6560

- 50

- P
**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63**  **[ EPA**  **- HQ**  **- OAR**  **- 2006**  **- 0790**  **; FRL -**  ] **RIN 2060 -**  **A M44**  **National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for**  **Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boile**  **rs AGENCY:**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
**ACTION:** P roposed rule.
**SUMMARY:** EPA is proposing national emission standards for control of hazardous air pollutants f rom two area source categories : industrial boilers and commercial and institutional boilers

. The proposed emission standards for control of mercury and polycyclic organic matter emissions are based on the maximum achievable control technology . The proposed emission standards for the control of other hazardous air pollutants are based on EPA’s proposed determination as to what constitutes the generally available control technology or management practices

. EPA is also clarifying that gas

- fired area source boilers
are not part needed to meet the 90 percent requirement of the
area source cat egories of indus trial boilers and commercial and institutional boilers. section 112(c)(3).
**DATES:** Comments must be received on or before [ INSERT DATE 45
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ]. If a hearing2

is request ed on this proposed rule , writ ten comments must be received by [ INSERT DATE 45 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER ]. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of having full effect if t he Office of Management and B udget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or before [ INSERT DATE 30
DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ].
**ADDRESSES:** Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.

EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 200 6

- 0790 , by one of the following methods:

• http://www.regulations.gov

. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

• http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the EPA A ir and Radiation Docket Web Site.

• E

- mail : Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e

mail) to a - and

- r - docket@epa.gov , Attention Docket ID
No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790.

• Fax

• : Fax your comments to: (202) 566

- 9744 , Docket ID
No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790
. Mail : Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) , Environmental Protection Agency , Mailcode : 2822 T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460 , Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790 . Please3

include a total o f two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, O MB, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503.

• Hand Delivery or Courie r : Deliver your comments to : EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) , EPA West, Room 3334 , 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460
. Attention Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holiday) , and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions : All submission s must include agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Numb er (RIN) for this rulemaking. A ll comments will be posted without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes i nformation claimed to be c onfidential b usiness i nformation (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e - mail. The4
http://www.regulations.gov W eb site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the b ody of your comment. If you send an e

- mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov , your e - mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD

- ROM you submit. If
EPA canno t read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or vi ruses. Docket : All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available , e.g., CBI or other information whose disc losure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form . Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334 , 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.5
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone

num ber for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566

- 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566

- 1742.
**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:** M s . Mary Johnson , Energy Strategies Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division, (D243

- 01) , Office of Air Q uality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Research Triangle Park, N orth Carolina 27711 ; T elephone number : (919) 541

- 5 025 ; F ax number (919) 541

- 5450 ; E

- mail address: johnson

. mary @epa.gov . **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:** Outline

. The information i n this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA? C. Where can I get a copy of this document? D. When would a public hearing occur? II. Background Information A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for th is proposed rule? B. What source categories are affected by th is proposed standards? C
. What is the relationship between th is proposed r ule and other related national emission standards? D. How did we gather information for this proposed standard? E. How are the area source boiler HAP addressed by this proposed rule? II I . Clarification of the Source Category List IV. S ummary of th is Pr oposed Rule A. Do the proposed standards apply to my source? B . What is the affected source? C
. When must I comply with the proposed standards? D. What are the proposed MACT and GACT standards ?6

E . What are the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) requirements? F . What are the proposed initial compliance requirements? G
. What are the proposed continuous compliance requirements? H . What are the proposed notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements? I. Submission o f Emissions Test Resul ts to EPA V . Rationale of th is Proposed Rule A. How did EPA determine which pollution sources would be regulated under th is proposed rule? B. How did EPA determine the subcategories for th is proposed rule? C. How did we ensure that the listed HAP ar e addressed by this rule What surrogates are we using ? D. How did EPA determine the proposed standard s for existing units? 1. MACT Analysis for Mercury from Coal

- fired Boilers and POM 2. GACT Determination for Existing Area Source Boilers for HAP other t han Mercury and POM E . How did EPA determine the proposed emission s tandard s for new units? 1. MACT Analysis for Mercury from Coal

- fired Boilers and POM 2. GACT Determination for New Area Source Boilers F . How did we select the compliance requirements? G. Alternative MACT Standards for Consideration H . How did we decide to exempt these area source categories from title V permitting requirements? V I . Summary of the Impacts of th is Proposed Rule A. What are the air impacts? B. What are the cost impac t s? C. What are the economic impact s? D . What are the social costs and benefits of th is proposed rule? E . What are the water and solid waste impacts? F . What are the energy impacts? VII. Relationship of th is Proposed Action to CAA Section 1 12(c)(6) VI I . Statutory and Executive O r der Review A. Executive Order 12866 : Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 E. Executive Order 13132 : Federalism F. E xecutive Order 13175 : Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045 : Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks7

H. Executive Order 13211 : Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations **I. General Information**
A. Does this action apply to me? The regulated c ategories and entities potentially affected by the proposed standards include:
Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated E ntities Any area source facility using a boiler as defined in th is proposed rule. 321 Wood product manufacturing. 11 Agriculture, greenhouses

. 311 Food manufacturing. 327 Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing

. 422 Wholesale trade, nondurable goods

. 531 Real estate

. 611 Educational services. 813 Religious, civic, professional, and similar organizations. 92 Public administration. 722 Food services and drinking places. 62 Health care and social assistance. 1 North American Industry Classification System. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provi des a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be8
affected by this action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, organization, etc., would be regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability crite ria in 40
CFR 63. 11193 of subpart JJJJJJ ( National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP ) for Area Sources: Industrial, commercial, and Institution Boilers)

. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a parti cular entity, con sult either the air permitting delegated regulatory authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions)

. B . What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
Do no t submit information containing confidential business information ( CBI ) to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or

e - mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer ( C404

- 02) , Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N orth C arolina 27711, Attention : Docket ID EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 200 6

- 0790
. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD

- ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD

- ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD

- ROM the specific information that is claimed as C BI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information9
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will n ot be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
C
. Where can I get a copy of this document? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of t hi s proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the proposed action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/ . The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
D. When would a public hearing occur? If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing conce rning th is proposed rule by [ INSERT DATE 10 DAYS
AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ] , we will hold a public hearing on [ INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER ]

. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony at the hearing, or inquiring as to whether a hearing will be held, should contact Ms. Pamela Garrett, Energy Strategies Group, at ( 919) 541

- 7966 at least two days in advance of the hearing . If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA ’s C ampus locat ed at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive10
in Research Triangle Park, NC, or at an alternate site nearby.
**II. Background Information** 
A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for th is proposed rule? Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA ) require s us to establish NESHAP for both major and area sources of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP ) that are listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major source emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of any single HAP or 25 t p y or more of any combination of HAP. A n a rea source is a H AP

emitting stationary source that is not a major source

. CAA s ection 112(k) (3)(B) calls for EPA to identify a t least 30 HAP which , as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas

. EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (Strategy), (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, i n the Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health threat in urban

areas , and these HAP are referred to as the “30 urban HAP.” CAA

s ection 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources represent ing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regulation

. A primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent reduc tion in cancer incidence attributable11

to HAP emi tted from stationary sources. Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulg ate standards or requirements for area sources "which provide for the use of generally available control technologies or management practices ( “ GACT ” ) by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants." Additional information on GACT is foun d in the Senate report on the legislation (Senate Report Number 101

- 228, December 20, 1989), which describes GACT

as : . . . methods, practices and techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for application by the sources in the category co nsidering economic impacts and the technical capabilities of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems. Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly i mportant when developing regulations for source categories that may have many sm all businesses such as these

. Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control technologies and management practices that are generally available to the area sources in the source categor y . We also consider the standards applicable to major sources in the analogous source categor y to determine if the control technologies and management practices are transferable and generally available to area sources. In app ropriate circumstances, we may also consider technologies and practices12

at area and major sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies and practices could be considered generally available for the area source categor ies at issue.
F inally, as noted above , in determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and economic impacts of available control technologies and management practices on that category. While GACT may be a basis for standards for most typ es of HAP emitted from area source sources , CAA s ection 112(c)(6) requires that source EPA list categories and subcategories of sources assuring that sources accounting for emissions not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each of the seven
sp ecified h azardous a ir p ollutants ( HAP listed in CAA section 112(c)(6) be ) are subject to standards under CAA sections section 112(d)(2) for the listed pollutants. Thus, CAA or (d)(4). The seven HAP specified in section 112(c)(6) requires that emissions of each listed HAP for the listed categories be subject to maximum achievable control technology ( MACT ) regulation. The are as follows: alkylated lead compounds, polycyclic organic matter, hexachlorobenzene, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, 2,3,7,9

- tetr achlorodibenzofurans, and 2,3,7,8

- tetrachloridibenzo

- p - dioxin. The CAA section 112(c)(6) list of source categories currently includes industrial coal combustion, industrial oil13
combustion, industrial wood combustion, commercial coal combustion, commercial oil combustion, and commercial wood combustion. See 63 FR 17849. All of We listed these source categories are on the under CAA section 112(c)(6) list for based on the source categories’ contribution of mercury and polycyclic organic matter (POM)

. In the documentation for the CAA section 112(c)(6) listing, the commercial fuel combustion categories included institutional fuel combustion (See “1990 Emissions Inventory of Section 112(c)(6) Pollutants, Final Report,” April 1998). As discussed in greater detai l below, we re

- examine the emission inventory and the need to address categories under CAA section 112(c)(6) during the rule development process. Based on this re

- examination, we now believe we will only need to address the coal

- fueled portion of these ca tegories under CAA section 112(c)(6). With this proposed rule and the major source boilers rule, we currently believe that we have subjected to regulation or proposed to regulate at least 90 percent of the 1990 section 112(c)(6) emissions inventory for me rcury. Coal

- fired area source boilers represent approximately 4.3 percent of the 1990 section 112(c)(6) emissions inventory for mercury. In contrast, biomass

- and oil

- fired boilers represent approximately 0.34 percent. Consequently, we are proposing to regulate coal

- fired boilers under MACT because we need these sources to meet the 90 Formatted: Highlight14
percent requirement for mercury in section 112(c)(6). We are proposing to regulate biomass

- fired and oil

- fired types of boilers under GACT to meet the 90 percent requireme nt for mercury in section 112(c)(3). We solicit comment on whether we should nevertheless establish MACT

- based mercury emission standards for all boilers in this category. In your comments, please explain the basis for your position and provide any suppor ting documentation. The “maximum achievable control technology” or “MACT” regulation required by CAA section 112(d)(2) or (4) can be based on the emissions reductions achievable through application The MACT based regulation can be bas ed on the emissions reductions achievable through application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques including, but not limited to: (1) reducing the volume of, or eliminating emissions of, such pollutants through process changes, substitu tions of materials, or other modifications; (2) enclosing systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (3) collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage or fugitive emission point; (4) design, equipment, wo rk practices, or operational standards as provided in CAA section 112(h); or (5) a combination of the above

. The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under CAA section 112(d)(3). For new15

sources, MACT based standards cannot be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best

- controlled similar source, as determined by the Administrator. The MACT based standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (for which the Administrator has emission information ). ) for source categories and subcategories with 30

or more sources, or the best performing 5 sources for categories and subcategories with fewer than 30 sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B))

. Although emission standards are often structured in terms of numerical emissions li mits, alternative approaches are sometimes necessary and authorized pursuant to CAA section 112. For example, in some cases, physically measuring emissions from a source may be not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. CAA s ection 11 2(h) authorizes the Administrator to promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, consistent with the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or (f), in those cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, i t is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. CAA s ection 112(h)(2) provides that the phrase “not feasible to prescribe or16

enforce an emission standard” includes the situation in which the Administrator determines that ... the applicatio n of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. As noted above, we listed industrial coal combustion, industrial oil combustion, industrial wood combustion, commercial coal combustion, commercial oil combustion, and commercial wood combustion under CAA section 112(c)(6) based on the source categories’ contribution of mercury and polycyclic organic matter (POM)

. We listed these same categories under section 112(c)(3) for thei r contribution of mercury, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, chromium, manganese, nickel, polycyclic organic matter (POM) (as 7

- PAH (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons)), ethylene dioxide, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). We have developed the proposed standards to reflect the application of MACT for the listed 112(c)(6) pollutants (
mercury from coal

- fired area source boilers and POM ) from all area source boilers under section 112(c)(6) and have applied GACT for the other urban HAP which formed the ba sis for the listing of these two area source categories pollutants noted above

. We are proposing the se national emission standards in response to a court

- ordered deadline that require s EPA to issue17
standards for source categories listed pursuant to CAA sect ion 112(c)(6) by December 16 , 2010 if no later than April 15, 20 10 EPA signs notice of proposed rulemaking ( Sierra Club v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , no. 01

- 1537, D.D.C)
. B. What source categories are affected by the proposed standards ? Th e so urce categories affected by the propos ed standards are in dustrial boilers and commercial and institutional boilers

. Both source categories w ere included in the area source list published on Ju ly 19 , 1999 (6 4 FR 38721 )
. The inclusion of these two source c ategories on the CAA section 112(c)(3) area source category list is b ased on 1990 emissions data , as EPA used 1990 as the baseline year for that listing. Both source categor ies w ere listed as contributing a percentage of the total area source emissions fo r the following “urban” HAP: polycyclic organic matter (POM) ( as 7

- PAH (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) ) , acetaldehyde, acrolein, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, dioxins, formaldehyde, lead, manganese,
mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), a nd nickel We describe above the pollutants that formed the basis of the listings

. In addition, both industrial boilers and institutional /commercial boilers are on the list of CAA section 112(c)(6) source categories published on April 10, 1998 (63 FR 17830 )
. CAA s ection 112(c)(6) requires EPA to list, and subject18

to standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4) , categories of sources accounting for not less than 90 percent of emissions of each of seven specific HAP

. Within t he se two

source categori es , coal combustion, oil combustion, and wood combustion are on the 112(c)(6) list because of emissions of mercury and POM. Th is proposed rule would apply to all existing and new industrial boilers, institutional boilers, and commercial boilers located at area sources. The industrial boiler source category includes boilers used in manufacturing, processing, mining, refining, or any other industry. The commercial boiler source category includes boilers used in commercial establishments such as stores/mall s, laundries, apartments, restaurants, and hotels/motels. The i nstitutional boiler source category includes boilers used in medical centers (e.g., hospitals, clinics, nursing homes), educational and religious facilities (e.g., schools, universities, churc hes), and municipal buildings (e.g., courthouses, prisons). Boiler means an enclosed combustion device having the primary purpose of recovering thermal energy in the form of steam or hot water. Combustion units are not subject to th is proposed rule simply by virtue of having a waste heat boiler. A waste heat boiler (or heat recovery steam generator) is a device that recovers normally unused energy (e.g., hot exhaust gases) Formatted: Tab stops: 0", Left + 0.5", Left + 1", Left + 1.5", Left + 2", Left + 2.5", Left + 3", Left + 3.5", Left + 4", Left + 4.5", Left + 5", Left + 5.5", Left19

and converts it to usable heat. Emissions from a combustion unit with a waste heat boiler are regulated by the applicable standards for the particular type of combustion unit. For example, emissions from a medical waste incineration unit with a waste heat boiler are regulated by standards established under
CAA section 129.
C
. What is the relationship between th is proposed rule and other related national emission standards ? Th is proposed rule regulates industrial boilers and institutional / commercial boilers that are area sources of HAP

. Today, in a parallel act ion , a NESHAP for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers located at major sources i s being proposed reflecting application of MACT. The major source NESHAP regulates emissions of particulate matter (as a surrogate for non

- mercury metals , ) , merc ury, hydrogen chloride (HCl ) (as a surrogate for acid gases ) , dioxins /furans , and carbon monoxide (as a surrogate for non

- dioxin organic HAP ) from existing and new major source boilers. This proposed rule covers boilers located at area source facilities. Thus, th is proposed rule may potentially include boiler s that are regulated In addition to the major source MACT for boilers being issued today and this rule, the Agency is also issuing emission standards today pursuant to CAA section 129

. CAA s ection 129 (h) states that no unit subject to standards20

under CAA section 129 shall be subject to standards under CAA section 112(d). Therefore, we are excluding from this proposed rule , as is being done for the m ajor source NESHAP , any boiler that is subject to reg ulation under CAA section 129

. A rulemaking under CAA section 129 is being proposed in for commercial and industrial solid waste incineration units. In a parallel action and , EPA is proposing a solid waste definition rulemaking pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA. That action is relevant to this action proceeding because it would apply to boilers if an industrial, commercial, or institutional unit located at an area source that combust any solid waste. combusts secondary materials that are “solid waste , ” as that term is defined by the Administrator under RCRA, those units would be subject to section 129 of the CAA, not section 112.
In As background, in 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) vacated the C ISWI Definitions Rule , which EPA issued pursuant to CAA section 129. The court found that the definitions in that rule w ere inconsistent with the CAA. Specifically, the Court held that the term “solid waste incineration unit” in CAA Section 129(g)(1) “u nambiguously include[s] among the incineration units subject to its standards any facility that combusts any commercial or industrial solid waste material at all

— subject to the four statutory exceptions identified [in Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black21
CAA Section 129(g)(1)].” NRDC v. EP A, 489 F.3d at 1257

– 58. There is also another CAA regulation that is relevant in that they apply to some of the affected sources in this rule. For example, i n 1986, EPA had codified new source performance standards (NSPS) for industrial , commercial, and i nstitutional boilers (40 CFR part 60, subparts Db and Dc) and revised portions of them in 1999 and 2006 . The NSPS regulates emissions of particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides from boilers constructed after June 19, 1984. Sources su bject to the NSPS that are located at area source facilities are also subject to th is proposed rule because th is proposed rule regulates HAP . However, in I n developing t his proposal, we have streamlined the monitoring and recordkeeping requirements to avoi d duplicating requirements in the NSPS

. D . How did we gather information for this proposed s tandard? We gathered information for this proposed rule from States’ boiler inspection lists , company Web sites, published literature, State permits, current State and Federal regulations , and from an Information Collection Request (ICR) conducted for the major source NESHAP

. We developed an initial nationwide population of area

source boiler s based on boiler inspector databases from 13

s tates . The boiler inspector databases include both steam boilers and heater units that are required to be inspected for22
safety or insurance purposes. We classified the area source boilers to NAICS codes based on the “ name ” of the facility at which the boiler was located

. However, m any of the boilers in the boiler inspector database could not be readily assigned to an NAICS code

. We reviewed s tate and other f ederal regulations that apply to the area sources in the source categories for information to establish subcategories and conc erning existing HAP emission control requirements. approaches. For example , as noted above , the NSPS for small industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Dc apply to boilers at some

area sources. Similarly, permit require ments established by the Ohio, Illinois, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine air regulatory agencies apply to some area s ources. We also reviewed standards for boilers at major sources that would be appropriate for and transferable to boiler s at area source s. For example, we determined that management practices , such as, annual tune

- ups and operator training applicable to major source boilers are equally feasible for boilers at area sources.
E . How are the area source boiler HAP addressed by this proposed rule ? Area source b A s explained above, oilers can emit a variety industrial coal combustion, industrial oil combustion, industrial wood combustion, commercial coal combustion,23

commercial oil combustion, and commercial wood combustion are listed under CAA section 112(c)(6) due to contributions of urban HAP, depending on mercury and POM and these same categories are listed under CAA section 112(c)(3) for their contribution of mercury, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, chromium, manganese , nickel, POM, ethylene dioxide, and PCB. With respect to the fuel combust ed. Because of the number of urban HAP potentially present in emissions 112(c) (3) pollutants, we used su rrogates b ecause , as explained below , it was not practical to establish indiv idual standards for each specific HAP that could be present in the various fuels. Furthermore, establishing separate standards for each individual HAP would impose costly and significantly more complex compliance and monitoring requirements and achieve li ttle, if any, HAP emissions reductions beyond what would be achieved using the surrogate pollutant approach. Therefore, we use d surrogates in develop ing standards for the HAP described in th is proposed rule.

. We grouped the urban HAP 112(c)(3) polluta nts , which formed the basis for the listing of these two source categories, into three common groupings : mercury, non
- mercury metallic HAP (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel) , and organic HAP (POM, acetaldehyde, acrolein, dioxins, ethylene dichloride, formaldehyde , and PCB ) . In general, the Formatted: Tab stops: 0", Left + 0.5", Left + 1", Left + 1.5", Left + 2", Left + 2.5", Left + 3", Left + 3.5", Left + 4", Left + 4.5", Left + 5", Left + 5.5", Left24
pollutants within each group have similar characteristics and can be controlled with the same techniques. Next, as explained in more detail in section V.C of this preamble, we identi fied compounds that could be used as surrogates for all the compounds in each pollutant category. For the non

- mercury metallic HAP, we selected PM as a surrogate. Th e inherent variability and unpredictability of the non - mercury metal HAP compositions and amounts in fuel has a material effect on the composition and amount of non - mercury metal HAP in the emissions from the boiler. As a result, establishing individual numerical emissions limit s for each non - mercury HAP metal species is difficult given the l evel of uncertainty about the individual non - mercury metal HAP compositions of the fuels that will be combusted. An emission characteristic common to all boiler s is that the non - mercury metal HAP are a component of the
PM contained in the fly ash emitted from the boiler. A sufficient correlation exists between PM and non

- mercury metallic HAP to rely on PM as a surrogate for these HAP and for their control. Therefore, the same control techniques that would be used to control the fly

- ash PM will control no n - mercury metallic HAP. Emission s limits established to achieve control of PM w ill also achieve control of non - mercury metal HAP. Furthermore, establishing separate standards for each individual HAP would impose costly and significantly more complex25

comp liance and monitoring requirements and achieve little, if any, HAP emissions reductions beyond what would be achieved using the surrogate pollutant approach. For organic HAP, we selected carbon monoxide (CO) as a surrogate to represent the variety of for organic compounds , including POM, emitted from the various fuels burned in boilers. The presence of CO is an indicator of incomplete combustion. A high level of CO in emissions is an indicator of incomplete combustion and, thus, a potential indication of elevated organic HAP emissions. Monitoring equipment for CO is readily available, which is not the case for organic HAP. Also, it is significantly easier and less expensive to measure and monitor CO emissions than to measure and monitor emissions of eac h individual organic HAP. We considered other surrogates, such as total hydrocarbon (THC), but lacked data on emissions and permit limits for area source boilers. Therefore, using CO as a surrogate for organic urban HAP is a reasonable approach because

m inimizing CO emissions will result in minimizing organic urban HAP emissions. Based on these considerations, we are proposing GACT standards for area source boilers based on control of mercury, PM (as a surrogate for the individual non - mercury urban metal
HAP ), and CO (as a surrogate pollutant for the individual organic HAP )
. urban organic HAP), and mercury from biomass

- fired Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"26

and oil

- fired boilers. We are proposing MACT standards for mercury from coal

- fired boilers and for POM from all boilers.
**III. Clar**  **ification of the Source Category List**  This proposed rule announces a clarification of the area source category list developed under our Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3 ), which is that the The Industrial Boilers and the Institutional/Commercial Boilers area source categories do not include boilers combusting only gaseous fuels. Specifically, w e are clarify ing that the source categories do not include all types of boilers. This is simply a

c larification and does not cha nge the universe of sources that were the basis for listing the source categories under CAA section 112(c)(3). In the initial listing of source categories contributing to emissions of the 30 area source HAP, industrial boilers and institutional/commercial boilers were, as a whole, selected as source categories whose emissions, when subject to regulation, can be counted towards the 90

- percent goal for each of the area source HAP. Industrial boilers and institutional/commercial boilers were listed , in 1999, as contributing to under section 112(c)(3) of the CAA. EPA needs to establish emission standards for area source boilers for the following urban HAP : 7

- PAH, acetaldehyde, acrolein in order to meet the section 112(c)(3) Formatted: Font color: Black, English (U.S.)

Formatted: Font color: Black, English (U.S.)

Formatted: Font color: Black, English (U.S.)27
90% requirement for these HAP: mer cury , arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, chromium, dioxins, formaldehyde, lead, manganese,
mercury, nickel, POM (as 7

- PAH), ethylene dioxide, and PCB. We stated in the Integrated Urban Strategy (64 FR 38720) that EPA chose to complete this list in stages, adding to, deleting from, or shuffling the list as we gather more and improved data. Since th e initial listing of these two source categories, we have reexamine d the HAP emissions from Natural gas

- fired area source boilers do not emit any of the urban HA P identified above. Therefore, regulation of gas

- fired area source boilers and have determine d that the initial listings were based on HAP emissions from area source boilers combusting coal , wood, or oil. Area source boilers fired by gas were determined to contribute only to the urban HAP formaldehyde , with its percentage contribution being only 0.01

. Furthermore, through other regulatory actions, we have met our requirement to subject categories to standards is not necessary to meet the 90 percent % requi rement for formaldehyde. Therefore, industrial boilers fired by natural gas and institutional/commercial boilers fired by natural gas were determine d to be categories not n eeded to reach the 90 percent requirement

. Thus, to meet our CAA under section 112(c )(3) for these HAP. For the reason stated above, pursuant to section 112(c)(3) obligation of the CAA , we need to promulgate are proposing Formatted: Font color: Black Formatted: Font color: Black, English (U.S.) Formatted: Font color: Black Formatted: Font color: Black Formatted: Font color: Black Formatted: Font color: Black Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.38"

Formatted: Font color: Black
Formatted: Font color: Black Formatted: Font color: Black28

emission standards for the above mentioned HAP for area source boilers fired by coal, oil, and wood, but not standard s for boilers fired by natural gas.
**I V**  **. Summary of th**  **is Proposed Rule** 
A. Do the proposed standards apply to m y source ? Th is proposed rule applies to you if you own or operate a boiler combusting coal, biomass, or oil located at an area

source. The standards do not apply to boilers that are subject to another standard under 40 CFR part 63 or to a standard developed under CAA section 129. Th is proposed rule applies to you if you own or operate a boiler combusting natural gas, lo cated at an area source, which switches to combusting coal, biomass, or oil after the date of proposal.
B . What is the affected source ? The affected source is the collection of all existing b oiler s within a subcategory located at a n area source facility or each new boiler located at an area source facility

. C. When must I comply with the proposed standards? The owner or operator of an existing source would be required to comply with the rule no later than 3 years after the date of publication of the fin al rule in the **Federal Register** . The owner or operator of a new source would be required to comply upon the date of publication of the final rule in the **Federal** Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black Formatted: Font color: Black, English (U.S.) Formatted: Font color: Black29
**Register** or startup of the facility, whichever is later.

D . What are t he proposed MACT and GACT standards ? Emission standards expressed in the form of emission limits are being proposed for new and existing area source boiler s. The proposed MACT emission limits for mercury and CO (as a surrogate for POM) are presented , alo ng with the proposed GACT standards for PM (as a surrogate for urban metals), in Table 1 of this preamble

. **TABLE 1**  **. E**  **mission L**  **imits for**  **A rea**  **S ource**  **B oilers**  **(Pounds per million British thermal units heat input**  **) Source**  **Subcategory Particulate**  **Matter (PM) Mer**  **cury Carbon**  **Monoxide (CO) (ppm)**  **New Boiler**  Coal 0.0 2 0.00000 3 3.0E

06 3 1 0 (@ 7% oxygen) Biomass 0. 02 0.0000004 1 00 (@ 7 % oxygen) Oil 0. 06 0.0000 0 03 1 (@ 3% oxygen) **Existing Boiler**  Coal 0. 3 0.00000 3 3.0E

06 3 1 0 (@ 7% oxygen) Biomass 0. 3 0.000000 4 1 70 (@ 7% oxygen) Oil 0. 3 0.00000 9 2 (@ 3% oxygen)

The emission limits for existing area source boilers are only applicable to area source boilers that have a designed heat input capacity of 10 million British thermal units (Btu) per hour (MMBtu/h) or grea ter . If your boiler burns , or is permitted to burn , at least 10 percent coal (either as on a primary total fuel or a backup fuel), or any combination of coal30

with other fuel s annual heat input basis , the boiler is in the coal fuel subcategor y . If your boile r burns biomass or biomass in combination with a liquid or gaseous fuel, the unit is in the biomass subcategory. If your boiler burns o il , or oil in combination with a gaseous fuel, the unit is in the oil subcategor y , except if the unit burns oil only dur ing periods of gas curta ilment. As allowed under CAA section 112(h), a work practice standard is being proposed for a particular class of existing

area source boilers ( that are units with designed heat input capacity of less than 10 million Btu per hour)

. MMBtu/h

. T he work practice standard for existing small area source boilers require s the implementation of a tune

- up program . A n additional standard is being proposed for existing area source facilities having an affected boiler with a designed heat input capacity of 10 million Btu per hour MMBtu/h or greater that require the performance of an energy a ssessment , by qualified personnel, on the boiler and the facility to identify cost

effective energy conservation measures.
E. What are the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) requirements? The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in EPA’s CAA Section s ection 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP Formatted: Underline

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"31
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM).
S ierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 2008), cert. denied, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2265 (2010)

. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of a regulat ion, commonly referred to as the “General Provisions Rule,” that EPA promulgated under section 112 of the CAA. When incorporated into CAA Section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these two provisions exempt sources from the requirement t o comply with the otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standard during periods of SSM. In light of Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) do not apply. As such, the proposed emission EPA has established standards sum marized in section IV.D of this preamble rule that apply at all times. EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not incorporated into proposed regulatory language any provisions that are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of an SSM ex emption.
We are not proposing a separate emission standard for the source categories at issue here that applies during periods of startup and shutdown. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a sou rce’s operation. We have evaluated specifically seeking comment on whether it is appropriate to there are any such provisions that32

we have inadvertently incorporated or overlooked. We also request comment on whether there are additional provisions that sh ould be added to regulatory text in light of the absence of an SSM exemption and provisions related to the same standards apply during startup and shutdown SSM exemption (such as applied to normal operations the SSM plan requirement and SSM recordkeeping and reporting provisions)

. In establishing the standards in this rule, EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not established differen t standards for those periods

. The standards that we are proposi ng are daily or monthly averages based . B ased upon continuous emission monitoring data , obtained as part of the information collection effort for the major source boiler and process heater rulemaking, which include periods include d periods of startup and

s hutdown , over long averaging periods, startups and shutdowns will not affect th e achievability of startup and shutdown. the standard

. Boilers , especially solid fuel

- fired boilers, do not normally startup and shutdown more the th an once per day. Thus,

w e a re not establishing a separate emission standard for these periods because startup and shutdown are part of their normal routine operations and, therefore, are already addressed by the standards. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown Formatted: Comment Text33

are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. However, by contrast, malfunction is defined as a “sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment or a process to o perate in a normal or usual manner *
* * “ (40 CFR 63.2). EPA has determined that malfunctions should not be viewed as a distinct operating mode and, therefore, any emissions that occur at such times do not need to be factored into development of CAA secti on 112(d) standards, which, once promulgated, apply at all times. It is reasonable to interpret section 112(d) as not requiring EPA to account for malfunctions in setting emissions standards. For example, we note that Section CAA s ection 112 uses the conc ept of “best performing” sources in defining MACT, the level of stringency that major source standards must meet. Applying the concept of “best performing” to a source that is malfunctioning presents significant difficulties. The goal of best performing sources is to operate in such a way as to avoid malfunctions of their units. Similarly, although standards for area sources are generally not required to be set based on “best performers,” we believe that what is "generally available" should not be base d on periods in which there is a “failure to operate.” Moreover, even if malfunctions were considered a distinct operating mode, we believe it would be impracticable to take Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"34
malfunctions into account in setting CAA section 112(d) standards for area sourc e boilers . As noted above, by definition, malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events and it would be difficult to set a standard that takes into account the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all

sources . in the category. Mor eover, malfunctions can vary in frequency, degree, and duration, further complicating standard setting. For a source that fails to comply with the applicable Section 112(d) standards during malfunction events, EPA will determine an appropriate response ba sed on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunc tion periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, “sudde n, infrequent, not reasonably preventable” and was Formatted: Font color: Auto35
not instead “caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation.” 40 C.F.R. § 63.2 (definition of malfunction).

F . What are the proposed initial compliance requirements ?
For new and existing area source boilers with applicable emission limit s , we are proposing that you must c onduct initial stack tests or fuel analysis (for mercury) to determine compliance with the PM , mercury , and CO emission limits.
As part of the initial compliance demonstration, we are proposing that you must monitor specified operating parameters during the i nitial performance tests that demonstrate compliance with the PM and mercury emission limits f or area source boilers with wet o r dry scrubbers

. The test average establishes your site

- specific operating levels.
For owner s or operator s of existing area source boiler s having a heat input capacity of less than 10 million Btu per hour ( MMBtu/h ) , , we are proposing that you must submit to the delegated authority or EPA, as appropriate, documentation that a
tune

- up was conducted

. For owners or operators of existing area source facilities having a boiler with a heat input capacity of 10 million Btu per hour MMBtu/h or greater and s ubject to this rule, we are proposing that you submit to the delegated authority or EPA, as appropriate, documentation that the energy assessment was performed and the cost

- effective energy conservation measures36

identified.
G
. What are the proposed continuous co mpliance requirements ? If you demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits by performance (stack) tests, we are proposing that you conduct stack tests on an annual basis. Furthermore, t o demonstrate continuous compliance with the PM and mercur y emission limits, we are proposing that you must monitor and comply with the applicable site

- specific operating limits.
For area source boilers without wet scrubbers that must comply with the PM and mercury emission limit s , we are proposing that you must continuously monitor opacity and maintain the opacity at or below ten percent ( daily block average) . Or, if the unit is controlled with a fabric filter, instead of continuous ly monitoring opacity, we are proposing that the fabric filter may be continuous ly operated such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time during any 6

- month period. For boilers with wet scrubbers that must comply with the PM and mercury emission limit s , we are proposing that you must monitor pressure drop and liquid flow rate of the scrubber and maintain the daily block averages at or above the minimum operating limits established during the performance test. If you elected to demonstrate initial compliance with the
mercury e mission limit by fuel analysis , we are proposing that37
you conduct a monthly fuel analysis and maintain the annual average at or below the limit indicated in Table 1 of this preamble

. For boilers that demonstrate compliance with the PM and
mercury emissi on limit s by performance (stack) tests , we propose that you must maintain monthly fuel records that demonstrate that you burned no new fuel type or new mixture (monthly average) as set during the performance test. If you plan to burn a new fuel type or ne w mixture than what was burned during the initial performance test, then we are proposing that you must conduct a new performance test to demonstrate continuous compliance with the PM emission limit and m ercury emission limit

. For boilers with heat input c apacities equal to or greater or equal to than 100 MMBtu/hr, we propose that you must continuously monitor CO and maintain the da il y average CO emissions at or below the limits indicated in Table 1 to demonstrate compliance with the CO emission limit s at al l times.
H . What are the proposed notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements ? All new and existing sources would be required to comply with some requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 6 of this proposed rule. The General Provisions include specific requirements for38
notifications, recordkeeping , and reporting. If performance tests are required under th is proposed rule, then the notification and reporting requirements for performance te sts in the General Provisions would also apply. Each owner or operator would be required to submit a notification of compliance status report, as required by § 40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General Provisions. T h is proposed rule requires the owner or operator to i nclude in the notification of compliance status report certifications of compliance with rule requirements. Semiannual compliance reports, as required by § 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, would be required only for semiannual reporting periods when a devia tion from any of the requirements in the rule occurred , or any process changes occurred and compliance certifications were reevaluated. Th is proposed rule would require records to demonstrate compliance with each emission limit, work practice standard, or management practice. These recordkeeping requirements are specified directly in the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63

. Records for applicable management practices applicable for all boiler s must be maintained. Specifically, the owner or operator must keep records of the dates and the results of each boiler tune

- up .39
Records of either continuously monitored parameter data for

a control device if a device is used to control the emissions or CEMS continupous emission monitoring system ( CEMS ) data would be

r equired. Each owner and operator would be required to keep the following record record s : (1) All reports and notifications submitted to comply with the rule; (2) Continuous monitoring data as required in the rule; (3) Each instance in which you did not meet each emission limit, work /management practice, and operating limit (i.e., deviations from the rule); (4) Monthly fuel use by each boilers boiler including a description of the type(s) of fuel(s) burned, amount of each fuel type burned, and units of m easure; (5) A copy of the results of all performance tests, energy

a ssessment s, opacity observations, performance evaluations, or other compliance demonstrations conducted to demonstrate initial or continuous compliance with the rule; and (6) A copy of your site

- specific monitoring plan developed for the rule, if applicable. Typically, records would be retained for at least 5 years

. In addition, monitoring plans, operating and maintenance plans,40

and other plans would be updated as necessary and kept fo r as long as they are still current.
I. Submission of Emissions Test Results to EPA. Compliance test data are necessary for many purposes including compliance determinations, development of emission factors, and determining annual emission rates. EPA h as found it burdensome and time consuming to collect emission test data because of varied locations for data storage and varied data storage methods. One improvement that has occurred in recent years is the availability of stack test reports in electronic format as a replacement for bulky paper copies. In this action, we are taking a step to improve data accessibility for stack tests (and in the future continuous monitoring data). Boiler area sources would be required to submit to WebFIRE (an EPA electro nic database) an electronic
copy of stack test reports as well as process data. Data entry requires only access to the Internet and is expected to be completed by the stack testing company as part of the work that it is contracted to perform. Please note that the proposed requirement to submit source test data electronically to EPA would not require any additional performance testing. In addition, when a facility submit s performance test data to WebFIRE, there would be no additional41
requirements for data compilation; instead, we believe industry would greatly benefit from improved emissions factors, fewer information requests, and better regulation development as discussed below. Because the information that would be reported is already required in the e xisting test methods and is necessary to evaluate the conformance to the test methods, facilities would already be collecting and compiling these data. One major advantage of s ubmit ting source test data through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), which w as developed with input from stack testing companies (who already collect and compile performance test data electronically), is that it would provide a standardized method to compile and store all the documentation required by this proposed rule. Another important benefit of submitting these data to EPA at the time the source test is conducted is that these data will substantially should reduce the effort involved in data collection activities in the future

. for th ese source categor ies

. This results in a r educed burden on both affected facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to respond to data collection requests) and EPA (in terms of preparing and distributing data collection requests). Finally, another benefit of submit ting these data to WebFIRE electro nically is that these data will greatly improve the overall quality of the existing and new emissions factors by supplementing the pool of emissions test data upon which42
emissions factors are based and by ensuring that data are more representative of curre nt industry operational procedures. A

common complaint we hear from industry and regulators is that emissions factors are out

- dated or not representative of a particular source category. Receiving recent performance test results would ensure that emissio ns factors are updated and more
accurate. In summary, receiving these test data already collected for other purposes and using them in the emissions factors development program will save industry, State/local/tribal agencies, and EPA time and money.
As m entioned earlier, the electronic data base that will be used is EPA’s WebFIRE, which is a Web site accessible through
EPA’s TTN ( technology transfer network (TTN ). The WebFIRE website was constructed to store emissions test data for use in developing emiss ion factors. A description of the WebFIRE data base can be found at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main

. The ERT will be able to transmit the electronic report through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) network for storage in the WebFIR E data base. Although ERT is not the only electronic interface that can be used to submit source test data to the CDX for entry into WebFIRE, it makes submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A description of the ERT can be found
at http://www.ep a.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert

_ tool.html.43

The ERT can be used to document the conduct ing of stack tests data for various pollutants including PM, mercury, dioxin/furan, and HCl. Presently, the ERT does not currently accept opacity data or CEMS data. EPA specif ically requests comment on the utility of this electronic reporting requirement and the burden that owners and operators of boiler area source facilities estimate would be associated with this requirement

. **V . Rationale of th**  **is Proposed Rule** 
A. How did EP A determine which pollution sources would be regulated under th is proposed rule ? Th is proposed rule regulates industrial boilers (fired by coal, biomass, or oil) and institutional and commerc ial boilers (fired by coal, biomass, or oil) that are located at area sources of HAP

. These area source categories potentially include boiler s that are already regulated under CAA section 129. Since CAA section 129(h) states that no unit subject to standards under CAA section 129 shall be subject to standards under C AA section 112(d) , we are excluding from t hi s proposed rule any boiler s that are subject to regulatio n under CAA section 129

. Boilers that are used specifically for research and development are also not regulat ed. However, boilers that only provide steam to a process or for heating at a research and44
development facility are still subject to th is proposed rule.
B. How did EPA determine the subcategories for th is proposed rule ? The CAA allows EPA to divide sour ce categories into subcategories when differences between given types of units lead to corresponding differences in the nature of emissions or the technical feasibility of applying emission control techniques. The design, operating, and emissions informat ion that EPA

r eviewed during the major source rulemaking indicates the need to subcategorize boilers based on the boiler type . Boiler systems are designed for specific fuel types (e.g., coal, biomass, or oil) and will encounter problems if a fuel with cha racteristics other than those originally specified is fired. Most boilers can only achieve full load on the fuel or fuels for which they were specifically designed. Changes to the fuel type would often require extensive changes to the fuel handling and f eeding system. Additionally, the burners and combustion chamber would need to be redesigned and modified to handle different fuel types and account for increases or decreases in the fuel volume and shape. In some cases, the changes may reduce the capacit y and ef ficiency of the boiler

. An additional effect of these changes would be extensive retrofit costs. Emissions from boilers burning coal, biomass , and oil will45

also differ. Boilers emit a number of urban HAP . In general,
HAP formation is dependent upon the composition of the fuel. The combustion quality and temperature also play an important role. The fuel dependent urban HAP emissions from boilers are metals, including mercury. These fuel dependent HAP emissions generally can be controlled by ei ther changing the fuel property before combustion or by removing the HAP from the flue gas after combustion. Organic HAP, on the other hand, are formed from incomplete combustion and are much less influenced by the characteristics of the fuel being burned . The degree of combustion may be greatly influenced by three general factors: time, turbulence, and temperature. These factors are a function of the design of the boiler which is dependent in part on the type of fuel being burned. Because these differ ent types of units boilers have different emission characteristics which may influence the feasibility and effectiveness of emission control, they should be regulated separately (i.e., subcategorized). Thus, these sub categories appropriately identify disti nctly different types of units subject to regulation. Accordingly, we are proposing to subcategorize area source boilers by boiler type ( them as follows: boilers designed to fire coal , boilers designed to fire biomass , and boilers designed to fire oil ) i n order to account for these differences46

in emissions. The coal

- fired subcategory includes boilers burning any amount of greater than 10 percent coal

. on an annual fuel heat input basis

. The biomass fuel subcategory includes units burning any biomass but no not more than 10 percent coal

. on an annual fuel heat input basis

. The oil subcategory includes all remaining boilers. In summary, we have identified three subcategories of boilers located at area sources: (1) boilers designed for coal firing , (2) boi lers designed for biomass firing , and (3) boilers designed for oil firing

. C
. How did we ensure that the listed HAP are addressed by this rule ?
C
. What surrogates are we using ? As explained above, EPA is proposing emission standards for the two source c ategories in this proposed rule. For mercury from coal

- fired area source boilers and POM from all area source boilers , EPA is proposing these standards under CAA section s 112(d)(2) and 112(h) . For the other urban HAP which formed the basis of the CAA sec tion 112(c)(3) listing, EPA is proposing standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(5). In selecting the proposed emission standards, we are using PM as a surrogate for the non

- mercury metallic urban HAP (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mangan ese, and nickel). Th e inherent variability and unpredictability of the47

non - mercury metal HAP compositions and amounts in fuel ha ve a material effect on the composition and amount of non - mercury metal HAP in the emissions from the boiler. As a result,
est ablishing individual numerical emissions limit s for each non mercury HAP metal species is difficult given the level of uncertainty about the individual non - mercury metal HAP compositions of the fuels that will be combusted. An emission characteristic comm on to all boiler s is that the non - mercury metal HAP are a component of the PM contained in the fly ash emitted from the boiler. A sufficient correlation exists between PM and non

- mercury metallic HAP to rely on PM as a surrogate for these HAP and for thei r control. Therefore, the same control techniques that would be used to control the fly

ash PM will control non

- mercury metallic HAP. Emission s limits established to achieve control of PM w ill also achieve control of non - mercury metal HAP. Th e inheren t variability and unpredictability of the non - mercury metal HAP compositions and amounts in fuel has a material effect on the composition and amount of non - mercury metal HAP in the emissions from the boiler. As a result, establishing individual numerical emissions limit s for each non - mercury HAP metal species is difficult given the level of uncertainty about the individual

non - mercury metal HAP compositions of the fuels that will be combusted. An emission characteristic common to all boiler s is48

that the n on - mercury metal HAP are a component of the PM contained in the fly ash emitted from the boiler. A sufficient correlation exists between PM and non

- mercury metallic HAP to rely on PM as a surrogate for these HAP and for their control. Therefore, the same control techniques that would be used to control the fly

- ash PM will control non

- mercury metallic HAP. Emission s limits established to achieve control of PM w ill also achieve control of non - mercury metal HAP. Consequently, we used
PM as a surrogate for the non - mercury metal urban HAP in establishing emissions limits. The use of PM as a surrogate will also eliminate the cost of performance testing to comply with numerous standards for individual non

- mercury metals.
We look ed at mercury separately from other metallic urban HAP due to its different chemical characteristics and applicable controls.
For the organic urban HAP listed for these source categories (POM, acetaldehyde, acrolein, dioxins, PCB, and formaldehyde) , we use d CO as a surrogate to repre sent the organic urban HAP emitted from the boilers

. The presence of CO is a n indicator of incomplete combustion . A high level of CO in emissions is an indicator of incomplete combustion and, thus, a potential indication of elevated organic HAP emissions

. Monitoring equipment for CO is readily available, which is not the case for organic HAP. Also, it is significantly easier and49
less expensive to measure and monitor CO emissions than to measure and monitor emissions of each individual organic HAP.
We c onsidered other surrogates, such as total hydrocarbon ( THC ), , but lacked data on emissions and permit limits for area source boilers. Therefore, using CO as a surrogate for organic urban HAP is a reasonable approach because minimizing CO emissions will re sult in minimizing organic urban HAP emissions.
D . How did EPA determine the proposed standard s for existing units ? As discussed previously, CAA section 112(d)(5) allows EPA to establish standards or requirements for area sources based on GACT, instead o f MACT. However, both B oth industrial boilers and institutional/commercial boilers are have been on the list of CAA section 112(c)(6) source categories

. CAA for mercury and POM

. Th at section 112(c)(6) requires that source categories emitt ing the HAP liste d in CAA section 112(c)(6) be subject to standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) or (d)(4). Thus, CAA s ection 112(c)(6) requires that emissions of MACT standards for each listed HAP for of the listed categories be subject pollutants needed to MACT achieve reg ulation

. However, as of 90 percent of the emissions of the relevant pollutant. As previously noted, the CAA allows EPA to establish standards under GACT instead of MACT for urban HAP we propose to regulate to fulfill CAA section 112(c)(3)
.50

A s discussed previously, CAA section 112(h) allows the Administrator to promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, in certain cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is not feasible to prescribe or enf orce an emission standard under CAA section 112(d). These cases include the situation in which the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technical and economic limitations. Thus, w e have developed the proposed standards to reflect the application of MACT for the listed 112(c)(6) pollutants (mercury and POM) and GACT for the other urban HAP listed for these two area source categories. As we establish emission standards for ea ch source category listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(6), we learn more about the source category. As part of our analysis, we examine the available information about the source category, and we re

examine the inventory associated with the original lis ting. We continue to believe that we must regulate POM from coal

- fired, biomass

- fired, and oil

- fired area source boilers in order to meet the requirement in section 112(c)(6), and propose below MACT based limits for POM for all categories. However, based on the information we have learned to date as we are developing standards for various source categories, such as major source boilers, gold mines, commercial and industrial solid waste51
incinerators, and other categories, we believe that we only need coal

- fired area source boilers to meet the 90 percent requirement set forth in section 112(c)(6) for mercury. Therefore, we propose as our primary option MACT

- based controls for mercury only for coal

- fired boilers. With respect to mercury from area source boi lers classified as biomass

- fired or oil

- fired, as well as with respect to other urban HAP besides POM, we have developed proposed standards that reflect GACT for these two area source categories. 1. MACT Analysis for Mercury from Coal

- Fired Boilers and PO M All standards established pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) must reflect MACT, the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of air pollutants that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reductions, and any non

- a ir quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determined is achievable for each category or subcategory . For existing sources, MACT cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 per cent of existing sources in the categor y

or subcategor y . for categories or subcategories with 30 or more

sources . This requirement constitutes the “ MACT floor ” for existing area source boilers. EPA may not consider cost in d etermining the MACT floor. Ho wever, EPA may, under CAA section 112(h), consider cost (of demonstrating compliance) , as well as52
technical feasibility, in evaluating whether the emission standards are feasible to enforce and, thus, appropriate to set work practice standards. EPA must c onsider cost, non

- air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements in evaluating whether it is appropriate to set a standard more stringent than the MACT floor (beyond

- the

- floor controls).

a. MACT F loor Analysis for M ercury and POM for E xisting
U nits

. The approach selected for determining the MACT floors is based on estimating the emissions levels achieved on average by the best 12 percent ( % ) of existing sources, for which we have information. In terms of developing MACT emission li mits for area source boilers, we have:

- no emission data for POM,

- limited emission data ( 9 nine coal , 2 biomass

- fired boilers ) for mercury

- n o state S tate regulations applicable for mercury or POM,

- no state S tate permits specific for mercury or POM,

- n o surrogate for Hg mercury , but CO as a surrogate for POM,

- few (7

- emission data on f our coal , 2 biomass)

- fired area source boilers using add

- on control technology for mercury,

- limited emission data for CO (5 coal

- fired boilers, 30 Formatted: No underline53

wood

- fired boilers , 6 8 oil

- fired boilers) ,

- a few state S tate permits with CO limits for coal, oil, and wood

- fired area source boilers , The MACT floor limits for each of the HAP and HAP surrogates ( PM, mercury , and CO ) are calculated based on the performance of the lowest emi tting (best performing) sources in each of the subcategories

. We ranked all of the sources for which we had data based on their emissions and identified the lowest emitting 12 percent of the sources for each HAP. The MACT floor limit is calculated We firs t considered whether fuel switching would be an appropriate control option for sources in each subcategory. We considered the feasibility of fuel switching to other fuels used in the subcategory and to fuels from a statistical formula designed to estimate a other subcategories. This consideration included determining whether switching fuels would achieve lower HAP emissions. A second consideration was whether fuel switching could be technically achieved by boilers in the subcategory considering the existi ng design of boilers. We also considered the availability of various types of fuel. After considering these factors, we determined that fuel switching was not an appropriate control technology for purposes of determining the MACT floor level that is achie vable by the average of the of control for any subcategory. This decision Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black54

was based on the overall effect of fuel switching on HAP emissions, technical and design considerations discussed previously in this preamble, and concerns about fuel availability. This determination is discussed in the memorandum

“ Development of Fuel Switching Costs and Emission Reductions for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

– Area Source ” located in the docket. We used the emissions data for those best performing sources if affected sources to determine the emission limits to be proposed, with an accounting for variability. EPA must exercise its judgment, based on an evaluation of the rel evant factors and available data, to determine the level of emissions control that has been achieved by the best performing sources were able to replicate under variable conditions. The Court has recognized that EPA may consider variability in estimating t he degree of emission reduction achieved by best

- performing sources and in setting MACT floors. See Mossville Envt’l Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241

– 42 (D.C. Cir 2004) (holding EPA may consider emission variability in estimating performance achieved by best

performing sources and may set the floor at level that best

performing source can expect to meet “ every day and under all operating conditions ” ). Formatted: Font: Courier New, Font color: Black

Formatted: Font: Courier New, Font color: Black55
To calculate the achieved emission limit, including variability, we used the equation:

Where: n = the number of test runs m = the number of test runs in the compliance tests in our data base. average s = standard deviation of emission data t(0.99, n

- 1) = the t

- statistic x = emissions data average Specifically, the MACT floor limit is an upper prediction limit (UPL) calculated with the Student’s t

- test using the TINV function in Microsoft Excel . The Student’s t

- test has also been used in other EPA rulemakings in accounting for variability. A prediction interval for a future observation is an interval that will, with a specifie d degree of confidence, contain the next (or some other pre

- specified) randomly selected observation from a population. In other words, the prediction interval estimates what future values will be, based upon present or past background samples taken. Giv en this definiti on, the UPL represents the value which we can expect the mean of 3 future observations (3

- run average) to fall below, based upon the results of a a n independent sample from the same population. In other words That is , if we were to randomly select a future test condition from any of these sources (i.e., average of 3 runs), we can be 99% confident that the reported level will fall at or56
below the UPL value. To calculate the UPL, we used the average (or sample mean) and sample standard deviati on , (SD) , which are two statistical measures calculated from the sample data. The average is the central value of a data set, and the standard deviation SD is the common measure of the dispersion of the data set around the average. Based on this limited av ailable information, the MACT floor analys e s for the three subcategories (coal, biomass, and oil ) are discussed below. 1. Existing area source boilers designed for coal firing : Mercury

– The total number of coal

- fired area source boilers for which we ha ve actual mercury emission data is 9
. Th us, th e top 12% is based on emissions from two boiler s . The
average mercury emission level of the top 12% is 1.3 pounds per trillion Btu ( lb /TBtu). The standard deviation SD of test runs in the top 12% boilers is 0 .322 . Therefore, the 99% UPL level is 2.5 lb/TBtu . The resulting MACT floor mercury limit for existing coal

- fired area source boilers is 2.5 lb /T Btu (rounded to 0.000003 lb/million Btu)

. No fuel analysis data from boilers in the top 12 percent were ava ilable for assessing the impact of fuel variability on mercury emissions. Based on test information on utility boilers, we have concluded that fabric filters are the most effective technology for controlling mercury emissions from coal

- fired area source57

bo ilers.
POM

– None of the states S tates for which we have an inventory have an applicable emission limit specifically for POM
or CO. However, one state S tate (New Jersey) does have standards for CO, but for boilers at the size of coal

- fired area source boil ers it , the requirement is actually a work practice standard for CO (i.e

. , boiler tune

- up). For small (less than 50 MM
Btu MMBtu /h) boilers, the N ew J ersey requirement is to maintain and operate the source in accordance with manufacturer specifications.
T he available states S tate permits obtained for coal

- fired area source boilers limiting CO emissions were for 1 2 units located in Ohio (3 units) , California (1 unit), and Illinois (8 units). We also obtained CO emission data from 5 coal

- fired area source bo ilers as part of the information collection effort for the major source NESHAP. Therefore, the top 12% is made up of only three boiler s . The average CO level of the top 12% is 162 p arts per million (p pm ) at 3% oxygen. The SD of the run data in top 12% b oilers is 92.1 ppm . Therefore, the 99% UPL level is 390 ppm at 3% oxygen . The resulting MACT floor CO limit for existing coal

- fired area source boilers is 310 ppm at 7% oxygen
. We correct to 7% oxygen because that is typically in the oxygen range that c oal

- fired boilers operate and we rounded up to the nearest 10 ppm.58
Based on available information, we have concluded that good combustion practices (GCP), beyond annual tune

- ups, such as, computer controls, improved combustion air system (fans), operator t raining, or new burners are the most effective technology for controlling CO emissions (as a surrogate for POM). 2 . Existing area source boilers designed for biomass firing : Mercury

– We obtained mercury emission data from 2 biomass

fired area source boil ers as part of the information collection effort for the major source NESHAP. Thus, t he top 12% would be comprised of one boiler. The average mercury level of the top 12% is 0.36 lb /TBtu. All 3 test runs results were nondetect. The standard deviation fo r the three detection limits, when converted to lb/mmBtu using the heat input rates during each run, was 1.82E

- 09. Therefore, the resulting MACT floor mercury limit for existing biomass

- fired area source boilers would be 0.37 lb /TBtu (rounded to 0.0000004 lb/ million Btu)

. POM

– None of the states S tates for which we have an inventory have an applicable emission limit specifically for POM or CO. Actual CO emission data were available from the National Forest Service’s Fuels for Schools program for 14 wood

- fired boilers. Also, state S tate permits limiting CO emissions from biomass boilers were obtained on another 2 4 biomass

- fired area source boilers. We also obtained CO emission test data from 2659

biomass

- fired area source boilers as part of the major source ICR survey. The top 12% is made up of 8 boilers. The average CO level of the top 12% is 75.5 ppm at 3% oxygen . The SD of the top 12% boilers is 81.3 ppm
. The 99% UPL is 202 ppm at 3% oxygen, rounded up to 210 ppm

. Biomass

- fired boilers typically oper ate at around 7 % oxygen. Therefore, the MACT floor level is 170 ppm CO at 7% oxygen. In light of this analysis, we determined that, in general, the combination of a fabric filter and GCP forms the basis for the MACT floor level of control for existing ar ea source boilers in the biomass subcategory. 3. Existing area source boilers designed for oil firing : Mercury

– There are no available emission data, state
reg ulation s, or state permits regarding mercury emissions from oil

- fired area source boilers . Av ailable emission factors (EF) are generally the average of available data and would not reasonably represent the average of the top 12% best performing units. However, we have obtained mercury emission data on major source oil

- fired boilers as part of the major source rulemaking. Since major source oil

- fired boilers are similar in design and controls as compared to area source oil

- fired boilers, we are applying the ma j or source MACT limit of 8 lb /TBtu (0.000008 lb/million Btu) to existing oil

- fired area s ource boilers

.60

POM

– None of the states S tates for which we have an inventory have an applicable emission limit specifically for POM
or CO. A ctual CO emission data were available from 68 oil

- fired area source boilers responding to the Boiler MACT ICR

. State permits limiting CO emissions from oil

- fired area source boilers were obtained on 5 6 oil

- fired area source boilers. The top 12% is made up of 14 1 5 boilers. The average CO level of the top 12% is 1 ppm at 3% oxygen
. Based on the test runs from thes e 15 best performing units, the 99% UPL level is 2 ppm at 3% oxygen
. Therefore, the MACT floor level is 2 ppm CO at 3% oxygen. Because oil

- fired boilers typically operate at around 3% oxygen, additional oxygen content correction was not
necessary. In lig ht of this analysis, we determined that, in general, the combination of a fabric filter and GCP forms the basis for the MACT floor level of control for existing area source boilers in the oil subcategory. However, as 4. Work Practice Standards for Smaller Boilers
A s previously discussed, CAA s ection 112(h) (1) states that the Administrator may prescribe a work practice standard or other requirements , consistent with the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or (f), in those cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is not feasible to enforce an emission standard. CAA s ection 112(h)(2)(B) further defines the term61

“not feasible” in this context to apply mean when “the application of measurement technology to a particular class of sources is not practi cable due to technological and economic limitations.” The standard reference methods for measuring emissions of mercury, CO (as a surrogate for POM), and PM (as a surrogate for urban non

- mercury metals) are EPA Methods 29, 10, and 5

. of 40 CFR part 60 appendices A

- 8, A

- 4, and A

- 3, respectively

. These methods are reliable and relatively inexpensive. However, the methods are not applicable for sampling small diameter (less than 12 inches) stacks. For example, in these small diameter stacks, the convent ional Method 5 stack assembly blocks a significant portion of the cross

- section of the duct and causes inaccurate measurements. Many existing area source boilers have stacks with diameters less than 12 inches. The stack diameter is generally related to t he size of the boiler. Boilers that have a capacity below 10 million Btu per hour MMBtu/h generally have stacks with diameters less than 12 inches. Also, many area source boilers do not currently have sampling ports or a platform for accessing the exhaust stack which would require an expensive modification to install sampling ports and a platform.
W e conducted a cost

- to

- sales analysis to evaluate the economic impact of the testing and monitoring costs that area source boiler facilities would incur to demo nstrate compliance62
with the proposed emission limits. The annual compliance costs impose d o n each source is for the costs of a stack test for
mercury and PM emissions and a continuous emission monitor (CEM) for CO emissions. We assumed that each establis hment in each industry, commercial, or institutional sector would be associated with a single boiler. The financial impacts of potential compliance costs are assessed for representative entities in each entity sector using the ratio of compliance
costs to the average representative enti ty revenue (cost

- to

sales ratio or CSR). The results of the analysis indicate that total compliance costs exceed 3% (and can reach as high as 19%) of the average firm revenues for 79% of the facilities. This indicates that the annual costs for testing and monitoring costs a lone would have a significant adverse economic impact on these facilities. The severity of the economic impact would depend on the size of the facility. For small institutional (schools) and commercial (farms) facilities the costs would be prohibitive. This analysis is discussed in the memorandum “Cost

- to

- Sales Analysis of Testing and Monitoring Costs” located in the docket. Based on this analysis, the Administrator has determined, as allowed under pur suant to CAA section 112(h), EPA is proposing that it is not feasible to enforce emission standard s for a particular class of existing area source boilers having a63
heat input capacity o f less than 10 MM Btu / h because of the technological and economic limita tions described above . Thus, a work practice, as discussed below, is being proposed to limit the emission emission s of mercury and CO (as a surrogate for POM) for existing area source boilers having a heat input capacity of less than 10 MMBtu/h

. MMBTU/h

. W e are specifically requesting comment on whether a threshold higher than 10 MMBtu/h meets the technical and economic limitations as specified in section 112(h). For existing area source boilers, the only work practice being used that potentially controls mercury and POM emissions is a boiler tune

- up. Mercury is a fuel dependent HAP. That is, the amount of mercury emitted from the boiler depends on the amount of mercury contained in the fuel. F uel dependent HAP are typically controlled by removing them from the flue gas after combustion. The only work practice s expected to minimize mercury emissions are fuel switching to a fuel type with a lower mercury content or reducing the fuel usage . As previously discussed, we determined that fuel switching was n ot an appropriate emission reduction approach for purposes of determining the MACT floor. Fuel usage can be reduced by improving the combustion efficiency of the boiler. At best, boilers may be 85% efficient and untuned boilers may have combustion effici encies of 60% or lower. As combustion64
efficiency decreases, fuel usage increases to maintain energy output resulting in increased emissions. On the other hand, POM is formed from incomplete combustion of the fuel. The objective of good combustion i s to release all the energy in the fuel while minimizing losses from combustion imperfections and excess air. The combination of the fuel with the oxygen requires temperature (high enough to ignite the fuel constituents), mixing or turbulence (to provide intimate oxygen

fuel contact), and sufficient time (to complete the process), sometimes referred to the three Ts of combustion. Good combustion practice (GCP), in terms of boilers, could be defined as the system design and work practices expected to m inim ize organic HAP emissions.
W e have obtained information on area source boilers reported using GCP, as part of the information collection effort for the major source NESHAP. T he data that we have suggests that area source boilers typically conduct boiler t une - ups. W e also reviewed State regulations and permits applicable to area

source boilers. The work practices listed in State regulations includes tune

- ups (10 States), operator training (1 State), periodic inspections (2 States), and operation in accord ance with manufacturer specifications (1 State). Of the 44 area source boilers with a capacity of less than 10 MMBtu/h or less that responded to EPA’s information collection effort for major65
source NESHAP, 28 (or 64%) reported conducting a boiler tune

- up
program. Ultimately, we determine determine d that at least 6 percent % of the boilers in each of the subcategory subcategor ies

a re subject to an annual a tune

- up requirement. Therefore, the work practice of an annual a tune

- up doe s establish the MACT floor fo r mercury and POM emissions from existing area source boiler s with a heat input capacity of less than 10 MMBtu/h or less

. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is presented in the memorandum “MACT Floor Analysis for the Industrial, Commercia l, and Institutional Area Source Boilers” in the docket. b. Proposed B eyond

- the

- F loor Determination for M ercury and
POM
. We analyzed two beyond

- the

- floor options : fuel switching and a requirement of an energy assessment for all existing area source faci lities. Based on the analysis, EPA decided to go beyond the MACT floor f or th is proposed rule for existing area source boilers. A detailed description of the beyond

- the

- floor consideration is in the memorandum “Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emissio ns Impacts for Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Area Source Boilers” in the docket. For each subcategory, fuel switching to natural gas is a regulatory option more stringent than the MACT floor level of66
control that would reduce mercury emissions. We determined that fuel switching was not an appropriate beyond

- the

- floor option. For example, natural gas supplies are not available in some areas, and supplies to industrial customers can be limited during periods when natural gas demand exceeds supply. Additionally, the estimated emissions reductions that would be achieved if solid and liquid fuel boilers switched to natural gas were compared with the estimated cost of converting existing solid and liquid fuel boilers to fire natural gas. It was determi ned that the costs would be too high to consider it a feasible beyond

- the

- floor option. The EPA estimates the capital costs associated with fuel switching to be $258 billion dollars. The Energy Information Administration published cost data for industrial and commercial sector consumption in 2008 . According to the EIA, n atural gas costs $11.66 per million Btu while residual fuel oil and distillate fuel oil costs $12.96 and $22.66 per million Btu, respectively. Based on these fuel costs, and the relatively large number of area source boilers firing distillate fuel oil, the EPA estimates the total annualized costs of fuel switching to natural gas be a net savings of $1 billion per year. However, EPA recognizes the price volatility of fuel oil and natural ga s over time, and given the high capital costs involved to replace or retrofit boilers to fire natural gas, EPA concluded this is not a feasible alternative.67
Additional detail on the calculation procedures is provided in the memorandum “Development (2010) o f Fuel Switching Costs and Emissions Reductions for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers” in the docket. We also We considered the pollution prevention and energy conservation measure of an energy a ssessment as a beyond

- the

floor option for m ercury and POM emissions. A n energy

a ssessment provides valuable information on improving energy efficiency. An energy a ssessment , or energy a udit , is an in

depth energy study identifying all energy conservation measures appropriate for a facility given its operating parameters. An
energy a ssessment refers to a process which involves a thorough examination of potential savings from energy efficiency improvements, pollution prevention, and productivity improvement. It leads to the reduction of emissions of pollutants through process changes and other efficiency modifications. Besides reducing operating and maintenance costs, improving energy efficiency reduces negative impacts on the environment. I mprovement in energy efficiency results in decrease decre ase d fuel use which results in a corresponding decrease in emissions (both HAP and non

- HAP) from the boiler, but not necessarily all those present. The Department of Energy (DOE) has conducted energy a ssessment s at selected manufacturing facilities and re ports that facilities can reduce fuel/energy68
use by 10 to 15 percent by using best practices to increase their energy efficiency. Many best practices are considered pollution prevention (P2) because they reduce the amount of fuel combusted which results i n a corresponding reduction in emissions from the fuel combustion. The most common best practice is simply tuning the boiler to the manufacturer’s specification. If a facility elected to implement the cost

- effective energy conservation measures identifi ed in the energy

a ssessment , it would potentially result in greater mercury and
POM reduction than achieved by a boiler tune

- up alone . In addition, the cost of an energy a ssessment i s minimal , in most

cases, compared to the cost for testing and monitoring to demonstrate compliance with an emission limit. Furthermore, the costs of any energy conservation improvement will be offset by the cost savings in lower fuel costs. Therefore, we decided to go beyond the MACT floor for this proposed rule for the exis ting area source boilers. The proposed standard s for existing a rea

source facilities with a boiler that has a capacity equal to or greater than 10 MMBtu/h for mercury and POM include the requirement of a performance of an energy a ssessment to identify

ene rgy conservation measures. Since there was insufficient information to determine if requiring implement ation of cost

effective measures were economically feasible, we are seek ing69
comment on this point. In th is proposed rule, we are defining a c ost

- effec tive energy conservation measure to be any measure that has a payback (return of investment) period of 3 two years or less. This payback period was selected based on section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act which states that ther e is a presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the increased installed cost for a measure is less than three times the value of the first

- year energy savin gs resulting from the measure. A detailed description of the b eyond

- the

- floor consideration is in the memorandum “Methodology for Estimating Cost and Emissions Impacts for Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Area Source Boilers” in the docket. 2
. GACT D etermin ation for E xisting Area Source Boiler s for HAP other th an Mercury and POM As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5) , we are proposing standards representing GACT for these area source boiler s. For e xisting coal and biomass

- fired area source b oilers , t he add

- on control technolog y generally being used for removing HAP other than Mercury and POM i s multiclone s . We found that this technology is minimally effective in controlling such urban metal HAP and has no effect on urban organic HAP . Mult iclones are mechanical separators that use velocity70

differential across th e cyclone s to separate particles. A multiclone uses several smaller diameter cyclones to improve efficiency. Multiclones have a control e fficiency for PM emissions of about 75 percent. %
. Multiclones are more efficient in collecting larger particles and their collection efficiency falls off at small particle sizes. This is a disadvantage because non - mercury metallic HAP tend to be on small size particle s (i.e., fine particle enrichment). Based on emission data obtained during the major source NESHAP dev elopment, multiclones have a control efficiency for non - mercury metallic HAP of only about 10 percent. % and have no effect on reducing mercury emissions

. The cost of using multiclones (capital, testing, and monitoring) is estimated to be between $50,000 a nd $100,000 depend ing on the size of the boiler. We also considered various pollution prevention and energy conservation option s as the potential basis for GACT for the

non - mercury metallic urban metal HAP and the organic urban HAP (acetaldehyde, acrolein , dioxins, and formaldehyde)

. . The most common option s , and generally available, are simply tuning the boiler to the manufacturer’s specification. A n annual A boiler
tune

- up provides potential savings from energy efficiency improvements and pollution prev ention. Besides reducing operating and maintenance costs, improving energy efficiency reduces negative impacts on the environment. I mprovement in71
energy efficiency results in decrease decrease d fuel use which results in a corresponding decrease in emissio ns (both HAP and

non - HAP) from the boiler. A boiler tune

- up requirement wo uld potentially result in the same non - mercury metallic HAP reduction as a PM emission limit based on performance of multiclones but would also reduce emissions of organic HAP . In addition, the cost of a boiler tune

- up appears minimal compared to the cost for testing and monitoring to demonstrate compliance with an emission limit

. For existing oil

- fired area source boilers, we found no add

- on control technology being used. Therefo re, we determine d that GACT for HAP other than mercury and POM for existing area source boilers with heat input capacities of 10 MMBtu/hour or gr e ater is a management practice requiring the implementation of an annual a boiler tune

- up
program . Thus, for ex isting area source boilers , we are proposing GACT for HAP other than mercury and POM to be a management practice requiring the implementation of an annual a boiler tune

- up program. If we conclude that our obligations under section 112(c)(6) for mercury can be met without mercury emissions from biomass

fired or oil

- fired area source boilers, we believe that several requirements of this proposed rule would be generally available to the regulated community and would provide some control of72
mercury and other fu el

- bound pollutants at existing sources with larger boilers. For example, the requirements to optimize combustion, conduct an energy audit, and conduct bien n i al tune

ups would decrease emission s of mercury because less fuel would be burned. In contrast, we do not believe that fabric filters are widely used now, would be expensive to install for small businesses, and therefore would not be considered GACT. Therefore, we seek comment on whether the various measures discussed in this preamble to reduce fuel consumption in connection with POM control and control of urban metal HAP and organic urban HAP would represent GACT for mercury emitted from biomass

- fired and oil

- fired area source boilers.
E . How did EPA determine the proposed e mission standard s for new unit s ?
As discussed previously, CAA section 112(d)(5) allows EPA to establish standards or requirements for area sources based on GACT, instead of MACT. However, CAA section 112(c)(6) requires that source categories accounting f or emissions of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(c)(6) be subject to MACT regulation. Both industrial boilers and institutional/commercial boilers are on the list of CAA section 112(c)(6) source categories. Thus noted above , w e have developed the proposed standards to reflect the application of MACT for the listed 112(c)(6) pollutants (mercury and POM), and GACT for HAP other than Formatted: Tab stops: 0", Left + 0.5", Left + 1", Left + 1.5", Left + 2", Left + 2.5", Left + 3", Left + 3.5", Left + 4", Left + 4.5", Left + 5", Left + 5.5", Left73

mercury or mercury and POM which form the basis , and GACT for the listing of these two area source catego ries. arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, chromium, manganese, nickel, ethylene dioxide, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). 1
1. MACT Analysis for Mercury from Coal

- fired Boilers and PO M. The CAA specifies that MACT for new boilers shall not be less strin gent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best

- controlled similar source, as determined by the Administrator. This minimum level of stringency is the MACT floor for new units. EPA may not consider costs or other impacts in determ ining the MACT floor. However, EPA must consider cost, non

- air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements in evaluating whether it is appropriate to set a standard that is more stringent than the MACT floor (beyond

- the

- floor control s). a. MACT Floor Analysis for Mercury and POM . Similar to the MACT floor process used for existing area source boilers, t he approach used for determining the MACT floors for new units is based on estimating the emissions levels achieved by the best

cont rolled similar source , for which we have information. 1. New area source boilers designed for coal firing

. :

1 The proposed emission standards will also reduce emissions of other urban HAP, which did not form the basis of the listing. Those urban HAP include benzene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, dioxins, and formaldehyde.74

Mercury

– W e determined in the context of the major source rulemaking for boilers that fabric filters are the most effective technology employed by coal

- fired industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers for controlling mercury emissions. Five coal

- fired area source boilers have been identified as having a fabric filter and, based . B ased on available emission data, the best performing unit for mercury is a boiler equipped with a fabric filter. However, the mercury level (1 lb/TBtu) for this fabric filter equipped unit is based on a single test run which is insufficient to determine variability. Therefore, the MACT floor emission level was dete rmined by using the mercury emission result from (i.e., the unit having the reported lowest mercury level based on a three
run test . This “best performing unit” ) is an area source coal

fired boiler equipped with an electrostatic precipitator ( ESP
. )
. The b oiler had a three run test average for mercury is of 1.4 lb/TBtu with a standard deviation ( SD ) of 0. 307 to account for variability . T herefore, the resulting MACT floor mercury limit for new coal

- fired area source boilers is determined to be 3.2 lb /T Btu

. Since this calculated value is less stringent than the MACT floor for mercury at existing boilers designed for coal firing, the MACT floor for new sources was established to be equal to the floor for existing sources (0. 0000025 00000 3 lb/million Btu)

. Formatted: Font color: Auto75

POM

– For POM emissions, the only control technology identified as being used on area source boilers is monitoring and maintaining CO emission levels which is associated with minimizing emissions of organic HAP (including POM). Carbon monoxide is generally a n indicator of incomplete combustion because CO will oxidize to carbon dioxide if adequate oxygen is available. Therefore, controlling CO emissions can be a mechanism for ensuring combustion efficiency and may be viewed as a GCP. As discussed previously in this preamble, CO is considered a surrogate for organic HAP (including POM) emissions in th is proposed rule. None of the states S tates for which we have an inventory have an applicable emission limit specifically for POM or CO. However, one state S tate (New Jersey) does have standards for CO, but for boilers the size of coal

- fired area source boilers , it is actually a work practice standard for CO (i.e., tune

- up). For small (less than 50 MM Btu MMBtu /h) boilers, the N ew J ersey’s requirement is to maintain and operate the source in accordance with manufacturers ’ specifications. Considering available state S tate permit data and emission test data for coal

- fired area source boilers the best controlled similar source is a coal

- fired area source boiler having an average three run CO test emission level of 216 ppm at 3% oxygen. The calculated 99% UPL, to account for variability , is76
640 ppm at 3% oxygen. Since this calculated value is less stringent than the MACT floor for CO at existing boilers designed for coal firing, the MACT floor for new sources was established to be equal to the floor for existing sources ( 310 3 0 0 ppm at 7% oxygen)
. 2
. New area source boilers designed for biomass firing : Mercury

– W e determined in the context of the major source rulemaking f or boilers that fabric filters are the most effective technology employed by biomass

- fired boilers for controlling mercury emissions. However, t here is no test information on wood

- fired boilers equipped with fabric filters in which to determine control ef ficiency. The average mercury level of th e “best controlled” unit for which we have emission data is 0.36 lb /TBtu. All 3 test runs results were nondetect. The standard deviation for the three detection limits, when converted to lb/mmBtu using the heat i nput rates during each run, was 1.82E

- 09. Therefore, the resulting MACT floor mercury limit for existing biomass

- fired area source boilers would be 0.36 lb /TBtu (0.0000004 lb/million Btu)
. POM

– None of the states S tates for which we have an inventory hav e an applicable emission limit specifically f or POM or CO. Actual CO emission data were available from the Fuels for Schools program for 14 wood biomass

- fired boilers and from 2977

biomass

- fired area source boilers as part of the major source ICR survey . Al so, state S tate permits limiting CO emissions from biomass boilers were obtained on another 27 biomass

- fired area source boilers. Therefore, the MACT floor for POM achieved by the best controlled similar source is based on actual CO emission data. The ave rage 3

- run test CO level of the best controlled similar source is 38.6 ppm at 3 percent % oxygen . The SD for the
test runs is 14 ppm . Therefore, the 99% UPL is 120 ppm at 3% oxygen, rounded up to the nearest 10 ppm. Thus, the proposed MACT floor level is 100 ppm CO at 7% oxygen. 3. Existing area source boilers designed for oil firing : Mercury

– There are no available emission data, state
reg ulation s, or state permits regarding mercury emissions from oil

- fired area source boilers . Available emission fac tors (EF) are generally the average of available data and would not reasonably represent the best performing unit. However, we have obtained mercury emission data on major source oil

- fired boilers as part of the major source rulemaking. Since major sourc e oil

fired boilers are similar in design and controls as compared to area source oil

- fired boilers, we are applying the ma j or source MACT limit for new oil

- fired boilers of 0.3 lb /TBtu (0.0000003 lb/ million Btu) to new oil

- fired New area source boilers

. designed for oil firing :78

POM

– None of the states S tates for which we have an inventory have an applicable emission limit specifically for POM
or CO. A ctual CO emission data were available on 66 oil

- fired area source boilers . State permits limiting CO em issions from oil

- fired area source boilers were obtained on 46 oil

- fired area source boilers. Therefore, the proposed MACT floor for POM achieved by the best controlled similar source would be based on the boilers reporting the lowest CO emission level

. The three top performing CO tests from boilers designed to burn liquid did not have three test runs. Therefore, the CO emission level of the fourth best controlled performing similar

source is 0. 7 6 ppm at 3 percent oxygen
. The SD of the test runs is 0.04 ppm. Therefore, the 99% UPL and the proposed MACT floor level is 1 ppm CO at 3% oxygen , rounded up to the nearest whole
ppm . A detailed description of the MACT floor determination is in the memorandum, “MACT Floor Analysis for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Area Source Boilers” in the docket. 4. Appropriateness of Work Practice Standards for New Area
Source:
A s previously discussed, CAA section 112(h) states that the Administrator may prescribe a work practice standard or other requirements , consistent with the provisions of CAA sections79
112(d) or (f), in those cases where, in the judgment of the Administr ator, it is not feasible to enforce an emission standard due to technical and economic limitations. As was the case for existing small are a source boilers, total compliance costs would likely exceed 3% of the average firm revenues for some new facilities. This indicates that the annual costs for testing and monitoring costs alone may have a significant adverse economic impact on some new fa cilities. As discussed previously, t he standard reference methods for measuring emissions of mercury, CO (as a surrogate for POM), and PM (as a surrogate for urban non

- mercury metals) are EPA Methods 29, 10, and 5 and are not applicable for sampling small diameter stacks. We solicit comment on whether it would be technically infeasible to design sampling ports adequate for the test methods in boilers that are below a certain size. Based on this analysis and the reason discussed below, the Administr ator has determined we are not to propose proposing a work practice , as allowed under CAA section 112(h ), instead of an emission standard ) for new area source boilers. New facilities, as opposed to existing facilities, have the added flexibility of includin g compliance costs into their design and planning. This would include the design and cost to provide a performance testing facility that has sampling ports adequate for the test methods and constructing the exhaust stack such80

that HAP emission rates can b e accurately determined. In addition , a new facility has the option of fuel selection in minimizing their compliance costs. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is presented in the memorandum “MACT Floor Analysis for the Industrial, Co mmercial, and Institutional Area Source Boilers” in the docket. b. Beyond

- the

- floor Analysis for Mercury and POM for New Area Source Boilers

. The MACT floor level of control for new units is based on the emission control that is achieved in practice by th e best controlled similar source within each of the subcategories. No technologies or other HAP emission reduction approaches were identified that would achieve mercury
or POM reduction greater than the new source floors for each of the subcategories. Th erefore , we decided to not go beyond the MACT floor level of control for mercury and POM emissions for new area source boilers in th is proposed rule. A detailed description of the beyond

- the

- floor consideration is in the memorandum “Methodology for Estima ting Cost and Emissions Impacts for Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Area Source Boilers” in the docket. 2. GACT Determination for N ew Area Source Boiler s The control technolog ies currently us ed by facilities in the source categories that reduce no n - mercury metallic HAP and81

PM are fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators ( ESP ).
. W e determined that th ese control s are generally available and cost effective for new area source boilers

. N ew area source boilers with heat input capacity of 10 mill ion Btu/hr MM Btu/h or greater are subject to the NSPS for boilers (either subpart Db or Dc of 40 CFR part 60) which regulate emissions of PM and require performance testing. Furthermore, new coal and biomass

area source boilers will likely require a PM con trol device to comply with the proposed mercury MACT standard. The emissions database contain s PM test data for 82 area

source boilers obtained from the ICR survey conducted for major

sources . All of the boilers were greater than 1 0 million Btu per hour i n size. In order to develop PM (as a surrogate for

non - mercury metallic HAP) emission l imit s for th e three subcategor ies , we compared the PM limits in NSPS subpart Dc with the obtained PM emission data . We considered this to be an appropriate methodology because many new a rea source boiler s will be subject to NSPS subpart Dc

. Consequently, we determined that the PM limits in the NSPS could be used to establish the PM
GACT emission limit for area source boilers

. The proposed G ACT PM emission level s level based on NSPS subpart Dc for new area source boilers is 0.0 3 lb/million Btu

. Of the 82 area source boilers for which we have PM emission data , 11 had reported PM emission levels below 0.03 lb/million82

Btu. For the organic urban HAP (acetaldehyde, acrolein , dioxins, and formaldehyde), the most effective control technology identified is minimizing CO emissions and we determined that this control is generally available and cost effective for new area source boilers. This determination is based on the fact th ere is no additional costs associated with proposing a CO emission limit (as a surrogate for the urban organic HAP) as GACT because it is the same as the MACT standard being proposed for these subcategories for POM

. F . How did we select the compliance req uirements ? We are proposing testing, monitoring, notification, and recordkeeping requirements that are adequate to assure continuous compliance with the requirement of the rule. Those requirements are described in detail in sections I V .F to I V .H. We sel ected these requirements based upon our determination of the information necessary to ensure that the emission standards , work practices , and work management practices are being followed and that emission control devices and equipment are maintained and ope rated properly. The proposed requirements ensure compliance with th is proposed rule without prop o sing a significant additional burden for facilities that must implement them.
W e are propos ing that compliance with the PM and mercury83

emission limits be dem onstrated by an initial performance test. To ensure continuous compliance with the proposed PM and mercury emission limits, th is proposed rule would require continuous parameter monitoring of control devices and recordkeeping. Additionally, th is proposed rule requires annual performance
tests to ensure , on an ongoing basis , that the air pollution control device is operating properly and its performance has not deteriorated. If initial compliance with the mercury emission limit is demonstrated by a fuel a nalysis performance test , th is proposed rule requires fuel analyses monthly , with compliance determined based on an annual average

. We evaluated the cost of applying PM CEMS to area source boilers. For PM CEM monitoring, capital costs were estimated to b e $88,000 per unit and annualized costs were estimated to be $33,000 per unit. The estimated national annual cost would be $4.5 billion. We determined the costs would make them an unreasonable monitoring option. We reviewed the cost information for CO C EMS provided by commenters on the NESHAP for major source boilers to make the determination on whether to require CO CEM S or conducting annual CO testing to demonstrate continuous compliance with the CO emission limit. In evaluating the available cost inf ormation, we determine d that requiring CO CEMS for u nits with heat input capacities greater or equal to 100 MMBtu/hr is reasonable. Th is84
proposed rule requires units with heat input capacities less than 100 MMBtu/hr to conduct initial and annual performan ce (stack) tests.
G. Alternative MACT Standards for Consideration How did we decide to exempt these area source categories from title V permit requirements ? Our analysis of the inventory for mercury under CAA section 112(c)(6) has led us to believe that we do not need to regulate biomass

- fired and oil

- fired boilers under MACT in order to meet our statutory obligations under this provision. We solicit comment on whether we should require the MACT

- based emission limits on mercury emissions from larger boil ers in this category if we conclude that such controls are unnecessary to meet our obligations under section 112(c)(6). We also solicit comment on MACT

- based requirements for mercury emitted from biomass

- fired and oil

- fired area source boilers in the even t comment and further analysis of the inventory demonstrates such regulation is necessary to fulfill the 90 % requirement under CAA section 112(c)(6) or is otherwise appropriate. We present what would be MACT below.
1 . Existing area source boilers designe d for biomass firing : Mercury

– We obtained mercury emission data from two biomass

- fired area source boilers as part of the information collection effort for the major source NESHAP. Thus, t he top Formatted: Font color: Auto85
12% would be comprised of one boiler. The average mercury level of the top 12% is 0.36 lb /TBtu. All 3 test runs results were nondetect. The standard deviation for the three detection limits, when converted to lb/mmBtu using the heat input rates during each run, was 1.82E

- 09. Therefore, the resulting MACT floor mercury limit for existing biomass

- fired area source boilers would be 0.37 lb /TBtu (rounded to 0.0000004 lb/MMBtu)

. 2 . Existing area source boilers designed for oil firing : Mercury

– There are no available emission data, S tate
reg ulation s, or S tate perm its regarding mercury emissions from oil

- fired area source boilers . Available emission factors are generally the average of available data and would not reasonably represent the average of the top 12% best performing units. However, we have obtained merc ury emission data on major source oil

- fired boilers as part of the major source rulemaking. Since major source oil

- fired boilers are similar in design and controls as compared to area source oil

- fired boilers, we are applying the ma j or source MACT limit o f 4 lb /TBtu (0.000004 lb/MMBtu) to existing oil

- fired area source boilers

. 3. New area source boilers designed for biomass firing : Mercury

– W e determined in the context of the major source rulemaking for boilers that fabric filters are the most effecti ve technology employed by biomass

- fired boilers for controlling mercury emissions. However, t here is no test86

information on biomass

- fired boilers equipped with fabric filters in which to determine control efficiency. The average mercury level of th e “be st controlled” unit for which we have emission data is 0.36 lb /TBtu. All 3 test runs results were nondetect. The standard deviation for the three detection limits, when converted to lb/MMBtu using the heat input rates during each run, was 1.82E

- 09. There fore, the resulting MACT floor mercury limit for existing biomass

- fired area source boilers would be 0.36 lb /TBtu (0.0000004 lb/MMBtu)

. 4
. New area source boilers designed for oil firing : Mercury

– There are no available emission data, S tate
reg ulation s, or S tate permits regarding mercury emissions from oil

- fired area source boilers . Available emission factors are generally the average of available data and would not reasonably represent the best performing unit. However, we have obtained
mercury emissi on data on major source oil

- fired boilers as part of the major source rulemaking. Since major source oil

- fired boilers are similar in design and controls as compared to area source oil

- fired boilers, we are applying the ma j or source MACT limit for new oil

- fired boilers of 0.3 lb /TBtu (0.0000003 lb/MMBtu) to new oil

- fired area source boilers

. H . How did we decide to exempt these area source categories from title V permit requirements ? For the reasons described below, we are proposing to exempt87

from titl e V permitting requirements for affected sources in the industrial boiler and the institutional/commercial boiler area source categories that are not certain synthetic area sources. We estimate that at least 48 synthetic area sources reduced their HAP emi ssions to below the major source thresholds by installing air pollution control devices. We are not proposing that to exempt from title V those synthetic area sources that have reduced their HAP emissions to below the major source thresholds by installing air pollution control devices obtain title V permitting requirements.

. CAA s ection 502(a) provides that the Administrator may exempt an area source categor y (in whole or in part) from title V if the Administrator determine s that compliance with title V

r equirements is “ impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome ” on an area source categor y . See CAA section 502(a ).
In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the
term “ unnecessarily burdensome ” in CAA section 502 and developed

a four

- factor balancing test for determining whether title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category, such that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, December 19, 2005 (Exemption Rule). The four factors that E PA identified in the Exemption Rule for determining whether title V is “ unnecessarily
B urdensome b urdensome ” on a particular area source category88

include : ( 1) w hether title V would result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, that are proposed for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V permitting would impose significant burdens on the area source category and whether the burdens would be aggravated by any difficult y the sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 FR 75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area source category would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 75325); and (4) whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title V permits (70 FR 75326). In discussin g these factors in the Exemption Rule, we further explained that we considered on “ a case - by

- case basis the extent to which one or more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for a given source category, and then we assessed whether considered to gether those factors demonstrated that compliance with title V requirements would be

‘ unnecessarily burdensome’ on the category, consistent with section 502(a) of the Act. ” See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in the Exemption Rule, we explained that not all of the fo ur factors89
must weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to determine that title V is unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category. Instead, the factors are to be considered in combination, and EPA determines whether the factors, taken togeth er, support an exemption from title V for a particular source category. In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome on an area source category, we considered, consistent

w ith the guidance provided by the legislative history of CAA section 502(a), whether exempting the area source categor y would adversely affect public health, welfare , or the environment. See 70 FR 15254

– 15255, March 25, 2005. As explained below, we
propos e that title V permitting is unreasonably unnecessarily burdensome for a majority of the area source categories sources at issue in this proposed rule. We have also determined that the proposed exemptions from title V would not adversely affect public healt h, welfare , and the environment. Our rationale for th is decision follows here. In considering the exemption from title V requirements for sources in the categories affected by this proposed rule, we first compared the title V monitoring, recordkeeping, an d reporting requirements (factor one) to the requirements in the proposed NESHAP for the boiler area source categories. This90
proposed rule requires facilities to comply with either emission limits using add

- on controls or process changes or implementation of certain work or management practices. This proposed rule would require direct monitoring of emissions or control device parameters, both continuous and periodic, recordkeeping that also may serve as monitoring, and deviation and other semi

- annual repo rting to assure compliance with th is
NESHAP
. The monitoring component of the first factor favors title V exemption . For the work and management practices, this proposed standard provides monitoring in the form of recordkeeping that would assure compliance with the requirements of this proposed rule. M onitoring by means other than recordkeeping for the work and management practices is not practical or appropriate. Records are required to ensure that the work and management practices are followed. T h is pr oposed rule requires continuous parameter monitoring, with periodic recording of the parameter for the required control device, to assure compliance

. The records are required to be maintained in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review , and that they are kept for at least five years, the first two of which must be onsite. As part of the first factor, in addition to monitoring, we have considered the extent to which title V could potentially enhance compliance for area sources covered by this proposed91
rule through r ecordkeeping or reporting requirements. We have considered the various title V recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including requirements for a 6

- month monitoring report, deviation reports, and an annual certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. For any boiler area source, this proposed NESHAP require s

an Initial Notification and a Notification of Compliance Status. Th is proposed rule also require s f acilities to certify compliance with the emission limits, work practices, a nd management practices. In addition, facilities must maintain records showing compliance through the required parameter monitoring and deviation requirements. The information required in the deviation reports is similar to the information that must be p rovided in the deviation reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3). We acknowledge that title V might impose require additional compliance requirements on these categories, but we have determined that the monitoring, recordkeeping and r eporting requirements of th e proposed NESHAP are sufficient to assure compliance with the provisions of th e NESHAP , and

. Given the nature of the operations at most area sources and the types of requirements in this rule, title V would n ot significantly imp rove those compliance requirements. For the second factor, we determine whether title V92
permitting would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the categor ies and whether that burden would be aggravated by
any difficulty the source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency. Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA estimated that the average cost of obtaining and complying with a title V permit was $ 65 , 7 00 per source for a 5

- year permit period, including fees. See Information Collection Request for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, January 200 7 , EPA ICR Number 1587.0 7
. EPA does not have specific estimates for the burdens and costs o f permitting industrial, commercial, and institutional boiler area
sources; however, there are certain activities associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities are mandatory and impose burdens on the any facility subject to title V. They inc lude reading and understanding permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining and understanding permit application forms; answering follow

- up questions from permitting authorities after the application is submitted; reviewing and understanding the perm it; collecting records; preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6

- month or more frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation reports, as defined by the State, which may include a combination of written, verbal, and other communication s methods; collecting information,93
preparing, and submitting the annual compliance certification; preparing applications for permit revisions every 5 years; and,

as needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit revisions. In addition, although not required by the permit rules, many sources obtain the contractual services of consultants to help them understand and meet the permitting program’s requirements. The ICR for part 70 provides additional information on the overall burdens and costs, as well as the relative burdens of each activity described here

. Also, for a more comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 sources (hence, burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6, and 70.7. In assessing the second fac tor for facilities affected by this proposal , we found that most of the facilities that would be affected by th is proposed rule are small entities. These small sources lack the technical resources that would be needed to comply with permitting requirement s and the financial

resources that would be needed to hire the necessary staff or outside consultants. As discussed above , title V permitting would impose significant costs on these area sources, and, accordingly, we conclude that title V is a significant burden for the sources in these categories

. that we propose to exempt

. Furthermore, given the number of sources estimated 91,300 area

source facilitie s (including schools, hospitals, and churches)94
in the categories , it would likely be difficult for them t o obtain sufficient assistance from the permitting authority. Thus, we conclude that factor two supports title V exemption for the sources in these categories that we propose to exempt

. The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is w hether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources. We explained above under the second factor that the costs of compliance with ti tle V would impose a significant burden on
many of the approximately 137,000 facilities a ffected by th is proposed rule. W e also concluded in considering the first factor that , while title V might impose additional requirements, the monitoring, recordkeepi ng and reporting requirements in th is proposed NESHAP assure compliance with the emission standards , work practices, and management practices imposed in the NESHAP. In addition, below in our consideration of the fourth factor, we find that there are adequ ate implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs, both economic and non

- economic, of compliance with title V are high, and the potential for gains in compliance is low, title V permitting is not justified for these source categories. the sources we propose to exempt. Accordingly, the third factor supports title V exemptions for these area source95
categories , except as discussed below

. The fourth factor we considered in determining if title V is unn ecessarily burdensome is whether there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the NESHAP without relying on title V permits. EPA has implemented regulations that provide States the opportunity to take delegation of area source NESHAP, and we believe that State delegated programs are sufficient to assure compliance with this NESHAP. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart E (States must have adequate programs to enforce the CAA section 112 regulations and prov ide assurances that they will enforce the NESHP before EPA will delegate the program). We also note that EPA retains authority to enforce this NESHAP anytime under CAA section s 112 , 113, and 114. Also, States and EPA often conduct voluntary compliance ass istance, outreach, and education programs (compliance assistance programs), which are not required by statute. We determined that these additional programs will supplement and enhance the success of compliance with these proposed standards. We believe th at the statutory requirements for implementation and enforcement of this NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA and the additional assistance programs described above together are sufficient to assure compliance with these proposed standards without relyin g on title V permitting.96
In light of all the information presented here, we believe that there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the proposed standards without relying on title V permitting f or the sources we are proposing to exempt

. Balancing the four factors for these area source categories strongly supports the proposed finding that title V is unnecessarily burdensome

. for the sources we propose to exempt

. While title V might add additiona l compliance requirements if imposed, we believe that there would not be significant improvements to the compliance requirements in th is proposed rule because the proposed rule requirements are specifically designed to assure compliance with the emission s tandards imposed on these the area source categories. source s we propose to exempt . We further maintain that the economic and non

- economic costs of compliance with title V would impose a significant burden on the sources

. we propose to exempt . We determine d that the high relative costs would not be justified given that there is likely to be little or no potential gain in compliance if title V were required. And, finally, there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in place to assure complian ce with the se proposed standards

. Thus, we propose that title V permitting is “ unnecessarily burdensome ” for the se area

source categories , except as discussed below

.97
In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V requirements is “ unnecessarily burdensome ” , EPA also considered, consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of
CAA section 502(a), whether exempting the se area source categories from title V requirements would adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment

. Exemption of the se

area source categories from title V requirements would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the level of control would remain the same if a permit were required. The title V permit program does not impose new substantive air quality control requirements on sources, but instead requires that certain procedural measures be followed, particularly with respect to determining compliance with applicable requirements. As stated in our consideration of the factor one for this category, title V would not lead to significant improvements in the compliance requirements applicable to existing or new area sources that we propose to exempt . Furthermore, we explained in the Exemption Rule that requiring permits fo r the large number of area sources could, at least in the first few years of implementation, potentially adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment by shifting State agencies resources away from assuring compliance for major sources with e xisting permits to issuing new permits98
for these area sources, potentially reducing overall air program effectiveness. Based on the above analysis, we conclude that title V exemptions for these area sources would not adversely affect public health, welfar e, or the environment for all of the reasons explained above. For the reasons stated here , we are proposing to exempt these area source categories , except for certain synthetic area

sources, as explained below, from title V permitting requirements.
O ur determination We have determined that exemption it is not appropriate to exempt from Title V requirements for the th ose synthetic area sources that installed air pollution controls is
not appropriate i s based on the facts set forth below . We do not believe t itle V is unnecessarily burdensome on these area

sources. . Unlike many other area source categories that we have exempted from title V while implementing the requirements of CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 112(k)(3)(B), the boiler area source categories includ e a number of synthetic area sources that installed air pollution controls to become area sources. Synthetic area sources that installed controls represent less than one percent of the total number of sources that will be subject to the final rule. In fa ct, these sources are much more like the major sources of HAP that will be subject to the Boiler
MACT
. In addition, many of these sources are located in cities,99
and often in close proximity to residential and commercial centers where large numbers of peop le live and work. The record also indicates that many of these synthetic area sources have significantly higher emissions potential when uncontrolled than the other sources in the boiler area source categories

. , even those that are synthetic minor sources that took operational limits to attain area source status

. For these reasons, we believe that the additional public participation and compliance benefits of additional informational, monitoring, reporting, certification, and enforcement requirements tha t exist in title V should be the same for a major source that installed a control device after 1990 to become an area source as for a source that is major and installed a control device to comply with an applicable major source NESHAP, and thereby reduced emissions below major source levels (10 tpy of a single HAP or 25 tpy of total HAP). Many of the synthetic area sources that became area sources by virtue of installing add

- on controls are large facilities with comprehensive compliance programs in place b ecause their uncontrolled emissions would far exceed the major source threshold. We maintain that requiring additional public involvement and compliance assurance requirements through title V is important to ensure that these sources are maintaining their emissions at the area source level and, while there is100
some burden on the affected facilities, we think that the burden is not significant because these facilities are generally larger and more sophisticated than the natural area sources and sources that took operational li mits to become area sources

. For these reasons above, th is proposed rule requires title V permits for major sources of HAP emissions that installed controls after 1990 to become area sources of HAP emissions. We estimate that approxima tely 1 7 0 sources that will be subject to this rule are either required to have title V permits because of criteria pollutants or the proposed rule will require the affected area sources to obtain title V permits. We are not requiring title V permits for s ources that reduced their emissions to area source levels by taking operational restrictions, such as restricting hours of operation or production, or for natural area sources

. We conclude that our analysis that title V is unnecessarily burdensome for

sou rces in the boiler area source categories i s accurate for the sources we are exempting , for the reasons set forth above

. **V I**  **. Summary of the I**  **mpacts of th is**  **Proposed Rule**
A. What are the air impacts ? Table 2 of this preamble illustrates, for each subcateg ory, the estimated emissions reductions achieved by th is proposed rule (i.e., the difference in emissions between an area source boiler controlled to the MACT/GACT level of control and boilers101
at the current baseline) for new and existing sources. Nationw ide emissions of total HAP (hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, non

- mercury metals, mercury, and VOC (for organic HAP) will be reduced by about 11,000 1, 2 00 tpy for existing units and 20 00 34 0 tpy for new units. Emissions of mercury will be reduced by abo ut 2 0.7 tpy per year for existing units and by 0. 1 tpy for new units. Emissions of filterable PM will be red uced by about 60, 200 6, 3 00 tpy for existing units and 5 , 0 00 1 , 3 00 tpy for new units. Emissions of non

- mercury metals (i.e., antimony, arsenic, beryl lium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium) will be reduced by about 10,500 2 1 0 tpy for existing units and will be reduced by 1,960 4 0 tpy for new units

. Additionally, EPA has estimated that conducting an annual tune

up could pot entially reduce emissions of organic HAP as a result of improved combustion and reduced fuel use. POM reductions are represented by 7

- PAH, a group of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. EPA estimates that the energy efficient work and management practices may reduce emissions of 7

- PAH by 8 tpy for existing units and that the CO emission limit may reduce emissions of 7

- PAH by 1 tpy for new units

. A discussion of the methodology used to estimate baseline emissions and emissions reductions is presented in “Es timation of Impacts for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers Area Source NESHAP” in the docket.102

**Table 2**  **. Summary of HAP Emissions Reductions for Existing and New Sources (tpy)** 

**Source Subcategory**  **PM Non**  **Mercury Metals**  **a Mercury**  **b**

**POM C**  **PO M**  **b Existing**  **Units** Coal 7,16 0 5 , 3 5 0 35 24 1,750 0.6 0.2

Biomass 41,110 76 0 520 1 0 280 0.003 5

Oil 11,920 23 0 9,930 175 1,430 0.0 3 3

**New Units**  Coal 546 5 1 0 3 134 0.09 0.02 Biomass 1,900 690 13 8 27 0.0003 0.5 Oil 2,550 100 194 6 28 1,960 0.0 05 0.5

a Includes antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium

. b Emission reductions for mercury are presented in units of pounds per year. c b POM is represented by total emissi ons of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (7

- PAH). It is assumed that compliance with work practice standard and management practice will reduce fuel usage by 1 percent, which may reduce emissions of 7

- PAH by an equivalent amount.
B. What are the cost imp acts ? To estimate the national cost impacts of th is proposed rule for existing sources, EPA developed several model boilers and determined the cost of control for these model boilers. The EPA assigned a model boiler to each existing unit based on the fue l, size, and current controls. The analysis considered all air pollution control equipment currently in operation at existing103
boilers. Model costs were then assigned to all existing units that could not otherwise meet the proposed standards. The resulti ng total national cost impact of th is proposed rule for existing units is $ 4.8 billion 69 6 m illion dollars in total annualized costs after considering fuel savings from efficiency improvements.

. The total annualized costs (new and existing) for installing controls, conducting an annual bie nn i al tune

- up up s and an energy assessment, and implementing testing and monitoring requirements, is $ 5.5 1. 0 b illion. Table 3 of this preamble shows the total annualized cost impacts for each subcategory. **Table 3**  **. Summary of Annual Costs for New and**  **Existing Sources**

**Source Subcategory**  **Estimated/ Projected No. of** 

**Affected Units Total**  **Annualized Cost (10**  **6 $/yr)**  **a Existing**  **Units** Coal 3,710 107 1 60 Biomass 10,958 2,399 48 Oil 168,003 2,818 436
Facil ity Energy Audit All 145 52

**New Units**  **b** Coal 155 105 54 Biomass 200 53 13 Oil 6,424 1,988 244

a TAC does not include fuel savings from improving combustion efficiency. b Impacts for n ew units assume the number of units online in the first 3 years of th is rule (2010 to 2013). Using DOE projections on fuel expenditures, as well as the104
history of installation dates of area source boilers in the dataset, the number of additional boilers that could be potentially constructed was estimated. The resulting t otal national cost impact of th is proposed rule on new sources by the 3rd year, 2013, is $ 2 .2 b illion 311 m illion dollars in total annualized costs. When accounting for a 1 percent fuel savings resulting from improvements to combustion efficiency, the tota l national cost impact on new sources is $ 2. 1 b illion 2 60 m illion

. A discussion of the methodology used to estimate cost impacts is presented in the memorandum “Estimation of Impacts for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers Area
Source NESHAP” in the Docket.
C. What are the economic impacts ? The economic impact analysis (EIA) that is included in the RIA shows that the expected prices for industrial sectors could be 0.01% higher and domestic production may fall by less than 0.01%. Because of higher domestic prices imports may rise by less than 0.01%. Energy prices will not be affected. Social costs are estimated to also be $ 6.9 0.5 billion in 2008 dollars. This is estimated to made up of a $ 2 0 .3 billion loss in domestic consumer surplus , a $ 3 0 .3 billion loss in domestic producer surplus, a $0. 2 1 billion increase in rest of the world surplus, and a $ 0
. 1 .5 billion net loss associated with new source costs and fuel savings not modeled in a way that can105

be used to attribute it to consumers a nd producers. EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on small entities by comparing compliance costs to sales/revenues (e.g., sales and revenue tests). EPA’s analysis found the tests were typically higher than 3% for small entities included in the screening analysis. EPA has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) that discusses alternative regulatory or policy options that minimize the rule’s small entity impacts. It includes key information about key results from the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel. Estimates of Precise job changes were developed in two different ways. The first is based on assuming job changes proportional to output changes. This approach provides a point estimate of 12,000 less jobs; data i s not available to estimate uncertainty ranges. This does not include job increases associated with pollutant effect estimates cannot be estimated with certainty. Morgenstern et al. (2002) identify three economic mechanisms by which pollution abatement

act ivities that can indirectly influence jobs:

 higher production costs raise market prices, higher prices reduce consumption, and employment within an industry falls (“demand effect”);

 pollution abatement activities require additional labor services to produ ce the same level of output or changes related

to (“cost effect”); and Formatted: Font: Courier New, Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font: Courier New, Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font: Courier New, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: Courier New, Font color: Auto106

 post regulation production technologies . The second approach is more comprehensive and looks may be more or less labor intensive (i.e., more directly at all three components but is ba sed on a limited set of industrial data. This second method showed a point estimate of a /less labor is required per dollar of output) (“factor

- shift effect”). Several empirical studies, including Morgenstern et al. (2002), suggest the net increase of ab out 8,000 in jobs. employment decline is zero or economically small (e.g., Cole and Elliot, 2007; Berman and Bui, 2001). However, statistical others show the question has not been resolved in the literature (Henderson, 1996; Greenstone, 2002). Morgenstern’ s paper uses a six

- year panel (U.S. Census data for plant

- level prices, inputs (including labor), outputs, and environmental expenditures) to econometrically estimate the production technologies and industry

- level demand elasticities. Their identification strategy leverages repeat plant

- level observations over time and uses plant

- level and year fixed effects (e.g., plant and time dummy variables). After estimating their model, Morgenstern show and compute the change in employment associated with an additio nal $1 million ($1987) in environmental spending. Their estimates covers four manufacturing industries (pulp and paper, plastics, petroleum, and steel) and Morgenstern, et al. present results separately for the cost, factor shift, and demand Formatted: Font: Courier New, Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font: Courier New, Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font: Courier New, Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font: Courier New, Font color: Auto107
effects, as w ell as the net effect. They also estimate and report an industry

- wide average parameter that combines the four industry

- wide estimates and weighting them by each industry’s share of environmental expenditures. EPA has most often estimated employment chan ges associated with plant closures due to environmental regulation or changes in output for the regulated industry (EPA, 1999a; EPA, 2000). This analysis of the data indicates goes beyond what EPA has typically done in two ways. First, because the multima rket model provides estimates for changes in output for sectors not directly regulated, we were able to estimate a more comprehensive “demand effect.” Secondly, parameters estimated in the Morgenstern paper were used to estimate all three effects (“demand, ” “cost,” and “factor shift”). This transfer of results from the Morgenstern study is uncertain but avoids ignoring the “cost effect” and the “factor

- shift effect.” We calculated “demand effect” employment changes by assuming that we can not state whet her the net change will be an increase or a decrease the number of jobs changes proportionally with multi

- market model’s simulated output changes. These results were calculated for all sectors in the EPA model that show a change in output. The total job losses are estimated to be approximately 1,000. We also calculated a similar “demand effect” estimate that used the Morgenstern paper. To do thi s, we multiplied the point Formatted: Font: Courier New, Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font: Courier New, Font color: Auto108
estimate for the total demand effect ( −3.56 jobs per million ($1987) of environmental compliance expenditure) by the total environmental compliance expenditures used in the partial equilibrium model. For example, the job loss es timate is approximately 1,000 jobs ( −3.56× $0.5 billion × 0.60) 1 We also present the results of using the second method. Morgenstern paper to estimate employment “cost” and “factor

- shift” effects (Table 1). Although using the Morgenstern parameters to es timate these “cost” and “factor

shift” employment changes is uncertain, it is helpful to compare the potential job gains from these effects to the job losses associated with the “demand” effect. Table 1 shows that using the Morgenstern point estimates of parameters to estimate the “cost” and “factor shift” employment gains may be greater than the employment losses using either of the two ways of estimating “demand” employment losses. The 95% confidence intervals are shown for all of the estimates based on the Morgenstern parameters. As shown, at the 95% confidence level, we cannot be certain if net employment changes are positive or negative. .

Although the Morgenstern paper provides additional information about the potential job effects of environmental

p rotection programs, there are several qualifications EPA

1 Since Morgenstern’s analysis reports enviro nmental expenditures in $1987, we make an inflation adjustment the engineering cost analysis using GDP implicit price deflator (64.76/108.48) = 0.60) Formatted: body text,bt,body tx,indent,flush,memo body text,body 4h,body 4equationh Formatted: Font: Courier New, Font color: Auto

Formatted: Font: Courier New109
considered as part of the analysis. First, EPA has used the weighted average parameter estimates for a narrow set of manufacturing industries (pulp and paper, plastics, petroleum, and steel). Absen t other data and estimates, this approach seems reasonable and the estimates come from a respected peer

reviewed source. However, EPA acknowledges the proposed rule covers a broader set of industries not considered in original empirical study. By transfe rring the estimates to other industrial sectors, we make the assumption that estimates are similar in size. In addition, EPA assumes also that Morgenstern et al.’s estimates derived from the 1979

- 1991 still applicable for policy taking place in 2013, almo st 20 years later. Second, the multi

- market model only considers near term employment effects in a U.S. economy where production technologies are fixed. As a result, the modeling system places more emphasis on the short term “demand effect” whereas the M orgenstern paper emphasizes other important long term responses. For example, positive job gains associated with “factor shift effects” are more plausible when production choices become more flexible over time and industries can substitute labor for other production inputs. Third, the Morgenstern paper estimates rely on sector demand elasticities that are different from the demand elasticity parameters used in the multi

- market model. As a result, the demand effects are not directly comparable with the110

de mand effects estimated by the multi

- market model. Fourth, Morgenstern identifies the industry average as economically and statistically insignificant effect (i.e., the point estimates are small, measured imprecisely, and not distinguishable from zero)
. E PA acknowledges this fact and has reported the 95 percent confidence intervals in Table 1. Fifth, Morgenstern’s methodology assumes large plants bear most of the regulatory costs. By transferring the estimates, EPA assumes a similar distribution of regul atory costs by plant size and that the regulatory burden does not disproportionately fall on smaller plants. Table 4. Employment Changes: 2013 Estimation Method **1,000 Jobs** Partial equilibrium model (multiple markets) (demand effect only) **−1** Literature

- based estimate (net effect [A + B +C below]) **+1 (**  **−1 to +2)** A. Literature

- based estimate: Demand effect −1 ( −3 to 0)
B. Literature

- based estimate: Cost effect +1 (0 to +2) C. Literature

- based estimate: Factor shift effect +1 (0 to +2) No te: Totals may not add due to independent rounding. 95 percent confidence intervals for literature

- based estimates are shown in parenthesis.

D. We estimated the monetized benefits of this pr oposed regulatory action to be $ 4.2 1.0 billion to $ 10 2.4 billion (2008$, 3 percent discount rate) in the implementation year What are the social costs and benefits of this proposed rule?111
(2013). The monetized benefits of th is proposed regulatory action at a 7 percent discount rate are $ 3.8 billion 910 m illion to $ 9.3 2.2 billion (2008$). Using alternate relationships between PM 2.5 and premature mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the expert

- based estimates fall between these two estimates. 1

Table 4 5 . Summary of the Monetized Benefits Estimates for the Proposed Boiler MACT and Boiler Area Source Rule in 2013 (billions of 2008$) 1 A summary of the mo netized benefits estimates at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 4 5 of this preamble.

Estimat ed Emission reductions (tons per year) Total monetized benefits (3% Discount Rate) Total monetized benefits (7% Discount Rate)

PM 2.5 11,573 2,682 tons PM 2.5 2,787 tons SO 2

50 tons VOC $ 4.2 0.96 to $ 10 2.4 $ 3.8 0.88 to $ 9.3 2.1
PM 2.5 Precursors SO 2 1,539 t ons $0.31 to $0.76 $0.28 to $0.68 VOC 1,179 tons $0.01 to $0.04 $0.01 to $0.03 Total $1.0 to $2.4 $0.91 to $2.2 1 All estimates are for the implementation year (2013), and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. All f ine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the benefit

- per - ton estimates vary between precursors because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form PM 2.5 . Benefits from reducing hazardous air pollutants (HAPs ) ) , ecosystem effects, and visibility impairment are not included.

1 Roman et al, 2008. “ Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Par ticulate Matter in the U.S

. . ” Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268

– 2274. Formatted Table112
These benefits estimates represent the total monetized human health benefits for populations exposed to less PM 2.5 in 2013 from controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order
to meet these standards. These estimates are calculated as the sum of the monetized value of avoided premature mortality and morbidity associated with reducing a ton of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor emissions. To estimate of human health benefits derived from reducin g PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor emissions, we utilized the general approach and methodology on the laid out in Fann et al. (2009) 1 To generate the benefit

- per - ton estimates, we used a model to convert emissions of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors into chan ges in ambient PM 2.5 levels and another model to estimate the changes in human health associated with that change in air quality. Finally, the monetized health benefits were divided by the emission reductions to create the benefit

- per - ton estimates.
Even though we assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the benefit

- per - ton estimates vary between precursors because each ton of precursor reduced has a different propensity to form PM 2.5 . For example, SO X has a lower benefit

per - ton es timate than direct PM 2.5 because it does not form as much PM 2.5 , thus the exposure would be lower, and the monetized .

1 Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. “ The influence of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution

. . ” A ir Qual Atmos Health (2009) 2:169

– 176. Formatted: Space After: 0 pt113

health benefits would be lower. For context, it is important to note that the magnitude of the PM benefits is largely driven by the conce ntration response function for premature mortality. Experts have advised EPA to consider a variety of assumptions, including estimates based both on empirical (epidemiological) studies and judgments elicited from scientific experts, to characterize the

un certainty in the relationship between PM 2.5 concentrations and premature mortality. For this proposed rule we cite two key empirical studies, one based on the American Cancer Society cohort study 1 and the extended Six Cities cohort study 2

This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS RIA bec ause we lack the necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits model. However, the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis . In the RIA fo r this proposed rule, which is available in the docket, we also include benefits estimates derived from expert judgments and other assumptions.

3

1 Pope et al, 2002. “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long

- term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.” Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132

- 1141 provides an indication of the sensitivity of our

2 Laden et al, 2006. “Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667

- 672 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , 2006. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: PM 2.5 NAAQS. Prepared by Office of Air and Radiation. October. Available on the Internet at h ttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html114
results to various assumptions. It should be emphasized that th e monetized benefits estimates provided above do not include benefits from several important benefit categories, including reducing other air pollutants, ecosystem effects, and visibility impairment. The benefits from reducing carbon monoxide and hazardou s air pollutants have not been monetized in this analysis, including reducing 58 39 ,000 tons of carbon monoxide, 4,400 pounds 0.75 ton of mercury, and 450 130 tons of HCl , 5 tons of HF, and 460 grams of dioxins/furans each year. Although we do not have suffi cient information or modeling available to provide monetized estimates for this rulemaking, we include a qualitative assessment of the health effects of these air pollutants in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this proposed rule, which is available in the docket. The social costs of this proposed rulemaking are estimated to be $ 4.9 0.5 billion (2008$) in the implementation year, and the monetized benefits are $ 4.2 1.0 billion to $ 10 2.4 billion (2008$, 3 percent discount rate) for that same year. The benefits at a 7 percent discount rate are $ 3.8 billion 910

m illion to $ 9.3 2.2 billion (2008$). Thus, net benefits of this rulemaking are estimated at $

- 680 $ 500 million to $ 5.4 1.9 billion (2008$, 3 percent discount rate) and $

- 1.1 billion $ 400 m illion to $ 4. 4 1.7 billion (2008$, 7 percent discount rate).115
A summary of the monetized benefits, social costs, and net benefits at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 6 of this preamble. TABLE 6. Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, a nd Net Benefits for the Boiler Area Source Rule in 2013 (millions of 2008$) 1 Proposed Option 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate Total Monetized Benefits $1,000 to $2,400 2 $910 to $2,200 2 Total Social Costs $500 3 $500 Net Benefits $500 to $1,900 $400 to $1,700 1 All estimates are for the implementation year (2013), and are rounded to two significant figures. 2 The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM 2.5 through reductions of 29,000 tons of d irectly emitted PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors such as 1,700 tons of VOC and 360,000 tons of SO 2 . The monetized benefits from reducing 330,000 tons of carbon monoxide, 42,000 tons of hydrochloric acid, 1,200 tons of HF, and 7.9 tons of mercury, and 730 grams of dioxins/furans each year are not included in these estimates. In addition, the monetized benefits from reducing ecosystem effects and visibility impairment are not included. 3 The methodology used to estimate social costs for one year in the multimar ket model using surplus changes results in the same social costs for both discount rates.
For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the RIA for this rulemaking, which is available in the docket.
E . What are the water and solid waste impacts ? The EPA estimated that no additional water usage would result from the MACT floor level of control or GACT requirement. The fabric filter, multiclone or combustion control devices used116
to meet the standards of this proposed rule do not require a ny water to operate, nor do they generate any wastewater. The EPA estimated the additional solid waste that would result from th is proposed rule to be 62,500 14 , 3 00 tpy for existing sources due to the dust and flyash captured by mercury and PM control devi ces. The cost of handling the additional solid waste generated from existing sources is $ 2.6 million 602,000 per year. For new sources installed by 2013, the EPA estimated the additional solid waste that would result from th is proposed rule to be 2,100 1 , 8 00 tpy for new sources due to the dust and flyash captured by mercury and PM control devices. The cost of handling the additional solid waste generated from existing sources is $ 88,500 75 , 9 00 per year. These costs are also accounted for in the control cos ts estimates. A discussion of the methodology used to estimate impacts is presented in “Estimation of Impacts for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers Area Source NESHAP” in the Docket.
F . What are the energy impacts ? The EPA expects an inc rease of approximately 1.7 billion 206

m illion kilowatt hours (kWh) in national annual energy usage from exi sting sources as a result of this proposed rule. The increase results from the electricity required to operate control devices installed to meet th i s proposed rule, such as fabric filters. Additionally, for new sources installed by 2013,117
EPA expects an increase of approximately 91 22 million kWh in national annual energy usage in order to operate the control devices. The Department of Energy has condu cted energy assessments at selected manufacturing facilities and reports that facilities can reduce fuel/energy use by 10 to 15 percent by using best practices to increase their energy efficiency. Additionally, the EPA expects work practice standards such as boilers tune

- ups and combustion controls such as new replacement burners and will improve the efficiency of boilers. The EPA estimates existing area source facilities can save 33 20 trillion BTU of fuel each year. For new sources online by 2013, the EPA estimates 2. 3 .9 million tr illion BTU per year of fuel can be conserved. This fuel savings estimates includes only those fuel savings resulting from liquid and coal fuels and it is based on the assumption that the work practice standards will achieve 1% im provement in efficiency.
**VI I**  **. Relationship of th is**  **Proposed Action to**  **CAA Section 112(c)(6)** 
CAA s ection 112(c)(6) requires EPA to identify categories of sources of seven specified pollutants to assure that sources accounting for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each such pollutant are subject to standards under CAA Section 112(d)(2) or 112(d)(4). EPA has identified118
“Industrial Coal Combustion,” “Industrial Oil Combustion,” Industrial Wood/Wood Residue Combustion,” “Commercial Coal
Com bustion,” “Commercial Oil Combustion,” and “Commercial Wood/Wood Residue Combustion” as source categor ies that emits
two of the seven CAA Section 112(c)(6) pollutants: POM and
mercury . (The POM emitted is composed of 16 polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and extractable organic matter (EOM).) In the **Federal Register**  notice Source Category Listing for Section 112(d)(2) Rulemaking Pursuant to Section 112(c)(6) Requirements, 63 FR 17838, 17849, Table 2 (1998), EPA identified “Industrial Coal Combustion,” “Indust rial Oil Combustion,” Industrial Wood/Wood Residue Combustion,” “Commercial Coal Combustion,” “Commercial Oil Combustion,” and “Commercial Wood/Wood Residue Combustion” as source category “ subject to regulation ” for purposes of CAA Section 112(c)(6) with r espect to the CAA Section 112(c)(6) pollutants that these units emit. Specifically, as byproducts of combustion, the formation of POM is effectively reduced by the combustion and post

- combustion practices required to comply with the CAA Section 1 1 2 standar ds. Any POM that do form during combustion are further controlled by the various post

- combustion controls. The add

- on PM control systems (fabric filter) used to reduce mercury and/or PM emissions further reduce emissions of these organic pollutants , and also reduce Hg emissions , as is evidenced by performance119

data. Specifically, the emission tests obtained at currently operating major source boilers show that the proposed MACT regulations for area source boilers will reduce Hg emissions by about 86 perce nt. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that POM emissions will be substantially controlled. Thus, while th is proposed rule does not identify specific numerical emission limits for POM , emissions of POM are, for the reasons noted below , nonetheless “ subject to regulation ” for purposes of CAA

s ection 112(c)(6). In lieu of establishing numerical emissions limits for pollutants such as POM, CAA Section 129(a)(4) allows EPA to we regulate surrogate substances. While we have not identified specific numer ical limits for POM, we believe CO serves as an effective surrogate for th i s HAP , because CO , like POM, is formed as a product of incomplete combustion. Consequently, we have concluded that the emissions limits for CO function as a surrogate for control of POM, such that it is not necessary to pro pose numerical emissions limits for POM

w ith respect to boilers and process heaters to satisfy CAA Section 112(c)(6). To further address POM and mercury emissions, th is proposed rule also includes an energy asses sment provision that encourage modifications to the facility to reduce energy demand that lead to these emissions.120

**V I**  **II .**  **Statutory And Executive Order Review**
A. Executive Order 12866 : Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 517 35, October 4, 1993), this action is an “economically significant regulatory action” because it is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivi ty, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes in respon se to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act , 44 U.S.C. 35 01 et seq . The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2253.01. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in th is proposed rule would be based on the information collection requirements in EPA’s NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the121
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than emissions data submitted to EPA p ursuant to the information collection requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to CAA section 114(c) and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Th is proposed NESHAP would require applicable on e - time notifications according to the NESHAP General Provisions. Facility owners or operators would be required to include compliance certifications for the work practices and management practices in their Notifications of Compliance Status. Recordkeepin g would be required to demonstrate compliance with emission limits, work practices, management practices, monitoring, and applicability provisions. New affected facilities would be required to comply with the requirements for startup, shutdown, and malfun ction plans/reports and to submit a compliance report if a deviation occurred during the semiannual reporting period. The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated to be $933 million. This includes 6.8 million labor hours per year at a cost of $660 million and total non

- labor capital costs of $273 million per year. This estimate includes initial and annual performance test, conducting an documenting an energy audit,122
conducting and documenting a tune

- up, semiannual excess emission reports, maintenance inspections, developing a monitoring plan, notifications, and recordkeeping. Monitoring, testing, tune

- up and energy audit costs were als o included in the cost estimates presented in the control costs impacts estimates in section IV.D of this preamble

. The total burden for the Federal government (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standard) is estimated to be 9 16,912 hours per year at a total labor cost of $46.2 million per year. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This incl udes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing informati on; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number. The123

OMB control numbers for EPA’s re gulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. To comment on EPA’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection te chniques, EPA has established a public docket for this action, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number
EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790 . Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this preamble for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision con cerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rul e subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative124
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small ent ities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today’s proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business according to Small Business Admin istration (SBA) size standards by the North American Industry Classification System category of the owning entity. The range of small business size standards for the 40 affected industries ranges from 500 to 1,000 employees, except for petroleum refining and electric utilities. In these latter two industries, the size standard is 1,500 employees and a mass throughput of 75,000 barrels/day or less, and 4 million kilowatt

- hours of production or less, respectively; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not

- for

- profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its fiel d. Because an initial screening analysis for impact on small entities indicated a likely significant impact for substantial numbers EPA convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and125

recommendation of representatives of the small entities that potentially w ould be subject to the requirements of this rule

. ( a 1 ) Panel Process and Panel Outreach As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, EPA also has conducted outreach to small entities and.
On January 22 , 200 9 EPA’s Small Business Advoca cy Chairperson convened a Panel under section 609(b) of the RFA. In addition
to the Chair, the Panel consisted of the Director of the Sector Policies and Programs Division within EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Sma ll Business Administration, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget. As part of the SBAR Panel process we conducted outreach with representatives from 14 various small entities t hat would be affected by this rule. The small entity representatives ( SERs ) included associations representing schools, churches, hotels/motels , wood product facilities and manufacturers of home furnishings. We met with these SERs to discuss the potentia l rulemaking approaches and potential options to decrease the impact of the rulemaking on their industries /sectors

. We distributed outreach materials to the SERs; these materials included background on the rulemaking, possible regulatory approaches, preli minary cost and economic impacts, and possible126
rulemaking alternatives. The Panel met with SERs from the industries that will be impacted directly by this rule on February 10 , 200 9 to discuss the outreach materials and receive feedback on the approaches a nd alternatives detailed in the outreach packet. (EPA also met with SERs on November 13 , 200 8 for an initial outreach meeting.) The Panel received written comments from the SERs following the meeting in response to discussions at the meeting and the ques tions posed to the SERs by the Agency. The SERs were specifically asked to provide comment on regulatory alternatives that could help to minimize the rule’s impact on small businesses.

( 1 ( 2 ) Panel Recommendations for Small Business Flexibilities The Pan el recommended that EPA consider and seek comment on a wide range of regulatory alternatives to mitigate the impacts of the rulemaking on small businesses, including those flexibility options described below. The following section summarizes the SBAR Pane l recommendations. EPA has proposed provisions consistent with each of the Panel’s recommendations regarding area source facilities

. Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small

- entity comments on iss ues related to elements of the IRFA. A copy of the Final Panel Report (including all comments received from SERs in response to the Panel’s outreach meeting as well as summaries of127

both outreach meetings that were held with the SERs is included in the doc ket for this proposed rule. A summary of the Panel recommendations is detailed below. As noted above, this proposal includes proposed provisions for each of the Panel recommendations regarding area source facilities

. (a) Work Practice Standards The pan el recommend ed that EPA consider requiring annual
tune

- ups, including standardized criteria outlining proper tune

up methods targeted at smaller boiler operators. The panel further recommend ed that EPA take comment on the efficacy of
energy a ssessments/a u dits at improving combustion efficiency and the cost of performing the audits, especially to smaller boiler operators. A work practice standard, instead of MACT emission limits, may be proposed if it can be justified under CAA section 112(h) , that is, it i s impracticable to enforce the emission standards due to technical or and economic limitations. W ork practice standards could reduce fuel use and improve combustion efficiency which would result in reduced emissions. In general, SERs commented that a regu latory approach to improve combustion efficiency, such as work practice standards, would have positive impacts with respect to the environment and energy use and save on compliance costs. The SERs were concerned with work practice standards that would r equire energy128
audits and implementation of audit findings. The basis of these concerns rested upon the uncertainty that there is no guarantee that there are available funds to implement a particular audit’s findings. (b) Subcategorization The Panel reco mmended that EPA allow subcategorizations suggested by the SERs, unless EPA finds that a subcategorization is inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. SERs commented that subcategorization is a key concept that could ensure that like boilers are compared wit h similar boilers so that MACT floors are more reasonable and could be achieved by all units within a subcategory using appropriate emission reduction strategies. SERs commented that EPA should subcategorize based on fuel type, boiler type, duty cycle, an d location. (c) Compliance Costs The Panel recommend ed that EPA carefully weigh the potential burden of compliance requirements and consider for small entities options such as, emission averaging within facility, reduced monitoring/testing requirements , or allowing more time for compliance. SERs noted that recordkeeping activities, as written in the vacated boiler MACT, would be especially challenging for small entities that do not have a dedicated environmental affairs129
department.
D. Unfunded Man dates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104

- 4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost

- benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory altern atives and adopt the least costly, most cost

- effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows
us to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most
cost

- effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, we must Formatted: Underline130
develop a small government agency plan under section 203 of the
UMRA . The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling o fficials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regul atory requirements. We have determined that this proposed rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Accordingly , we have prepared a written statement entitled “Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Analysis for the Proposed Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP" under section 202 of the UMRA which is summarized below. 1. Statutory Authority As discussed in sectio n I of this preamble, the statutory authority for this proposed rulemaking is section 112 of the CAA. Title III of the CAA Amendments was enacted to reduce nationwide air toxic emissions. Section 112(b) of the CAA lists the 188 chemicals, compounds, or g roups of chemicals deemed by Congress to be HAP. These toxic air pollutants are to be regulated by NESHAP.131

Section 112(d) of the CAA directs us to develop NESHAP which require existing and new major sources to control emissions of HAP using MACT based st andards. This NESHAP applies to all industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters located at major sources of HAP emissions. Section 112(d) of the CAA requires us to establish NESHAP for both major and area sources of HAP that ar e listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). CAA section 112(k)(3)(B) calls for EPA to identify a t least 30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas.
CAA section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources represent ing 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to regulation. Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards or requirements for area sources based on GACT used by those sources to reduce emissions of HAP. Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control technologies and management practices that are generally available to the

area sources in the source categor y. We also consider the standards applicable to major sources in the analogous source category and, as appropriate, the control technologies and management practices at area and major sources in similar132
categories , to determine if the standards, technologies , and /or practices are transferable and generally available to area

sources. I n determining GACT for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and economic impacts of available control technologies a nd management practices on that category. While GACT may be a basis for standards for most types of HAP emitted from area source, CAA s ection 112(c)(6) requires that source categories accounting for emissions of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(c)(6) be subject to standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) for the listed pollutants. Thus, CAA section 112(c)(6) requires that emissions of each listed HAP for the listed categories be subject to MACT regulation. The CAA section 112(c)(6) list of source categorie s includes industrial boilers and institutional/commercial boilers. Within these two source categories, coal combustion, oil combustion, and wood combustion have been on the CAA section 112(c)(6) list because of emissions of mercury and POM. We currently believe that regulation of coal

- fired boilers will ensure that we fulfill our obligation under CAA section 112(c)(6) with respect to mercury reductions. Regulation of biomass and oil

- fired boilers for mercury would be substantially less cost

- effective fo r mercury reduction and would impose substantial technical barriers for and economic barriers to numerous small businesses.133
Consequently, we deem it reasonable to propose to regulate the coal

- fired boilers under MACT, rather than the biomass and oil

fired boilers, to obtain additional mercury reductions towards achieving the CAA section 112(c)(6) obligation. We propose to regulate biomass

- fired and oil

- fired boilers under GACT. This proposed NESHAP would apply to all existing and new industrial boilers, institutional boilers, and commercial boilers located at area sources. In compliance with section 205(a) of the UMRA, we identified and considered a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. Additional information on the costs and environmental impa cts of these regulatory alternatives is presented in the docket. The regulatory alternative upon which the proposed rule is based represents the MACT floor for industrial boilers and process heaters and, as a result, it is the least costly and least burde nsome alternative. The regulatory alternative upon which the proposed standards are based represents the MACT floor for the listed CAA section 112(c)(6) pollutants (mercury and POM) and GACT for the other urban HAP which formed the basis for the listing o f these two area source categories. The proposed standards would require new coal

- fired boilers to meet MACT

- based emission limits for mercury and CO (as a surrogate for POM) and GACT

based emission limits for PM (as a surrogate for urban metals). Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left134

New bi omass and oil

- fired boilers would be required to meet
MACT

- based CO emission limits and GACT

- based emission limits for PM. The emission limits for existing area source boilers are only applicable to area source boilers that have a designed heat input capa city of 10 million Btu per hour or greater. Existing large coal

- fired boilers would be required to meet MACT

- based emission limits for mercury and CO, and existing large biomass and oil

- fired boilers would be subject to MACT

- based CO emission limits. As allowed under CAA section 112(h), a work practice standard requiring the implementation of a tune

- up program is being proposed for existing area source boilers with a designed heat input capacity of less than 10 million Btu per hour. An additional “beyond

- the

- floor” standard is being proposed for existing area source facilities having an affected boiler with a heat input capacity of 10 million Btu per hour or greater that requires the performance of an energy assessment on the boiler and the facility to id entify cost

- effective energy conservation

measures. 2. Social Costs and Benefits The regulatory impact analysis prepared for the proposed rule including the Agency’s assessment of costs and benefits, is detailed in the “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters MACT” in the docket. Based on estimated compliance costs associated with the proposed Formatted135
rule and the predicted change in prices and production in the affected industries, the estimated social costs of the proposed rule are $ 6.8 0.5 billion (2008 dollars). It is estimated that 3 years after implementation of the proposed rule, HAPs HAP would be reduced by thousands hundreds of tons, including reductions in metallic HAP including mercury, hydrochloric acid , hydrogen fluoride, metallic HAP including
mercury, and several other organic HAP from area source boilers and process heaters.

. Studies have determined a relationship between exposure to these HAP and the onset of cancer, however, the Agency is unable t o provide a monetized estimate of the HAP benefits at this time. In addition, there are significant reductions in PM 2.5 and in SO 2 that would occur, including 23 thousand 2 , 7 00 tons of PM 2.5 and 384 thousand 1,500 tons of SO 2 . These reductions occur within 3 years after the implementation of the proposed regulation and are expected to continue throughout the life of the affected sources. The major health effect associated with reducing PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors (such as
SO 2 ) is a reduction in premature mo rtality. Other health effects associated with PM 2.5 emission reductions include avoiding cases of chronic bronchitis, heart attacks, asthma attacks, and work

lost days (i.e., days when employees are unable to work). While we are unable to monetize the be nefits associated with the HAP emissions reductions, we are able to monetize the benefits Formatted: Subscript Formatted: Subscript Formatted: Subscript Formatted: Subscript

Formatted: Subscript Formatted: Subscript Formatted: Subscript
Formatted: Subscript136

associated with the PM PM 2.5 and SO 2 emissions reductions. For SO 2 and PM PM 2.5 , we estimated the benefits associated with health effects of PM but were unable to quan tify all categories of benefits (particularly those associated with ecosystem and visibility effects). Our estimates of the monetized benefits in 2013 associated with the implementation of the proposed alternative is range from $ 16 1.0 billion (2008 dollar s) to $ 40 2.4 billion (2008 dollars) when using a 3 percent discount rate (or from $ 15 0.9 billion (2008 dollars)to $ 36 2.2 billion (2008 dollars) when using a 7 percent discount rate ). This estimate, at a 3 percent discount rate, is about $11 billion (2008 dollars) to $35 billion (2008 dollars) higher than the estimated social costs shown earlier in this section.

. The general approach used to value benefits is discussed in more detail earlier in this preamble. For more detailed information on the benefits estimated for the proposed rulemaking, refer to the RIA in the docket. 3. Future and Disproportionate Costs The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires that we estimate, where accurate estimation is reas onably feasible, future compliance costs imposed by the proposed rule and any disproportionate budgetary effects. Our estimates of the future compliance costs of the proposed rule are discussed previously in this preamble. Formatted: Subscript Formatted: Subscript137

We do not believe that there wi ll be any disproportionate budgetary effects of the proposed rule on any particular areas of the country, State or local governments, types of communities (e.g., urban, rural), or particular industry segments. See the results of the “Economic Impact Analy sis of the Proposed Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters NESHAP,” the results of which are discussed previously in this preamble. 4. Effects on the National Economy The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires that we estimate the effect of the proposed rule on the national economy. To the extent feasible, we must estimate the effect on productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of productive jobs, and international competitiveness of the U.S. goods and services, if we dete rmine that accurate estimates are reasonably feasible and that such effect is relevant and material. The nationwide economic impact of the proposed rule is presented in the “Economic Impact Analysis for the Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters MACT” in the docket. This analysis provides estimates of the effect of the proposed rule on some of the categories mentioned above. The results of the economic impact analysis are summarized previously in this preamble. The results show that there will be a smal l impact on prices and output , and little impact on communities that may be affected by the proposed rule. (less than 0.02%)

. In addition, there should138
be little impact on energy markets (in this case, coal, natural gas, petroleum products, and electricit y). Hence, the potential impacts on the categories mentioned above should be small.
5. Consultation with Government Officials The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires that we describe the extent of the Agency’s prior consultation with affected State, local, and tribal officials, summarize the officials’ comments or concerns, and summarize our response to those comments or concerns. In addition, section 203 of the UMRA requires that we develop a plan for informing and advising small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by a proposal. Although the proposed rule does not affect any State, local, or Tribal governments, we have consulted with State and local air pollution contro l officials. We also have held meetings on the proposed rule with many of the stakeholders from numerous individual companies, environmental groups, consultants and vendors, labor unions, and other interested parties. We have added materials to the Air D ocket to document these meetings Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of section 204 of the UMRA, EPA has initiated consultations with governmental entities affected by this proposed rule

. EPA invited the following 10 national
orga nizations representing State and local elected officials to a meeting held on March 24, 2010 in Washington DC: (1) National Formatted: Widow/Orphan control139
Governors Association; (2) National Conference of State Legislatures, (3) Council of State Governments, (4) National League of Citi es, (5) U.S. Conference of Mayors, (6) National Association of Counties, ( 7 ) International City/County Management Association, ( 8 ) National Association of Towns and Townships, (9) County Executives of America, and (10)
E nvironmental C ouncil of S tates . The se 10 organizations of elected S tate and local officials have been identified by EPA as the “Big 10” organizations appropriate to contact for purpose of consultation with elected officials. The purposes of the consultation were to provide general backgrou nd on the proposal, answer questions, and solicit input from State/local governments. During the meeting, officials expressed uncertainty with regard to how boilers owned/operated by State and local entities would be impacted, as well as with regard to th e potential burden associated with implementing the rule on State and local entities. To that end, officials requested and EPA provided (1) m odel boiler costs , ( 2 ) i nventory of area source boilers (coal, oil, biomass only) fo r the 13 S tates for which we h ave an inventory, ( 3 ) i nformation on potential size of boilers used for various facility types and sizes. EPA has not received additional questions or requests from State or local officials

. In addition, we have determined that the proposed rule Formatted: Font color: Black140

Consiste nt with section 205, EPA has identified and considered a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. Because an initial screening analysis for impact on small entities indicated a likely significant impact for substantial numbers EPA convened a SBAR Pan el to obtain advice and recommendation of representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the requirements of th e rule

. As part of that process, EPA considered several options. Those options included establishing emission limit s, establishing work practice standards, and establishing work practice standards and requiring an energy audit. The regulatory alternative selected is a combination of the options considered and includes proposed provisions regarding each of the SBAR Pan el’s recommendations for area source boilers

. The recommendations regard subcategorization, work practice standards, and compliance costs (see section VIII.C. of this preamble for more detail). EPA determined subcategorization based on boiler type to be

a ppropriate because different types of units have different emission characteristics which may affect the feasibility and effectiveness of emission control. Thus, the proposal identifies three subcategories of area source boilers: (1) boilers designed for coal firing, (2) boilers designed for biomass firing, and (3) boilers designed for oil firing. The regulatory alternative upon which the proposed141
standards are based represents the MACT floor for mercury for coal

- fired boilers, the MACT floor for POM (CO is used as a surrogate for POM) for coal, biomass, and oil

- fired boilers, and GACT for the other urban HAP (PM is used as a surrogate for urban HAP metals) for coal, biomass, and oil

- fired boilers. The emission limits for existing area source boilers are only applicable to area source boilers that have a designed heat input capacity of 10 million Btu per hour or greater. A work practice standard (for mercury from coal

- fired boilers and for POM from all boilers) or management practice (for all other HAP, i ncluding mercury from biomass

- fired and oil

- fired boilers) requiring the implementation of a tune

- up program is being proposed for existing area source boilers with a designed heat input capacity of less than 10 million Btu per hour. An additional “beyond

- the

- floor” standard is being proposed for existing area source facilities having an affected boiler with a heat input capacity of 10 million Btu per hour or greater that requires the performance of an energy assessment on the boiler and the facility to id entify cost

- effective energy conservation

measures. The proposed use of surrogate pollutants would result in reduced compliance costs because testing would only be required for the surrogate pollutants (i.e., CO and PM) versus for the HAP (i.e., POM and me tals). The proposed work practice142

standard /management practice also would result in reduced compliance costs with respect to monitoring/testing for the smaller existing area source boilers. EPA’s proposed exemption of area source facilities from title V permit requirements also would reduce burden on area source boiler facilities. This proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
gov ernments. While some small governments may have some sources affected by the proposed rule, the impacts are not expected to be significant. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA boilers that would be affected by the proposed rule, EPA’s analysis shows that other public facilities that are located at area source facilities owned by small entities would have cost

- to

- revenue ratios exceeding 10%

. H ospitals’ and schools’ revenue tests fall below 1%

. Beca use t he proposed rule’s requirements apply equally to boilers owned and/or operated by governments and to boilers owned and/or operated by private entities , th ere would be no requirements that uniquely apply to such governments or impose any disproportiona te impacts on them

. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires , EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted

Formatted: Font color: Black Formatted: Font color: Black Formatted: Font color: Black143
“meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies may not issue an action that have has federalism implications .” “Policies , that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “ imposes substantial direct effects on the States, on the r elationship between the national compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government and the States provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments , or on EPA consults wi th State and local officials early in the distribution process of power and responsibilities among developing the various levels of government. The proposed rule does not action. EPA has concluded that this action may have federalism implications . It will not have , because it may impose substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, compliance costs
on State or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of governm ent, local governments, and the Federal government will not provide the funds necessary to pay those costs. Accordingly, EPA provides the following federalism summary impact statement as specified in required by Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black Formatted: Font color: Black Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black144

section 6(b) of Executive Order 13132. Thus , Executive Order 13132 does not apply to Based on the estimates in EPA’s RIA for today’s action, the proposed rule. regulatory option, if promulgated, may have federalism implications because the option may impose approximately $ 416 m illion in annual di rect compliance costs on an estimated 57,000 S tate or local governments. Boiler inventories for the health services, educational services, and government

- owned buildings sectors from 13 States were used to estimate the nationwide number of potentially imp acted State or local governments. Because the inventories for these sectors include privately owned and Federal government owned facilities, the estimate may include many facilities that are not State or local government owned. Table 5 of this preamble p resents estimates of the number of potentially impacted State and local governments and their potential annual compliance costs for each of the three sectors. In addition to an estimate of the total number of potentially impacted facilities, estimates for facilities with small boilers and for facilities with large boilers are presented. Small boilers (boilers with heat input capacity of less than 10 million Btu per hour) would be subject to a work practice standard that requires a boiler tune

- up every 2 y ears. Large coal

- fired boilers ( boilers with heat input capacity of 10 million Btu per hour or greater ) would be subject Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black145
to emission limits for Hg and CO, while large biomass and oil

fired boilers would be subject to emission limits for CO. All facilitie s with large boilers would be required to conduct a

one - time energy assessment. Table 7 . State and local governments potentially impacted by the proposed standards for boilers at area source facilities
Sector N umber of potentially impacted facilities Annu al compliance costs to mee t standards Total Small Large Health Services 1 7,206 15,293 1,913 $ 143 m illion Educational Services 3 4 ,052 33,303 749 $2 00 million Government

Owned Buildings 5,796 5,098 698 $ 73 million
Total 57,054 53,694 3,360 $ 416 m illio n
EPA consulted with State and local officials in the process of developing the proposed action to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. EPA met with 10 national organizations representing State and local elected official s to provide general background on the proposal, answer questions, and solicit input from State/local governments. The UMRA discussion in this preamble includes a description of the consultation. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent wit h EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited solicits Formatted: Widow/Orphan control Formatted: Font color: Black

Formatted: Font color: Black146

comment on th e this proposed rule action from State and local officials.

F . Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indi an Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications. ” The proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000)

. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The proposed rule imposes requirements on owners and operators of specified area sources and not tribal governments. We do not know of any industrial , commercial , or institutional boilers owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. However, if there are any, the effect of the proposed rule on communities of tribal governments would not be unique or dis proportionate to the effect on other communities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on the proposed rule from tribal officials. Formatted: Font color: Black Formatted: Font color: Black Formatted: Font: Helv, 10 pt, Bold, Font color: Black147

G
. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental hea lth or safety risk that EPA ha s reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the p lann ed rule on children, and explai n why the p lann ed regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency

. The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the Agency does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The reason for this determination is that the proposed rule is based solely on technology performance. The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer

r eviewed studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to the prop o sed rule

. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355, May 22 , 2001),148
provides that agencies shall prepare and submit to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for certain actions identified as significant energy actions. Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13211 defines “significant energy actions” as “any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register ) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notice s of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supp ly, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.” The proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The basis for the determination is as follows. We estimate no significant changes for the energy sector for price, production, or imports. For more information on the estim ated energy effects, please refer to the economic impact analysis for the proposed rule. The analysis is available in the public docket.149
Therefore, we conclude that the proposed rule when implemented is not likely to have a significant adverse effect

o n the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
I . National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104

- 113, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling proced ures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS. The proposed rule involves technical standards. Th e EPA cites the following standards in the proposed rule: EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 10, 10A, 10B, 17, 19, 29 of 40 CFR part 60; 101A of 40 CFR part 61; and voluntary consensus standards: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
D 6522

- 00, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) PTC 19 (manual methods only), ASTM D6784

- 02, ASTM D2234

- D2234M

- 03, ASTM D6323

- 98, ASTM D2013

- 04, ASTM d5198

- 92, ASTM D5865

- 04, ASTM E711

- 87, ASTM D3173

- 03, ASTM E871

- 82, and ASTM D6722

- 01. Consisten t with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to150
identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 2F, 2G, 5D, and 19. The search and review results are in the docket for this rule. The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 16 other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined that these 16 standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in this rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this purpose. The reasons for th e determination s for the 16 methods can be found in the docket to th is rule. Table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ of this proposed rule lists the testing method s included in the regulation. Under §63.7(f) and §63.8(f) of Subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially

- applica ble voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income151
Populations Executive Order 12898 (5 9 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice (EJ). Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations, low

- income, and Tribal populations in the United States. This propos ed action establishes national emission standards for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers that are area sources. The industrial boiler source category includes boilers used in manufacturing, processing, mining, refining, or any other industr y. The commercial boiler source category includes boilers used in commercial establishments such as stores/malls, laundries, apartments, restaurants, theatres, and hotels/motels. The institutional boiler source category includes boilers used in medical c enters (e.g., hospitals, clinics, nursing homes), educational and religious facilities (e.g., schools, universities, places of worship), and municipal buildings (e.g., courthouses, arts centers, prisons). There are approximately 137,000 facilities affecte d by the proposed rule most of which are small entities. By the defined nature of the152

category, m any of these sources are located in close proximity to residential areas, commercial centers, and other locations where large numbers of people live and work. Due to the large number of these sources, their nation

- wide dispersal, and the absence of site specific coordinates, EPA is unable to examine the distributions of exposures and health risks attributable to these sources among different socio

demographic groups for this rule, or to relate the locations of expected emission reductions to the locations of current poor air quality. However, the rule is anticipated to have substantial emissions reductions of toxic air pollutants (See Table 2.), some of which are potential carcinogens, neurotoxins, and respiratory irritants. The rule will also result in substantial reductions in criteria pollutants such as CO, PM,
SO 2, as well as ozone precursors. Because of the close proximity of these source categories to p eople, the substantial emission reductions of air toxics resulting from the implementation of this proposed rule is anticipated to have health benefits for all persons living or going near these types of sources. (Please refer to the RIA for this rulemakin g, which is available in the docket.) For example, there will be significant reductions of mercury emissions which will reduce potential exposures due to the atmospheric deposition of mercury for populations such as153
subsistence fisherman. In addition, th ere will be substantial reductions in other air toxics that can cause adverse health effects such as ozone precursors which contribute to “smog.” This rule will not cause an increase in any adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority, low

- income, or Tribal populations. EPA defines “Environmental Justice” to include meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enfo rcement of environmental laws, regulations, and polices. To promote meaningful involvement, EPA has developed a EJ communication strategy to ensure that interested communities have access to this proposed rule, are aware of its content, and have an opport unity to comment. During the comment period, EPA will publicize the rulemaking via EJ newsletters, Tribal newsletters, EJ listserves, and the internet, including Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation’s (OPEI) Rulemaking Gateway web site (http://yose mite.epa.gov/opei/rulegate.nsf/content/index.html?op endocument). EPA will also provide general rulemaking fact sheets (e.g., why is this important for my community) for EJ community groups and conduct conference calls with interested communities. In addit ion, state and federal permitting requirements will provide state, local governments and154
communities the opportunity to provide their comments on the permit conditions associated with permitting these sources.**National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and**  **Institutional Boilers Page**  **155 of**  **208**
List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 63
En vironmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

______________________ Dated:

_______________________ Lisa P. Jackson , Administrator124
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: **PART 63 —**  **- [AMENDED]**  1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: **Authori ty**  : 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq . **Subpart A —**  **[AMENDED]** 2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) (27), (b)(39), (b)(47), (b)(49), (b)(50), (b)( 5 2 ) , (b)(55) , (b)(56), (b)(58), (b)(61), (b) (62) , and ( i)( 1 ) to read as follows: §63.14 Incorporation by reference.

* * * * * (b) * * * (27) ASTM D 6522

– 00, Standard Test Method for Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and Oxygen Concentrations in Emissions from Natural Gas Fired Reciprocating Engines, Combustion Turbine s, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using Portable Analyzers 1 , IBR approved for §63.9307(c)(2), Table 4 to s ubpart ZZZZ, Table 5 to s ubpart DDDDD, and Table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part.

* * * * * Formatted: Left: 1"125

(39) ASTM Method D388

- 99 **0** 1 , Standard Classification of

Coals by Rank 1 , IBR approved for §63.7575 and §63.11237.

* * * * * (47) ASTM D5198

- 92 ( R eapproved 2003), Standard Practice for Nitric Acid Digestion of Solid Waste 1 , IBR approved for Table
6 to s ubpart DDDDD and Table 5 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part.

* * * * * (49) ASTM D6323

- 98 ( Reapproved 2003), Standard Guide for Laboratory Subsampling of Media Related to Waste Management Activities 1 , IBR approved for Table 6 to s ubpart DDDDD and Table 5 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part. (50) ASTM E711

- 87 ( Reapp roved 1996), Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of Refuse

- Derived Fuel by the Bomb Calorimeter 1 , IBR approved for Table 6 to s ubpart DDDDD and Table 5 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part.

* * * * * (52) ASTM E871

- 82 (Rea pproved 1998), Standard Method of Moisture Analysis of Particulate Wood Fuels 1 , IBR approved for
Table 6 to s ubpart DDDDD and Table 5 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part.

* * * * *126

(55) ASTM D2013

– 04, Standard Practice for Preparing Coal Samples for Analysi s, IBR approved for Table 6 to subpart DDDDD and Table 5 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part. (56) ASTM D2234

– D2234M

– 03 €1 , Standard Practice for Collection of a Gross Sample of Coal, IBR approved for Table 6 to subpart DDDDD and Table 5 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part. (58) ASTM D3173

– 03, Standard Test Method for Moisture in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke, IBR appro ved for Table 6 to subpart DDDDD and Table 5 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part. (61) ASTM D6722

– 01, Standard Test Method for Total Mercury in Coal and Coal Combustion Residues by the Direct Combustion Analysis, IBR approved for Table 6 to subpart DDDDD and Table 5 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part. (62) ASTM D5865

– 04, Standard Test Method for Gross Calorific Value of Coal and Coke, IBR approved for Table 6 to subpart DDDDD and Table 5 to subpart JJJJJJ of this part.
* * * * * (i) * * * ( 1 ) ANSI/ASME PT C 19.10

– 1981, “Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus],” IBR approved for §§63.865(b), 63.3166(a), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 63.3545(a)(3), 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 63.4362(a)(3), 63.4766(a)(3), 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 63.9307(c)(2), 63.9323(a)(3), Table 5 to s ubpart DDDDD, and Table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ of this127

part.

* * * * * 3 . Part 63 is amended by adding subpart JJJJJJ to read as follows: **Subpart JJJJJJ**  **-- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air**  **Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers**  **Area Sources**
Sec. **What this Subpart Covers** 63. 11193 Am I subject to this subpart? 63. 11194 What is the affected source of this subpart? 63. 11195 Are any boilers not subject to this subpart? 63. 11 196 When do I have to comply with this subpart? **Emission Limits ,**  **Work Practice Standards ,**  **Emission Reduction Measures,**  **and Management Practices** 63. 11200 What are the subcategories of boilers? 63. 11201 What emission limits and operating limits standards m ust I meet? 63.11202 What are the work practice standards and management practices?

**Initial Compliance Requirements**  63. 11205 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? 63. 1121 0 What are my initial compliance requirements and by w hat date must I conduct them? 63.11211 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits? 63.11212 What stack tests and procedures must I use for the performance tests ? 63.11213 What fuel analyses and procedures must I use for the performan ce tests ? 63. 1121 4 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? 63.11215 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work practice standard , emission reduction measures, and management practice ? Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 1.5", Tab stops: 0.5", Left + 1", Left + 1.5", Left128
**Continuous Compliance Requirements** 63. 11220 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? 63. 11221 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits? 63.11222 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work practice standards? 63.11223 What are my mo nitoring, installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? 63. 11225 What are my notification , report ing, and record keeping requirement s? **Other Requirements and Information** 63. 11235 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63. 11236 Who impl ements and enforces this subpart? 63. 11237 What definitions apply to this subpart? Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJJ of Part 63. Emission Limits Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJJ of Part 63. Work Practice Standards Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJJ of Part 63. Operating Limit s for Boilers With Emission Limits Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJJ of Part 63. Performance (Stack) Testing Requirements Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJJ of Part 63. Fuel Analysis Requirements Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJJ of Part 63. Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart JJJJJJ

**Subpart JJJJJJ**  **-- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air**  **Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers**
**Area Sources What this Subpart Covers**  §63. 11193 Am I subject to this subpart? You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an industrial, commercial, or institutional boiler as defined in §63. 11237 that is located at, or is part of, an area source of129
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) , as defined in §63. 2
. §63. 11194 What is the affected source of this subpart ? (a) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected sources as de fined in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. (1 ) The affected source is the collection of all existing industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers within a subcategory located at an ar ea source . (2) The affected source of this subpart is each new or reconstructed industrial, commercial, or ins titutional boiler located at an ar ea source . (b) An affected source is an existing source if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source

on or before [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER ]. (c) An affected source i s a new source if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (d) A boiler is a new affected source if you commenced fuel switching from natural gas to coal, biomass, or oil after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ( e ) Any source that was a major source and installed a control device on a boiler after November 15, 1990, and, as a result, became an area source under 40 CFR part 63 is required to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71
.130

Otherwise , you are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3 (a)
. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with the provisions of this subpart. §63. 11195 Are any boilers not subject to this subpart ? The types of boilers listed in paragraphs (a) through ( e ) of this section are not subj ect to this subpart. (a) Any boiler specifically listed as an affected source in another standard(s) under this part. (b) Any boiler specifically listed as an affected source in another standard(s) established under section 129 of the Clean Air Act (C AA). ( c ) A boiler required to have a permit under section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act or covered by subpart EEE of this part (e.g., hazardous waste boilers). ( d ) A boiler that is used specifically for research and development. This does not include boiler s that only provide steam to a process or for heating at a research and development facility. ( e ) A gas - fired boiler as defined in this subpart. §63. 11196 Wh at are my compliance dates ? (a) If you own or operate an existing affected source , you131

must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in this subpart no later than [INSERT THE DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. (b) If y ou start up a new affected source on or before [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] , you must achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart no later than [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF
THE FINAL RULE IN TH E FEDERAL REGISTER]. (c) If you start up a new affected source after [INSERT
THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must achieve compliance with the provisions of this subpart upon startup of your affected source. **Emissio n Limits**  **, Work Practice Standards**  **, Emission Reduction**  **Measures, and Management Practices**  §63. 11200 What are the subcategories of boilers ? The subcategories of boilers are coal , biomass , and oil

. Each subcategory is defined in §63. 11237
. §63. 11201 What standards must I meet ? (a) Y ou must comply wit h each emission limit specified in Table 1 of this subpart that applies to your boiler. (b) You must comply with each work practice standard , emission reduction measure, and management practice specified in Table 2 of this subpart that applies to your b oiler. (c) These standards apply at all times.132

**Initial C**  **ompliance Requirements** §63. 11205 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? (a) At all times you must operate and maintain any affected source, including associated air p ollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce em issions if levels required by this standard have been achieved. Determination of whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitor ing results, review of operation and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection of the source. ( b ) You can demonstrate compliance with any applicable
mercury emission limit using fuel analysis if the emission rate calculated according to §63. 1121 1 (b) is less than the applicable emission limit. Otherwise, you must demonstrate compliance using stack testing. §63. 11210 What are my initial compliance requirements and by what date must I conduct them ? (a) You must d emonstrate initial compliance with each133

emission limit specified in Table 1 of this subpart that applies to you by either conducting performance (stack) tests, as applicable, according to §63.11212 and Table 4 of this subpart

or conducting fuel analyses, a s applicable, according to §63.11213 and Table 5 to this subpart. (b) For affected sources that have an applicable carbon monoxide ( CO ) emission limit , your initial compliance requirements depend on the rated capacity of your boiler. If your boiler has a heat input capacity between 10 and 100 million British thermal units ( MMBtu ) per hour, your initial compliance demonstration is conducting a performance test for CO according to Table 4 to this subpart. If your boiler has a heat input capacity of 100 MM Btu per hour or greater, your initial compliance demonstration is conducting a performance evaluation of your continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) for CO according to §63. 11223
. ( c ) For existing affected sources that have applicable emission lim its , you must demonstrate initial compliance no later than 180 days after the compliance date that is specified in §63. 11196 and according to the applicable provisions in §63.7(a)(2). (d) For existing affected sources that have applicable work practice s tandards or emission reduction measures , you must demonstrate initial compliance no later than the compliance date134
that is specified in §63.11196 and according to the applicable provisions in §63.7(a)(2). ( e ) For new affected sources, you must demonstrat e initial compliance no later than 180 calendar days after [INSERT THE
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or within 180 calendar days after startup of the source, whichever is later, according to §63.7(a)(2)(ix). §63.112 11 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits? (a) For affected sources that elect to demonstrate compliance with any of t he emission limits of this subpart through performance (stack) testing, your initial compliance requirements include conducting performance tests according to §63.1121 2 and Table 4 to this subpart and conducting CMS performance evaluations according to §63

. 11223
. ( b ) If you elect to demonstrate compliance with an applicable mercury emission limit through fuel analysis, you must conduct fuel analyses according to §63.11213 and follow the procedures in paragraphs ( b )(1) through ( 3 ) of this section. (1) I f you burn more than one fuel type, you must determine the fuel mixture you could burn in your boiler that would result in the maximum emission rates of mercury that you elect to demonstrate compliance through fuel analysis. (2) You must determine the 90 th percentile confidence135
level fuel mercury concentration of the composite samples analyzed for each fuel type using Equation 1 of this section.

P 90 = mean + (SD * t) (Eq. 1) Where:
P 90 = 90th percentile confidence level mercury concentration, in pounds per million Btu; mean = Arithmetic average of the fuel mercury concentration in the fuel samples analyzed according to §63.11213, in units of pounds per million Btu; SD = Standard deviation of the mercury concentration in the fuel samples analyzed accordin g to §63.11213, in units of pounds per million Btu; t = t distribution critical value for 90th percentile (0.1) probability for the appropriate degrees of freedom (number of samples minus one) as obtained from a Distribution Critical Value Table. (3) To demonstrate compliance with the applicable mercury emission limit, the emission rate that you calculate for your boiler using Equation 1 of this section must be less than the applicable mercury emission limit. §63. 1121 2 What stack tests and procedures m ust I use for the performance tests ? (a) You must conduct all performance tests according to the requirements in §63.7. (b) You must conduct each stack test according to the
req uirements in Table 4 to this subpart. (c) You must conduct stack tests at the maximum normal operating load while burning the type of fuel or mixture of136
fuels that have the highest content of mercury, and you must demonstrate initial compliance based on these tests. ( d ) You must conduct a minimum of three separate test runs for each performance test required in this section, as specified in §63.7(e)(3). The sampling time for e ach test run must last at least 1 hour except that the sampling time for the test runs conducted for mercury emissions must last at least 2 hours

. ( e ) To determine compliance with the emission limits, you must use the F

- Factor methodology and equations in sections 12.2 and 12.3 of EPA Method 19 of appendix A to part 60 of this ch apter to convert the measured particulate matter concentrations and the measured mercury concentrations that result from the initial performance test to pounds per millio n Btu heat input emission rates

. §63. 1121 3 What fuel analyses and procedures must I use for the performance tests ? (a) You must conduct fuel analyses according to the procedures in paragraphs (b) and ( c ) of this section and Table 5 to this subpart, as applicable. (b) At a minimum, you must obtain three composite fuel samples for each fuel type according to the procedures in Table
5 of this subpart. Each composite sample will consist of a minimum of three samples collected at approximately equal intervals during a test run pe riod.137

( c ) Determine the concentration of mercury in the f uel in units of pounds per million Btu of each composite sample for each fuel type according to the procedures in Table 5 to this subpart. §63.11214 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? (a) You must conduct all applicable performance (stack ) tests according to §63.1121 2 on an annual basis, unless you follow the requirements listed in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section. Annual performance tests must be completed between 10 and 12 months after the previous performance test, unless you follow the requirements listed in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section. (b) You can conduct performance stack tests less often for particulate matter or mercury if your performance stack tests for the pollutant for at least 3 consecutive years sh ow that your emissions are within 90% at or below 75 percent of the emission limit, and if there are no changes in the operation of the affected source or air pollution control equipment that could increase emissions. In this case, you do not have to condu ct a performance test for that pollutant for the next 2 years. You must conduct a performance test during the third year and no more than 36 months after the previous performance
test. (c) If your boiler or process heater continues to meet the138

emission limit for particulate matter or mercury , you may choose to conduct performance stack tests for the pollutant every third year if your emissions are within 90% at or below 75 percent of the emission limit, and if there are no changes in the operation of the affected source or air pollution control equipment that could increase emissions, but each such performance test must be conducted no more than 36 months after the previous performance
test . (d) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 90% 75
percen t of the emission limit, you must conduct annual performance tests for that pollutant until all performance tests over consecutive 3

- year period show compliance. (e) If you have an applicable CO emission limit and your boiler has a heat input capacity be tween 10 and 100 MMBtu per hour, you must conduct annual performance tests for CO according to §63.11211. Each annual performance test must be conducted between 10 and 12 months after the previous performance test. ( f ) If you demonstrate compliance wi th the mercury based on fuel analysis, you must conduct a fuel analysis according to §63.11213 for each type of fuel burned monthly. If you plan to burn a new type of fuel or fuel mixture , you must conduct a fuel analysis before burning the new type of fu el or mixture in your boiler. You must recalculate the mercury emission rate using139

E quation 1 of §63.11211. The recalculated mercury emission rate must be less than the applicable emission limit. §63. 1121 5 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with t he

w ork p ractice s tandard , emission reduction measures, and management practice ? (a) If you own or operate an existing boiler with a heat input capacity of less than 10 million Btu per hour , you must submit a signed statement in the Notification of Compli ance Status report that indicates that you conducted a tune

- up of the boiler. ( b ) If you own or operate an existing affected boiler with a heat input capacity of 10 million Btu per hour or greater , y ou must submit the energy a ssessmen t report, along with a signed certification that the assessment is an accurate depiction of your facility. **Continuous Compliance Requirements** §63. 11220 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? (a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section and the site

- specific monitoring plan required by §63. 112 23
. (b) Except for monitor malfunctions, asso ciated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span140
adjustments), you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required intervals) at all times that the affe cted source is operating. (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, or required quality assurance or control activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or operating levels. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated control system. Boilers that have an applicable CO emission limit and are required to install and operate a CEMS, may not use data recorde d during periods when the boiler is operating at less than 50 percent of its rated capacity. §63. 11221 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limits? (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit and operating limit in Tables 1 and 3 to this subpart that applies to you according to paragraphs (a)(1) through ( 5 ) of this section. (1) Follo wing the date on which the initial performance test is completed or is required to be completed under §§63.7 and 63. 11196 , whichever date comes first, you must not operate above any of the applicable maximum operating limits or below any of the applicable minimum operating limits listed in Table 3141
to this subpart at all times. Operation above the established maximum or below the established minimum operating limits shall constitute a deviation of established operating limits. Operating limits are confirme d or reestablished during performance tests. (2) You (2) If you have you have an applicable mercury emission limit, y ou must keep records of the type and amount of all fuels burned in each boiler during the reporting period to demonstrate that all fuel types and mixtures of fuels burned would result in lower emissions of mercury than the applicable emission limit. (3) If (3) If you have you have an applicable mercury emission limit and you plan to burn a new type of fuel, you must determine the mercur y concentration for any new fuel type in units of pounds per million Btu, based on supplier data or your own fuel analysis and meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section. (i) T he recalculated mercury emission rate must be less than the applicable emission limit. ( ii ) If the results are higher than mercury fuel input during the previous performance test , then you must conduct a new performance test within 60 days of burning the new fuel type or fuel mixture according to the proc edures in §63. 11212 to demonstrate that the mercury emissions do not exceed the142

emission limit. ( 4 ) If your unit is controlled with a fabric filter, and you demonstrate continuous compliance using a bag leak detection system, you must initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and operate and maintain the fabric filter system such that the alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time during a 6

- month period. You must also keep records of the date, time , and duration of each alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action taken. You must also record the percent of the operating time during each 6

- month period that the alarm sounds. In calculating this operating time percentage, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, each alarm shall be counted as a minimum of 1 hour. If you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time shall be counted as the actual amount of time taken to initiate corrective action. ( 5 ) If you have an applicable CO emission limit and you are required to install a CEMS according to §63. 11223 , then you must continuously monitor carbon monoxide CO according to §§63. 11223(a) and 63. 11220 and m aintain a CO emission level below your applicable CO emission limit in Table 1 to this143
subpart at all times. (b) You must repo rt each instance in which you did not meet each emission limit and operating limit in Tables 1 and 3 to this subpart that apply to you. These instances are deviations from the emission limits in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according t o the requirements in §63. 1122 4
. §63.11222 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work practice and management practice standards? (a) For affected sources subject to the work practice standard or the management practices , you must keep records as required in § 63.11224(c) t o demonstrate continuous compliance. (b) Y ou must conduct a tune

- up of the boiler annually bie nn i ally to demonstrate continuous compliance as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section

. (1) Inspect the burner, and clean or replace any components of the burner as necessary ; (2) Inspect the flame pattern and make any adjustments to the bu rner necessary to optimize the flame pattern consistent with the manufacturer’s specifications ; (3) Inspect the system controlling the air

- to

- fuel ratio, and ensure that it is correctly calibrated and functioning properly ; (4) Minimize total emissions of CO consistent with the144
manufacturer’s specifications ; (5) Measure the concentration in the effluent stream of CO in parts per million , by volume, dry basis ( ppmvd ) , before and after the adjustments are made ; and (6) Maintain on

- site and s ubmit , if r equested by the Administrator, an annual report containing the information in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section , (i) The concentrations of CO in the effluent stream in ppmvd, and oxygen in percent dry basis, measured before and after the adjustments of the boiler ; (ii) A description of any corrective actions taken as a part of the combustion adjustment ; and (iii) The type and amount of fuel used over the 12 months prior to the annual adjustment. §63.112 23 What are my monitoring, inst allation, operation, and maintenance requirements? ( a ) If you are using a control device to comply with the emission limits specified in Table 1 of this subpart, y ou must maintain each operating limit in Table 3 of this subpart that applies to your boiler. If you use a control device not covered in Table 3, or you wish to establish and monitor an alternative operating limit and alternative monitoring par ameters, you must apply to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator for approval of alternative monitoring under145
§63.8(f). (b) If you demonstrate compliance with any applicable emission limit through stack testing, you must d evelop a site

specific monitoring plan according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section. This requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for alternative monitoring parameters under §63.8(f). (1) F or each continuous monitoring system (CMS) required in this section, you must develop , and submit to the EPA Administrator for approval upon request, a site

- specific monitoring plan that addresses paragraphs ( b )(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. You mu st submit this site

- specific monitoring plan (if requested) at least 60 days before your initial performance evaluation of your CMS. (i) Installation of the CMS sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected unit su ch that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last control device); (ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal an alyzer, and the data collection and reduction systems; and (iii) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance146
criteria (e.g., calibrations). (2) In your site

- specific monitoring plan, you must also address paragraphs ( b )(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of §63.8(c)(1), (3), and (4)(ii); (ii) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of §63.8(d); and (iii) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance with the general requirements of §63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i). (3) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS in accordance with your site

- specific monitoring plan. (4) You mu st operate and maintain the CMS in continuous operation according to the site

- specific monitoring plan. ( c ) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a CMS, you must install, operate, and maintain each continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according to the procedures in paragraphs ( c )(1) through (5) of this section. (1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15

- minute period. You must have a minimum of four successive cycles of operation to have a valid hour of data. (2) Except for monitoring malfunctions, associated147
repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must conduct all monito ring in continuous operation at all times that the unit is operating. A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor main tenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. (3) For purposes of calculating data averages, you must not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out of control periods, or required quality assurance or control activit ies. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. Any period for which the monitoring system is out

- of

- control and data are not available for required calculations constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requi rements. (4) Determine the 3

- hour block average of all recorded readings, except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. (5) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check. ( d ) If you have an applicable opacity oper ating limit, you must install, operate, certify and maintain each continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) according to the procedures in148
paragraphs ( d )(1) through (7) of this section by the compliance date specified in §63.11196. (1) Each COMS must b e installed, operated, and maintained according to PS 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. (2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each COMS according to the requirements in §63.8 and according to PS 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. (3) As specifi ed in §63.8(c)(4)(i), each COMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of sampling and analyzing for each successive 10

- second period and one cycle of data recording for each successive 6

- minute period. (4) The COMS data must be reduced as specified in §63. 8(g)(2). (5) You must include in your site

- specific monitoring plan procedures and acceptance criteria for operating and maintaining each COMS according to the requirements in §63.8(d). At a minimum, the monitoring plan must include a daily calibration drift assessment, a quarterly performance audit, and an annual zero alignment audit of each COMS. (6) You must operate and maintain each COMS according to the requirements in the monitoring plan and the requirements of §63.8(e). Identify periods the COM S is out of control including any periods that the COMS fails to pass a daily calibration drift assessment, a quarterly performance audit, or an annual149
zero alignment audit. (7) You must determine and record all the 1

- hour block averages collected for pe riods during which the COMS is not out of control. ( e ) If you have an applicable CO emission limit and your boiler has a heat input capacity of 100 MMBtu per hour or greater, you must install, operate, and maintain a CEMS for CO and oxygen according to t he procedures in paragraphs ( e )(1) through (6) of this section by the compliance date specified in §63.11196. The CO and oxygen shall be monitored at the same location at the outlet of the boiler. (1) Each CEMS must be installed, operated, and maintaine d according to Performance Specification (PS) 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and according to the site

- specific monitoring plan developed according to §63.112 2 3. (2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS according to the requirements in §63.8 and according to PS 4A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B. (3) Each CEMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for each successive 15

- minute period. (4) The CEMS data must be reduced as specifie d in §63.8(g)(2). (5) You must calculate and record all daily averages. A150
new daily average emission rate is calculated as the average of all of the hourly CO emission data for the calendar day. (6) For purposes of calculating data averages, you must not use data recorded during periods of monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out

- of

- control periods, required quality assurance or control activities, or when your boiler is operating at less than 50 percent of its rated capacity. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. Any period for which the monitoring system is out of control and data are not available for required calculations constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements. ( f ) You mus t include in your site

- specific monitoring plan procedures and acceptance criteria for operating and maintaining each C E MS according to the requirements in §63.8(d).
§ 63.11 224 What are my notification, reporting, and recordkeeping, requirements ? (a) You must submit the notifications specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)( 4 ) of this section. ( 1 ) You must submit all of the notifications in §§63.5(b), 63.7(b): 63.8(e) and (f); 63.9(b) through (e); and 63.9(g) and (h) that apply to you by the dates spec ified in those sections. (2) As specified in §63.9(b)(2) , you must submit the Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after151
[INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICAT ION OF THE FINAL RUL E IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER ] or within 120 days after the source become s subject to the standard. ( 3 ) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status in accordance with §63.9(h) no later than 120 days after the applicable compliance date specified in §63.11 196 unless you must conduct a performance test. If you must c onduct a performance test, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status within 60 days of completing the performance test. In addition to the information required in §63.9(h)(2), your notification must include the following certification(s) of

co mpliance, as applicable, and signed by a responsible official: ( i ) “This facility complies with the requirements in §63. 11 202 11 2 2 2 (b) to conduct an annual a bie nn i al tune

- u p of the boiler ”. ( ii ) “This facility has had an energy a ssessment performed

acco rding to §63. 11202 112 15 .” ( i ii ) This certification of compliance by the owner or operator that installs bag leak detection systems: “This facility has prepared a bag leak detection system monitoring plan in accordance with §63.11 221 and will operate eac h bag leak detection system according to the plan.” (4) If you are using data from a previously conducted emission test to serve as documentation of conformance with the Formatted: Font: Not Bold152
emission standards and operating limits of this subpart consistent with § 63.7(e)(2) (iv) , you must submit the test data in lieu of the initial performance test results with the Notification of Compliance Status required under paragraph (a)(3) of this section. (b) You must prepare , by March 1 of each year, an annual compliance certificati on report for the previous calendar year containing the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)( 3 ) of this section. You must submit the report by March 15 if you had any instance described by paragraph (b)( 3 ) of this section. ( 1 ) Company name and address. ( 2 ) Statement by a responsible official, with the official’s name, title, phone number, e

- mail address, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy and completeness of the notification and a statement of whether the source has complied with all the relevant standards and other requirements of this subpart

. ( 3 ) If the source is not in compliance, include a description of deviations from the applicable requirements, the time periods during which the deviations occurred, and the correctiv e actions taken. (4) The total fuel use by each affected source subject to an emission limit, for each calend ar month within the reporting153
period, including, but not limited to, a description of the fuel, including whether the fuel has received a non

- waste determination by you or EPA, and the total fuel usage amount with units of measure. (c) You must maintain the records specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) As required in §63.10(b)(2)(xiv), you must keep a copy of each notifi cation and report that you submitted to comply with this subpart and all documentation supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted. (2) You must keep records to document conformance with the work practices , emission reduction measures, and management practice s required by §63. 11 202 11 2 15 as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) R ecords must identify each boiler , the date of tune

up , the procedures followed for tune

- up, and the manufacturer’s specifications to which the boiler was tuned

. (ii) Records documenting monthly fuel use by each boiler, including the type(s) of fuel , including, but not limited to, a description of the fuel, including whether the fuel has received

a non - waste determination by you or EPA, and the total fuel usage amount with units of measure. (3) For sources that demonstrate compliance through fuel154
analysis, a copy of all calculations and supporting documentation that were done to demonstrate compliance with the mercury emission limits. Supporting documentation should include results of any fuel analyses. You can use the results from one fuel analysis for multiple boilers provided they are all burning the same fuel type. ( 4 ) You must keep the records of all inspection and monitoring data required by §§63.11 221 and 63.11 222 , and the information identified in paragraphs (c)( 4 )(i) through (v i ) of this section for each required inspection or monitoring. (i) The date, place, and time of the monitoring eve nt; (ii) Person conducting the monitoring; (iii) Technique or method used; (iv) Operating conditions during the activity; (v) Results, including the date, time, and duration of the period from the time the monitoring indicated a problem to the time that monitoring indicated proper operation; and (v i ) Maintenance or corrective action taken (if applicable). ( 5) If you use a bag leak detection system, you must keep the records specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Re cords of the bag leak detection system output. (ii) Records of bag leak detection system adjustments,155
including the date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detection system settings, and the final bag leak detection system settings. (ii i) The date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms, and for each valid alarm, the time you initiated corrective action, the corrective action taken, and the date on which corrective action was completed. (d) Your records must be in a form suitabl e and readily available for expeditious review, according to §63.10(b)(1). As specified in §63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 5 years following the date of each recorded action. You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the dat e of each recorded action according to §63.10(b)(1). You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. (e) For affected facilities having applicable emission limits, you must submit an electronic copy of stack test reports to EPA’s WebFIRE dat a base, the owner or operator of an affected facility shall enter the test data into EPA’s data base using the Electronic Reporting Tool located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert

_ tool.html. **Other Requirements and Information**  §63. 11235 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? Table 6 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in §§63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.156

§63. 11236 Who implements and enforces this subpart? (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by EPA or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency. (b) In dele gating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities contain ed in paragraphs ( c ) of this section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred t o the State, local, or tribal agency. (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) Approval of an alternative non

- opacity emission standard and work practice standards in §63. 112 23 ( a ). (2) Approval of alternative opacity emission standard under §63.6(h)(9). (3) Approval of major change to test methods under §63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) . A “major change to test method” is defined in §63.90.157
(4) Appro val of a major change to monitoring under §63.8(f) . A “major change to monitoring” is defined in §63.90. (5) Approval of major change to recordkeeping and reporting under §63.10(f) . A “major change to recordkeeping/reporting” i s defined in §63.90. §63
. 11237 What definitions apply to this subpart? Terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in §63.2 (the General Provisions), and in this section as follows: Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of monitoring particulate matter loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter (i.e., baghouse) in order to detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on electrodynamic, triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or other principle to monitor relative particulate matter loadings. Biomass means but is not limited to, wood residue, and wood products (e.g., trees, tree stumps, tree limbs, bark, lu mber, sawdust, sanderdust, chips, scraps, slabs, millings, and shavings); animal litter manure, including litter and other bedding materials ; vegetative agricultural and silvicultural materials, such as logging residues (slash), nut and grain hulls and chaf f (e.g., almond, walnut, peanut, rice, and wheat), bagasse, orchard prunings, corn stalks, coffee bean hulls and grounds. Formatted: Font: Courier New Formatted: Normal (Web), Tab stops: Not at 0" + 0.5" + 1" + 1.5" + 2" + 2.5" + 3" + 3.5" + 4" + 4.5" + 5" + 5.5" + 6" + 6.5"

Formatted: Font: Courier New158
This definition of biomass fuel is not intended to suggest that these materials are or not solid waste. Biomass subcategory includes any boiler that burns any amount of biomass, but no coal, either alone or in combination with l iquid fuels or gaseous fuels. Boiler means an enclosed combustion device in which water is heated to recover thermal energy in the form of steam or hot
water . A device combusting solid waste, as defined in 40 CFR 241.3, is not a boiler. Waste heat boilers are excluded from this definition. Coal means all solid fuels classifiable as anthracite, bituminous, sub

- bituminous, or lignite by the American Society fo r Testing and Materials in ASTM D388

- 99 e1 , “Standard Specification for Classification of Coals by Rank 1 ” (incorporated by reference, see §63.14(b)) and s ynthetic fuels derived from coal including but not limited to, solvent

- refined coal, coal

oil mixtures, and coal

- water mixtures. Coal derived gases are excluded from this definition. Coal subcategory includes any boiler that burns any amount of coal either alone or at least 10 percent coal on an annual heat input basis in combination with biomass, liquid fuels, or gaseous fuels. Commercial boiler means a boiler used in commercial establishments such as hotels, restaurants, and laundries to Formatted: Font: Courier New159
provide electricity, steam, and/or hot water that does not combust solid waste, as that term is defined by the Admini strator under RCRA

. Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a

source: (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart including, but not limited to, an y emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard; (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or (3) A deviation is not always a violation. The determination of whether a deviation constitutes a violation of the standard is up to the discretion of the entity responsible for enforcement of the standards. Dry scrubber means an add

- on air pollution control system that injects dry alkaline sorbent (dry injection) or sprays an alkaline sorbent (spray dryer) to react with and neutralize acid gas in the exhaust stream forming a dry powder material. Sorbent injection systems in f luidized bed boilers are included in this definition. Electrostatic precipitator means an add

- on air pollution160
control device used to capture particulate matter by charging the particles using an electrostatic field, collecting the particles using a groun ded collecting surface, and transporting the particles into a hopper. Energy a ssessment means an in

- depth assessment of a facility to identify immediate and long

- term opportunities to save energy, focusing on the steam and process heating systems which in volves a thorough examination of potential savings from energy efficiency improvements, waste minimization and pollution prevention, and productivity improvement. Equivalent means the following only as this term is used in Table 5 to this subpart : (1) A n equivalent sample collection procedure means a published voluntary consensus standard or practice (VCS) or EPA method that includes collection of a minimum of three composite fuel samples, with each composite consisting of a minimum of three increments c ollected at approximately equal intervals over the test period. (2) An equivalent sample compositing procedure means a published VCS or EPA method to systematically mix and obtain a representative subsample (part) of the composite sample. (3) An equiva lent sample preparation procedure means a published VCS or EPA method that: Clearly states that the161
standard, practice or method is appropriate for the pollutant and the fuel matrix; or is cited as an appropriate sample preparation standard, practice or m ethod for the pollutant in the chosen VCS or EPA determinative or analytical method. (4) An equivalent procedure for determining heat content means a published VCS or EPA method to obtain gross calorific (or higher heating) value. (5) An equivalent pro cedure for determining fuel moisture content means a published VCS or EPA method to obtain moisture content. If the sample analysis plan calls for determining mercury using an aliquot of the dried sample, then the drying temperature must be modified to pr event vaporizing th i s metal. On the other hand, if metals analysis is done on an "as received" basis, a separate aliquot can be dried to determine moisture content and the me rcury concentration mathematically adjusted to a dry basis. (6) An equivalent m ercury determinative or analytical procedure means a published VCS or EPA method that clearly states that the standard, practice, or method is appropriate for
mercury and the fuel matrix and has a published detection limit equal or lower than the methods l isted in Table 5 to this subpart for the same purpose. Fabric filter means an add

- on air pollution control device used to capture particulate matter by filtering gas streams162
through filter media, also known as a baghouse. Federally enforceable means all limitations and conditions that are enforceable by the EPA Administrator, including the requirements of 40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 61, requirements within any applicable State implementation plan, and any permit requirements established under 40 CFR 52 .21 or under 40 CFR 51.18 and 40 CFR 51.24. Fuel type means each category of fuels that share a common name or classification. Examples include, but are not limited to, bituminous coal, subbituminous coal, lignite, anthracite, biomass, distillate oil, re sidual oil.
Ga seous fuel s includes, but is not limited to, natural gas, process gas, landfill gas, coal derived gas, refinery gas, and biogas.
Gas

- fired boiler includes any boiler that burns gaseous fuels not combined with any solid fuels, burns liquid f uel only during periods of gas curtailment, gas supply emergencies, or periodic testing on liquid fuel. Periodic testing of liquid fuel shall not exceed a combined total of 48 hours during any calendar year. Heat input means heat derived from combustion of fuel in a boiler and does not include the heat input from preheated combustion air, recirculated flue gases, or exhaust gases from other sources such as gas turbines, internal combustion engines,163
kilns, etc. Industrial boiler means a boiler used in man ufacturing, processing, mining, and refining or any other industry to provide steam, hot water, and/or electricity that does not combust solid waste, as that term is defined by the Administrator under RCRA

. Institutional boiler means a boiler used in inst itutional establishments such as medical centers, research centers, and institutions of higher education to provide electricity, steam, and/or hot water that does not combust solid waste, as that term is defined by the Administrator under RCRA

. Liquid fue l means petroleum, distillate oil, residual oil , any form of liquid fuel derived from petroleum, on

- spec used oil, and biodiesel

. Minimum sorbent flow rate means 90 percent of the test average sorbent (or activated carbon) flow rate measured according to Table 6 to this subpart during the most recent performance test demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limits. Natural gas means: (1) A naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbon and nonhydrocarbon gases found in geologic formations bene ath the earth’s surface, of which the principal constituent is methane;

or164
(2) Liquid petroleum gas, as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials in ASTM D1835

- 03a, "Standard Specification for Liquid Petroleum Gases" (incorporated by ref erence, see §63.14(b)). Oil subcategory includes any boiler that does not burn any solid fuel and burns any liquid fuel either alone or in combination with gaseous fuels. Gas boilers that burn liquid fuel during periods of gas curtailment, gas supply eme rgencies, or for periodic testing of liquid fuel are not included in this definition. Opacity means the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission of light and obscure the view of an object in the background. Particulate matter means any finely di vided solid or liquid material, other than uncombined water, as measured by the test methods specified under this subpart, or an alternative method. Performance testing means the collection of data resulting from the execution of a test method used (eithe r by stack testing or fuel analysis) to demonstrate compliance with a relevant emission standard. Period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption means a period of time during which the supply of natural gas to an affected facility is halted for reasons beyond the control of the facility. An increase in the cost or unit price of natural165
gas does not constitute a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption. Qualified personnel mean specialists in evaluating energy systems who have s uccessfully completed the DOE Qualified Specialist program or the equivalent

. Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2.
Tune

- up means adjustments made to a boiler in accordance with procedures supplied by the manufacturer (or an approved specialist) to optimize the combustion efficiency. Waste heat boiler means a device that recovers normally unused energy and converts it to usable heat. Waste heat boilers incorporating duct or supplemental burners that are designed to s upply 50 percent or more of the total rated heat input capacity of the waste heat boiler are not considered waste heat boilers, but are considered boilers. Waste heat boilers are also referred to as heat recovery steam generators. Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the CAA.

**Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJJ**  **of Part 63 —**  **Emission Limits** As stated in §63. 11201 , you must comply with the following applicable emission limits:

**If your boiler For the**  **You must meet the**166

**is in this subcategory...**  **following pollutants...**  **following emission limits**

**...** 1. New coal a. Particulate Matter b. Mercury

c . Carbon Monoxide 0.0 2 lb per MMBtu of heat input; or 0. 00000 25 00000 3 lb per MMBtu of heat input 300 3 1 0 ppm by volume on a dry basis corrected to 7 percent oxygen (da il y average) 2
. New biomass a. Particulate Matter b. Mercury

c. Carbon

Monoxide 0. 02 lb per MMBtu of heat input; or 0.0000004 lb per MMBtu of heat input 100 ppm by volume on a dry basis corrected to 7 percent oxygen ( daily average) 3
. New oil a. Particulate Matter b. Mercury

c . Carbon

Monoxide 0. 06 lb per MMBtu of heat input; or 0.0 0 00003 lb per MMBtu of heat input

1 ppm by volume on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen (da il y average) 4. Existing coal ( units with heat input capacity of 10 million Btu per hour or greater ) a. Particulate Matter b. Mercury

c. Carbon Monoxide 0.3 lb per MMBtu of heat input; or 0. 00000 25 00000 3 lb per MMBtu of heat input 3 0 0 3 1 0 ppm by volume on a dry basis corrected to 7 percent oxygen (daily average) Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.88", Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt167

5. Existing biomass ( units with heat input capacity of 10 million Btu per hour or greater ) a. Particulate Mat ter b. Mercury

c. Carbon Monoxide 0.3 lb per MMBtu of heat input; or 0.000000 4 lb per MMBtu of heat input 1 65 1 70 ppm by volume on a dry basis corrected to 7 percent oxygen (daily average) 6. Existing oil ( units with heat input capacity of 10 millio n Btu per hour or greater ) a. Particulate Matter b. Mercury

c. Carbon Monoxide 0.3 lb per MMBtu of heat input; or 0.00000 8 lb per MMBtu of heat input

2 ppm by volume on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent oxygen (daily average)

**Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJJ of Part 63**  **— Work Practice Standards**  **, Emission Reduction Measures,**  **and Management Practices** As stated in § § 63.1120 2 and 63.11203 , you must comply with the following applicable work practice standards: **If your boiler is in this subcategory...**  **You m ust meet the following...**  1. Existing coal , biomass , or oil ( units with heat input capacity of less than 10 million Btu per hour) a. C onduct a tune

- up of the boiler annually bie nn i ally as specified in §63.11222.

2. Existing coal, biomass, or oil ( units with heat input capacity of 10 million Btu per hour and greater ) Must have an energy audit performed by qualified personnel which includes:

(1) a visual inspection of the boiler system. (2) establish operating characteristics of the facility, energy system specifications, operating and maintenance procedures,1 68
and unusual operating constraints, (3) identify major energy consuming systems, (4) a review of available architectural and engineering plans, facility operation and maintenance procedures and logs, and fuel usage, (5) a list of major energy conservation measures, (6) the energy savings potential of the energy conservation measures identified, (7) a comprehensive report detailing the ways to improve efficiency, the cost of specific improvemen ts, benefits, and the time frame for recouping those investments,

**Table 3**  **to Subpart JJJJJJ**  **of Part 63 —**  **Operating Limits for Boilers with**  **Mercury Emission Limits**  As stated in §63. 11201 , you must comply with the applicable operating limits:

**If you de monstrate**  **compliance with applicable**  **mercury emission limits**  **using... You must meet these operating**  **limits...** 1
. Fabric filter control a. Maintain opacity to less than or equal to 10 percent opacity ( daily block average) ; OR b. Install and operate a bag leak detection system according to §63.11221 and operate the fabric filter such that the bag leak detection system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time during each 6

- month period. 2
. Electrostatic M aintain op acity to less than or equal to 10 percent opacity ( daily169
precipitator control block average).

3
. Dry scrubber or carbon injection control Maintain the minimum sorbent or carbon injection rate at or above the operating levels established during the performance test that demo nstrated compliance with the applicable emission limit for mercury. 4 . Fuel analysis Maintain the fuel type or fuel mixture ( annual average) such that the mercury emission rates calculated according to §63. 11211 ( c ) is less than the applicable emission lim its for mercury.

**Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJJ**  **of Part 63 —**  **Performance (Stack)**  **Testing Requirements** As stated in §63. 11212 , you must comply with the following requirements for performance (stack) test for new affected sources:
**To conduct a pe**  **rformance test for the**  **following pollutant...**  **You must... Using...**  1. Particulate

Matter a. Select sampling ports location and the number of traverse points. b. Determine velocity and volumetric flow

rate of the stack gas.

c. Determine oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations of the stack gas. Method 1 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.

Method 2, 2F, or 2G in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Method 3A or 3B in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, or ASTM D6522

- 00170

d. Measure the moisture content of the stack gas

e. Measure the particulate matter emission concentration.

f. Convert emissions concentration to lb / MMBtu emission rates. (IBR, see §63.14(b)), or ASME PTC 19, Part 10(1981)(IBR, see §63.14(i)). Method 4 in appendix A t o part 60 of this chapter. Method 5 or 17 (positive pressure fabric filters must use Method 5D) in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Method 19 F

- factor methodology in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.171

2
. Mercury a. Select sampling ports locati on and the number of traverse points. b. Determine velocity and volumetric flow

rate of the stack gas.

c. Determine oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations of the stack gas.

d. Measure the moisture content of the stack gas.

e. Measure the mercury emission concentration.

f. Conver t emissions concentration to lb/ MMBtu emission rates. Method 1 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.

Method 2, 2F, or 2G in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Method 3A or 3B in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, or ASTM D6522

- 00 (IBR, see §63.14(b)), or ASME PTC 19, Part 10(1981)(IBR, see §63.14(i)). Method 4 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Method 29 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter or Method 101A in appendix B to part 61 of thi s chapter or ASTM Method D6784

- 02 (IBR, see §63.14(b)). Method 19 F

- factor methodology in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.172

3
. Carbon Monoxide a. Select the sampling ports location and the number of traverse points. b. Determine velocity and volum etric flow

rate of the stack gas.

c. Determine oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations of the stack gas.

d. Measure the moisture content of the stack gas.

e. Measure the carbon monoxide emission concentration.

f. Convert emissions concentratio n to lb / MMBtu emission rates. Method 1 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.

Method 2, 2F, or 2G in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Method 3A or 3B in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, or ASTM D6522

- 00 (IBR, see §63.14(b)), or ASME PTC 19, Part 10(1981)(IBR, see §63.14(i)). Method 4 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Method 10, 10A, or 10 B in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter or ASTM D6522

- 00 (IBR, see §63.14(b)

. Method 19 F

- factor methodology in appendix A to part 60 o f this chapter.

**Table 5**  **to Subpart JJJJJJ**  **of Part 63 —**  **Fuel Analysis Requirements**  As stated in §63. 11213 , you must comply with the following requirements for fuel analysis testing for new affected sources:173

**To conduct a fuel analysis**  **for the following**  **pollutant... You must...**  **Using...** 1. Mercury a. Collect fuel samples.

b. Compo s e fuel samples.

c. Prepare composited fuel samples.

d. Determine heat content of the fuel type.

e. Determine moisture content of the fuel type. Procedure in §63. 11213 (c) or ASTM D2234

- D2234M

- 0 3 **0** 1 (for coal)(IBR, see §63.14(b)) or ASTM D6323

- 98 (2003)(for biomass)(IBR, see §63.14(b)) or equivalent. Procedure in §63. 11213 ( c ) or equivalent.
SW

- 846

- 3050B (for solid samples) or SW

- 846

- 3020A (for liquid samples) or ASTM D2013

- 0 4 (for coal)(IBR, see §63.14(b)) or ASTM D5198

- 92 (2003) (for biomass)(IBR, see §63.14(b)) or equivalent.
ASTM D 5865

- 0 4 (for coal)(IBR, see §63.14(b)) or ASTM E711

- 87 (1996) (for biomass)(IBR, see §63.14(b)) or equivalent.

ASTM D3173

- 0 3 (IBR, see §63.14(b)) or ASTM E871

- 82 (1998)(IBR, see §63.14(b)) or equivalent.174

f. Me asure mercury concentration in fuel sample.

g. Convert concentrations into units of lb/ MMBtu of heat content. ASTM D 6722

- 01 (for coal)(IBR, see §63.14(b)) or SW

- 846

- 7471A (for solid samples) or SW

- 846 7470A (for liquid samples) or equivalent

.

**Table 6**  **to Subpart JJJJJJ**  **of Part 63 —**  **Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart**  **JJJJJJ** As stated in §63. 11235 , you must comply with the applicable General Prov isions according to the following:

**Citation Subject**  **Applies to subpart JJJJJJ** §63.1 Applicability Yes. §63.2 Definitions Yes. §63.3 Units and Abbreviations Yes.
§63.4 Prohibited Activities and Circumvention Yes.

§63.5 Preconstruction Review and Noti fication Requirements No

§63.6(a), (b)(1)

- (b)(5), (b)(7), (c), (f)(2)

- (3), (g), (i), (j) Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements Yes.175

§63.6(e)(1), (e)(3), (f)(1), and(h) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements and Opacity/ Visible Emission Limits No. Standards apply at all times, including during startup, shutdown, and malfunction events.

§63.7 (a),(b),(c), (d),(e)(2)

- (e)(9), (f),(g), and (h) Performance Testing Requirements Yes.

§63.7(e)(1) Conditions for conducting performanc e tests No. Subpart DDDDD specifies conditions for conducting performance tests at §63.11210. §63.8 Monitoring Requirements Yes.
§63.9 Notification Requirements Yes. Subpart JJJJJJ requires submission of Notification of Compliance Status within 120 day s of compliance date unless a performance test is required. §63.10(a), (b)(1 ), (b)(2) (i)

- (iii) , (b)(2)(vi)

- (xiv), (c) (1)

- (c)(14) , (d)(1)

- (2), and (f) Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(iv)

- (v),(b)(3), (d)(3)

- (5) , and (e) No , Sub part JJJJJJ requires submission on an annual basis.

§63.10(c)(15) Allows use of SSM plan No.
§63.11 Control Device Requirements No.
§63.12 State Authority and Delegation Yes.176

§63.13

- 63.16 Addresses, Incorporation by Reference, Availability of Inform ation, Performance Track Provisions Yes.

§63.1( a )( 5 ) , ( a )( 7 )

- ( a )(9) , (b)(2), (c)(3)

- (4), (d), 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv), 63.8(a)(3), 63.9(b)(3), (h)(4), 63.10(c)(2)

- (4), (c)(9). Reserved No