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

May 20, 2011

The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code: 1101A Washington, DC 20460

RE: Petition for Reconsideration Standards of Perfo rmance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Source s: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Final Ru le 76 Fed. Reg. 15,704 (Mar. 21, 2011) (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0119).

Dear Administrator Jackson:

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to § 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq. of the Administrative Procedure Act and for th e reasons set forth below, the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) petitions the Admin istrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reconsider specific prov isions in its final rule, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources:

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Final Rule (CISWI Rule) 76 Fed. Reg. 15,704 (Mar. 21, 2011).

CIBO is a broad-based association of industrial boi ler owners, architect-engineers, related equipment manufacturers, and university affiliates with members representing 20 major

industrial sectors. CIBO members have facilities i n every region of the country and a representative distribution of almost every type of boiler and fuel combination currently in operation. CIBO was formed in 1978 to promote the exchange of information within the industry and between industry and government relati ng to energy and environmental equipment, technology, operations, policies, law and regulatio ns affecting industrial boilers. Since its formation, CIBO has been active in the development of technically sound, reasonable, costeffective energy and environmental regulations for industrial boilers. CIBO supports regulatory programs that provide industry with enough flexibil ity to modernize – effectively and without penalty – the nation's aging energy infrastructure, as modernization is the key to cost-effective environmental protection.-2-

On June 4, 2010, EPA proposed the rule Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Comme rcial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units. 75 Fed. Reg. 31,844. On Augus t 23, 2010, the comment period closed. On March 21, 2011, EPA published the final CISWI Rule. 76 Fed. Reg. 15,704.

Reconsideration of the rule is warranted because th e grounds for the issues identified below,

which are "of central relevance to the outcome of t he rule," arose after the public comment period or could not be raised due to impracticabili ty. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B). Considering this, the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that EPA “sh all convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the rule and provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded had the

information been available at the time the rule was proposed.” Id. Furthermore, during the reconsideration of the rule, EPA may stay the effec tiveness of the rule. Id.

CIBO respectfully requests that EPA grant reconside ration of the following issues.

I. CONTAINED GAS.

In the final CISWI Rule and as explained in the Res ponse to Comments of the final NHSW Rule EPA altered the "contained gases" exemption. This change could result in many units formerly regulated under MACT standards to be classified as CISWI units. EPA failed to discuss this change in either proposed rule or either final rule preamble. Because CIBO members were not provided an opportunity to comment, EPA should addr ess this issue of central relevance to the CISWI Rule during the administrative reconsideratio n process. On May 13, 2011, EPA

addressed this issue in a letter to Tim Hunt of the American Forest and Paper Association, indicating that EPA had not intended to "issue an i nterpretation that would change previous EPA

statements" on this issue. 1 Despite the clarifications contained in this info rmal agency letter, it is of critical importance to many sources and many CIB O members that EPA formally clarify the contained gas issues. EPA can do this via the reco nsideration process.

In the prior CISWI Rule, §§ 60.2265 and 60.2875 inc luded the following definitions:

Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste trea tment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control fa cility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or co ntained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, agri cultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigati on return flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to permi ts under section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1342), or source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined b y the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014).

1 See Letter to Tim Hunt of AF&PA from EPA, May 13, 2011

.-3-

Contained gaseous material means gases that are in a container when that

container is combusted.

Based on the definitions above, only gases in a con tainer that is itself combusted is considered to be solid waste subject to CISWI. Conversely, gases not in such containers when burned, i.e. gases in pipes that were injected through nozzles i nto the combustion chamber for combustion, are not solid waste and thereby not regulated under CISWI.

In the proposed CISWI Rule, EPA deleted the definit ions of solid waste from §§ 60.2265 and 60.2875, but never indicated it intended to modify or delete the definition of "Contained gaseous material." 75 Fed. Reg. 31,984. In the proposed N HSM rule, EPA included a reference to the

definition of Solid waste as defined in 40 C.F.R. 2 58.2. That definition for solid waste still included a reference to “contained gaseous material .” Since the proposed NHSM Rule

referenced the solid waste definition that included “contained gaseous material” and the proposed CISWI Rule retained the definition of “con tained gaseous material” in §§ 60.2265 and 60.2875, CIBO members did not ascertain that there was an issue with the language in either proposed rule.

In the final NHSM Rule, EPA included the same defin ition of solid waste referenced in the proposed NHSM Rule. However, in the final CISWI Ru le, EPA deleted both the definition of “Solid waste” and the definition of “Contained gase ous material” formerly in §§ 60.2265 and 60.2875. 76 Fed. Reg. 15,761.

By removing the clarifying definition of “Contained gaseous material” in the final CISWI Rule, EPA eliminated the exclusion of non-containerized g ases (those in pipelines). The result is that those gases could now be considered subject to CISW I. EPA indicated in the NHSM Response to Comments document that it intended to do just th at, and reverse their traditional interpretation. See U.S. EPA, NHSM Response to Comments p.212-214. The result of this unannounced change from the proposed rules is that air pollution contr ol equipment not associated with the CISWI unit as well as boilers that burn process gases cou ld now be treated as CISWI units.

This issue is of central relevance to both the CISW I Rule and the NHSM Rule, and as such, EPA should consider it during an administrative reconsi deration process. It is not clear that EPA fully appreciates the sheer number of units that could be swept into the CISWI category by these aforementioned changes. CIBO recommends that EPA r eturn the prior definitions of “Contained gaseous material” to §§ 60.2265 and 60.2875 and ma intain its past approach to contained gases.

II. STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, AND MALFUNCTION.

A. EPA Should Change Relevant Provisions of CISWI to I nclude a Similar Approach to SS as Incorporated in the Boiler Rule and Area S ource Rule.

There is a fundamental difference in the approach t aken by EPA in addressing startup and shutdown periods under both the Boiler Rule (Subpar t DDDDD) and the Area Source Rule (Subpart JJJJJJ) compared to CISWI Subparts CCCC an d DDDD. This different approach is-4-

unjustified and therefore EPA's decision to impose the CISWI emission limits at all times is arbitrary and capricious. Considering this, EPA sh ould reconsider the startup/shutdown provisions of the CISWI Rule.

The CISWI Rule provides in §§ 60.2145(a)(1) and 60. 2710(a)(1) that "[t]he emission standards and operating requirements set forth in this subpar t apply at all times.” 76 Fed. Reg. 15,754 and 15,773. Conversely, the Boiler Rule does not requi re compliance with emission limits during startup and shutdown periods as provided in 63.7530 (h):

(h) If you own or operate a unit subject emission l imits in Tables 1, 2, or 12 of this subpart, you must minimize the unit’s startup and shutdown periods following the manufacturer’s recommended procedures, if avail able. If manufacturer’s recommended procedures are not available, you must follow recommended procedures for a unit of similar design for which m anufacturer’s recommended procedures are available. You must submit a signed statement in the Notification of Compliance Status report that indicates that you conducted startups and shutdowns according to the manufacturer’s recommend ed procedures or procedures specified for a unit of similar design i f manufacturer’s recommended procedures are not available. 76 Fed. Reg. 15,675.

EPA similarly addressed startup and shutdown period s for sources subject to emission limits in the Area Source Rule as provided in 63.11214(d). 76 Fed. Reg. 15,594.

In its response to comments in the preamble to the Boiler Rule, EPA justified its approach for addressing startup and shutdown periods:

Upon review of this information, EPA determined tha t it is not feasible to require stack testing—in particular, to complete the multip le required test runs—during periods of startup and shutdown due to physical lim itations and the short duration of startup and shutdown periods. Operating in start up and shutdown mode for sufficient time to conduct the required test runs c ould result in higher emissions than would otherwise occur. Based on these specific facts for the boilers and process heater source category, EPA has developed a separate standard for these periods, and we are finalizing work practice standa rds to meet this requirement. The work practice standard requires sources to mini mize periods of startup and shutdown following the manufacturer’s recommended p rocedures, if available. If manufacturer’s recommended procedures are not avail able, sources must follow recommended procedures for a unit of similar design for which manufacturer’s recommended procedures are available. 76 Fed. Reg. 15,642.

In its response to comments in the preamble to the Area Source Rule, EPA included the following:

In lieu of CEMS, we also considered whether require ments for performance testing would be feasible for area source boilers d uring periods of startup and shutdown. Upon review of these requirements, EPA de termined that it is not feasible to require stack testing—in particular, to complete the multiple required-5-

test runs—during periods of startup and shutdown du e to physical limitations and the short duration of startup and shutdown periods. Therefore, a separate standard must be developed for these periods. 76 Fed. Reg. 1 5,577.

The proposed CISWI rule required compliance with em ission limitations during "all times" and § 60.2670(a) even specified that "emission limitation s apply at all times the unit is operating including and not limited to startup, shutdown, or malfunction." 76 Fed. Reg. 15,771. EPA received numerous comments on this aspect of the pr oposed CISWI Rule. The EPA Response to Comments document simply references the preamble and does not provide further information with regard to the Agency's decision regarding trea tment of startup/shutdown periods. EPA's response in the final CISWI rule follows:

We concluded that CISWI units would be able to meet the emissions limitations during periods of startup because most units used n atural gas or clean distillate oil to start their incinerators and only add waste afte r the incinerator has reached combustion temperatures. Id. We proposed that emissions from burning natural gas or distillate fuel oil would generally be signi ficantly lower than from burning

solid waste. Id. We further proposed that emissions during shutdown would also be generally significantly lower because the waste would be almost fully combusted before the unit began shutting down. Id. We proposed that these factors, in conjunction with the variability built into the MACT standards and the longer averaging periods, meant that sources would be able to comply with the standards during periods of startup and shutdown. Id. For violations caused by malfunction events, EPA stated at proposal that we would consider relevant factors in determining the appropriate action to ta ke. We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times. 76 Fed. Reg. 15,737.

EPA's comments above verify that CISWI units typica lly utilize conventional fossil fuels for startup and shutdown periods, and that during those periods they are not firing waste. CISWI units are also combustion devices – and during star tup and shutdown periods – have similar operational characteristics and limitations as boil ers and process heaters subject to Subparts

DDDDD and JJJJJJ.

In the 2011 CISWI Final Rule database, data from 51 units are provided regarding material combusted. The following table summarizes the numb er of units and the types of fuel combusted during start-up.

Type of Fuel Burned During Start-Up Number of Units

No Data 19 (37%) Natural Gas (alone or in combination with another fuel) 19 (37%)

Fuel or Distillate Oil 5 (10%)

Biomass 2 (4%) Wood or Fiber Chips 2 (4%)-6-

Used Oil 1 (2%) Rags 3 (6%)

Total Number of Units 51

The data in the table above indicate that the large st percentage of units do burn traditional fuels during startup. This supports EPA’s statement abov e.

EPA acknowledges that they do not have emissions da ta for startup and shutdown periods, but they contend that units could meet the CISWI emissi on limits during those operational periods. EPA has no support for this assertion.

In addition, when the CISWI Rule emission limits ar e converted to a similar basis as the Boiler Rule emission limits, it is apparent that some of t he CISWI Rule emission limits are actually

lower than the Boiler Rule emission limits for simi lar subcategories. Thus, the contention that sources could meet the emission limits during start up and shutdown periods is unfounded and not even supported by the comparative emission limits e stablished by EPA for the Boiler Rule.

Also lacking a rational basis is the unexplained di screpancy in EPA’s approach in the Boiler Rule and Area Source Rule versus its approach in th e CISWI Rule regarding the ability to measure emissions during periods of startup and shu tdown. There is essentially no difference between units under those rules, and in fact, they are the same units in some cases that may or may not be firing secondary materials. Especially in light of the re-categorization of boilers into the CISWI category, EPA's inconsistent approach is unfounded. The startup and shutdown procedures and times are both based on temperature change limitations over time that will not

over-stress materials of construction and cause dam age to the unit. Therefore, EPA's explanation

in the Boiler Rule and Area Source Rule relative to the inappropriateness of imposing emission limits during startup and shutdown periods applies equally to CISWI units. For EPA to ignore this fact and impose the CISWI emission limits at a ll times without using the approach taken in the Boiler Rule and Area Source Rule is arbitrary a nd capricious. This approach places regulated entities in an untenable position of not being able to ensure compliance during startups and

shutdowns.

EPA should change its requirements in the CISWI Rul e to include the same approach to startups and shutdowns as incorporated in the Boiler Rule an d Area Source Rule.

B. EPA should use work practice standards for malfunct ion.

Malfunctions are in all material respects the same as startup and shutdown and therefore should have work practice standards as well. EPA recogniz ed, regarding startup/shutdown "that it is not feasible to require stack testing—in particular, to complete the multiple required test runs— during periods of startup and shutdown due to physi cal limitations and the short duration of startup and shutdown periods. Operating in startup and shutdown mode for sufficient time to conduct the required test runs could result in high er emissions than would otherwise occur." There is no rational basis for coming to any differ ent conclusion for periods of malfunction. In fact, the argument for malfunction is even stronger , as if is the case sometimes, a malfunction jeopardizes personnel safety and could cause perman ent equipment damage, running testing-7-

equipment during those periods is not an option. E PA should establish a "work practice standard" that requires pre-determined malfunction plans with practices and procedures for potential malfunctions; require reporting of any ma lfunctions; address any malfunctions not contemplated and add to the plan and address as app ropriate.

The malfunction defense EPA provides in the final r ule includes ill-defined terms and criteria that are not necessarily indicia of the occurrence of a malfunction. The defense therefore lack the objectivity that is fundamental to proving the applicability of the provision. For example, the requirement that sources rely on overtime worke rs to address the malfunction, objectively proves nothing. The personnel onsite at the time o f the malfunction event may not be the personnel with the expertise to resolve the malfunc tion, yet if they do not remain onsite as overtime personnel, under EPA's structure, that sou rce fails to meet one of the indicia of a malfunction. EPA's approach irrationally subjects sources to the risk of noncompliance for malfunctions that are an unavoidable, objectively d efined standard plant occurrence but that will not be provable as such due to EPA's subjective cri teria. Especially because noncompliance is the penalty a source suffers for failing to meet th e criteria, the rule is not reasonable. EPA should grant reconsideration and take notice and co mment on this issue.

III. EPA'S PROPOSED DEFINITION OF A CISWI UNIT MAKES IT UNREASONABLY

DIFFICULT FOR SOURCES TO SWITCH BETWEEN THE BOILER RULE AND CISWI

RULE.

In the final CISWI Rule, EPA defines "commercial an d industrial solid waste incineration (CISWI)" to mean "any distinct operating unit of an y commercial or industrial facility that combusts, or has combusted in the preceding 6 months , any solid waste as that term is defined in 40 CFR part 241." 76 Fed. Reg. 15,762 (emphasis added). Considering this language, a source must wait for 6 months after ceasing to burn solid waste before it can be covered by the Boiler Rule. This is a new requirement in the final CISWI Rule and CIBO members have not had an opportunity to comment. Considering this, EPA s hould reconsider this provision of the final

rule. EPA needs to better facilitate sources movin g between the Boiler Rule and CISWI Rule, such that there are no unneeded constraints on oper ation.

IV. THE “HOMOGENOUS WASTE” DEMONSTRATION PROCESS IS UNC LEAR.

The final CISWI Rule includes an exemption of quali fying small power production and cogeneration facilities that combust homogeneous wa ste. 76 Fed. Reg. 15,751. While CIBO supports the inclusion of this exemption, the curre nt provisions of the CISWI Rule dealing with homogenous waste were introduced in the final rule depriving sources of an opportunity to comment on the definition and create uncertainty wh ether units are subject to the Boiler Rule or the CISWI Rule. Decisions on capital investments a re difficult at best to make under these

circumstances. There are serious uncertainties asso ciated with the homogenous waste

determination such that EPA should reconsider and t ake comment on its approach.

Under the final CISWI Rule, determination of whethe r a waste is "homogenous" is on a case by case basis, requiring a submittal to EPA of the ho mogeneous demonstration. 76 Fed. Reg. 15,715. This determination is not delegated to st ate or local agencies and it is unclear what test-8-

methods will be required. EPA appears to indicate that EPA needs to approve the determination

but the state does not. It is not clear whether t his exemption is self-implementing and EPA has not indicated how long the approval process takes. Finally, EPA has not indicated whether during the determination period sources continue un der the rule as self determined. EPA has also not provided information as to how the delegat ed permitting authority should treat the

source until EPA makes the determination.

In these same provisions, EPA discusses more than o ne homogeneous waste and then also discusses gasification. EPA needs to be clear that a facility can combust two or more types of homogeneous waste and still qualify for the exempti on. There is nothing in the CAA §129(g)(1) that states a facility can only burn one type of ho mogeneous waste. Take the example of a facility that has two suppliers of rail road ties a nd also burns traditional fuel (woody biomass: clean construction debris and forest removals). On e supplier has ties treated with creosote and the other with Pentachlorophenol. Both types of ti es appear to meet the homogeneous waste criteria (consistent formulation, fuel properties, defined origin, predictable chemical and physical properties, consistent combustion characteristics a nd emissions profile) and both waste types are homogeneous and fed into the boiler in a prescribed mixture that produces a consistent emissions profile. There is nothing in the CAA exemption that prohibits the use of this exemption in this scenario. Despite this fact, EPA attempts in the f inal CISWI Rule to limit the exemption to one

waste type.

V. EPA HAS NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED THE TREATMENT OF WASTE

COAL POWER PLANTS.

If EPA determines that waste coal power plants are subject to the CISWI rule, then it is clear that EPA has not adequately addressed the emissions of t hese facilities in setting emission limits. In development of the rule, EPA only used emissions fr om one waste coal unit. The one unit relied on by EPA fires anthracite waste coal. Facilities using bituminous waste coal were not used in development of emission limits. These two types of waste coal have significantly different characteristics and emission profiles. Setting MAC T floors and emission standards based on data that does not reflect the performance of the u nits in the subcategory is inconsistent with § 112 requirements. EPA should develop two subcate gories for these units: anthracite coal

refuse fired units and bituminous coal refuse fired units. Further, EPA has not gathered adequate

data to characterize emissions from facilities burn ing coal refuse, and on that basis those facilities should not be recategorized as CISWI uni ts and subject to § 129 standards. EPA's record for coal refuse units is deficient and regul atory decisions for these units needs to be supported by data and analysis of emissions from le gacy coal refuse sites that may be considered to be solid waste under the Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials Rule.

VI. SOLID FUEL ENERGY RECOVERY UNITS SHOULD BE SUBCA TEGORIZED

The data in the record clearly indicates that solid fuel energy recovery units should be subcategorized into coal and biomass subcategories for the PM, Hg, Cd, and Pb standards. EPA

received comments on this issue but the final rule does not reflect resolution of this issue.-9-

VII. DATABASE CORRECTIONS NEED TO BE MADE

The CISWI database improperly includes data from un its (top performers) that do not burn solid

waste as defined in the final NHSM rule. These sho uld be moved to the Boiler MACT database and any additional appropriate analysis and adjustm ent of the standards as required by § 112 should be undertaken. Because the NHSM, CISWI, Bo iler MACT and Area Source MACT/GACT rules are being promulgated simultaneousl y, there is no justification for using

units to establish the floor which would not be sub ject to that particular rule based on the application of the NHSM criteria.

VIII. EPA SHOULD INCLUDE EMISSIONS AVERAGING FOR CISWI UN ITS.

EPA included emissions averaging as a compliance op tion in the final Boiler Rule, and this should be a compliance option for CISWI units as we ll. EPA has previously noted that the Small

Business Administration Panel "recommended that EPA carefully weigh the potential burden of compliance requirements and consider for small enti ties options such as, emission averaging within facility. . . " 75 Fed. Reg. 31,919. Althoug h EPA asserts that it "proposed provisions

consistent with each of the Panel's recommendations regarding area source facilities," EPA did

not include in the final CISWI Rule an emission ave raging compliance alternative for CISWI units. EPA has further acknowledged that "emission s averaging represents an equivalent, more flexible and less costly alternative to controlling certain emission points to MACT levels" and its application "would not lessen the stringency of the MACT floor limits and would provide flexibility in compliance, cost and energy savings to owners and operators." 75 Fed. Reg. 32,034. During the reconsideration process, EPA should adop t this flexible compliance alternative for

CISWI units.

IX. STACK TESTING

Under the final CISWI Rule units are required to co nduct stack tests on a frequent basis. 76 Fed. Reg. 31,981. This frequency of testing is unreason able and out of character with other MACT and NSPS standards and other state performance test ing requirements. The Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT (Subpart EEE), for example requires a Comprehensive Performance Test (CPT) only once every 5 years (and, for some units, a confirmatory test for D/Fs in between CPTs). Many MACT standards and NSPS standards only require one initial performance test unless there is a physical change to the control de vice.

CIBO fails to see the justification for annual test ing. While CIBO understands EPA has already promulgated this requirement for the original relat ively narrow set of CISWI sources, it is now expanding it to potentially hundreds of units and a dding several pollutants to the list. The testing for D/Fs in particularly is costly and takes two te st days to accomplish. EPA should address this issue during the administrative reconsideration pro cess.

X. FOR SO2 COMPLIANCE DEMONSTRAITION, THE RULE SHOULD

REASONABLY PERMIT SOURCES TO USE EXISTING TECHNOLOG IES-10-

Section 60.2730(l)(2) specifies for those sources t hat demonstrate compliance with the SO2 standard by using a CEMS, “[t]he 1-hour arithmetic averages must be expressed in parts per million corrected to 7 percent oxygen (dry basis) a nd used to calculate the 30-day rolling average emission concentrations.” The wording of that requ irement appears to require a full-extraction CEMS with O2 monitoring capabilities. Those source s that utilize (now or in the future) a dilution-extraction CEMS to demonstrate compliance with an SO2 (or NOx or other) standard by measuring CO2 as the diluent gas would be required to install a redundant full-extraction CEMS system in parallel to the dilution extraction CEMS in order to satisfy this requirement. That requirement is an unreasonable cost and administra tive burden, especially to sources that already possess a dilution-extraction CEMS system. The re quirement unreasonably imposes compliance redundancy with no corresponding environmental bene fit. EPA should promulgate an SO2 (and NOx and CO) standard expressed in lb/MMBtu in addit ion to the proposed standards expressed as ppmv corrected to 7% O2.

XI. EPA SHOULD CORRECT THE FOLLOWING TECHNICAL ERRORS D URING

RECONSIDERATION.

In a review of the final CISWI Rule and associated documents, CIBO notes that there are

differences between the final rule emission limits for new incinerators- Subpart CCCC, Table 5 and EPA Excel file Appendix E- “Summary Table.” 76 Fed. Reg. 15,765-66. Specifically, the following two limits are significantly different:

• SO2- the 99.0% UL in Appendix E is 39.5 ppmvd compa red to the Table 5 limit of 11 ppmvd.

• D/F TEQ- the 99.0% UL in Appendix E is 2.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2 compared to the Table 5 limit of 0.13 ng/dscm.

The D/F total mass values are also different, but i n the opposite direction (not as drastic): 0.023 ng/dscm in Appendix E compared to 0.052 ng/dscm in final rule Table 5. Assuming that the data from the Appendix is accurate, these issues appear to be technical corrections warranting EPA's reconsideration. It appears that EPA’s conclusion s in the spreadsheet calculations are not reflected accurately in the final rule in these cas es.

Additionally, Table 6 does not include a CO limit f or new coal fired energy recovery units. 76 Fed. Reg. 15,766. It is erroneously listed in Liqu id/Gas column of the table. EPA needs to move

this into the "Solids" column.

EPA added definitions in the final rules for “Burn- off oven,” “Chemical recovery unit,” “Cyclonic burn barrel”, and “Laboratory analysis un it.” Part of the purpose of these definitions is to clarify that they are not units subject to th e requirements of the rules. The following

sentence was included in the definitions of “Burn-o ff oven": "[a] burn-off oven is not an incinerator, waste bur ning kiln, an energy recovery unit or a small, remote incinerator under this subpart." 76 Fed. Reg . 15,761. The definitions of “Cyclonic burn barrel” and “Laboratory analysis unit” include simi lar wording. 76 Fed. Reg. 15,762. However, the definition for “Chemical recovery unit” does no t include this sentence relative to those units. Id. EPA should add the following sentence to the “ Chemical recovery unit” definition in-11-

60.2265 (Subpart CCCC) and 60.2875 (Subpart DDDD) i n order to provide consistency and avoid confusion: “A Chemical recovery unit is not an incinerator, waste burning kiln, and energy recovery unit, or a small, remote incinerato r under this subpart.”

XII. THE PM CEMS REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED.

EPA included in the final rule the requirement that particulate matter CEMS (PM CEMS) be installed on units > 250MMBtu per hour to satisfy c ontinuous compliance requirements for particulate matter emissions. This is similar to th e proposed rule requirements. CIBO and others provided comments relative to use of PM CEMS. Whil e EPA did address some key items in the preamble or Response to Comments documents, issues remain.

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons CIBO respectfully requests that EPA grant the Petition for

Reconsideration.

If you have any questions concerning our comments o r require clarification, please contact me at 703.250.9042. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Robert D. Bessette

Robert D. Bessette

President