April 1, 2013

The Honorable Robert Perciasepe Acting Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Room 3000 Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

Re: Petition for Administrative Recons ideration of the Industrial Boiler MACT, Industrial Boiler GACT, and CISWI Reconsideration Rules

Dear Acting Administrator Perciasepe:

The following parties hereby petition the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “Agency”) for reconsideration of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and In stitutional Boilers and Process Heaters (Boiler MACT Reconsideration Rule) (78 Fed. Reg. 7138 (J an. 31, 2013)); National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: I ndustrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers (Boiler GACT Reconsideration Rule) (78 Fe d. Reg. 7488 (Feb. 1, 2013)); and Commercial and

Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units: R econsideration and Fina l Amendments (CISWI Reconsideration Rule) (78 Fed. Reg. 9112 (Feb. 7, 2013)):

 American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA)

 American Wood Council (AWC)

 National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)

 Biomass Power Association (BPA)

 Corn Refiners Association (CRA)

 National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA)

 Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)

 Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association (SLMA)

 U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Chamber)

Trade association petitio ners’ member companies own and operate thousands of boilers and process heaters that will be subject to the Boiler MACT, Boiler GACT, or CISWI rules (as amended by the respective reconsideration rule s). The petitioners and several member companies submitted extensive comments on the proposed Boiler MACT Reconsideration Rule,

Boiler GACT Reconsideration Rule, and CISWI R econsideration Rule to Docket Nos. EPA-HQOAR-2002-0058, EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790, and EPA- HQ-OAR-2003-0119, respectively.

We appreciate the fact that the final reconsider ation rules include numerous changes that make

the amended rules more achievable and workable than the original rules would have been. Nevertheless, there still are several problems with the rules that cause them to be burdensomeThe Honorable Robert Perciasepe April 1, 2013 Page 2

and unsupportable by the facts or the law. Acco rdingly, for the reasons explained below, we petition the Agency for administrative reconsid eration of the Boiler MACT Reconsideration

Rule, Boiler GACT Reconsideration Rule, and CISWI Reconsideration Rule.

Pursuant to § 307(d)(7)(B) of th e Clean Air Act (“CAA”), where it was impracticable to raise an objection during the period of public comment or if the grounds fo r such objection arose after the public comment period (but within the time specified for judicial review), and if such objections

are of central relevance to the outcome of the ru le, EPA is authorized to reconsider the rule.

Each of the issues detailed below satis fies these criteria for reconsideration.

In addition, we have carefully reviewed the rules, as amended through the reconsideration proceedings, and have identified a number of areas where corrections are warranted for

clarification of the sta ndards. We have catalogued these issues in the attached table and request

that EPA make the needed corrections and clarifications in its reconsideration of the rules.

1. The Definition of Startup and Shut down and the Startup Work Practices

The boiler/process heater emission standards apply at all times, except during periods of startup and shutdown, during which times facilities are re quired to comply with work practices. EPA has improved the startup and shutdown definitio ns and work practices from those proposed in December 2011, where startup and shutdown periods were based on load. As EPA acknowledges in the preamble, th e purpose of industrial boilers a nd process heaters is to produce steam and heat. Therefore, startup ends when the boiler or process heater begins supplying steam or heat for heating, producing electricit y, or both, or for any other purpose. EPA has appropriately excluded a time limit; safety and proper operation of the boiler and associated equipment dictate the amount of time that is need ed for startup and shutdown and vary from unit

to unit and site to site. EPA ha s also appropriately eliminated th e load threshold from the startup

definition. The minimum stable operating load is unit-specific and will vary for different boiler/process heater designs. However, thes e are new requirements in the Boiler MACT and

Boiler GACT rules for which we and other stak eholders have not had the opportunity to comment, and there are several problematic tech nical issues surrounding these definitions and procedures that must be resolved in order for th e rules to be practically implementable. It should be noted that, as this energy is needed for the tr ue manufacturing process, it is in an operator’s best interest to reach these ope rating conditions in the minimum amount of time and as such the duration of these periods will be minimized for economic reasons anyway. But, they cannot be rushed to compromise safety of personnel and equipment.

We have asserted in comments filed on previous versions of the rules that the best way to implement startup work practices is on a site-specific basis. The definition of the end of startup and the required work practices could be reviewed and approved by the permitting agency and incorporated into the Title V operating permit as federally enforceable conditions. At a

minimum, EPA needs to consider the various boil er designs and modify th e startup definition to account for differences in boiler design.

A new startup work practice requirement in Table 3 of the Boiler MACT rule includes use of one or a combination of the following clean fuels: natural gas, synthetic natural gas, propane,The Honorable Robert Perciasepe April 1, 2013 Page 3

distillate oil, syngas, ultra-lo w sulfur diesel, fuel oil-soaked rags, kerosene, hydrogen, paper, cardboard, refinery gas, and liquefi ed petroleum gas. If you star t firing coal/solid fossil fuel, biomass/bio-based solids, heavy liquid fuel, or gas 2 (other) gases, you must vent emissions to the main stack(s) and engage al l of the applicable control devi ces except limestone injection in fluidized bed combustion (FBC) boilers, dry scru bber, fabric filter, selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), and selective catalytic reduc tion (SCR). You must start your limestone injection in FBC boilers, dry scrubber, fabric fi lter, SNCR, and SCR systems as expeditiously as possible. There are several problematic t echnical issues with this new requirement.

Boiler and process heater operators have a fina ncial incentive to minimize the time spent in startup. When units are starti ng up, they are not operating in th e most efficient mode and the process being served cannot opera te optimally. Therefore, boilers and process heaters are started up as expeditiously as possible, but safety c oncerns cannot be ignored, and proper procedures must be followed. In order to be practically implementable, the start up definition in the Boiler MACT and Boiler GACT rules and the startup work practices in the Boiler MACT rule must

take these facts into account and must be revise d to accommodate the technical issues discussed

below.

A. Start-up

The startup definitions and provisions in the MACT and GACT rules need to be revised in at least three ways: (1) allo w more fuels to be “clean fuels,” (2) clarify how long clean fuels must be burned, and (3) ESPs must be added to the lis t of control devices that must be started as expeditiously as possible . The January 31 a nd February 1, 2013 rules define startup as: “ either the first-ever firing of fu el in a boiler or process heater for the purpose of supplying steam or heat for heating and/or producing el ectricity, or for any other purpos e, or the firing of fuel in a boiler after a shutdown event for any purpose. Start up ends when any of the steam or heat from the boiler or process heater is supplied for hea ting, and/or producing electr icity, or for any other

purpose .”

The act of supplying heat, steam, or electricity does not represent the functional end of the startup period. Some processe s are designed such that downstream equipment receives heat and/or steam when fuel is being burned during star tup of the boilers and/or process heaters. For example, as a boiler that provides steam to a lumb er kiln is starting up, it is preheating the metal steam lines. This preheating is necessary in cold climates where a rush of steam can cause the metal to expand too quickly, resulting in catastro phic damage. This type of operating practice represents efficient use of ener gy during startup to prepare/preh eat process equipment and is a practice EPA should conti nue to encourage.

Above all, the boiler/process heater operator’s primary concern during st artup is safety. The startup procedures must ensure that the equi pment is brought up to normal operating conditions in a safe manner, and startup ends when the bo iler/process heater and its controls are fully functional. The procedures and the time necessary to complete a startup are site specific, and vary by boiler fuel, design, and control technique. The end of startup occurs when safe, stableThe Honorable Robert Perciasepe April 1, 2013 Page 4

operating conditions are reached, after emissions controls are properly operating. The startup provisions should not include requirements that could affect safe operating practices.

(i) Clean Fuels

First, the list of clean fuels, as written, is t oo narrow. The list needs to be expanded to include all gaseous fuels meeting the “other gas 1” classifica tion. Biodiesel should also be added to the list,

as distillate oil is sometimes a biodiesel blend. Fuels that meet the TSM, HCl, and Hg emission limits using fuel analysis should be added to the list of clean fuel s. Dry biomass (<20% moisture content) should also be added to the list of clean fuels for units operating with a mechanical collector (i.e., multiclone). Dry biomass is in cluded in EPA’s definition of “clean cellulosic

biomass” and will burn cleaner than other solid fuel s. It is a clean fuel for startup because it exhibits low HCl, Hg, and CO emissions due to its chloride, mercury, and moisture content, and PM emissions would likely be below the dry bi omass subcategory PM limit (the AP-42 PM

emission factor for a boiler with a mechanical co llector firing dry wood is below the dry biomass subcategory PM limit). Therefore it is a reasona ble work practice for solid fuel boilers to burn only dry biomass as clean fuel during startup. Permitting authorities should also have the flexibility to approve other clean fuels that EP A may not have considered (e.g., other renewable fuels).

(ii) Ignition

Second, even though the start-up period continues, EPA should clarify that the requirement to use clean fuels ends after ignition OR when you e ngage the applicable co ntrol devices prior to firing other fuels. As currently written, it is not clear whether you must burn clean fuels only for startup (ignition) or for the duration of the st artup period as defined in the rule, no matter whether your applicable control de vices are engaged. If a boiler is not equi pped to burn any of the listed clean fuels, the operator needs the flexibili ty to be able to start up on the available fuel, as long as applicable emissions controls are engaged. These clean fu els are not universally available in sufficient quantities to be burned from initial startup thr ough normal operating load.

EPA also did not consider the added cost a nd burden of requiring clean fuel combustion throughout the duration of startup. Specifying the use of only listed clean fuels to startup results in increased capital and operating costs for many facilities and in th e increased use of nonrenewable fossil fuels; these fuels are in many cases more expensive than a unit’s primary operating fuel and require different infrastructure to accommodate (which may not be available, depending on location and other factors). In ma ny cases the boilers must be retrofitted with systems to burn the alternative fuels such as natural gas solely to comply with startup requirements when startup may only occur once or tw ice per year. This represents a significant expense for a very limited amount of use. Furt hermore, many facilities would be required to obtain permit modifications prior to making this change to their bo ilers. The previous requirement to establish startup procedures that minimize emissions and to train operators made more sense from an operational safety, cost, GHG emissions, and sustainability perspective. Mandated fuel switching for startup would be contra ry to the goal of safe guarding fuel diversity,The Honorable Robert Perciasepe April 1, 2013 Page 5

which is a fundamental objective of U.S. energy policy. A diverse fuel mix protects energy users from fuel unavailability, pr ice fluctuations, and changes in regulatory practices.

(iii) Pollution Control Devices

Third, as currently written, units equipped with an ESP must either fire “clean fuels” throughout startup or engage the ESP when coal, biomass, or residual oil is first introduced into the boiler or process heater. ESPs must be incl uded in the list of ai r pollution controls that must be started as expeditiously as possible. The ESP cannot prac tically be engaged until a certain flue gas temperature is reached. Premature starting of th is equipment will lead to short-term stability problems that could result in unsafe actions and longer term degradation of ESP performance due to fouling, increased chances of wire damage , or increased corrosion within the chambers. Vendors providing this equipment incorporate thes e safety and operational concerns into their standard operating procedures. 1

During periods of startup, combustion begins as fuel is introduced and an ESP warms up on a designated curve that could last for several hours. As the control device is heated up, additional fuel is added until the ESP (and other equipment) meets its design temperature and normal fuel firing is resumed. Some ESPs have oxygen sensors and alarms that shut down the ESP at high flue gas oxygen levels to avoid a fire in the unit. The oxygen level is typically high during startup, so the ESP may not engage due to thes e safety controls until more stable operating

conditions are reached. Therefore, ESPs must be in cluded in the list of ai r pollution controls that must be started as expe ditiously as possible.

(B) Shutdown

The shutdown definitions in the MACT and GACT rules also need to be revised. The January 31 and February 1, 2013 rule definition is: ‘‘Shutdown means the cessati on of operation of a boiler or process heater for any purpose. Shutdown begins either when none of the steam and heat from the boiler or process heater is supplied for hea ting and/or producing electri city, or for any other purpose, or at the point of no fu el being fired in the boiler or process heater, whichever is

earlier. Shutdown ends when there is both no st eam or heat being supplied and no fuel being fired in the boiler or process heater.’’

The definition is problematic for units firing solid fuels on a grate or in a fluidized bed

combustor where the residual material in the unit keeps burning after fuel feed to the unit is stopped. In this case fuel is st ill burning (“being fired”) in the unit despite the f act that load reduction is occurring, additional fuel is not being fed, and the shutdown process has clearly begun. The shutdown definition should be revised to state that shutdown begins either when

none of the steam and heat from the boiler or process heater is supp lied for heating and/or producing electricity or when fuel is no longer being fed to the bo iler or process he ater and that

1 See Appendix I of AF&PA’s August 23, 2010 comments on the June 4, 2010 proposed rule for an excerpt of an ESP operational manual.The Honorable Robert Perciasepe April 1, 2013 Page 6

shutdown ends when there is both no steam or h eat being supplied and no fuel being combusted

in the boiler or process heater.

The terms “supplying” and “or for any other purpose” in both the startup and shutdown definitions is too open-ended and could be read to mean that steam and heat supplied for uses within the boiler itself will end the startup peri od or delay onset of the shutdown period. Many

boilers use steam to drive rota ting equipment such as feedwater pumps, preheat feedwater, and operate de-aerators. Some of these uses, e.g., operating feedwater pumps and preheating feedwater, begin in the early stages of starti ng a boiler and continue until the boiler is cooled

down. These terms in effect limit the use of energy during startup and shutdown periods for these purposes and inappropriately truncate these periods. As a result, an operator may be motivated to use less efficient and more expensive electrical power where feasible to ensure that adequate conditions are achieved for use of st eam in the manufacturing process served by the boiler or process heater. Efficient and cost effect ive internal uses of st eam and heat for operating the boiler should not be discouraged by definitions that unnecessarily limit the duration of the startup and shutdown periods a nd that may require costly re trofits to boilers with no

commensurate environmental benefit.

2. Operating Capacity Limitation

The Boiler MACT rule requires facilities to esta blish various operating parameter limits during the initial performance test a nd then monitor thos e operating parameters as ongoing compliance indicators. Most operating parameters are esta blished based on a minimum or maximum hourly average during the initial performance test and have a 30-day averaging period for ongoing monitoring. The 30-day averagi ng period accounts for variabili ty in boiler/process heater operation. One such operating parameter is boile r/process heater load. The rule requires operators to maintain the operating load of each unit such that it does not exceed 110 percent of the average operating load recorded during the most recent performance test. The rationale for this operating parameter is that for many po llutants operating at maximum load will produce maximum emissions, and the initial performance test should be conducted at the conditions under which the source could operate in the futu re that will produce the worst case emissions.

We do not disagree that boiler load is an a ppropriate operating para meter. In numerous instances, facility air permits already include op erating limits related to the boiler load achieved during a prior successful performance test. Howeve r, there are two concerns with the specifics of rule requirements for monito ring of operating load. First, th e language in Tables 4 (which states what operating limits must be met) and 8 (which sets fort h requirements for demonstrating continuous compliance) conflicts with the language in Table 7 (which describes how operating limits are to be established). Table 4, item 8, states that if you are demonstrating compliance using performance testing, you must “maintain the operating load of each unit such that it does not exceed 110 percent of the highest hourly average operating load record ed during the most recent performance test.” Table 8, item 10, require s “Maintaining the operating load such that it does not exceed 110 percent of the highest hourly average operating load recorded during the most recent performance test according to 63.7520(c).” Section 63.7520(c) refers to the language in Table 4. However, Table 7, item 5, states that you “Determine the average of theThe Honorable Robert Perciasepe April 1, 2013 Page 7

three test run averages during the performance test , and multiply this by 1.1 (110 percent) as your operating limit.” Therefore, there is a conflict as to wh ether you use the highest hourly average operating load times 1.1 as the operating limit or the test averag e operating load times 1.1 as the operating limit. For consistency with other operating parameter limits and to avoid inappropriately limiting boiler/process heater throughput, Table 7, item 5 should be revised to clearly state that the limit is set based on the highest hourly average during the test times 1.1.

Second, operating load should have the same averag ing period as the other operating parameters (30 days). As stated in co mments on the proposed reconsiderat ion rule, averaging periods are appropriate for operating parameters because th e standards apply during all operating conditions (excluding startup and shutdown) , and operating conditions of industrial boilers and process heaters can be highly variable , especially when fuel mix and load change. The operating parameter ranges will be established using test data obtained at one steady state operating condition, so a 30-day averaging period allows for some fluctuations that will occur over the range of operating conditions. EPA correctly pointe d out that variability outside the operator’s

control such as fuel content, seasonal factors, load cycling, and infrequent hours of needed operation give cause to use a longer averaging period (76 Fed. Reg. 80610). In the final rule, even the emission limits are assigned a 30-da y averaging period when continuous emissions

monitors are used. In the final area source boiler rule, operating load is assigned a 30-day averaging period (see Table 7 of the area source rule).

There is no justification for treating the load operating parameter differently in the major source rule than the area source rule or differently from how other operating parameters are treated. A 30-day averaging period would be appropriate for the operating load parameter in the major source boiler rule as well. Although many boilers a nd process heaters operate at fairly constant loads over the course of a 3- to 6-hour performan ce test, some units provide steam, heat, or both to processes with variable requirements, such as a lumber kiln or othe r batch process. For facilities that only utilize one boile r or process heater to serve a pa rticular process, it may not be possible to operate at the maximum operating load for an entire st ack test without having to vent or “waste” steam not continuously required by pro cess or processes served by the unit (if the unit is even capable of this type of practice). This would waste energy at a time when energy costs are high and it is the goal of both the agency and industry to conserve energy, not waste it.

Along the same lines, if there is no averaging period associated with the operating load requirement, processes that requ ire variable steam or heat c ould cause the bo iler or process heater to instantaneously operate at greater than 110 percent of the average operating load corresponding to the most recent 3- to 6-hour stac k test due to a swing in instantaneous process steam demand or heat requirement. An undesira ble outcome would be numerous meaningless “deviations” from the load operating parameter ra nge during these short-term operating periods. These false deviations would be completely a voided with the application of the appropriate averaging period and would not be accompanie d by any deviations from other operating parameter requirements (or emissions for units wi th CEMS) due to the ap plication of a 30-day averaging period on almost every other opera ting parameter and on emissions measured by CEMS. In fact,§ 63.7525(d)(4), which covers re quirements for operating limits that require useThe Honorable Robert Perciasepe April 1, 2013 Page 8

of a CPMS other than PM CPMS or COMS, states “you must determine the 30-day rolling average of all reco rded readings...”

At a minimum, EPA should acknowledge th at the language in Tables 4 and 8 and § 63.7525(d)(4) governs compliance and that the Tabl e 7 language does not mean instantaneous compliance. Alternatively, averaging period decisi ons can be the purview of the state regulatory authority (many already have been determin ed through Title V permits). The permit then specifies the details, for instance, that opera ting load not exceed 110% of the highest load measured during the performance test and how the averaging period fo r ongoing compliance is determined as a 30-day rolling average.

3. Energy Assessment Requirements

EPA proposed a beyond the floor requirement of an energy assessment in the June 4, 2010 proposed Boiler MACT and Boiler GACT rules. The purpose of the energy assessment was to reduce demand on affected boilers and process heaters by requiring an assessment of energy efficiency opportunities in the operations served by a given bo iler or process heater. We provided extensive comments on the propos ed energy assessment at that time. 2 Among other things, we explained that EPA does not have au thority to impose binding legal requirements on parts of facility that are not within the sour ce category being regulated. In particular, EPA’s authority is limited to setting emissions standa rds “for each category or subcategory of major sources and area sources.” CAA § 112(d)(1). EP A defined the source category for these rules to include only specified types of boilers and process heaters an d, therefore, those are the only sources for which EPA may set standards under these rules.

We also pointed out that the energy assessment requirement is not an “emissions standard” as

that term is defined in the CAA and, therefore, EPA does not have authority to prescribe such requirements. Furthermore, as a practical ma tter, even if energy efficiency projects are implemented, there is no guarantee that th ere will be a corresponding reduction in HAP

emissions from affected bo ilers and process heaters.

The energy assessment requirement remained in the March 21, 2011 final rules. We reiterated our opposition to the energy assessment requi rement in our petition for administrative

reconsideration of the 2011 final rules and our comments on the December 2011 reconsideration proposals.

EPA decided in the final reconsideration ru les to again retain the energy assessment requirements. However, changes were made to limit the effort required to conduct assessments and to clarify how much of the f acility associated with a given affected boiler must be covered by the assessment. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 7146.

2 See for example AF&PA comments on June 4, 2010 proposal at EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058-3213, pp.

214-244.The Honorable Robert Perciasepe April 1, 2013 Page 9

We continue to believe, as consistently asserted throughout these Boiler MACT and Boiler GACT rule proceedings, that EPA does not have le gal authority to impose the energy assessment requirement and, in any event, that the record fa ils to demonstrate that such a requirement would be effective in reducing HAP emissions. As a result, we renew our objections to this requirement and ask EPA to eliminate it through a reconsideration proceeding.

4. Corrections and Clarifications

We have identified a number of additional clarifi cations and corrections that should be made to the final rules, as amended through the final re consideration rules. Attachment 1 includes a description of these issues a nd recommended solutions. We ask that EPA make these needed

clarifications and corrections in its reconsideration rules.

* * * * * * * * * *

Thank you for your consideration of these important issues. We look forward to working with you to resolve them. Please feel free to c ontact Tim Hunt at ( 202) 463-2588 if you have questions or need more information.

Sincerely,

Donna Harman

President and CEO American Forest & Paper Association (on behalf of coalition)

Attachment

cc: Gina McCarthy, OAR

Janet McCabe, OAR Peter Tsirigotis, OAQPS Robert Wayland, OAQPSAttachment Page 1AttachmentTechnical Clarifications/Changes Needed to the Boiler RulesRule Citation Issue Clarification or Change NeededBoiler MACT 63.7525(a)(7)“Operate anoxygen trimsystem with theoxygen level setno lower than thelowest hourlyaverage oxygenconcentrationmeasured duringthe most recentCO performancetest as theoperating limitfor oxygenaccording toTable 7 to thissubpart.”The rule states that if you are subject to a COlimit, you must follow 63.7525(a)(1) through(7). 63.7525(a)(7) appears to require an O2trim system along with use of the CO and O2CEMs. Other elements of the rule imply thatfacilities have a choice to utilize an O2analyzer system (which MAY include an O2trim system) or a CO/O2 CEMS.The requirement as written is overlyrestrictive, especiallyin cases where thistechnology cannot be effectively implemented,and we do not believe EPA intended to requireuse of an O2 trim system when a CO/O2CEMS is used. Therefore, we believe that63.7525(a)(7) should not apply where facilitiesare using CO/O2 CEMS or an O2 analyzersystem that does not include an O2 trimsystem.Clarify that use of O2 trim systems is oneoption for compliance and not a requirementfor all units with a CO limit.Facilitiesdemonstrating compliance with CO limits mustEITHER use an oxygen trim system OR anoxygen analyzer system OR a CO/O2 CEMS.Boiler MACT 63.7515(e)63.7521(c)(1)(ii)There is an inconsistency in the rule regardingfuel sampling requirements for facilities usingthe fuel analysis option. We believe thatmonthly sampling is sufficient, and thatsampling 3 times per month is overlyburdensome (and in some months it would beimpossible to obtain 3 samples 10 days apart).Clarify that the rulerequires collection ofmonthly samples collected no less than 14 daysapart.Attachment Page 2Rule Citation Issue Clarification or Change NeededBoiler MACT 63.7550(b)(1)and (2)The dates for submitting the compliancereports specified in § 63.7550(b)(2) are thesame as the end of the reporting periodsspecified in § 63.7550(b)(1).Adjust the dates in § 63.7550(b)(2) to providea 30-day period for report submission.Boiler MACT 63.7540(a),63.7555(d)(1),and Table 863.7540(a)(2) requires facilities to keeprecords of the type and amount of fuels burnedin each boiler or process heater during thereporting period to demonstrate that the fuelmixture would result inlower fuel input ofchlorine, mercury, and TSM than that duringthe last performance test. We believe EPAinadvertently deleted the “fuel pollutantcontent” line from Table 8 in the March 2011final rule and December 2011 proposedreconsideration rule, which clearly stated thatthe fuel pollutant content comparison was to beperformed monthly. Thedeletion of this itemwas not explained inany responses tocomments or in the preamble and since63.7555(d)(1) requires monthly fuel userecords for each boiler or process heater, it isappropriate to clarify that the fuel pollutantcontent comparison is to be performedmonthly, otherwise a short-term operatinglimit might be assumed. It is beyond thecapability of multi-fuel boiler operators tomeasure input of each fuel on a short-termbasis.EPA should reinstate the line item for fuelpollutant content in Table 8 of the 2013 rule.Attachment Page 3Rule Citation Issue Clarification or Change NeededBoiler GACT Table 1 COlimitsItems 1 and 2 in Table 1 specify that units cancomply with the CO limit using a 3-runaverage or a 10-day rolling average (whenusing CO CEMS). Item 6 CO limit does notinclude an averaging period.Add “3-run average or 10-day rolling average”to the CO limit in Table 1, Item 6.CISWI andMACT§60.2265 and§60.2875Definition of “commercialand industrial solidwaste incineration includes operating units thatfail to keep records ofmaterials other thantraditional fuels under section 241.2. Acombustion unit that does not burn solid wastecannot be categorized as a CISWI unit andshould not be subject to its provisions,recordkeeping or otherwise. Further theseprovisions would create a presumption ofCISWI applicability as an automatic result of arecordkeeping violation. Such a result isinconsistent with EPA’s establishedenforcement response policies that wouldotherwise provide a more reasonableframework for addressing such recordkeepingviolations. Automatic CISWI applicability isnot an appropriate resultfor such a violation.Change § 60.2265 definition of CISWI bydropping “...If the operating unit burnsmaterials other than traditional fuels as definedin section 241.2 that have been discarded, andyou do not keep and produce records asrequired by section 60.2175(v), the operatingunit is a CISWI unit...”Change 60.2875 definition of CISWI bydropping....... “...If the operating unit burnsmaterials other than traditional fuels as definedin section 241.2 that have been discarded, andyou do not keep and produce records asrequired by section 60.2740(u), the operatingunit is a CISWI unit...”Attachment Page 4Request for EPA GuidanceWe request that EPA provide guidance on thefollowing questions and consider whetheramendments to the regulatory language arethe best way to address these questions to reduce compliance uncertainty.Question/Issue Industry Comments, Interpretation, and Suggested SolutionDo recordkeeping requirementsin the MACT, GACT, and CISWIrules associated with the use of NHSMskick-inas of theeffective date of the rule OR only after the facility demonstratescompliance with all applicablelimits, either under Boiler MACT,Boiler GACT, or CISWI. The same question also applies to therecordkeeping requirements under CISWI, Boiler MACT, orBoiler GACT.The applicable recordkeepingrequirements would becomeeffective as of the compliance date for the regulationIs the 60-day notification requirement, applicable for monitoringplans, alternative analytical methods, and performance tests,waived for performance tests triggered by deviations?Language in 63.7540(a)(18)(ii)(C) related to PM CPMS indicatesthat deviations in the 30-day rolling average parameter trigger arequirement to repeat the performance test within 30 days of thedeviation. The 60-day notification requirement cannot besatisfied for this scenario andshould therefore be explicitlywaived for retests triggered bydeviations. Facility can becovered by previously submitted test protocol and would notify assoon as possible.When do retest data become effective for use in compliancecalculations? The retesting, report submittal, and approvalprocess could take up to 180 days.Retest data are forward-lookingand should become effective forcompliance calculations from theday the results of performancetest are received (confirmation ofthe retest). This requirementwould be consistent with therationale in 63.7540(a)(18)(ii)(C)stating that parameter exceedances occurring between the firstdeviation and the corresponding retest DO NOT count asadditional deviations.When do new fuel and stack test data become effective for use incompliance calculations? When do new parameter limits fromthe most recent stack test become effective?The results become effective whenthey are received and can beused to demonstrate compliance, going forward.Attachment Page 5Question/Issue Industry Comments, Interpretation, and Suggested SolutionDoes a liquid fuel unit equipped with a CO CEMS under BoilerMACT have the option to use the CO CEMS to demonstratecompliance with the applicable COlimit? (An alternative CEMSlimit has not been established for the liquid subcategory.)The facility can apply for an alternate monitoring request in thiscase. The alternate CO CEMS limit would be the same as theshort-term limit, and the facility could request an appropriateaveraging period.How are CO data that exceed the span value of the instrumenthandled in calculating the 30-dayaverages? (Is the upper limit ofthe span used to calculate the 30-day rolling average)?Section 63.7525(a)(2)(iii) cites the requirement toset the spanvalue at 2 times the applicable limit. CO measurements above thespan of the instrument are valid unless the value is above therange of the instrument. Valuesabove the range are less reliableand should not be included in thecalculation of rolling averages.The range value itself should be used for the rolling averagecalculation in such cases.