO me mbers indicate gr eat difficulty or impossibility in answering this question. The question requires assumptions to be made about controls, fuels and other fundamental issues in order to provide a meaningful answer, most of which turn on the future content of EPA's revised boiler
MACT and CISWI definitions and standards. Sources s hould not be required to commit to a guess based on a series of unknowns. If EPA reta ins the qu estion, it should provide a "we do not know" option.

• Part I, 13. While there are probably some units that would fall under Subpart CCCC (new sources after 11/3 0/99 or modified/reconstructed sources after 6/1/01), there are likely many more sources cons tructed before 11/30/99 that would fall under Subpart DDDD. Both of those subparts need to be referenced appropriat ely if the question remains in the Survey.

• Part I, 13. The Survey should provide a response option that says we don’t know. It is unlikely that sites will ha ve done an engineering stu dy for §129 requirements and
know the cost.

• Part II.A. The terms “gas-fired” and “natur al gas fired” are used interchangeably and it should be made clear whether responses ar e required for only natu ral gas or all fuel gases. If the definition is to apply, then the term “natur al gas fired” should probably
not be used to minimize confusion.

• Part II.A, 1.a. and 2.a. The 10MMBtu/hr threshold should be specifically identified as heat input basis to be cons istent with typica l boiler conven tion. Many process heaters are typically rated on a heat output basis. While the definition doe s specify he at input,
it would minimize confusion and potentially erroneous respon ses to state “heat input” at every instance.June 13, 2008 Page 7 of 9

• Part II.A, 1d and 2d. To minimize confusion, CIBO reco mmends that the last item "CO limit units___" be deleted and the first item be revised to read: "CO numerical limit with units (e.g., ppm at 3% O2 dry, lb/MMBtu heat i nput, other- pleas e specify)."

• Part II. Recognize that th e terms “water” and “feed wate r” are only applicable to boilers, and that various process streams are involve d with process heaters.

• Part II.A, 2. It woul d probably be of value to identify for proces s heaters whether they
are forced draft or natural draft bur ner design, and to specif y the number of burners per process heater. These features might influence the emissions profiles and other parameters.

• Part II.A, 2. Section appear s to be incorrectly numbered as 2 rather than 3. The second paragraph asks to provide daily average CEM data for CO, but then asks for the highest single data point within the most recent calendar year of CEM data. The Survey should specify daily average data, hourly data or instan taneous CO data. As drafted, this item is unclear.

• Part II.B. Heading- It is be lieved that this part applies to all units that are not small natural gas fired units. Th e wording appears to elimin ate natural gas fired units
>10MMBtu/hr.

• Part II.B, 1.m. Would probably be of va lue to know how many bur ners were installed
on each unit.

• Part II, 3.a.6. Insert the text in italics: What was the control device prior to the upgrade/modification/instal lation/replacement for complying with 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart DDDDD. The text should reflect prep arations for compliance but should not assume compliance by sources with vacated rules.

• Part II.C, 2 and 3. In the ta bles, third column, the letter “B” shown in the lower cells
needs to be defined in the t op cell, as is done with “G”.

• Part II.C.5. It is believed the question is referring to que stion 4 above, no t 5 as shown. In addition, the question is prob ably referring to the emission test location rather than the equipment arrangement. Further clarific ation is needed. For example, there could
be a dedicated control device and a shared stack, but the emi ssion test could be
conducted in the bre eching dedicated to a single boiler pr ior to the stack.

• Part II.D. For CEM data, allow for selectio n of months of CEM da ta available in the prior year, plus account for months the unit is operating to allow factoring for operating time represen ted by the data. For example, the single highest data point
within the most recent calenda r year would have differen t statistical meaning for a boiler that operated on ly sporadically, or fo r only 2 months in the year compared to a boiler that operated for 350 days in the year.June 13, 2008 Page 8 of 9

• Part III. The list of fuel categories is provi ded twice – once in th e Draft Definitions,
which includes a list of non-fo ssil fuel materials, and as a separate, different list in the document titled BMACT ICR Survey 5. Should the lists be the same? The list in Survey 5 does not incl ude several non-fossil fuel materi als that are included in the
Draft Definitions section of the Survey. Specifically, "paper byproduc ts: knots and paper fines" is not in cluded in the list of materials on Survey 5.

• Part IV. Specify that this is not required for hazard ous waste incinerator units.

• Part IV, 1.g. Allow for unit s other than t ons per day.

• Draft Definitions, 1. Process heater- delete the last sentence “Any other combustion unit combusting non-fossil fuel/materia l whether covered under another MACT
standard or not.” Units covered under another MACT have no relevance to the Boiler/Process Heater MACT or CISWI, and requiring those to be provided increases burden for no purpose.

• Draft Definitions, 4. Need to verify that the referenced list of HAPs excludes the
delisted HAPs.

• All Survey sheets. Add a clear title or h eader to indicate what units the sheet is applicable to and include a sheet number and page.

• All Survey sheets. Top instru ctions indicate the sheets ca n be copied and pasted- does EPA want them pasted as separate sheets in the same file, or past ed below the original table in one sheet? More clarity on the inst ructions would help mi nimize data transfer effort on EPA’s part.

• All Survey sheets. Be sure to instruct respondents to identify the specific fuels being fired during the tests, not just leave as Fuel 1, Fuel 2, etc.

• All Survey sheets. Steam outpu t is only applicable to boile rs. Heat input should be provided as a separa te column that can cover both boilers and process heaters.

• CEM data sheets. Recogniz e that opacity is determin ed with COMS on 6-minute block averages and that dail y/monthly or other basis average data is not routinely determined since it has no meaning and comp liance is based on the 6-minute averages.
It would be an excessive burd en to require these calculati ons if they are not easily
obtainable.

• CEM data sheets. The control device configuration, operatin g rate, and fuel mix at the maximum emission data point may be data that is not available. Many systems
without electronic hi storians would not record this data, and even if those were available, it might be a very time-consuming task to obt ain that data. EPA must
determine the real value of such data prior to requiring it to be provided.June 13, 2008 Page 9 of 9

• Survey 2, sheet 2 desc ription appears to be for non-sma ll gas fired units, but the first page is for small gas fired units . Is it intended that both sh eets are for small units? If so, correct the descripti on and provide clear head ings and instructions.

• Survey 5. Is the exclusion limited to natu ral gas fired units or all gas fired units?

Draft Definitions for Questionnaire

• The Survey provides good defi nitions of incinera tors. However, Survey questions
should cite the locati on of the definition early on to help.

• The definitions of non -fossil fuel/materials includes “paper bypro ducts: knots and paper fines.” However, the li st of fuels included in th e document titled “BMACT ICR Survey 5” does not incl ude this category of non-fossil fuels. This category and other
non-fossil fuels listed in the definitions shou ld be included on th is survery document.

If you have questions or need clarif ication, please cont act me at 703.250.9042.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Robert D. Bessette

Robert D. Bessette
President

Attachment

# Attachment 1Representing the Interests of America’s Industrial Energy Users since 1978

Council Of Industrial Boiler Owners 6035 Burke Centre Parkway, Suite 360, Burke, VA 22015-3757• Phone: 703-250-9042 Fax: 703-239-9042 E-Mail: cibo@cibo.org

February 5, 2008 VIA E-DOCKET

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Mail Code 6102T Washington, DC 20460
Attn: Docket ID N o. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058

Re: Agency Information Collection Acti vities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Information Request for National Emission Standards for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; EPA ICR No. 2286.01 -- 72 Fed Reg 6 9213 (December 7, 2007)

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Council of Industrial Boil er Owners (CIBO) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed text of an Information Collectio n Request (ICR) that wi ll be submitted for approval to the Office of Management an d Budget (OMB) pursuan t to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501 et seq. EPA will seek ICR approval to implement §112 and §129 of the Clean Air Act.

CIBO is a broad-based association of industrial boiler ow ners, architect-e ngineers, related equipment manufacturers, and University affili ates with over 100 me mbers representing 20 major industrial sectors. CIBO members have facilities in ev ery region of the country and a representative distribution of almost every type of boiler and fuel co mbination currently in operation. CIBO was formed in 1978 to promot e the exchange of information within the industry and between industry and government relating to energy and environmental equipment, technology, operati ons, policies, law and regulation s affecting industrial boilers. Since its formation, CIBO has been active in the development of technically sound, reasonable, cost-effective energy and environmental regulations for industrial boilers. CIBO supports regulatory programs that provide industry with eno ugh flexibility to modernize – effectively and without penalty – the nation's aging energy infrast ructure, as modernization is the key to cost-effective environmental protection.

CIBO members will be directly affected by EPA's implementa tion of §114 and th e rules that
are written based on that information collec tion: they will receiv e EPA's §114 information2 request and be required to respond to the Survey and are among those facilities to be randomly selected for required stack testi ng. CIBO members have review ed the Federal Register notice (FR), the Supporting Stat ement (SS) and Attachments (ident ified by number/letter). CIBO provides these comments on specif ic aspects of the Draft ICR.

I WEBSURVEYOR

EPA plans to conduct the §114 Survey through the Websurve yor automated system. See 2F.

CIBO COMMENTS The automated system should facilitate internal review of draft responses. Using a web survey tool is an efficient way for EPA to obta in standardized informa tion from facilities, but it presents a problem for facilities in their internal management and legal review of information they provide in response to the surv ey. Given the short timeframe, facilities need an efficient way to prepare a dr aft response and review the draft internally befo re submitting it to EPA. EPA states that forms and spreadsheets wi ll be distributed to res pondents. SS at 12. CIBO urges EPA to ensure that these materi als can be used to develop draft responses "offline" and used for internal review purposes an d then loaded into the survey tool. If the EPA materials are flexible enough to be used first internally and then externally, most
facilities will be able to meet the shor t timeframe of 45 days to respond to the Survey.

EPA should ensure that passwords for the electronic survey can be obtained easily and remain usable. For facilities, one of the most frustr ating aspects of res ponding electronically to requests for information is the difficulty of obtaining a password, and then its failure to work on the date of the electronic filing of th e response. CIBO members urge EPA to ensure its password system facili tates filing e-responses.

II NUMBER OF FACILITIES AND UNITS

EPA estimates 3,396 facilities, with an average of 2.6 boilers at each fa cility. SS at 14-15. EPA explains that it had been using the 1997 ICR inve ntory and survey data , to estimate there were 15,900 facilities with affe cted units and 3894 solid fuel units. (SS at 19). EPA has gathered more recent data from States and facility initial notifications, and now estimates 3,396 facilities, with no estima te for the number of solid waste units. (SS at 19)

CIBO COMMENTS In the §112(j) ICR, EPA esti mated 20,000 facilities and 60,000 units and used 20,000
occurrences as the mult iplier for its bu rden estimates. EPA IC R No. 1648.06; OMB Control No. 2060-0266; 72 Fed Reg 62226 (November 2, 2007), Supporting Statement at 8 ( § 112(j) ICR SS). These numbers do not correlate with the numbers in the present ICR. What is the
correct number of facilities and units?3 III FIRST COMPONENT: SURVEY

All facilities with potentially affected units must complete the Survey. See 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D. EPA seeks 4 data points (SS at 11): unit design & operations, fuel type and/or combustor design, and most recent fuel analyses & emissi ons test data for all HAP & HAP surrogates (HCl, Hg, As, Be, Cd, Cr, Pb, Mn, Ni, Se, PM, CO).

EPA will request available stack test data for: § 129 pollutants (Dioxins/Furans, SO2, opacity, NOx), additional pollutants base d on EPA invoking its discretion to add pollutants to § 129 (PAH, HCB, PCB), and O2 and CO2.

EPA's projected timeline for the Survey is to send the Survey to sources on June 30, 2008, with responses due from f acilities in 45 days, around August 15, 2008. SS at 13.

EPA lists two Survey Activities: read instru ctions and complete electronic survey. 3A and SS at 12. A third activity will apply to 10 % of the sources, whic h will be required to submit, upon request by EPA, a hard copy of their emission test report, for QA/QC
reasons. EPA based its cost estimate on cost estimates it produced for the BMACT rule. Gas-fired units will do a shortened survey and their cost estimate is lower. EPA estimates the burden per unit for the Su rvey to be 28.2 hours, $2263 per respondent.

CIBO COMMENTS The Survey should not cover boilers covered by another NESHAP or not covered by Subpart DDDDD. The Draft Questionnaire does not acknowledge that boilers may be covered by another NESHAP Standard. Those boilers should be exempt from responding to the §114 request. Also, units previous ly listed in Subpart DDDDD § 63.7491 (69 FR 55254) as not subject to that rule should not be included in the responses. CIBO recommends EPA make this clear by inserti ng the text in italics in the Attachments as
noted:

• Attachment 2A, Survey Overview, insert: Any boiler and process heater not subject to Subpart DDDDD or covered as an affected source in another standard(s) under 40 CFR part 63 is not subject to subpart DDDDD and is not required to reply to this Questionnaire

.

• Attachment 2E, Definitions, insert: "1. For purposes of this survey, combustion units are limited to the following devices that are not covered as an affected source in another standard(s) under 40 CFR part 63 and not subject to subpart
DDDDD. "

Some sources cannot meet EPA’s 45-day Survey response schedule. If the §114 request is submitted on June 30th, the response time should be 60 to 90 days to account
for shutdowns. Some CIBO members will be completely shutdown during June and/or July, which means that mail w ill not be received and any survey response efforts cannot commence until late July. In some cases, on a normal basis facilities can be shut down at any point in time from mid-June through mid/late July for model year changeover. In the present economy, facilities are being temporar ily shut down more frequently for longer periods of time, which also may occur dur ing the June/July timeframe and cannot be predicted. In addition, many fac ilities will need to coordinate this effort from a corporate4 standpoint and will need to channel responses through central locations for review and consistency purposes, which also will add time.

EPA should provide more time for the Survey to ensure complete responses. More importantly, for sources facing shutdowns dur ing the timeframe proposed for the Survey, EPA must provide some process to deal sy stematically with th is and other unusual circumstances, so sources can avoid missi ng deadlines for responding to the Survey.

EPA should clarify which pollutants will be covered by the Survey. In its discussion of the Survey requirements, EPA states that it will seek available stack test data for all HAPs. That data clearly applies to all affected units. However, in the same Survey discussion, EPA states that it will also seek av ailable stack test data for § 129 pollutants, pollutants EPA plans to add to the § 129 list, an d two constituents that are neither criteria pollutants nor HAPS, nor indicated as future additions to the § 129 list (O2 and CO2). See 2B, 2C, 2D and SS at 11.

It is unclear whether EPA intends to collect information on these additional pollutants
from all potentially affected units or only from those units that may become § 129 units. The placement of this discussi on in the Survey portion of th e Draft ICR creates confusion
about whether all units must supply data for all pollutants indicated , regardless of whether the units are potentially § 129 units based on the revi sed solid waste definition.

EPA should require PCB and HCB testing, if at all, only selectively and only if justified. EPA provides no justification for PCB a nd HCB testing, other than third-party
interest in these chlorinated compounds. These are not tested for in conventional boilers firing conventional fossil fuels. If this is a non-fossil fuel concern, EPA should limit testing to non-fossil units.

EPA should identify the PAHs, PCDDs and PCDFs of concern to minimize burden and costs and ensure usefulness of data. PAH (polycyclic aromat ic hydrocarbon) is a very broad category that captures organi c compounds comprised of more than one benzene ring. CIBO members know of no single EPA test method that can be used to test for “PAH.” Rather, the appropriate test me thod would involve collecting a gas sample and taking it to a lab for analysis by Ga s Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). In order for the GC/MS analysis to be mean ingful, the analyzers must be calibrated for the compounds in question. Given that th ere are 100’s of PAH compounds, EPA should identify those PAHs of most interest (f or example, EPA coul d use ATSDR or IARC carcinogenicity rankings). This would ensure that sources will test for the same PAHs and data is comparable across sources. Wit hout some clarification, test data will not be useful. The further specificity for these pollu tants is needed to maximize the use of the
data and minimize costs.

EPA should also collect data that refle cts mitigating fuel inputs for accurate assessment of fu el efficiency. In past data collection e fforts, EPA has not gathered sufficient data relating to certain important mitigating factors when assessing boiler performance. One specific example especially relevant here is the environmental and5 energy benefits of alternate fuels. Many units co-fire fuels to achieve emissions limits or cost or engineering efficiencies. In those cas es, it is important that boiler efficiency is viewed from both an alternate fuels benefits pe rspective as well as from that of total air emissions per heat input. Use of alternat e fuels provides significant environmental and energy benefits, which EPA should account fo r in its rulemakings. EPA should expand the Survey questions to include data collection that will permit it to fully account for those efficiency benefits in its future rulemaking proposals.

EPA use of CO2 and O2 data. EPA states that it intends to collect CO2 and O2 data, as
these are also indicators for combustion effici ency. (SS at 11). Ho wever, data for O2 and CO2 likely to be entered in Attach ments 2B, 2C would be the O2 and CO2 measurement taken during the emissions tests for the specific pollutants. Since emissions tests are typically conducted at near maximu m firing rate under stable conditions, the O2
and CO2 levels are not indicative of normal operation and are only representative data at those specific conditions firing those specific fuels. O2 levels are lower at high firing rates than at lower firing rates due to inhe rent operating limitations with fuel and air mixing at lower loads. Theref ore, EPA should clarify why it is collecting th is data and the ultimate purpose. If it is collecting this data as a measure of combustion efficiency,
test data for CO2 and O2 s hould be collected at the bur ner and not from the stack.

Formal notice and comment will be ne eded for sources to review data. EPA indicates that
it obtained data from States a nd other sources to es timate the burdens of this ICR. EPA will supplement that with data obtained from thousan ds of covered units. EPA’s tight timeframe for the Survey, immediat ely followed by selection of sources to conduct stack te sts leaves no
time for sources to correct data. Data review and correction is a standard element of this type of process, and data mistakes are very common. A data QA/QC correction opportunity will be very important here, because th e next step in EPA’s plan is to select sources to undertake mandatory, highly expensive and di sruptive stack testing. This is a significant commitment of facility resources that must be based on accurate data.

EPA burden estimates are low. In comments on the §112(j) ICR, CIBO pointed out significant discrepancies in the Draft ICR overall burden estimates, making these observations: “EPA estimates the average administ rative cost for the Table 2 Activities to be $5,613.80 per respondent. . . . At the low end, CIBO burden estimat es are 78% higher than the ICR for §112(j) implementa tion. This gap is likely attributable to EPA' s lack of understanding of management controls on cost (capital an d operating) and lack of understanding of the reality of industrial op erations and the availab ility of detailed information on older combustion units that commenced operation prior to comp uterization of records. Critical process information, particularly design basis items and physical parameters for equipment is in hardcopy drawings and specifications . This boosts technical and cl erical time to meet permitting agency requests. Management involvement re quires multiple levels of communication and review for important changes, particularly where changes involve capital expenditures.

For this ICR, CIBO restates its concern that EPA fails to appreciate the challenge faced by regulated sources of any mandato ry data collection. Attachment 3A indicates much lower
cost estimates for activities than CIBO members estimate, because EPA does not account for6 the full range of challenges of responding in a short period of time to highly detailed questions, which require hi gh level certificat ion of accuracy and legal review.

One specific example of underestimated burden relates to gas-fired un its. Attachment 3A
differentiates the burden and costs for “Gas Fire d Units,” whereas the Survey instructions in Part IIA2 appear to provide lesser reporting requirements for units fi ring only natural gas. It is
not clear that the table data is limited to thos e firing only natural gas, or those that met the prior Subpart DDDDD gaseous fired unit definition (all gaseous fuels and thos e with Distillate Oil backup). Burden and costs would be significantly higher th an shown if the table is based on the prior Subpart DDDDD criteria and the instructi ons do not match.

Avoidance of double compliance. EPA’s data collection and re calculation of floors for the revised Boiler MACT rule (and eventually the floors for th e §129 sources) could impose double compliance obligations on sources prepared to comply by September 2007 with the previously effective Subpart DDDDD. The Survey should gather data necessary to set floors that will not subject some sources to doubl e compliance.

Sources subject to Subpart DDDDD were pr eparing for compliance by September 2007
under those rules. Those rules had been in effect since September 2004 and were not stayed by the DC Circuit during the challenge to those rules. As such, many sources had already undertaken costly capit al and other improvements to reduce emissions to be able to comply by that original deadline. EPA ha s noted this fact several times. SS at 4 and §112j ICR SS at 6. EPA has no t indicated how it intends to ensure that its floor
calculation for the revised MACT standard is based on emissions data that pre-date those investments made to comply with the vacated standard. Survey question IIB3 requests
the date of installation of emissions control equipment mo difications. However, the Survey should also ask whether the modifications were made in response to Subpart DDDDD, to permit EPA to identify measur es already undertaken for Subpart DDDDD compliance.

IV SECOND COMPONENT: STACK TESTING

EPA plans to randomly select up to 350 boilers or process heater s, which will be required to do a stack test with an EPA-ap proved protocol. (72 FR 6921472) EPA explai ns that 350 is a statistically significant porti on of units based on 1997 ICCR nu mbers (15,900 f acilities; 3894 solid fuel units). Because new data reflects a much lower number of affected units (3,396 facilities; no solid fuel unit number given), the likely number of units required to do stack tests
should be much lower than 350.

The ICR indicates the stack test “will requir e 3 runs, before and af ter the control device with a specified HAP speciation method using paired emissions sampling trains at each location." SS at 8, 11. EPA will include in its §114 letter a generic QAPP (quality assurance project plan) and any necessary modifications should be sent to EPA for review. (SS at 12)7 EPA lists 8 Activities for units required to do stack testing. See 3B and SS at 12. EPA estimates the per unit burden for stack testing to be 84.5 hours and $33,465.

EPA's timeline for stack testing (SS at 13) is to send the §114 Stack Test letter out September 15, 2008, with stack tests due in 60 days, around November 15, 2008.

CIBO COMMENTS Formal notice and comment is needed prior to any required testing. Once EPA has reviewed the data, amended it with data corrections from regulated sources, identified data gaps and developed a plan for testi ng, EPA will need to provide the regulated community with its plans for testing. In li ght of the many issues raised in these comments, sources will need to review the plan and provide formal comment to EPA on the plan and whether and how it can be achieve d. Sources will also be able to provide EPA with valuable information regarding it s analysis and conclusions regarding data gaps it identifies, and other as pects of EPA's plan for gather ing data for the rulemakings.

EPA greatly underestimates the cost of stack testing as described in the ICR. In the §112(j) ICR, CIBO provided this estimate of the cost of stack testing for just PM and CO: "Stack testing for PM and CO could co st $30,000 to 50,000 per boiler, accounting for all operational costs that will be in curred in conducting the test, with the higher range costs incurred for sources firing multiple fuels, w ith testing over multiple days. For solid-fuel boilers, data must be gather ed over several days and fuel and ash test samples must undergo laboratory analysis. To achieve good da ta quality, testing is very costly. The costs to prepare, monitor and submit stack te st data could require an estimated 100 hours technical work, 5 hours management work and 3 hours legal work."

In the present ICR, EPA intends to require stack testing that will be more costly than the potential State testing addre ssed in CIBO’s earlier cost estimate for the §112(j) ICR. Costs will be greater for a number of reasons . First, for this BMACT ICR, EPA intends to require testing fo r all §129 pollutants, ot her pollutants EPA inte nds to add to §129, and yet other pollutants identified by third parties. This testing for mu ltiple pollutants will cause sources to incur significantly higher costs and entail more effort by site personnel.

Many other elements increase the testing co st beyond EPA’s estimate and even CIBO’s estimates for the §112j ICR, including the following examples:

• Depending on the facility capabilities a nd required testing schedule, boiler operation at or near maximum capacity mi ght require venting of steam. That would be a significant cost to the facility and is not included in the burden
estimate.

• If access platforms do not exist at test port locations, considerable cost will be imposed to set up a safe test location, requiring scaffolding or even permanent platforms, depending on the location.

• Determination of control device efficiency for some of the targeted pollutants like heavy metals or chlorine may require spiking of known quantities of the pollutants in order to minimize detection limit issues. This adds tremendously to8 the cost and difficulty of a stack test, akin to those of hazardous waste incinerator
trial burns.

• Additional plant costs associated w ith testing are incurred beyond the environmental (or other) technical staff person who would be observing/coordinating the tes ting. For example, during this sort of testing, plant personnel are likely going to be in prep mode for 2-3 hours prior to testing (each day). This is very expensive.

• Testing metals and some other identified pol lutants, if there is no simple protocol, will be potentially very costly, entailing la b work. Even facilities with labs do not have instrumentation or personnel to do these types of tests, and only so many
facilities have those resources. These f actors, and the resulting bottleneck, will
increase costs.

• Required testing levels have not been determined, but these significantly affect the cost and what labs are qualified to conduct the tests. Nationwide, there are only approximately 20 firms with sufficien t experience and re sources to perform the full gamut of testing proposed by EPA. Additionally there are fewer than five laboratories capable of doing the necessa ry semi-volatiles analysis. These limited
resources and a limited timeframe for testing will drive costs higher.

EPA notes that it relied on the cost estimate s for the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) testing
to estimate the costs in this ICR. SS at 13-14. CAMR is not analogous to the testing at issue here, for many reasons. CAMR covered a rather homogenous boiler popula tion – utilities – as compared to industrial sources, which are much more variable in boiler design, fuel and operating conditions. CAMR re quired sources to conduct mercury spec iation stack tests sometime during a one-year period. Units selected were to run simultaneous before and after control device stack testing, cons isting of three runs at each sampling locat ion, as well as collecting and analyzing three co al samples from the coal fed during each stack test. EPA ICR No. 1858.01, 63 Fed Reg 17406 (April 9, 1998) (CAMR ICR) and SS at 3 (Docket ID No. A-92-55). EPA estimated th e per-unit burden at 594 hours and $44,495. SS at 21. The CAMR ICR also made clear that the testing woul d not require units to in cur capital or start-up costs. CAMR ICR, SS at 21.

CAMR projected test costs do not correlate to what will be tested for here, in terms of pollutants, source types, timing, required lab work, cost impact relative to unit size, potential requirement of capital or start-up costs, and ot her factors that affect how much testing burden
is reasonable for EPA to impose on sources.

CIBO emphasizes one critical distinction in particular between the test burdens of CAMR and this ICR: here, sources will incur some capital costs just for testing. An upstream sampling port installation prior to the control device can take months, especially since a downtime is needed before the tie-in can be completed, with costs related to ports, platform, and tower.

Attachment 3B reflects many factors th at result in an underestimated burden estimate. All emissions test burdens and co sts are low considering the number and complexity of testing potentially requir ed. Some general and specific comments:9 • Item 1 will take considerably more time than shown when multiple emissions tests are required and multiple fuel mixes are considered.

• Item 2, Fuel Sampling, will take more time than the 0.5 hour estimated to gather representative samples of fuels burned during the emissions tests, properly mix and quarter the samples and prepare for sh ipment to a lab. Sources are likely to sample fuel for every single test run, wh ich would take at least 20 minutes per sample at a small facility with fuel feeds close together.

• Item 3 costs will be higher than shown. Footnote 5 indicates the costs are based on fuel analyses for metals from a refe renced document. In order to thoroughly evaluate fuel characteristics and constituent levels, normal fuel analyses such as HHV, S, ash, moisture, etc., are also n eeded. Those add to the total cost.

• Item 4 (Conduct Stack Testing) costs are low for multiple component testing over multiple days since some of the tests cannot be conducted simultaneously due to accessibility, safety, and manpower limitations. Costs for organic emissions testing can be extremely high and are not covered by the indicated costs. Some detailed estimates in Footnote 6 are quite low. Dioxins/furans and PAH testing could easily exceed $100K per test. Co sts for dioxin, PCB and PAH and HCB testing are not precisely known, but are known to be much higher than the $5,000 estimate, given the lab demands of all three pollutants.

• Similarly, Item 5 would be higher base d on total time required to conduct the tests. It is assumed that unit oper ating data would be required during the emissions testing, and the table does not in dicate labor and cost for gathering and aggregating that data. Some installations do not have control systems that allow data recording and trending of all parameters, so that manual data collection would be required, again increasing efforts and likely requiring an additional person dedicated to the testing.

CIBO members estimate the cost of a stack test to be $50,000 for conventional pollutants alone, depending on site and unit-specific conditions. As required in this ICR, testing for Dioxins/Furans, PCB, HCB, PAHs and condens able particulates could easily exceed $100,000. Requiring paired sampling for any of these non-conventio nal pollutants could
increase the stack test cost by 60 - 75% over the $100,000. CIBO estima tes the tota l possible cost for the testing as describe d in this ICR could be over $200,000 per unit per test condition.

Random selection for stack testing will not provide the best data. EPA states that it will randomly select sources to conduct stack testing. SS at 2. But EPA also makes other
statements that would have the effect of reduc ing the randomness of the testing requirement. For example, EPA will seek to avoid requiring the same plant site to test more than one unit (per category). SS at 22. In a ddition, EPA states that "stack te sts will only be obtained for a combination of fuel type and combustor design where there ar e gaps in available emission
data." SS at 21. These factors will narrow the field of poten tial sites to conduct testing, and thereby limit randomness.

In addition to EPA’s statemen ts, the population of boilers to be tested have uncommon characteristics that will unavoidably furthe r reduce the randomness of selecting sites for testing, including:10 • If emissions control device inlet and outle t testing are required, available units for testing will be limited. Many installations do not have inlet test ports or access, and existing duct arrangements likely do not meet Method 1 requirements even if ports could be installed. Usefulness of data collected in such locations may be
limited. EPA needs to consider indivi dual unit limitations and the potential impact on test results in selecting test lo cations, as well as whether inlet testing is
of value.

• Prior to selecting facility and unit test locations, EPA should request information on availability of emissions test ports a nd access platforms at desired locations.

• Some boilers share common emissions c ontrol equipment. Some boilers and process heaters share common stacks. Each of these cases needs to be considered by EPA in selecting potential test units si nce it may not be po ssible to obtain or
determine desired results in those installations.

Under these circumstance s, truly random selection of sour ces to conduct stack testing is not likely to yield the data to fill data gaps, will produce highly variable data and may produce a wide variety of data th at would not be represen tative of the sources to be regulated. Due to special configurations, physical limitations and inability to yield useful data, some boilers simply should not be randomly selected. Rather than rando m selection, CIBO supports additional pre-selection analysis, and is willin g to work with EPA to identify potential subcategories of sources that meet specific testing needs to be identified by EPA.

CIBO is willing to provide tec hnical expertise to assist with the identification of a pool of
boilers that could be tested to help fill gaps. One key foundatio nal element for such an effort would need to be that no unit is singled out for testing, so that the boile rs selected are truly representative. While this selection process would not be truly random, it should be possible to develop a statistically significant pool from which to select units. This also would have the advantage of controlling the qua lity of data collecte d. CIBO members s eek to ensure that very expensive testing will yiel d data that will provide a sound basis for the standards EPA

sets.

No entity should be required to conduct more than one stack test. CIBO supports EPA’s
effort to avoid overburdenin g small businesses, many of wh ich are CIBO members. In addition, no single company – large or small – should be required to test more than a specified number of units at a single plant an d no more than 2 (random) plants.

The cost of testing should not be imposed dispropo rtionately. The burden to conduct stack testing is significant and should not be borne by a small s ubset of all affected units. Imposing such a burden is a competitiveness matter among en tities and could constitute arbitrary and capricious agency action. Federal Election Com'n v. Rose, 806 F.2d 1081, 1089 (D.C. 1986)("an agency's unjustifia bly disparate treatment of tw o similarly situated parties works a violation of the arbitrary-and-capricious standard")(citations omitted). See also

, Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. EPA , 344 F.3d 832, 872 (9th Cir. 2003). (upholding the challenged EPA action, the co urt noted that "an agency does not act irrationally when it treats parties differently, unless the parties are similarly situated.")11 By the same token, requiring all units to c onduct testing would be even more burdensome across industry, and could cons titute arbitrary agency ac tion because, depending on what is being tested for and what is being burned on, tests may not be justified by the data needs for standard setting or by the cost to conduct the tests. EPA has determined to use its authority under §114 to collect this data. In the past, EPA has typically used §114 authority to collect information uniformly across affected sources (CAMR being the exception), or to collect information from specifically targeted entities to enforce
standards EPA believed to have been violated. This ICR is the first time EPA has used §114 authority to selectively impose a highly co stly testing burden on industrial sources. EPA’s randomly imposed mercury speciation stack testing on utility sources in the CAMR rulemaking is not analogous to this situation, and the burden impact is not analogous, for the reasons described above.

In order to minimize disproportio nate burdens, EPA needs to fi nd some mechanism to spread the cost among all potentially a ffected units. CIBO strongly urges EPA to take a more programmatic approach to conduc ting testing to improve the qua lity of data. With this approach, EPA can select contractors, provide pr otocols and obtain fully comparable data that
will be defensible and one-time-only. CIBO members are c oncerned not only with the cost of less-than-programmatic stack testing, but also with the highly disrup tive nature of conducting the tests measured against the lack of certainty that EPA will have the data it needs to defend its standards. CIBO urges EPA to esta blish a government-funded testing program and conduct testing at th e necessary units. If EPA decides to proceed and impose the burden on only some units, another possibi lity would be to provide test ed units with a period of
enforcement discretion or certification of compliance of a specified duration.

EPA must provide an opt-out for units selected for testing. Under the proposed ICR, all units subject to Subpart DDDDD will submit Survey data. Based on that data, EPA will identify a subset of units that may be redesignated as §129 incinerators, and from among that subset, EPA will require selected uni ts to conduct stack testing. It is unclear
whether this random selection will occur befo re EPA has determined how it will define “solid waste” for §129 purposes, but based on standard rulemaking timelines, it is unlikely that a final rule on that issue w ill precede EPA’s random selection. Ideally, sources would know that important informati on before being notified of their random selection. In any event, in some cases, a f acility may determine that rather than being redesignated as a §129 source and undertaking the expense of the stack test, it would simply cease utilizing the non-fossil materials as fuel. EPA must provide some process
for those units to make those determinations prior to imposing a test burden on selected units. Such a decision presumably would be made on the basis of fuel cost, test cost, §129 compliance cost and other relevant factors. The decision would be made at a high level of an organization and require some an alytic time. The §114 process must provide
time for facilities to make these decisions.

EPA should not use data from §112 units to set §129 standards. If EPA collects data from units as part of its §129 standard setti ng, and those units determine data from units that decide to cease burning alternate solid fuels, that data should not be used to set standards because that data will no longer be representative of the source subcategory12 EPA will be regulating. It will be very impor tant for EPA, in order to set defensible standards, to firmly establish the populations of the source categorie s in advance, and to
ensure that the data sets it relies on for those standards fully correspond to the population of units regulated. Before EPA can establish the categories, it must first define “solid waste” for purposes of §129, to provide poten tially covered units the opportunity to analyze the impact of that de finition on their operations.

Testing both before and after control device is duplicative. Based on the description in the SS of the stack test, a unit will be requ ired to do 3 runs before the control device (CD) and another 3 runs after th e CD for a total of 6 runs per boiler. If a source might opt to comply or operate without a CD, then it is logical to require testing before the CD, but otherwise, for sources using a CD for compliance, testing onl y after the CD would seem necessary. In addition, the feasibility of pre-control device testing is severely limited for some boilers due to many factor s beyond the control of the source. Where reduction efficiency is not anticipated across a control device, outle t testing alone should be sufficient. For example, it is not likel y that NOx will be reduced inside an ESP (assuming no sorbent injection), so outlet testing should suffice.

Except for the rare instances when sources mu st comply with a % reduction efficiency, it is unclear why EPA seeks inlet data. Inlet da ta will provide only data on the CD itself, and will not assist in determining compliance. Absent some justification for the additional cost, CIBO asserts that testing both before and after the CD is unnecessary, overly burdensome and arbitrary.

In addition, to ensure apples-to-apples co mparison of pre- and post-control emissions,
there must be a means to ensure that the same parameters are in place in order to have any scientific validity. This may not be pr actically feasible cons idering 6, 1-hour runs (plus 2 parallel sampling trains for HAPS per run) would almost certainly require more than 1 day of testing. To meet those conditions , facilities may need to hire two stack test teams, one to measure the pre-CD emissions and one to simultaneously measure the postCD emissions. This of cour se would significantly and expo nentially increase the cost of testing beyond CIBO’s estimates and is unnecessary and overly burdensome.

EPA should either require testi ng only after the CD or give sources that intend to comply with a CD the option to test without a CD.

Requiring paired sampling trains is duplicative in most cases. The use of paired sampling trains should be considered only for testing of semi-volatile organics. The remainder of pollutants can be measured with sufficient precision and accuracy with single sampling trains. Data from installed NOx, SO2 and CO continuous emission monitors should suffice for testing at insta llations with such certified CEMs. Further, EPA could simplify the test planning and protocol drafting by specifying stack exit
detection limits for each HAP of interest.

Electronic submission of test result s should not be based on the ERT. EPA is requesting that stack test results be submitted using a “standardized electronic format.”13 SS at 11. It is unclear whethe r EPA is referring here to th e spreadsheet Attachments 2B – 2D or to the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT ) that is now undergoing “beta” testing. The
ERT has been criticized for its serious flaws including difficulty of us e, content problems and inaccessibility. Until these are resolved, the ERT is not ready for wide use. CIBO urges EPA not to use the ERT for this §114 information collection given its current condition and in light of the tight timefra mes EPA is setting for this information
collection.

A process for QAPP modifications is needed. For QAPP modifications sought by facilities, EPA should establish a process w ith deadlines for EPA response and complete resolution of any disagreements, so facilities that need modificati ons do not risk missing completion deadlines.

Units cannot complete stack testing requirements in 60 days. Sixty days is inconceivably short to carry out stack testin g that EPA plans. Just going through the process of developing a scope of work, reviewing the proposals, and getting the purchasing mechanisms in place can take seve ral weeks alone. Typically, a stack test
contractor is contacted at leas t 2 months prior to conducting te sts. A test notification is submitted to EPA at least 30 days prior to the te st date to allow the agency to observe the tests. In addition, sources will need to submit site-specific test protocols for approval by EPA, State or local oversight agencies prior to a test (e.g., 35 days notice is required in Indiana and up to 60 days in other states). Time for submission and then a negotiation process to obtain approval from the oversight agencies will introduce additional delay. EPA should clarify what approvals will be required and which ag encies will have responsibility to approve protocols that acc ount for site-specific circumstances. EPA should dedicate personnel resources to ensure expeditious approvals.

It is unclear from the ICR whether EPA will want to have inspectors available to observe some of these tests or whether EPA expects St ate personnel to be present. Next, there is significant planning to ensure the individual production units will be operating at high enough levels to allow the boilers to run at representative rates. Test ports will need to be
cleaned out due to coal ash build -up that sets up like concrete (especially at the inlet ports since these are rarely used) and this requir es an outage to do this. An outage may be every Fall or every other year during this same time frame. This request could be a significant economic burden.

Stack testers will need to be qualified to conduc t these specialty parameters such as PAH, HCB, PCB, Dioxins and Furans as well as HAP s. Once the tests are complete there is a significant amount of analysis time 21-30 days fo r some of these parameters. The facility will need 7-14 days to review these reports a nd time to prepare a final report. EPA will have to allow 60 days to submit this report from the time the tests are complete. A problem in the past has also been lab delays due to being overwhelm ed with business. There are only so many labs that can do some of these analyses. Requiring these tests in
a short time frame creates a bottleneck at thes e labs. If a facility requests a rush on the analysis it could double or triple the costs.14 Scheduling of unplanned testing can take addi tional time, and the need for many tests to
occur in a short time will exacerb ate the situation. In addition, in many cases it is likely EPA will focus on specific fuels, which may not be readily available in quantities required when EPA requests the testing to occur. More time may be needed to
accumulate the materials and to allow boiler lineups to provide operational latitude. Seasonal operations in particular would have problems meeting the 60-day requirement. Seasonal load limitations might also prevent ope ration at required steam loads within the
desired time frame.

To comply with standard testing requirements , at least 120 days are needed if there are no complicating factors. Worst case timing migh t require 6 months for submission of the test reports following initial notification if th ere are problems with fuel material, boiler,
and site steam load availabil ity on top of emissions testin g issues. Shutdowns and other
unusual circumstances must also be accounted for in the plan.

V ATTACHMENTS

CIBO provides these specific comments on the Attachments:

• Attachment 2A, Overview- Part II, IIA. EPA does not provide a description of the qualifications as a natural gas fired boi ler or process heater . This appears to exclude units firing other gaseous fuels a nd units using Distilla te Oil as a backup fuel, but that should be clarified.

• Attachment 2A- Part I, 4. EPA seeks, “if not the same as question #1, provide legal name of the business enterprise that owns this facility.” Does EPA also need the name of the opera tor if that is different?

• Attachment 2A- Part I, 10. EPA should re vise the question to read: “alternative disposition method if materials are gene rated on-site and not brought in from another location.” The word “disposal” presupposes a type of activity that may not be applicable; the materials may not be wastes. The que stion really only applies if the materials are generated on-si te and would need to go somewhere. If a facility brings in materials from some other off site source, then those could simply not be brought in and the genera tor would need to do something with
them.

• Attachment 2A- Part II, 1. EPA should pr ovide separate listing for boilers versus process heaters for all sections.

• Attachment 2A- Part II. What is the meaning of the asteri sk at the header?

• Attachment 2A- Part II. CIBO recomme nds that the title be amended to “Unit Design, Operation, and Air Pollution Cont rol Device Data For all Non-natural
Gas Fired Boilers and Process Heaters.”

• Attachment 2A- Part II, 1b. EPA shoul d replace the word “conduct” with
“receive.”

• Attachment 2A- Part II, 1bc. Providing a short explanation or definition of tuneup and examples of other good combustion practices would help minimize respondent time determining what is meant and minimize randomness of

responses.15 • Attachment 2A- Part II, 1d. EPA should pr ovide a spot for the basis of the CO limit, e.g., 30-day rolling average, hourly average. EPA should also note what fuel(s) the CO limit is based upon.

• Attachment 2A- Part II, B, 1j. Under unit design, most process heaters are what would be considered a watertube design, with the process material or heat transfer medium being heated inside tubes. EP A should provide that as a choice to minimize effort in describing the “other” category for most units.

• Attachment 2A- Part II, B, 3. EPA s hould include a new question under question a2 regarding whether the control device wa s installed to comply with 40 CFR 63 Subpart DDDDD. This would allow differen tiation of emissions test data based on whether or not the control equipment wa s installed in order to comply with Subpart DDDDD.
• Attachment 2A- Part I. EP A asks sources to identify the most likely alternative disposal method for wastes if not burned. This question is not likely to yield useful data because until a facility faces a decision regarding how to dispose of certain materials, and does a st udy, it is impossible to know the most likely disposal methods. For example, if a material is defined as a wa ste, a facility may look at sales outlets or a range of disposal methods not now know n, or known to be the “likely” method.

• Attachment 2A- Part II, B, 2c. EPA shoul d provide a definition of “seasonal” to provide commonality of responses. Most boiler facilities have some inherent degree of seasonality in operation due to weather related loads, and that is not
believed to be EPA’s desired interpretation for this item.

• Attachment 2A- Part II, B, 3c. EPA s hould provide definition or explanation of “tune-up” for consistency of responses. CIBO recommends the following text: Tune-up means to check the unit’s combustion process and adjust as needed.

• Attachment 2A- Part II, B, 3d. EP A should provide examples of other good combustion practices to help minimize respondent time determining what is meant and minimize randomness of respons es. CIBO recommends the following

text: Good combustion practices (GCP) include these examples, which may or may not be applicable to specif ic facilities/units:

• Operator practices including use of up-to-date operating procedures, training, recordkeeping.

• Maintenance knowledge including trai ning on applicable equipment and procedures.

• Maintenance practices including mainte nance procedures, recordkeeping.

• Fuel/air ratio periodic checks or automatic O2/CO trim control systems.

• Furnace residence time, temperat ure for applicable materials.

• Proper liquid atomization.

• Fuel quality and proper fuel hand ling including monitoring quality, periodic sampling and analysis, fuel s upplier certification if used.

• Proper fuel sizing with specifications and periodic checks as appropriate.

• Combustion air distribution based on observations with periodic or continuous adjustments.

• Proper fuel distribution in the combustion zone.16 • Attachment 2A- Part II, C1. Is stabilization fuel to be included with startup fuel or listed separately as a fuel even though it is typi cally of limite d capacity and use? EPA should explain the desired a pproach for consistency of responses.

• Attachment 2A- Part II, C5. It should be noted whether the test report is for
emissions dedicated to the unit or from a common emissions control device with other units in operation or in a comm on stack with other units operating.

• Attachment 2B. A dropdown should be prov ided to indicate whether the test is conducted upstream or downstream of a control device.

• Attachment 2B/2C. EPA should clarify which units are to be reported with 2B versus 2C. Is 2B intended for units firing any gaseous fuel? Firing natural gas only with or without another fuel? Is 2C for all others or does 2C include gaseous fuels other than natural gas?

• Attachment 2B/2C. Emissions should be noted to be on a wet or dry basis as appropriate. Moisture determined duri ng the emission test should also be provided.

• Attachment 2B/2C. Since most boilers use Degrees F for flue gas exhaust temperature, CIBO recommends the inser tion of a drop-down box to use either C
or F.

• Attachment 2B/2C. In most cases, O2 /CO2 are determined as part of the emission test for individual pollutants. The way O2 and CO2 are listed may limit the usefulness of the data. It is very lik ely that testing for all listed emissions cannot be done simultaneously and length of test runs differ, so that the O2/CO2 levels would be different for each pollutant ’s test. EPA should provide the ability to give O2/CO2 for individual tests by em ission test so that the data can be properly evaluated.

• Attachment 2B/2C. For CEM data, note th e basis of the data, e.g., 30-day rolling average or other. Only the basis typically used by the facility should be required.

• Attachment 2B/2C. O2 and CO2 will likely be reported as percent by volume on a dry basis, so those units need to be included in the drop down menu.

• Attachments 2B-2D. CIBO recommends the insertion of a column to identify the methodology used (i.e., Method 3A, 3B, 5, 7, 202, etc.) For example, Method 3A (Orsat) or 3B (instrumental) must be used for determining oxygen concentration from a boiler, to ensure sources do no t inappropriately use Method 3 (Fyrite).

• Attachments 2B-2D. Typically, in a stack test, the results show a sample run average, however, in Attachments 2B – 2D , the form appears to be requesting the
data from each individual run. CIBO r ecommends the insertion of a column for the “test average.” Does the lack of a column for test average indicate that EPA will potentially discard data, and if so, under what (statistical) rules?

• Attachments 2B-2D. The second to the la st row reports the flow rate in “acfm” (actual cubic feet per minute), however emission rates (lbs. NOx/hr.) are reported based on “dscfm” (dry standard cubic f eet per minute). EPA should request the information in acfm or dscfm units, as avai lable, as long as the parameters of % moisture and temperature are also reported.

• Attachments 2B-2D. CIBO recommends the insertion of a row for “steam output” (thousand lbs/hr) as a simple metr ic for determining adequate loading or process operation conditions.17 • Attachment 2D. To minimize reporti ng burden, EPA should allow for other available spreadsheets summarizing fuel test data to be provided as long as they include similar identifying data so that data does not need to be simply transferred
to another form.
• Attachment 2E Definitions. The materials list should be expand ed to cover materials that do not fit well in the existing catego ries. Two examples are paper fines and distillers' dried grains (DDG), which CIBO recommends be added to the list of NFF. If the list is expanded, the “o ther” category will not become unwieldy and there will be greater uniformity in report ing. Attached is a list of materials burned by CIBO
members.

VI CONCLUSION

CIBO strongly urges EPA to seek additional input from the regulated community as EPA develops testing requirements, processes for in formation collection and other next steps in these ICR and rulemakings. CIBO requests formal notice and comment to conduct data corrections on EPA Survey data. CIBO also requests formal notice and comment on EPA's identification of data gaps and plan for testing, prior to determining which sources should test and requiring sources to undertake any testing. If you have questions or need clarification, please contact me at 703.250.9042.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Robert D. Bessette

Robert D. Bessette
President

AttachmentPage 1 All Non Fossil Fuels

List of Non-Fossil Fuels/Materials

Non-Fossil Fuel/Material Burned Gaseous Liquid Solid Agricultural residues X Agricultural waste-cotton and corn X Alcohol (ethanol) X
Alcohol solvent X
Almond shells X Almond tree prunings X
Animal Fats X X Ash pile char X

Bagasse X
Balsa wood X
Bark X Barley dust & chaff X

Barley needles X Bio liquids X

Biogas X
Biomass X
Bitumen X X Black liquor X Blast furnace gas X
Blond fiber X
Cardboard X Carpet scrap X Clarifier residuals- primary X Clarifier residuals- secondary X
Coal tar oil X Coal tar plus soil X Coating residues X

Coke oven gas X Composite water X Compressed paper X Conforming waste materials X
Construction/demolition wood/debris X
Corn fiber X
Corn Gluten Feed X Corn mill dryer off-gas X

Corn starch residue X
Corn stover X Cotton gin residues X
Cotton stalks X
Cottonseed hulls X

Cow manure X
Crankcase oil X Deinking residuals X X
Dewatered combustable residues X X Diaper scraps X Digester gas X Distillers Dry Grains X Distillers grains (DG) X Distillers grains stillage (DGS) X Engineered wood plant scrap X
Envirofuel Pellets X
Filters X
Foam residues X Fruit pits X Physical Form

Non Fossil Fuel List R5B.xlsPage 2 All Non Fossil Fuels

Non-Fossil Fuel/Material Burned Gaseous Liquid Solid Fuel cubes (paper diaper clippings/refuse) X

Fuel oil solids (tank clean-out residue) X
Fume filter oil X Gear oil (virgin & used) X Gluten feed pellet X Gluten feed pellets X Glycerol distillation byproduct X
Hardboard dust X
Hardboard residues X Hardwood pellets (hammer-milled, dried, pellitized- sold as fuel) X Heavy recycle X High caustic fuel X Hog fuel- hard wood X Hog fuel- soft wood X

Hog fuel- urban X

Hogged bark X Hydro pulper refuse X

Industrial plastics X
Ink solvents X Knots and knotter rejects X Laminate production scrap dust X
Laminated wood X Lamination finishing plant residues X Lamination plant residues X Landfill gas X Latex paint water X Light weight asphalt X Lignin X Liquefied chicken fat X Livestock manure, bedding and yard residues X X Log yard cleanup X Low carbonate corn fiber (LCCF) X Lube oil (virgin & used) X Lumber refuse (hogged pallet boards/other non-treated scrap) X Malt sprouts X
Manure X Mechanical pulp mill rejects X Medium density fiber board sander dust X Medium density fiber board trim (some with water based primer) X
Mill trash X
Millfeed X Mixed liquid residues X
Mixed wood residues X Municipal sewage residues X
Neutralene X
New and used solvent- Acetone X Noncondensable gas (includes stripper offgas) X Nonhalogenated solvent X Nonhazardous byproduct solvent X
Nut shells X Oat hulls X
Oil booms X Oil residues/excesses/byproducts -- #6, asphalts X X Oil seed (Rape, Canola) X Oil spill cleanup residues X X Oilseeds – canola, corn, beans X Oily rags X

Non Fossil Fuel List R5B.xlsPage 3 All Non Fossil Fuels

Non-Fossil Fuel/Material Burned Gaseous Liquid Solid

Old corrugated container rejects X
Olive cake X
Olive kernel X Orchard prunings X Oriented strand board trim/dry residuals X
Other biomass X Paint rags X
Paint residues X Palm oil plantation byproducts (palm kernel exfoliate, fiber, shell, EFB) X Paper X Paper broke X Paper cores X Paper fines X Paper- office waste X Paper wrapper and packaging trimmings X
Particle Board sander dust X
Particle Board trim X

Paunch Manure X
Peat X
Pecan hulls X Pine and cedar trees, chipping and residues X
Pine and fir X

Pine tar X Pitch/wood waste X X Plywood trim X
Post harvest biomass residues X Poultry litter X Process derived liquid fuel X Process gas X

Pulp liquor X Pulp mill gas X
Railroad ties X Railroad ties chipped X
Reclaim ink solvent X Recovered gaseous butane X
Rectified methanol X Red oil (steam stripper steam condensate, incl terpenes, terpenoids, methanol, TRS) X
Redwood and fir X

Refinery gas X
Refuse X Refuse derived fuel (RDF) X Reinjection char X Reprocessed oil X
Resin solid X Restaurant oils & greases X
Rice hulls X Sander dust X

Sawdust X Sawmill scrap X Scrap X-ray film X Screen rejects X

Sewage gas X
Shredded cloth X
Silvicultural wood X Sludge X X Sludge without water X Solid parrafin X

Non Fossil Fuel List R5B.xlsPage 4 All Non Fossil Fuels

Non-Fossil Fuel/Material Burned Gaseous Liquid Solid

Solvents X Soybean hulls X Spent coffee grounds X Spent oxide X
Straw X Stripper condensate X Sulfur free organic byproduct X
Sunflower hulls X
Sunflower husks X Sunflower pellets X
Sunflower seed hulls X
Sunwax- Diatomaceous earth with sunflower oil wax X Switchgrass X Tall oil, tall oil derivatives X
Tallow X X

Tar X X Tire chips X Tire derived fuel (TDF) X Tires (whole) X
Toluene X Turkey brood woodwaste X Turpentine X Used hydraulic oil X

Used motor oil X
Used oil X
Used thermal oil X

Vegetable oil X Virgin hydraulic oil X

Waste alcohol X
Wastewater treatment residues X X Wax and cellophane wrapper and packaging trimmings X Wet distiller grains X Wheat fiber (WF) X Whole tree chips/harvest residue X
Wood X
Wood bark X Wood briquettes X
Wood char X Wood chips X Wood chips- fines X Wood chips- old X
Wood fuels bark X

Wood pallets X Wood shavings X
Wood waste-clean X

Woodex pellets X Woodworking residuals (cabinet mfg) X Yellow grease (used cooking oils- sold as commercial fuel) X

Number of Non-Fossil Fuels/Materials
216 12 58 158 (Some materials are listed in more than one column)

Non Fossil Fuel List R5B.xls