US1DOCS 7993688v1

July 15, 2011

Hand Delivery and Email

Lisa Jackson, Administrator 

US EPA Headquarters 

Ariel Rios Building (Rm. 3000) 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Attention: Reconsideration Petition in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-

0058 -- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: 

Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, Notice of 

Reconsideration of Final Rules, 76 FR 15266 (March 21, 2011); Notice of Delay, 76 FR 

28662 (May 18, 2011). 

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) appreciates the opportunity to submit these 

comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the Agency’s 

reconsideration of the final Boiler MACT Rule -- National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and 

Process Heaters, 76 FR 15608 (March 21, 2011), and the EPA’s request for additional data and 

information in the Notice of Delay of Final Rule, 76 FR 28662 (May 18, 2011). In addition, these 

comments apply to reconsideration of, and request for additional data and information 

regarding, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: 

Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. Our comments refer to 

these two rules together as the “ICI Boiler MACT Rules.”

ANGA is an educational and advocacy organization formed by North America’s leading 

independent natural gas exploration and production companies. Together, ANGA members 

produce about 40 percent of the total U.S. natural gas supply. ANGA is dedicated to increasing 

appreciation for the environmental, economic and national security benefits of clean, abundant, 

affordable and dependable North American natural gas. ANGA’s member companies produce 

the clean and efficient natural gas that is currently being burned in the over 11,000 natural gasfired boilers/process heaters that are covered by the ICI Boiler MACT Rules. 

ANGA supports EPA’s decision to subject natural gas-fired boilers to a work practice 

standard that requires an annual tune-up in lieu of emission limits, 1 and believes that the 

administrative record supports the technical, economic and legal justifications set forth by EPA 

in the ICI Boiler MACT Rules. EPA accurately recognizes that natural gas is the cleanest fuel 

available for boilers, and that emissions of mercury and other HAPs from properly maintained 

natural gas-fired boilers are so low that they are below the level EPA considers to be a reliable 

measurement.2

 

1 76 Fed. Reg. , 15608, 15612 (Mar. 21, 2011).

 

2 Id., at 15638.
US1DOCS 7993688v1

In comments dated August 23, 2010, regarding the proposed ICI Boiler MACT Rules, we, 

along with the American Gas Association (AGA), specifically requested that the Agency take into 

consideration the most recent and best science, information and data with respect to 

fundamental issues such as the significantly lower level of HAP emissions from natural gas-fired 

boilers and the ability of the industry to provide natural gas to ICI boilers in light of current 

natural gas supply and infrastructure conditions (see pages 9-14 of ANGA’s August 23, 2010 

comments, which are attached, for a summary and discussion of these issues). We note that 

AGA has filed comments on the Boiler MACT reconsideration and we hereby endorse those 

comments, dated July 5, 2011.

Based on our review of the ICI Boiler MACT Rules, and the Response to Comments 

document, we are very disappointed that EPA failed to consider the dramatic expansion in the 

supply of domestic natural gas since 2007. We encourage the Agency, as part of this 

reconsideration process, to consider and incorporate in its analyses the recent, best available 

data as well as the potential cost-effectiveness implications this abundant supply would have on 

the choice to use natural gas as a fuel for boilers and process heaters. The Agency response to 

commentsi

ANGA also requests that EPA revise its unsupported conclusion that fuel switching to 

natural gas would lead to an increase in HAP emissions. For a further discussion of this issue, 

see pages 5-7 of ANGA’s August 23, 2011 comments. EPA correctly concludes that natural gas is 

the “cleanest fuel available for boilers” in the rulemaking. We encourage the agency to make its 

control decisions based on the scientifically supported fact that natural gas is a clean burning 

fuel. 

fails to provide any explanation as to how the Agency considered or incorporated the 

best available data in its final proposal. The Agency’s entirely conclusory statement, and the 

absence of such an explanation or incorporation of the data in revised analyses, raises concerns 

as to whether the standard set by the Agency in the final rule is based on best available data or 

supported by the administrative record. 

ANGA believes that this rule, like other rules promulgated by the Agency, should reflect 

the use of the best data and science that is available, and that the ongoing reconsideration 

presents an opportunity for EPA to do so. As part of its reconsideration, we request that the 

Agency look more closely at its analysis of both the capital costs and operating costs of fuel 

switching. For example, in its 2010 Cost Memorandum, the Agency claimed that its regulatory 

requirements for multiple post-combustion controls on coal-fired boilers would achieve roughly 

the same emissions reductions as switching to gas (2010 Cost Memo, Appendix A-7); however, it 

never compared the $4.5 billion capital cost for those controls3

We also repeat our request that the Agency look more closely at that $1.171 billion capital 

cost for fuel switching in the 2010 Cost Memo. We continue to believe that using cost data from 

one 1986 feasibility study that is actually based on converting oil, not coal fired boilers, is 

inappropriate for purposes of estimating costs in 2010-2011. Furthermore, our analysis 

suggests that the boiler conversions that were the subject of the 1986 feasibility study all 

involved conversions from oil-to-gas, not coal-to-gas, and that the Agency may have 

inadvertently included a separate cost estimate -- not actual costs -- for one of those three 

boilers as the fourth “conversion”. 

to its capital cost figure of $1.171 

billion for the capital cost of fuel-switching to natural gas. 

 

3 See, Regulatory Impact Analysis, p. 3-2.
US1DOCS 7993688v1

Finally, with respect to operating costs, ANGA requests that as part of its reconsideration 

process, EPA revisit the price of natural gas that it used in its analysis. In its cost analysis for the 

ICI Boiler MACT Rules the Agency used a gas price of $11.66 per MMBtu; however, in the cost 

analysis in the Technical Support Document that the Agency published for its proposed utility 

EGU MACT -- which was signed two weeks after the ICI Boiler MACT Rules were finalized -- it 

used $5.74 per MMBtu. ANGA suggests that the Agency look to more recent price data4

ANGA respectfully suggests that the Agency would be well served to take into 

consideration the most recent and best science, information and data as it reconsiders the ICI 

Boiler MACT Rules, and requests that it look specifically at the issues identified in these 

comments as part of its broader reconsideration of the entire rule.

, 

including its own contemporaneous data, to support a more robust cost analysis for the ICI 

Boiler MACT Rules.

If you have any questions, please contact Peter Robertson at probertson@anga.us or 

(202) 789-2642.

Sincerely,

Regina Hopper

President and CEO

CC: 

Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator 

Office of Air and Radiation 

US EPA Headquarters 

Ariel Rios Building (6101A) 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Brian Shrager

Energy Strategies Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

(D243–01)

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

 

4 e.g. Henry Hub and NYMEX data showing prices will stay low and stable 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_fut_s1_d.htm
US1DOCS 7993688v1

Jim Eddinger

Energy Strategies Group

Sector Policies and Programs Division

(D243–01)

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

 

i “EPA has reviewed the complex details cited by the commenter, such as the country’s pipeline and 

storage network capacities. However, the EPA decision that fuel switching is inappropriate remains 

unchanged”i