1

June 10 , 2011

VIA ELEC T RONIC AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

The Honorable Lisa Jackson Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Room 3000 Ariel Rios Federal Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

Re: Petition for Immediate Administrative Stay and Reconsideration of Final Rule, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants : Area Source Standards for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing

. 7 5 Fed. Reg. 522 (2010 )

. Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2008

- 0080

Dear Administrator Jacks on :

The American Feed Industry Association (AFIA), National Chicken Council (NCC), National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA ), National Turkey Federation (NTF) and
the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association (USPOULTRY) are industry trade associations
whose membe r companies operate nearly all major feed mills in the United States. These organizations (Petitioners) respectfully petition the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for an immediate administrative stay and reconsideration of the January 5,
2010 final rule, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Area Source Standards for Prepared Feeds Manufacturing (Feed Mill R ule)

. 7 5 Fed. Reg. 522 (2010)

.

In the final rule, EPA set a 95 percent design efficiency standard for particulate matter (PM) and provided a certification process to demonstrate compliance with the standard. Absent a reconsideration of the rule, the Petitioners’ members will suffer irreparable
harm beca use facilities cannot reasonably demonstrate compliance with this inaccurate and inappropriate standard.2

As demonstrated below, EPA has ample authority and justification to grant an administrative stay and reconsideration o f the feed m ill r ule pursuant to Section 307 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. §7607, and Se ction 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act ( APA), 5 U.S.C. § 705 . Furthermore, such action is required to impart justice and to prevent irreparable harm.

I. INTRODUCTION

The American Feed Industry Association (AFIA) is the national trade association for the feed industry representing nearly 600 member companie s. AFIA members manufacture 75 percent of the feed and pet food sold annually in the U.S., and membership includes manufacturers, ingredient suppliers, animal health companies, equipment manufactur ers, large integrated livestock and poultry producers, international firms and firms providing other goods and services to the animal food industry.

The National Chicken Council (NCC) is a nonprofit member organization representing companies that produce and process over 90 percent of the broiler/fryer chickens
marketed in the United States. NCC serves as an advocate on behalf of its members with regard to the development and implementation of federal and state programs and regulations that affect the chi cken industry.

The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) , established in 1896, consists of more than 1,050 grain, feed, processing, exporting and other grain

- related companies that operate more than 7,000 facilities nationwide. Its membership includ es over 350 companies that are directly involved in feed and feed ingredient manufacturing operations.

The National Turkey Federation (NTF) is the national advocate for all segments of the turkey industry. NTF provides services and conducts activities wh ich increase demand for its members’ products by protecting and enhancing their ability to profitably provide wholesome, high

- quality, nutritious products.3

The U.S. Poultry & Egg Association (USPOULTRY) is the world’s largest poultry organization, whose membership includes producers of broilers, turkeys, ducks, eggs and breeding stock, as well as allied companies. The Association focuses on research, education and technical services, as well as communic ations to keep members of the poultry industry current on important issues.

II. EPA HAS AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER AND STAY FINAL RULE

A. EPA’s Authority to Reconsider Final Rule

Pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, EPA is authorized to reconsider a rul e where it was impracticable to raise an objection during the public comment or if the grounds of such objection arose after the public comment period, and if such objection is
of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Given the fact that EPA expli citly stated that existing control technology provided sufficient and effective hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emission control, Petitioners had no opportunity to comment on the unforeseen impact s of the regulation when EPA’s flawed 95 percent design effici ency certification provisions could not be implemented.

EPA incorporated the 95 percent design efficiency certification provisions for facilities to demonstrate compliance based on incomplete and inaccurate data from only a limited number of control equipment suppliers that focused primarily on new (or newer) u nits. In addition, EPA neither include d in the rulemaking docket n or consider ed in rulemaking
deliberations its own air pollution technology fact sheet on the efficiency ranges of cyclones. The Agency’s fact she et , which was discovered after publication of the final rule, is attached as Appendix I

. Specifically, the fact sheet reported typical design efficiency ranges for cyclones that were well below 95 percent. EPA’s failure to consider this critical information is of central importance to the outcome of the rule because it proved to be a fatal flaw in the Agency’s primary regulatory assumption that facilities4

with existing cyclones could easily demonstrate compliance with the design efficiency certification provisions.

This unintended result, i.e., f acilities that are unable to certify compliance with the 95 percent design efficiency standard, forces facilities to install new cyclones in order to demonstrate compliance with the regula tory requirements of the rule. This is in direct
contradiction of E PA’s assumption and primary basis for the rule that facilities did not
need to replace cyclones to reduce HAP emissions effectively . EPA needs to revise the requirements for demonstrating compliance with the rule or substantially amend it s economic impact analysis, particularly with respect to small business impacts. Accordingly and as discussed below, reconsideration of the feed mill rule pursuant to section 307(d) of the CAA is appropriate.

B. EPA’s Authority to Issue a Stay of the Final R ule

The Petitioners also request a stay of the feed mill rule pending the reconsideration of the rule pursuant to section 307 of the CAA and section 705 of the APA . A stay of the rule is necessary because facilities face a January 5, 2012 deadline to dem onstrate compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements. Unable to demonstrate compliance through the design efficiency certification provisions (as EPA had assumed), facilities forced to install new cyclones would not be able to purchase, finance , permit and install them by January 2012, even assuming that it would be technically and economically feasible to do so

.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA allows EPA to grant a stay for three months
, if the Agency dec ides to reconsider a rule. N o other c riteria or conditions are imposed on the Agency’s authority to issue a stay. Pursuant to section 705 of the APA, EPA may stay the effective date “when justice so requires.” As discussed below, the unintended impacts of the feed mill rule warrant a recons ideration and stay of the rule consistent with the statutory requirements of both the CAA and the APA.5

III. RECONSIDERATION FOR THE FINAL RULE IS WA RRANTED

EPA must reconsider the final feed mill rule because the basic assumptions underlying
the rule are flaw ed. For the reasons discussed below, it was impractical to raise objections regarding the substantial and unintended impacts of the rule during the public comment period and these objections are of central importance to the outcome of the rule.

A. EPA Expl icit ly Stated that Existing Control Technology Is Sufficient

In promulgating the final rule, EPA assumed and explicitly stated that the existing control technology, i.e., cyclones, provided sufficient and effective HAP emissions control. In fact, EPA estimated that the requirement to install cyclones on pelleting processes at the facilities with average daily feed production levels exceeding 50 tons per day will result
in emission reductions of approximately 1,100 tons per year for PM, 20 tons per year for manganese, and less than one ton per year for chromium. 75 Fed. Reg. 522, 544 (2010). It would, therefore, be reasonable to conclude that EPA expected that t hese modest
reduction s would be from only a few facilities that installed cyclones with a 95 percent design efficiency.

EPA specifically stated in the preamble to the final rule that it :

[ c ] ontacted additional cyclone manufacturers after proposal, and some agreed with the commenters that cyclones designed to achieve 95 percent efficiency level for PM10 for pelleting operations are not available. All of those contacted indicated that many older cyclones still being used in the industry would not meet the proposed 95 percent PM 10 design requirement

. It was not our intent to force prepared feeds manufacturers to replace older, well designed and properly operating cyclones with new high efficiency cyclones, particularly since the incremental emission reduction would be very low and the costs would be high (our estimates are that the capital cost of a new cyclone is b etween $50,000 to $100,000). [Emphasis added.] 75 Fed. Reg. at 533.6

EPA also assumed that less than two percent of the small businesses impacted by the rule would potentially need to install new cyclones under the regulation. 75 Fed. Reg. at 544.

Based on these fundamental assumptions, EPA did not anticipate that many facilities subject to the rule would have to replace control equipment or implement any new management practices. Specifically, EPA stated that:

[ w ] e believe a ll prepared feed manufacturing facilities already i mplement the proposed ma nagement practices. Therefore, there will be no additional costs for these measures. We estimate that the nationwide capital costs for the installation of cyclones on the pelletin g cooling operations at large facilities will be around $2.5 million. The associated annual costs are estimated to be just over $3 million/year. 75 Fed. Reg. at 544.

It is clear that EPA based its technical and economic impact analysis of the final rule on the fundamental assumption that existing controls and management practic es were sufficient to reduce HAP emissions effectively and that the vast majority of facilities subject to the rule would not have to install new cyclones or implement new management practices.

B. Compliance Was Based on Performance of Existing Control Measures

EPA incorrectly chose to use a design efficiency standard for cyclones even though the actual basis for its regulatory analysis was the performance of existing control measures. In the preamble to the final rule, EPA specifically stated that:

[f]or all new and existing sources, compliance with the final regulation is demonstrated through installation of the required equipment, adherence to the management practices spec ified in the rule, and keeping the required records and submitting the required notifications and reports described below. To ensure that the cyclone for the pelleting and pellet cooling process is operated properly at facilities with average daily feed p roduction levels exceeding 50 tpd, the final rule requires that the cyclone be inspected quarterly for corrosion, erosion, or any other damage that may result in air in

- leakage, and that the inlet flow rate, inlet velocity, pressure drop, or fan amperage b e monitored and recorded daily to ensure that it is being operated in accordance with specified proper operating ranges. 75 Fed. Reg. at 525.7

The actual performance of existing control measures provides the desired environmental
benefit of the final rule , and not the theoretical design efficiency standard that EPA
identified to demonstrate compliance

.

C. Problems Associated with EPA’s 95 Percent Design Efficiency
Framework

As a measure to demonstrate the performance of existing control measures discussed above, EPA incorporated the 95 percent design efficiency certification provisions for facilities to demonstrate compliance. EPA’s 95 percent design efficiency certification was based on a selected set of incomplete data from only a few suppliers that focused primarily on new units. Information in the rulemaking record indicates that the initial 95 percent design efficiency requirement for cyclones in the proposed rule was b ased on an
internet search and marketing material s posted on the website of two equipment suppliers located in the United Kingdom that pertained to high efficiency cyclones.

In response to comments submitted by petitioners, NGFA and AFIA, EPA contacted one of these companies as well as two other equipment suppliers that sell cyclones to the prepared feed manufacturing operations. All three companies that responded indicated

t hat cyclones could not achieve 95 percent efficiency for PM10 (even high effici ency cyclones). Two of the companies also ind icated that consistently achiev ing 95 percent efficiency for PM was unlikely due to a number of variables such as particle size, specific gravity, heat and moisture content of the particles.

Based on this info rmation, EPA replaced the proposed 95 percent design efficiency standard for PM10 with a 95 per cent design efficiency standard for PM in the final rule. This change indicated that EPA recognized the problem with the design efficiency standard, but did not fully comprehend the appropriate solution. Furthermore, in the proposed rule, EPA did not articulate that a design efficiency standard for PM was a regulatory option under consideration.8

It does not necessarily follow that a 95 percent design efficien cy standard is achievable for PM. Having concluded that 95 percent efficiency is not achievable for PM10, EPA should have requested comments on whether the standard for PM was achievable. Accordingly, EPA di d not provide the Petitioners a meaningful oppo rtunity to comment
on the 95 percent design efficiency standard for PM that was included in the final rule.

D. EPA Fail ed to Consider its Own Technology Fact Sheet for Cyclones

Following the issuance of the final rule, Petitioners discovered via an Internet search a previously released EPA air pollution technology fact sheet for cyclones that had not been part of EPA’s rulemaking docket . The EPA fact sheet provides a detailed description of the operation and performance of conventi onal and high efficiency cyclones. In the fact sheet, EPA specifically stated that :

[t]he collection efficiency of cyclones varies as a function of particle size and cyclone design. Cyclone efficiency generally increases with (1) particle size and/or de nsity, (2) inlet duct velocity, (3) cyclone body length, (4) number of gas revolutions in the cyclone, (5) ratio of cyclone body diameter to gas exit diameter, (6) dust loading, and (7) smoothness of the cyclone inner wall. Cyclone efficiency will decreas e with increases in (1) gas velocity, (2) body diameter, (3) gas exit diameter, (4) gas inlet duct area, and (5) gas density. A common factor contributing to decreased control efficiencies in cyclones is leakage of air into the dust outlet.

In the fact s heet, EPA also reported the following control efficiency ranges for
convention al and high efficiency cyclones.

 Conventional C yclones

o 70 to 90 percent for PM

o 30 to 90 percent for PM10

o 0 to 40 percent for PM2.5

 High Efficiency Cyclones

o 80 to 99 percent for PM

o 60 to 95 percent for PM10

o 20 to 70 percent for PM2.59

Based on this information , it is clear that a 95 percent design efficiency standard for PM is not appropriate for conventional or high efficiency cyclones. In fact, EPA stated in the
fact sheet that “[c]yclone design is generally driven by a specified pressure

- drop limitation, rather than by meeting a specified control efficiency.” This suggests that due to the many variables associated with control efficiency for cyclones, design efficiency
would no t appear to be an appropriate regulatory standard.

EPA did not include in the rulemaking docket or consider as part of the rulemaking

process its own air pollution technology fact sheet regarding the achievable efficiency ranges for cyclones in setting the design efficiency standard in the final rule. Not only does EPA’s 95 percent design efficiency standard exceed the reported ranges, but cont rol efficiency also does not appear to be an appropriate criterion for a regulatory standard.
This information presented in EPA’s fact sheet demonstrates that the 95 percent design efficiency standard in the final rule is unreasonable and inappropriate
, a nd should be reconsidered by EPA.

E. Implementation of the Design Efficiency Certification I s Problematic

When EPA incorporated the 95 percent design efficiency standard into the final feed mill rule, it assumed that facilities could easily certify complianc e with this requirement. As discussed above, the design efficiency framework is flawed. Consequently, following the promulgation of the final rule companies began to experience difficulties obtaining the mandated certification. Unable to demonstrate comp liance through the certification process, facilities would inadvertently be forced to install new cyclones (in direct contradiction of EPA’s expressed intent for the rule) for the reasons discussed below.

For most facilities, manufacturers would not certi fy that existing cyclones would meet the 95 percent design efficiency standard ( although some manufacturers we re willing to certify that new, or newer, cyclones would meet the 95 percent design efficiency standard). As a result, professional engineers (PE s) and responsible corporate officials had no credible basis to certify that existing cyclones me e t the 95 percent design10

efficiency standard. These conclusions are supported by the discussion above that the control efficiency ranges for cyclones are below 95 percent.

For many of the same reasons discussed above regarding achievable control efficiencies, demonstrating compliance with the 95 percent design efficiency standard through performance testing is not a practical or cost effective method to de termine compliance. First, based on the reported efficiency ranges for cyclones, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate complian ce through performance testing. Second, the costs associated with the sampling can be substantial (approximate ly $10,000 to $15,000 per system ) and particularly burdensome to small businesses. While facilities can get modeled numbers for performance testing, the input values can be difficult and expensive to obtain as they may vary dramatically and change daily.

F. Without Reconsideration EPA’s Economic Impact Analysis Must Be
Revised

EPA’s economic impact analysis for the final rule is inextricably linked to a “no new cyclone installation ” assumption. If facilities are forced to install new cyclones to demonstrate compliance , the capital cost of the rule changes from EPA’s estimate of $ 2.5 million to orders of magnitude higher

– a significant economic impact of approximately $200 million

. These costs are based on EPA’s estimates and industry surveys regarding new cyclones.

If EPA does not revise the feed mill rule and the design efficiency certification provisions, the economic impact analysis must be corrected. With most facilities bei ng forced to install new cyclones, EPA’s assumption s regarding the number of facilities that would have to install new cyclones, the estimated compliance costs, and the impacts on the industry (particularly small business) are erroneous and fatally flawed. Furthermore, substantially more than two percent of small businesses will be significantly impacted by the rule, thereby triggering the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).11 G. Reconsideration of the Feed Mill Rule Is Required

In summary, EPA’s reliance on the 95 percent design efficiency certification provisions to demonstrate compliance is problematic because it :

 is contrary to EPA’s assumptions and intent for the rule,

 would create substantial and unnecessary compliance uncertainty f or the vast majority of facilities that cannot secure the certification or otherwise demonstrate compliance with the 95 percent design efficiency standard, and

 present s significant compliance certainty challenges for industry and enforceability challenges for EPA regarding the standard.

The focus of the rule is on the performance of the existing control technology and management practices to reduce HAP emissions below baseline levels. T he compliance
certification mechanism in the final rule is , however, disconnected from reported control efficiencies for cyclones and EPA’s own analysis and expl icitly stated intent (i.e., that generally available technology is sufficient to meet the objective s of the rule)

.

Accordingly, EPA needs to revise the rule by el iminating the arbitrary design efficiency
certification standard and clarify the agency’s intent that the regulation is based on optimizing existing control technology (i.e., cyclones). This can be achieve d through the implementation of a broad range of e xisting best management practices (BMPs) , as practicable, to ensure that new and existing cyclones continue to be operated and maintained appropriately to control HAP emissions effectively

-- a n approach that EPA
has used in promulgating several other area source NESHAP rules.

IV. AN IMMEDIATE STAY IS REQUIRED BY JUSTICE

EPA has ample authority to grant a stay pending reconsideration of the feed mill rule
under both s ection 307 of the CAA and section 705 of the APA. Under CAA Section 307(d)(7)(B), EPA may grant a stay for three months if the Agency ha s decided to12

reconsider a rule. 42 U.S.C. §7607(d)(7)(B). No other criteria or conditions are imposed on the Agency’s authority to issue a stay. Under APA section 705, EPA may stay the
effective date of a r

ule “when justice so requires.” 5 U.S.C. § 705.

Under Section 705, EPA may grant a stay “[r]egardless of whether [the stay request] meet[s] the requirements of Section 307(d)(7)(B).” See Ohio: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, 46 Fed. Re g. at 8582 n.1. Moreover, a stay under Section 705 may be of unlimited duration. In fact, EPA has regularly used this authority to postpone the effective date of a rule indefinitely. See, e.g., Reconsideration of the Prevention of Significant Deteriorat ion and Nonattainment New Source Review NSR: Aggregation, 75 Fed. Reg. 27643 (May 18, 2010); F inal Rule, Amendments of Final Rule t o Postpon e Requirements, 61 Fed. Reg. 28 508 (June 5, 1996) (staying rules to prevent facilities from incurring “compliance expenditures . . . which may prove unnecessary in light of the projected amendments”); Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces, 56 Fed. Reg. 42874 (Sept . 5, 1991). Thus, the APA provides ample authority for EPA to stay the feed mill r ule.

As demonstrated below, EPA has ample authority and justification to grant an
administrative st ay under section 705 of the APA , 5 U.S.C. § 705, pending judicial
review
, and such an administrative stay is required to impart justice and to prevent irreparable harm.

Justice requires a stay of the feed mill rule because the means for demonstrating compliance with the rule, i.e., the 95 percent design efficiency standard, ca nnot be reasonably implemented. Based on the information provided above, the design efficiency standard is not achievable by most facilities. In addition, EPA did not provide facilities with any reasonable alternatives to demonstrate compliance. As a re sult, facilities are now faced with substantial uncertainty regarding regulatory compliance with the final
rule.13

As an alternative, facilities would be forced to install new cyclones to demonstrate compliance with the rule. Such a result is contrary to E PA’s fundamental basis and explicit intent for the rule. Furthermore, even if facilities decide to install new cyclones, they would not be able to purchase, finance, permit and install the units by the January 2012 compliance deadline. Accordingly, a sta y is required to im part justice and to prevent irreparable harm to the Petitioners’ members.

V. A STAY IS WARRANTED EVEN UNDER MORE STRI NGENT
JUDICIAL STANDARD

While a stay is warranted under the APA, it would also be justified even under the more stringent standard employed by the courts. Courts typically consider four factors in determining whether to grant a judicial stay: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken
v. Holder , 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1761 (2009) . These factors must be ba lanced against one another, such that “[a] stay may be granted with either a high probability of success and some injury, or vice versa.” Cuomo v. US Nuclear Reg. Com’n , 772 F.2d 972, 974 (D.C. Cir. 1985). All four factors are amply satisfied in this ca se.

A. Petitioners Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits

As discussed above, EPA has promulgated a final rule that includes a 95 percent d e sign efficiency certification provision for cyclones that is based on incomplete, inaccurate, and
flawed data. In addition, the standard is inconsistent with EPA’s own air pollution technology fact sheet on achievable control efficiencies for cyclones. Finally, EPA failed to provide Petitioners with an opportunity to comment on the final 95 percent design efficiency standard for PM. Because of these procedural and substantive errors, facilities are unable to demonstrate compliance with the fi nal rule as EPA had intended. Thus, the rule cannot be justified appropriately.14

EPA’s economic impact analysis in the final r ule was based on the assumption that
facilities would not have to replace cyclones. Even though EPA assumed that existing control technology and management practices were sufficient to continue to control HAP
emissions effectively from impacted facilities , most of these facilities are forced to install new cyclones to demonstrate compliance. Consequently, EPA’s economic impact analysis failed to include these substantial additional costs and assess the significant impacts on a substantial number of small businesses in violation of the RFA.

Based on these critical procedural and substantive errors in the rulemaking, the
P etitioners are likely to succeed on the merits in this case.

B. Stay Is Required to Avoid Irreparable Harm

Petitioners have asked for reconsideration of the final feed mill rule. Absent a stay pending reconsideration, Petitioners’ members will suffer irreparable harm. First, Petitioners’ members will face regulatory uncertainty and potential legal risks associated with their existing c yclones. Second, Petitioners’ members may have to install new cyclones at a significant cost, if at all possible, to demonstrate compliance with the final rule. Third, Petitioners’ members may be forced to cease its prepared feed manufacturing operations and incur severe financial damage to their businesses.

EPA estimated that capital costs for a new cyclone range from approximately $45,000 to $95,000, with estimated annualized costs ranging from $60,000 to $120,000. Even with these additional costs, fa cilities may still not be able to demonstrate compliance with the 95 percent design efficiency standard for PM based on the reported control efficiency ranges in EPA’s air pollution technology fact sheet for cyclones.

Both the difficulty of demonstrating compliance by January 2012 , and the additional costs imposed on members compani es constitute irreparable harm. Irreparable injury is injury for which a party will not be adequately compensated through money damages or15

other corrective relief if ultimate ly successful on the merits. Virginia Petroleum Jobbers
Ass’n v. Fed. Power C omm’n, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958). Economic losses
unrecoverable from an immune federal agency and losses threatening a company’s viability both constitute irreparable har m. See Smoking Everywhere, Inc. v. FDA , 680 F. Supp. 2d 62, 76

– 77, n.19 (D.D.C. 2010), aff’d sub nom. Sottera, Inc. v. FDA , No. 10

- 5032, 2010 WL 4942132, at *7 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 7, 2010) (upholding the district court’s finding of irreparable loss as “entirely reasonable”); see also Cal. P harms

. v. Maxwell

Jolly , 563 F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir. 2009); Kan. Health Care Ass’n v. Kan. Dep’t of Soc., 31 F.3d 1536, 1543 (10th Cir. 1994).

Base d on the severe impacts the final rule will have on Petitioners’ members and the significant regulatory and enforcement uncertainty associated with the rule, a stay is warranted to avoid irreparable harm.

C. Stay Will Not Harm Any Other Party

EPA has indica ted that the existing control technology and current implementation of management practices are sufficient to control HAP emissions effectively, thereby fully protecting human health and the environment. Accordingly, a stay of the final rule will

not caus e harm to any other party.

D. The Public Interest Requires a Stay

Based on the substantive and procedural errors in EPA’s rulemaking pr ocess, the irreparable harm to P etitioners’ members if a stay is not granted, and the lack of harm to any other party if a stay is granted, the public interest require s a stay of the final rule.

VI. CONCLUSION

As demonstrated above, EPA must reconsider the final feed mill rule so that the
unreasonable and inappropriate design efficiency certification provisions can be replaced16

by BMPs that will ensure the continued and effective reduction of HAP emissions from prepared f

eed manufacturing operations. I n addition, EPA must stay the applicability and effective date of the final feed mill rule pending reconsideration.

On behalf of the Petitioners, t hank you for your consideration of this petition and we look forward to working with you on this request

. If you have any questions, please contact
Christian Richter at crichter@thepoli cygroup.com or 202

- 257

- 0250
, or Jeff Hannapel at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or 202

- 257

- 3756

.

Respectfully submitted
,

Christian Richter The Policy Group

On Behalf of the Petitioners American Fe ed Industry Association (AFIA) National Chicken Council (NCC) National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA ) National Turkey Federation (NTF) U.S. Poultry & Egg Association (USPOULTRY)

ATTACHMENT

Cc: Gina McCarthy Janet McCabe Edward Messina Scott Throwe Gre tchen Graves Wendy Blake Gregory Green Chebryll Edwards

# Appendix 1

## Air Pollution Technology Fact Sheet

EPA-CICA Fact Sheet Cyclones 1 1. Name of Technology: Cyclones
This type of technology is a part of the group of air pollution controls collectively referred to as “precleaners,” because they are oftentimes used to reduce the inlet loading of particulate matter (PM) to downstream collection devices by removing larger, abrasive particles. Cyclones are also referred to as cyclone collectors, cyclone separators, centrifugal separators, and inertial separators. In applications where many small cyclones are operating in parallel, the entire system is called a multiple tube cyclone, multicyclone, or multiclone.
2. Type of Technology:
Removal of PM by centrifugal and inertial forces, induced by forcing particulate-laden gas to change direction.
3. Applicable Pollutants:
Cyclones are used to control PM, and primarily PM greater than 10 micrometers ( F m) in aerodynamic diameter. However, there are high efficiency cyclones designed to be effective for PM less than or equal to 10 F m and less than or equal to 2.5 F m in aerodynamic diameter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ). Although cyclones may be used to collect particles larger than 200 F m, gravity settling chambers or simple momentum separators are usually satisfactory and less subject to abrasion (Wark, 1981; Perry, 1984).

4. Achievable Emission Limits/Reductions:
The collection efficiency of cyclones varies as a function of particle size and cyclone design. Cyclone efficiency generally increases with (1) particle size and/or density, (2) inlet duct velocity, (3) cyclone body length, (4) number of gas revolutions in the cyclone, (5) ratio of cyclone body diameter to gas exit diameter, (6) dust loading, and (7) smoothness of the cyclone inner wall. Cyclone efficiency will decrease with increases in (1) gas viscosity, (2) body diameter, (3) gas exit diameter, (4) gas inlet duct area, and (5) gas density. A common factor contributing to decreased control efficiencies in cyclones is leakage of air into the dust outlet (EPA, 1998).
Control efficiency ranges for single cyclones are often based on three classifications of cyclone, i.e., conventional, high-efficiency, and high-throughput. The control efficiency range for conventional single cyclones is estimated to be 70 to 90 percent for PM, 30 to 90 percent for PM 10 , and 0 to 40 percent for PM 2.5 . High efficiency single cyclones are designed to achieve higher control of smaller particles than conventional cyclones. According to Cooper (1994), high efficiency single cyclones canEPA-CICA Fact Sheet Cyclones 2 remove 5 F m particles at up to 90 percent efficiency, with higher efficiencies achievable for larger particles. The control efficiency ranges for high efficiency single cyclones are 80 to 99 percent for PM, 60 to 95 percent for PM 10 , and 20 to 70 percent for PM 2.5 . Higher efficiency cyclones come with higher pressure drops, which require higher energy costs to move the waste gas through the cyclone. Cyclone design is generally driven by a specified pressure-drop limitation, rather than by meeting a specified control efficiency (Andriola, 1999; Perry, 1994).
According to Vatavuk (1990), high throughput cyclones are only guaranteed to remove particles greater than 20 F m, although collection of smaller particles does occur to some extent. The control efficiency ranges for high-throughput cyclones are 80 to 99 percent for PM, 10 to 40 percent for PM 10 , and 0 to 10 percent for PM 2.5 . Multicyclones are reported to achieve from 80 to 95 percent collection efficiency for 5 F m particles (EPA, 1998).
5. Applicable Source Type: Point
6. Typical Industrial Applications:
Cyclones are designed for many applications. Cyclones themselves are generally not adequate to meet stringent air pollution regulations, but they serve an important purpose as precleaners for more expensive final control devices such as fabric filters or electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). In addition to use for pollution control work, cyclones are used in many process applications, for example, they are used for recovering and recycling food products and process materials such as catalysts (Cooper, 1994).
Cyclones are used extensively after spray drying operations in the food and chemical industries, and after crushing, grinding and calcining operations in the mineral and chemical industries to collect salable or useful material. In the ferrous and nonferrous metallurgical industries, cyclones are often used as a first stage in the control of PM emissions from sinter plants, roasters, kilns, and furnaces. PM from the fluid-cracking process are removed by cyclones to facilitate catalyst recycling. Fossil-fuel and wood-waste fired industrial and commercial fuel combustion units commonly use multiple cyclones (generally upstream of a wet scrubber, ESP, or fabric filter) which collect fine PM (< 2.5 F m) with greater efficiency than a single cyclone. In some cases, collected fly ash is reinjected into the combustion unit to improve PM control efficiency (AWMA, 1992; Avallone, 1996; STAPPA/ALAPCO, 1996; EPA, 1998).

7. Emission Stream Characteristics:

a. Air Flow: Typical gas flow rates for a single cyclone unit are 0.5 to 12 standard cubic meters per second (sm 3 /sec) (1,060 to 25,400 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm)). Flows at the high end of this range and higher (up to approximately 50 sm 3 /sec or 106,000 scfm) use multiple cyclones in parallel (Cooper, 1994). There are single cyclone units employed for specialized applications which have flow rates of up to approximately 30 sm 3 /sec (63,500 scfm) and as low as 0.0005 sm 3 /sec (1.1 scfm) (Wark, 1981; Andriola, 1999).EPA-CICA Fact Sheet Cyclones 3 b. Temperature: Inlet gas temperatures are only limited by the materials of construction of the cyclone, and have been operated at temperatures as high as 540 E C (1000 E F) (Wark, 1981; Perry, 1994).
c. Pollutant Loading: Waste gas pollutant loadings typically range from 2.3 to 230 grams per standard cubic meter (g/sm 3 ) (1.0 to 100 grains per standard cubic foot (gr/scf)) (Wark, 1981). For specialized applications, loadings can be as high as 16,000 g/sm 3 (7,000 gr/scf), and as low as l g/sm 3 (0.44 gr/scf) (Avallone, 1996; Andriola, 1999).

d. Other Considerations: Cyclones perform more efficiently with higher pollutant loadings, provided that the device does not become choked. Higher pollutant loadings are generally associated with higher flow designs (Andriola, 1999).
8. Emission Stream Pretreatment Requirements:
No pretreatment is necessary for cyclones.
9. Cost Information:
The following are cost ranges (expressed in third quarter 1995 dollars) for a single conventional cyclone under typical operating conditions, developed using an EPA cost-estimating spreadsheet (EPA, 1996), and referenced to the volumetric flow rate of the waste stream treated. For purposes of calculating the example cost effectiveness, flow rates are assumed to be between 0.5 and 12 sm 3 /sec (1,060 and 25,400 scfm), the PM inlet loading is assumed to be approximately 2.3 and 230 g/sm 3 (1.0 to 100 gr/scf) and the control efficiency is assumed to be 90 percent. The costs do not include costs for disposal or transport of collected material. Capital costs can be higher than in the ranges shown for applications which require expensive materials. As a rule, smaller units controlling a waste stream with a low PM concentration will be more expensive (per unit volumetric flow rate and per quantity of pollutant controlled) than a large unit controlling a waste stream with a high PM concentration.
a. Capital Cost: $4,200 to $5,100 per sm 3 /sec ($2.00 to $2.40 per scfm)

b. O & M Cost: $2,400 to $27,800 per sm 3 /sec ($1.10 to $13.10 per scfm), annually

c. Annualized Cost: $2,800 to $28,300 per sm 3 /sec ($1.30 to $13.40 per scfm), annually
d. Cost Effectiveness: $0.45 to $460 per metric ton ($0.41 to $420 per short ton), annualized cost per ton per year of pollutant controlled
Flow rates higher than approximately 10 sm 3 /sec (21,200 scfm), and up to approximately 50

sm 3 /sec (106,000 scfm), usually employ multiple cyclones operating in parallel. Assuming the same range of pollutant loading and an efficiency of 90 percent, the following cost ranges (expressed in third quarter 1995 dollars) were developed for multiple cyclones, using an EPA cost-estimating spreadsheet (EPA, 1996), and referenced to the volumetric flow rate of the waste stream treated.EPA-CICA Fact Sheet Cyclones 4 a. Capital Cost: $4,100 to $5,000 per sm 3 /sec ($2.00 to $2.40 per scfm)

b. O & M Cost: $1,600 to $2,600 per sm 3 /sec ($0.75 to $1.20 per scfm), annually

c. Annualized Cost: $2,000 to $3,100 per sm 3 /sec ($0.90 to $1.50 per scfm), annually
d. Cost Effectiveness: $0.32 to $50 per metric ton ($0.29 to $46 per short ton), annualized cost per ton per year of pollutant controlled
10. Theory of Operation:
Cyclones use inertia to remove particles from the gas stream. The cyclone imparts centrifugal force on the gas stream, usually within a conical shaped chamber. Cyclones operate by creating a double vortex inside the cyclone body. The incoming gas is forced into circular motion down the cyclone near the inner surface of the cyclone tube. At the bottom of the cyclone, the gas turns and spirals up through the center of the tube and out of the top of the cyclone (AWMA, 1992).
Particles in the gas stream are forced toward the cyclone walls by the centrifugal force of the spinning gas but are opposed by the fluid drag force of the gas traveling through and out of the cyclone. For large particles, inertial momentum overcomes the fluid drag force so that the particles reach the cyclone walls and are collected. For small particles, the fluid drag force overwhelms the inertial momentum and causes these particles to leave the cyclone with the exiting gas. Gravity also causes the larger particles that reach the cyclone walls to travel down into a bottom hopper. While they rely on the same separation mechanism as momentum separators, cyclones are more effective because they have a more complex gas flow pattern (AWMA, 1992).
Cyclones are generally classified into four types, depending on how the gas stream is introduced into the device and how the collected dust is discharged. The four types include tangential inlet, axial discharge; axial inlet, axial discharge; tangential inlet, peripheral discharge; and axial inlet, peripheral discharge. The first two types are the most common (AWMA, 1992).
Pressure drop is an important parameter because it relates directly to operating costs and control efficiency. Higher control efficiencies for a given cyclone can be obtained by higher inlet velocities, but this also increases the pressure drop. In general, 18.3 meters per second (60 feet per second) is considered the best operating velocity. Common ranges of pressure drops for cyclones are 0.5 to 1 kilopascals (kPa) (2 to 4 in. H 2 O) for low-efficiency units (high throughput), 1 to 1.5 kPa (4 to 6 in. H 2 O) for medium-efficiency units (conventional), and 2 to 2.5 kPa (8 to 10 in. H 2 O) for high-efficiency units (AWMA, 1992).
When high-efficiency (which requires small cyclone diameter) and large throughput are both desired, a number of cyclones can be operated in parallel. In a multiple tube cyclone, the housing contains a large number of tubes that have a common gas inlet and outlet in the chamber. The gas enters the tubes through axial inlet vanes which impart a circular motion (AWMA, 1992). Another high-efficiency unit, the wet cyclonic separator, uses a combination of centrifugal force and water spray to enhance control efficiency.EPA-CICA Fact Sheet Cyclones 5 11. Advantages/Pros:
Advantages of cyclones include (AWMA, 1992; Cooper, 1994; and EPA, 1998):
1. Low capital cost; 2. No moving parts, therefore, few maintenance requirements and low operating costs; 3. Relatively low pressure drop (2 to 6 inches water column), compared to amount of PM removed; 4. Temperature and pressure limitations are only dependent on the materials of construction; 5. Dry collection and disposal; and 6. Relatively small space requirements.

12. Disadvantages/Cons:
Disadvantages of cyclones include (AWMA, 1992; Cooper, 1994; and EPA, 1998):

1. Relatively low PM collection efficiencies, particularly for PM less than 10 μm in size; 2. Unable to handle sticky or tacky materials; and 3. High efficiency units may experience high pressure drops.

13. Other Considerations:
Using multiple cyclones, either in parallel or in series, to treat a large volume of gas results in higher efficiencies, but at the cost of a significant increase in pressure drop. Higher pressure drops translate to higher energy usage and operating costs. Several designs should be considered to achieve the optimum combination of collection efficiency and pressure drop (Cooper, 1994).
14. References:
Andriola, 1999. T. Andriola, Fisher-Klosterman, Inc., (502) 572-4000, personal communication with Eric Albright, October 14, 1999.
Avallone, 1996. “Marks’ Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers,” edited by Eugene Avallone and Theodore Baumeister, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1996.
AWMA, 1992. Air & Waste Management Association, Air Pollution Engineering Manual , Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, 1992.
Cooper, 1994. David Cooper and F. Alley, Air Pollution Control: A Design Approach , 2 nd Edition, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL, 1994.EPA-CICA Fact Sheet Cyclones 6 EPA, 1996. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “OAQPS Control Cost Manual,” Fifth Edition, EPA 453/B-96-001, Research Triangle Park, NC February, 1996.
EPA, 1998. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Stationary Source Control Techniques Document for Fine Particulate Matter,” EPA-452/R-97-001, Research Triangle Park, NC, October, 1998.
Perry, 1984. “Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook,” edited by Robert Perry and Don Green, 6 th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1984.
STAPPA/ALAPCO, 1996. State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO), “Controlling Particulate Matter Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of Options,” STAPPA/ALAPCO, Washington, DC, July, 1996.
Vatavuk, 1990. W.M. Vatavuk, “Estimating Costs of Air Pollution Control,” Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, 1990.
Wark, 1981. Kenneth Wark and Cecil Warner, “Air Pollution: Its Origin and Control,” Harper Collins, New York, NY, 1981.