05/20/2011 18:35 FAX

m U [ì.1 t #-i r\ J\l'[

I

I

Boston

Harrford

Hont l(ong

Lon do n

Ios Angelas

ldew York

Orange CountÍ

5¡n F¡¡nclsco

SðnÌ¡ Morilcr

slllcon Våilcy

TohYo

wrlhul Ctesk

ì¡/.ìlltinstran

Fl¡Eh¡rn McCütchen L[p

zo2o ( strèqr NI,

Washington, D(

4oood-¡to6

t¡q2.3?3,óooa

I zoz-V73t.6oot

blnÉh¡nr,con

ø001/013

Jap'

llhe Honorable Lisa p. Jaokson

Administrator (lvíC: t I 0IA)

tJ.S. Environmental protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvsn¡fl Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

iactcson.tisaøeoa.q

Fax No: 202-50t-t450

I'he l-Ionorable Gina McCarttry

Assístant Adminisrrator (M/Ci 6 I 01 A)

Offise of Air a¡rd Radiation

[J.S. Environmental Proteotion Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Waslrington, D.C. 20460

fncca¡thv. stna(â.epa. gov

Fæ< No: 202-501-0996

Mesdames Jackson and McCanhy:

The Auto tldusuy Forum ('%JF') ferebl submits the attached petition for reconsideration and 

^slrpportfuI ttuy of ttre Environmental proteorion^- Aj"n.y,, National Emission standards for Hazardous Air pollutants .þr Major sî*rr* Industrial Commercial, qnd Institutional ßotlers and Process iruot"it, puUiistrea at 75 Fed, Reg. 15,608 (Mar, Zl, Z}lt) (the ,.Boiler MACT,).

May 20,201 I

,/L4 FACSIMILE - ELECTRONIC MAIL -

CERTII'IDD MAIL/RETURN RECEIPT

Pleasc foel free to contacr

this petition.

me at 510-985-1710 with arly quesdons regarding

Sincerely,

9.*z% æ_ Shannon S. Broome

Counsel to the Auto Industry Forum

Attachmont
05/20/2011 18:S5 FAX

ln re: National Emissíon Standards

fo¡ Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major

Sources: lndu.strial, Commercial, and

lnstitutional Boilers and process

Heaters, 76 Fed. Reg. 15,608

(Mar. 21,2011)

@ 002/0 1 3

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR

UN¡TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket I D. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058

PETITION OF THE AUTO INDUSTRY FORUM FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND SUPPORT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY

Pursuant to.section 907(dX7XB) of the ctean Air Act (,,cAA"¡, 42 u.s,c. I lqq7(dX7XB), and section 705 oi iriè Ádministrativo proceaurá etii,,nÉa1,t u.s:ð: 9 705, the Auto lndustry Forum ('AlF") hereby petitions the Adminisirator of the u.S. Environmental Protection Agelcy ('EfÂ" or'Agöncy") to o"onä¡ääi fortions of EpA's final rule entitled National Emission StandardJfor Házardous Air poilutants for rvra¡oi Sources: lndustrial, Commercial, and lnstitutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 76 Fed.

[90._1S'e0_8 (Mar. 21,_2011) (Docket No. EPA-HQ-oAR-2002-0058) (the .Boiter

Nl49T" or "Rule"). The Boiler MACT imposes emission lim1s based on the pàrformancé

of the maxímum achievable control technology ("MACT") for nazãrJous åir poffutants

fHAPs") generated by boiler units that are alió major staiionary.ìùices. Seä 7e eJ¿ Reg. at 15,609^10.

The AIF supports the stay of the Boiler MACT that EPA released on May 16, 2011 and is attached to this petítion. The AIF notes that EpA, indicated in the pre- publication version of the Federal Register notice regarding the statã if,ái tn" äõJ""v will "issue a notice of proposed reconiíderation of oãch rulé that idéntifíes tf.," rõãòinó issue or issues raised in the petitions on which the Agency is gránting r.on"ideration,,' EPA further states that it "understands that memberõ of tÍ¡e p-ublic rñay wish to submit additional data and information to inform the EPA's proposeð reconslà-eralon, 

"nO 

tnð Agency will consider any additional information submitteá ¡n time to do "o., ft'¡. p"iitìäñ addresses several specific issues that EpA should reconsider:'

., - ..Spgcifícally, and as discussed below, the AIF seeks reconsideration regarding the following issues:

1. Landfill gas ("LFG') has been improperly characterized by EpA as an .other

process gas" in the Gas 2 oategory and should automatically qualify for

t The Rlr abo supports reconsideratíon of several issues raised in other petitions for reconsideration filed Þy industry groups and intends to..participate fully ¡n tre reðonsioeradlon þroce"i. The AIF further reserves the right [o sÙpptement this petitíon for'reconsirjeration,
05/20/2011 18:35 FAX

@ 003/0 1 3

regulatory treatment under {t" 9": 1 category. EPA's provision to allow faoilities to demonstrate that a Gas 2 unít deserves- regulatory treatment under the Gas I category (the "demonstration mechanism"i is uñréã"ànãü¡e, arbitrary and capricious, and actually more stringent than substances árior"t¡.alry deemed to qualify for Gas I regulatory treatment, such as 40 mm/m3 rè."rry, and 4 ppm hydrogen sulfide. Moreover, EPA failed to provide àoéquate notice and

qualify 

opportunity for comment on the process and tnresnous in"ì ròrru allow a unit to for the Gas 1 category.

2' Boílers and process heaters with hoat ínput capacities .up to 10 MMBTU/¡r"

practice 

particularly natural gas-fired units, should be exemptêd from the final work standard and should no! be subject to unworkable ánd burdensome bi- annual tune up requírements. Consistát with the nee¡ t* rn exemptÍon for boilers and process heaters up to 1o MMBTU/hr, EpAlJimóosition of bi-annuat tune'up requirernents on natural gas-fired ñot water heaters wittr 

"ap"city 

greater than 120 U.s. gallons should belliminated given tne extrÀme burdens imposed and the lack of environmental benefits.

3' The requireme¡!.to notify EPA within 48 hours of alternative fuel use during natural gas curtailment should be eliminated and anv noiit¡"ãiioi required should be modified to comport with reporting deadlines under Title ù.

4. The energy assessment requirement shourd be erirninated.

BACKGROUND

The Boilel wtfcr imposes, pursuant to section 112 o,l the cAA, emission standards for HAPs for new and exisiing industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process hoaters located at majoriource.. sãe zé réãl Ë;g.'ät ts,66g-10: qz

!rs'c-' S 74r2(d), EPA proposed the new rute ¡n-response to a June 19, 2OOz, D.c. Circuit decision regarding the national emission stanoaros for hazaioãr. air pollutants ('NESHAPs") for those sources. See National Em¡ssion Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: lnd_ustrial, Commeið¡al, and lnstitùtional Boilers and Process Heaters; proposed Rule, 75 Fed.'Reg. Cà,ooo tjrn" 4;åóìii:-

GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND

REQUEST FOR STAY

I. STATUTORY PROVISIONS GOVERN¡NG RECONSIDERATION

Under section 307(dX7Xe) q the CAA, the Administrator is required to convene a proceeding to reconsider a finai rule upon a demonstration that ¡t raå irp.act¡.áoiè iã raise a particular objection to the rule.d'uring thè périod for public coãment (but within the tirne specifíed for judicial review) íf thé ôu.¡äJtion is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 42 u.s.c. S 76oz(dx7)Gi). These o¡rcumsiances are present here.

2
05/20/2011 18:38 FAX

ø 004/0 1 3

reconsider 

on the 

portions 

date on which EPA issued the finaf Boiler MACT, the Agency agreed to of the Boiler, MAcr_along *iür ""u"ral see Nationar others related final rules.

Reconsideration, 

Emission standards roi Ëazärdou. À¡i"Èòuuiants; Notice of

Reconsideration 

T6 Fed. R"q^. 1S,ZO6 ruai 21, ZO11). EpA,s Notice of stated that the Ãgen"y ;¡= ià-ir'tä process of developing a proposed reconsideration notice that identifiãs thê speoiri"-"iements of tne iul"" for which we believe further public comment is appropriäte and any provisions that we propose modifv to after more fullv 9y3lua-ting 15'267' tirä uäta ãnã ðomments atready received.,, td. at EPA recognized that "ce-rtain issuès óicèntral relevance tð these rules arose after the period for public commentor may have oãäÀ imprã"trcãoldt comment upon,,, and "that reconsideration is appropr¡ate unoér ré"tnn goitajiixÐ'otìn" Cban AírAct.,, ld.

one such issue is EPA's determination to altow facilities to gualiff their boilers using LFG gas for regulatory treatment under the Gãs r catejJry,-prJùio.o those Gas 2 gllt" can satisfy severe emission limits not norrnaily applicable to other Gas I units. This demonstration mechanism was not properly subjeot to notice and comment. Because EPA has g.one beyond its author¡iv,-ln.iúoing by failing to give the pubtic a rneaningfu¡ opportunltv !o comment, it must"in¡t¡atã reðoniiaerat¡"on on this issue. of equal relevance to the Rule's outcome are EPA's raiuieìo-éËñìöiooil"r. with heat input capacities of less than I o MMBTu/hr, particut"rty 

the ttto"" fireJw¡in natural gas, from work practice standard and the eg_Tcy;s oec¡s¡oñ to impòse unworkable bi-annual tune up requirements, Moreover, ÉPA.'s ina[fropriateiy reguiring notification of alternative fuel use _during natural gas ourtailment w¡ttr¡n ¿g hourd ;i'the declaration of curtailment. Accordingly, EPA must reconsider these provisions MAcr' in its the final Boiler Because members of the AIF w¡if érp"i¡"n.e imminent harm from these provisions, the Adrnínistrator should grant the AlË;s petition to stay the effective date of applicability of these requ irements.

II. BASIS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL RULE

A' EPA has - arbitrarily and without providing adequate opportunity for the public to comment sugected -LFG-i¡ree units to the unattainabte Gas 2 eetegory's eníiss¡on limlts, àna ttrJ agãnçy;g new-ly p-roposed demonetiatlôn mechanlsm to ailow LFG facll¡tlês to qualÍfy for Gas I treatment offers no retief.

ln the final Boiler MAGT, EPA defines ngaseous fuel" to include LFG and defines the category of units designed to burn cas 1-io-eùluoe LÈG. see 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,684, 15,686 (40 C.F.R. S 63.7575). -Accordinglv, "ny boilei.ot prõ.".s heater firing any percentage of heat input from LFG qualifíeé 

-as 

a unit designãJ to ourn oas ã

lherelY- s^rfjeoting such a éource to the utlei ðaiãgory'r strlngent emlsslon t¡mits. see id. at 15,688-91.

EPA inctudes a new demonstration mechanism in the final Rule, through whích operators of Gas 2 sources can demonstrate to EPA that they should insteaO ué suu.¡eot to the Gas 2 emission limits. But in light ;f tesir"sults on emissions levels from LFG-
05/20/2011 18:38 FAX

@ 005/0 1 3

fired units, which can vary depending o.n the types and quantities of wastes present in a particular lanclfill, the new demonstiation meïhanism's emission stándards for Gas 2

sources are not achievable by LFG-fired units. Even more, EPA d¡d not allow tne püoliõ adequate notice and. opportu¡ity to comment on EPA's né* r""t'"nig. Unless EpA reconsiders the regulatory scheme presented ín the Boiler MACi, tñe egenct riti l¡reiy effect the presumably unintended result of discouraging the ,."'óf lrG, a renewable fuel, as an alternativg to natu-ral gas and coal. l-anctr:lls-would instãal r"trrn to wasting LFG by flalng it. Thus, EPA should amend its regulations to allow LFG-fired units to automaticafly qualify for regulatory treatment undeithe standarOs torunits oesignèd iõ burn Gas 1.

1. FPâ'. requirement that boilers utilizing=LFG meet the emission limits of the Gas 2 category ls not feãõ¡¡¡e, and ttre Ãé;;;y;

. proposed demonstration meohanism is not a viable soùt¡òn. -

Those AIF members with boilers utilizing LFG anticipate that they will not be able to meet the Gas z gqteeov's emission-limits (g.g., Go), darrcüar¡i iã? un¡ts péimitteã and designed to minimize emissions of No* (roi ózonê åtta¡nmení¡. 

-rho.e 

in"ro"iõ also do not expect to be able to obtain G'as 1 classificatíon tÉirough EpA,s new demonstration me-.ch{!=t, in part due to the limited LFG constituent data available from a given landfill. The AIF cannot assure the Agency that all emission limíts can be achieved even with the application of emíssions õontiol t;"h;odgi. tndeed, ÈpÀ,; record. regarding its determination of the emission limits tor cioiin,-füän., ano màrcury potentially emitted by boilers utilizing LFG_ is inade_quate and not súniciànt to support thá prornulgated standard under Section 112(d). AIF cannot foresee wnether coüipl¡ancã with the Gas 2 category's limits for tho_se pollutants is achievaþle. lt is questionable, at best, whether the CO limits in the Boiler Mnqf (9 ppmv for existing units and 3 ppmv corrected to 3% oxygen for new/reggryllu_ct$ yqil=i are achievabt{ particutarly ;ñ ;¡ ongoing basis. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,6Eg & 15,691,

Notwithstalding the oomments that EPA received alerting it to the feasibility of LFG-fired units achieving those emission.limits, the Agency has dêdined to recátãõõii=Ë LFG-fired units as Gas i units. lnstead, the Agency ãtt"m"ptJ to resðlve the issue in the final Boiler MACT by providing the new demonstration rnechanism, which would purportedly allow facilities to demonstrato that their Gas 2 units should be subject to the standards for Gas 1 units:

. . . EPA is.requiring a demonstration that other gases have levels of HzS and Hg that are no higher than those found in õas 1 units. Natural gãs purity i9 comm_only dofíned considering the sulfur oontent of the gas, inîhe form of HeS. sweg! natural gas, which is considered pipetinélüa¡¡iv gàs, contaíns no more t$q 4 ppmv H2s. rnformation on'Hþ everË typ¡cã oi natural gas was available through literature, and domesìio naturaíþas nj concentrations range up to about 40 micrograms per cubic meter. Usin! HzS and Hg concentration as parameteis for 'establishing 

équivatén"t contamination levels to natural gas, EPA is providing a fuet-speóification that can be used by facilities to qualify Gas 2 ünits for ihe Gas 1
05/20/2011 18:38 FAX @ 008/0 1 3

standards. The fuel specifícation would also allow facilities to perform precombustion gas cleanup in order to qualify Gas 2 units foi the Gas 1

standards. Boilers using process gases'that do not meet the fuel specification.and are not processed to meet the conteminant levels must meet the emissions limits for Gas 2 units.

76 Fed. Reg. at 15,639.

E?4-dep¡cF this provision as a solution for Gas 2 units that cannot meet the Boiler MACT's ernissíon limits for those sources. Yet, EPA's Oemonstration mecnaniim does not offer relief to those sources' operators. Specifically, one of tf," AIF's members tested available LFG streams, which yíelded H2S emiss¡onó ieveis ranging trom ô iõã¡ ppmv. Even more' typical LFG stieams from a timited 

"amþrc tiouþ rango from between 7 and 105 ppmv of HzS. These levels are well above the Fi'oilei n¡ecïs í¡rn¡i of 4 ppmv HzS for those Gas 2 units seeking to obtain regulation 

"""ãùing to the Gåa I

emission levels.

2- EPA d¡d not provlde the public wlth adequate no6ce or an opportunity to comrnent on the demongtration mechqniem.

The CAA incorporates the APA's notice requirements by reference and expressly requires EPA to provide notice of íts proposed rule through a état"m"nt of its basis and purpose, including (a) the factuat data on which thã proposâl is based, -abt ìü; methodology used in. obtaining ?.nd analyzing data,'ario (o) thá ,ájoi-i"gã

qteryretations and po_licy co¡sidóralqqyngêrþ¡ng trre'pràposud'tri". +z u.s.cl$ 7607(dX3); see q/to 5 _U.S.c_. S 553(bX3), incorpõrated 'by'referenðé in ai U.S.C: ö

7607(dX3) (requiring notice of "either the terms oi substanie of the proposed rule or ã

description of the subjects and issues invotved"). Trr¡s nòtice ls prãviåed tó g¡ve thã public a meaningfut opportunity to comment. 42 u.s.c. S Tob(¿l(4), (s): ;rr,ã

significance of rulemaking cannot be.underemphasized. tt giies p"rìpò ãfèc.iea ul a

decision an opportunity to participate in the decision-making Ëroceð" jnd forces gpÁ to articulate the bases for its decisions." Donner Hanna Cót<e Corp. i. costte, 464 F. guPP. 1295, 1305 (WQ.ft.V. 1979) (citation omitted). lt also providês âggrieved parr¡es therighttoseekjudioialreviewundertheCAA./d.(biting42U.s.c.sze-,tj,zrol

EPA wholly failed to provide notioe and an opportunity to comment on the demonstration mechanisrn. ÈPA's proposed rule made ilo meniion of a provision that would allow Gas 2 uruIs to quatify for regulatory treatment under the standards for Gas 1 units- See 75 Fed. Reg. 32,006: Neveftheless, EpA contends that ¡t has independently udetermined that to the extent that process gases are comparable to natural gas and refinery gas, combustion of those gáses in bõiþrs and process heaters shou.ld_be syb¡ect to the same standards as combustion of naturái-g'as and retinèr' gas." 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,639.

. 

EPA appears to suggest that it is "providing a mechanism by which units that combust gaseous fuels other than natural gas anà'refinery gas can demonstrate that

5
05/20/2011 18:38 FAX ø 007/0 1 3

they are similar to Gas 1 units and will therefore be subject to the standards for Gas 1 units," in response to publíc comments. /d.

But the Agency's mere implioation that the demonstration mechanism is being offered in response to public comments ís not suffioient to rati;it ttläcnR's notice and comment requirements. See McLouth Steel Prcducts Corp. i. näm"t, B3g i.zdhiî, 1323 (D.C. cir. r9g8) (citing AFL-CIO v. Donovaln, 757'e.z¿ cgó, æ9_40 (0.C. cír. 1985) and Sma// Refíner tea¿ Phase-Down Task Force v. EpA, Zos F.2d soo, 549-s0 (D'c' Cir. 1983)). On the other hand, a change to the final Boiler MACT in which EpA responded to publíc. comments by le_categoriziñg lrò uo¡lers aJ a"é'1 units would have been a more logical outgrowth oi EPA's óriginaT proposal. EpA has violated the cAA,s notice and comment requlrernents.. rle Agélcv inciuro,thereioË, õtånt this petition for reconsideration and treat LFG"fired units aé Gas t units'as ã .ãt"gJii;t màtff Ë"¡t¡1.,d that, EPA must at,least allow for public comment on this new Oãnrän.trat¡on mechanism and its impact on the operators oi LfG-f¡red units.

3. The Boiler MAGT creates dieincentives for the use of LFG, which Ís contrary to the Agency's poficiee regãroing Lro.

The All= urges EPA to consider how its new demonstration mechanism, which subjects LFG'fired units to unattainable criteria in order to qualif/ as ö"r 1 sources, will create disincentives for the beneficial use of LFG. lnoeÅã, uä.d; LFG-firod units oannot satisfl the mechanism's emission limÍts, landfills rouía 

"¡tnply-fr"ve to return to flaríng their excess LFG - wasting this fuel'- ráth"r than redücÍng their pollutant emissions to the levels of boilers anð other more efficient units. eãõùüres would atso be compelled to use additional natural gas, or other fuels, including ;ðäi eotñ tnì-flãi¡ñã of LFG and the increased use of tosé¡l fuels would generate adð¡t¡onal criteria pollutant emissions.

This outcome contravenes EPA's stated Þolicy of encouragíng the benef¡cial use of LFG, whích the Agency implements throudfr ¡té EPA Landfíll Methane Outreach Program ("LMOP'). on its website for the LMoÞ, EpA states the tolbùJng,

Municipal sglip wagte (MSW) landfílls are the second-largest source of human-related methane ernissions in the Unlted States, äocount¡ng for approximately 22 percent of these emissions in 2008. Ai tne same ìime, methane emissions from landfills represent a lost opportuÀiiy to capture and use a significant energy resource. LFG is creàted as sol¡d waste decomposos in a landfill.

EPA, Basic lnformation LMOP, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-info/index.html (last updated Apr.22,2011).

Thus, as EPA aoknowledges, LFG-fired uníts reduce emissions both by providing alternatives to the flaring of LFG and to the use of fuels, .r.ñ "s'ó*¡, that increase overall .criteria pollutant emissions. But EPA's newly proposed demonstration mechanism in the final Boiler MACT would instead encouráge inóreased flaring ;i lÈö
05/20/2011 18:36 FAX ø 008/0 1 3

and the use of natural gas and coal as alternatives to LFG. EpA can properly resolve this contradiction by recategolfng LFG-fired units as Gas t units. sãveral members of the AIF have invested in landfill-gãs-to-energy-projects that benefi"i"¡y use l-p6,iucï

as at automobile assembly plant operations, gpis approach to LFG regulation in ¡ris fínal Rule sends a strong signal to companies like thede that they shouldéwitch Oàc[ iõ natural gas.

4. LFG-fired uniÛs ehoutd automatically gualify for regutatory

treatment under the Gas I catego,y, ie thé Aemonétrat¡on

mechanism sets arbltrary H¿s and Hgstandards that LFG,flred units cannot achieve.

EPA's demonstration mechanisrn ín the final Boiler MACT, which the Agency contends wor'¡ld allow facilities to show that their LFG is equivålent to Gas \ unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. ln fact, the provision's emission limits "rä

- sucnãs 40 rnm/m3 mercury and 4 ppm hydrogen sulfidê - ãrê actually more stringent than

!!to:t for saseous fuels automaticaÍty oãemed to qualify ioi[¿;'i Ëbur"tow ñ;"rr;i: Refinery gas, for instance, is coverei under tne das 1'catego,ry 

"nã-i" limi{ed ¡n ,omè regulations to 162 ppmv of H¿S. 

-see {0 C.F.R: S 60.100, Ér6pãrtõ J anO ¡" iù*itiüõ the permissible H2S in gas burned ín a.flare to_1_6ãppm on a rolling s ¡'our Oasts). EpÃ has offered no justification for subjecting LFG-fireå units to more- stringent limits than those that would othenryise be applicable to Gas 1 units. tnstead ot reqüiring LÈé-i¡;;J units to proceed through a demonstration mechanism, which imposes emission limits not attainable by those souroes, to qualifo for Gas 1 treatment, EÞA should allow LFG- flred units to automatically qualify for Gas-1 regulatory treatment.

B. EPA inappropriately failed to exempt boiters, especially thoee fired with_-natural gas, with heat input caþacitiee up to'10 n¡nñefUlhr from the final work practlce standard anti imposed unneceseary bi-annúãi tune up requirements.

Pursuant to CAA section 112(h), EPA imposes a work practice standard for each boiler or process heater that has a¡êalinput ôapaoity of teås irrãn-tO MMBTUÀ¡Ë; hour. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,613-14. suin facilities ímust conàùot å-o¡ènnialiunelup

9l qe_ bgiler oJ process heater . . . to demonstrate oontinuous compliance.,, /d. ;t

11q78 ø0 C.F.R..S 63.7540(a)(11))' Such facilíties must also subrnit notifications to EPA or the governing state agency certiffing that they are complying with the biennial

!qng-_rp_ requircments. rd, at 1s,625 (40. c.F,R. s 6-g.7sg0(d)i, 'ls-sle 

rao c.È.n. s 63-7545(eX8)). EPA asserts that the work practicð standard'sGr. irom il,re Rgency,Ë determination that numerical emission stanciards for Gas f units "t" imprrct¡ca[le due to technological and èconomic limitations. /d. at 15,63g.

Although EPA made the decision to use a work practice standard for such

sources in lieu of a numerical standard, EPA should ieoonsider the meríts and disadvantages of ímposing the standard on boilers with heat input capacities of less than 10 MMBTU/hr. Emíssions from these sources are insignificãnt. Êpn ¡n"orreó¡v claims that it has no authority to:
05/20/2011 18:38 FAX

@ 00e/0 1 3

establish a de minimís exemption from em¡ss¡ons standards established under section 112, consistent.with the language of section 112(d) and case law from the U.S. Court of Appeals for ihe ó.C. C¡r"uifrequiring EpA to set emissions standards for all HAp emitted fr;; ã'ããur"r. This requirement precludes EPA from establishing a de miniml-s threshold below which HAP emitted by a source would nðt oe r"grËiä. see srrsrra ctub v. Epa,4z9 F.ed efs, aeà (D.c.-c,i. zoozl iepÃ-ñas a,crear slatutory obligation to set emission standards for eatn'li.t"à'n-Ap,'which does not allow it to 'avoid setting standards for HApJ nói *nirolted with

fe.cnry_l9g{,"'Quoting Nat'r Lrma-Ass'rt v. ËpA, 23g F.gd 625: 634 (D.c. cir..z00!)); see also Naturat Resources ãefense courcill. EpA, 4ag F.3d 1364, 137''l (D,C. Ctt. 2oo7) (affirming that EpA must ostabl¡sh emission standards for listed HAP'emitted fròm a category, citing Sierra Club and National Lime).2

Nothing in the cited cases overruled Atabama Power Co. v. Cosf/e, 696 F.2d 3zg, 4OO (D'C'. cir' 1979), which clearly establishes rpÀ's authority to exempt de minìmis situations and create exemptionê uased on administratíve n"cés"itv. 

..-

.. -El{?:rPProach of. requiring tune-ups for all units (save hot water heators less than 120. U.S.-. gallons) is extreñreþ buidenuom" ano 

'dòes not'frovide emission reduction benefits. For example, at án automobilà assembly plant, eüen tne hot water heaters for the showers that the assembly workers use to clean up would be subject to the bi-annual tune-up requirement. The cost of meeting these 

-requirements 

will be excessive and will not.lead to any leaniqgfut emission ieouctions. ' indeed, this final Rule will actually create incentivei for faciiities to switch from nátúr"l gas-fired water heaters to electric water heaters. The latter_fype is less effioient, neðaise the electricity must first be generated (likely by combust¡'n'g a fuet to heat sieir-to m".náñiäãiÌy produce elecrtricity) and then converted to heaifor heating the water-- a very inefficient process from an energy.standpoint. This^is especialtyirue iiìnË electricÍf ,sào io power the electric water heaters may well be obiaineo rrom nõ¡-gãsËor= fuåb, ,i,n¡cñ emit more pollutants than natural gas water heaters. Facílities that-reta¡n their gas-fired water heaters will face 

. 

a largó recordkeeping burden to track 

- the 

"oñ.tpiianðe requirements and to cornplete anirual complianbe õertm""tions.

Thus, EPA should reconsider its decision not to exempt larger hot water heaters and boilers with he_at. ilPyt capacities of less thân 10 MMBTU/hr-from this unfeasible and minimally beneficial biennial tune-up reguirement.

I

Response to Cornments, Voll., at 33g.
05/20/2011 1g:37 FAX ø010/013

c' EPA'$ requirement tfiat facllltlee provide notification of alternative fuel. use during natural gas euria¡lment w¡tfr¡n 

-¿g 

hourJ ;f iñ; declaration of cufta.ilment is inappropriaûe and ätrorio be modified to comport with reporting deadrines unirer TIfle v,

ln the final Boiler MACT, EPA imposes an additional obligation on operators of Gas 1 units during periods of natural þas curtailment or an interruption in supply. Pursuant to the new 40 c.f'R, S -63.7545(f), these Gas ] unit opàrrtors must provide notification of their use of an alternative,'non-Gas 1 fuel "wiilr¡n ¿g hours of the dêclaratíon of each period of natural ges' ourtailment or.supply interruption, which [during the suppl{.9f.F9"_! gas_to an affected facility is hafted ?or r"årons beyond the control of theläcilityl.', 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,6Z9, 15,6g5.

EPA has improperly dismissed cornmenters' conce-rns regarding the feasibility of imposing on facilitios such a short timeframe for providing i-his nòtir¡cat¡on. ln its response to those.commonts, EPA contends "that curtailmentË are an unlikely eu"nt, .õ the burden of this 

. 

requirement should be minimal.;; 'ÈÞÃ,;' 

näöponses to pubt6

Commente orr EPA's National Emission Standards for Hazardorr hir pollutants for Major Source lndustrfal Commercial lnstitutíonal Boilers and procàss Heaters, Vol. 2, Document control No: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058-2894.1, CommeniÈicerpt No: 6 (Mar. 21, 2011)' That suoh a situation requiring notice mey occur infrequenly does not change the fact that the burden of the requirement w¡ll ue i¡gnif¡cant during these periods.

The requirement is unnecess?y gi.ven that backup fuels are allowed by existing permits. Burning a backup fuel is not lil(ð burning a new tuet. At móst; nofification could be require9 ollv if the fuel usod was not previoirsly ídentified in á-pårm¡t. while in its Response to Comments,3 EPA disagrees tirat this nät¡"e is unnece.öãry on the grounds that "[t]he notífication requirement w¡l¡ allow EpA to "n"rr" irrgtórV those units that qualify as Gas 1 units remain in the-Gas 1 subcategory,"1 $lãr àoicãrríao"" noi iuã¡ivã 4E hour notification requirement. EPA. can cteartyäcü¡evà its õirião soat by ré;¿ilírg anyinformationregardingcurtailmentsinTit|eVreports.

. 

Accordingly, the 4g-hour notification requirement should be eliminated and, at most, a requirement to indicate if a.natural g?! curta¡lment occurredln tne previoué o. month period should be included in tne- r¡tle v ierniãñ;;i;;pot òr requirø monitoring.6

D. The EnerEy Assessment Requirement Should tse Eliminated,

EPA propo:eq a ]b_eyond.the floor" requirement for a one-time energy assessment in the tsoiler MAOT. Th.is energy assessment requirem"nt goes bêyond not just the floor but also EPA's authorÍty un¿õi tho cAA. EpA seeks to iegutate sources

] nesponse to Comments, Vol, 1, at gg5. o td. t 40 c.F.R. zo,6(c),
05/20/2011 18:37 FAX Eü011/013

beyond those in the.source category itself. The affected source here is the boiler or process heater, not the manufacturing facility as a who¡e. ináéeO,'epR,s final Rule actually regulates facilities that are iñ other'source categorieJã-nì oo". so without regard to the prior determinations regarding appropriate nnA-GT stanàãros tor tfrem. 

"inË

energy use system. EPA is regulatílg is defined at 4O C.F,R, g oà,ZSZS to inc¡uàe compressed air systems, machine 9Tit" (motors, pumq.s, tans¡, pöcess cooling, ìã"|ity HVAC, building envelope, and lighting.' Moreover, tnä reqiiiiernent to conduct the energy assessment does not reduce HAP emissions and, therefore, is not justifieã under Sestion 112.. Accordingly,.tfre requirement should'¡e eim¡nated or at least curtailed to the affected source for this Rule and justified.

III. SUPPORT FOR STAY OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE

The AIF supports EPA's decision to sta! the effectiveness of the Boiter MACT until the reconsider_allon progess or litigation is completed. EpA-há; authority tó'sta' the effective date of the alPlicability of ttre aforementioned porrionsãi ç," Boítér MACÍ to the affected units, as CAA sectiôn 307(dX7Xe¡ Jttows the nom¡n¡srrator tó ,tãv lnå sffectiveness of this final.rule_ pending råionbìaårat¡on . 42 ù.S.C.- S iéo7CJjËX+ Although the statute provldes for a thrãe month stay pendtng recónsidõration,',tíì Ê'FÄ has used its authority to g11nt a longer stay and snóulo do sã in this case to the extent

lecqs_s?ry.. .ln particular, EPA has authority to issue a longer stay under section 705 of the APA. When 'Justice.so requires,' Eln rey stay the efied¡ve'¿ate of a rulé p"no'g judicial.revìew-pursuant to section 705 the APA. S Û.S.C. S zos. p"titions for review of the Boiler MACT have been filed in the D,C, circuit, and juËtice oemån¿s that a stal uË granted pending review. EPA has used this authority to 'þostpone" tñé effect¡-vË ¡;t" of a cAA rule- Se€, e.g', Reconsideratíon of the Preventibn .it Siónüi""nt Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New source Review (NS. R): aggreõaiion, z5 Fed. Reg.

27 ,643 (May 18, 2010). EPA may also issue a stay withôut ñõti"ë àno comment based on the good cause e:ception under lub_n_aJaqrapñ (B) of subsectÍon 553(bl or i¡iie-s pursuant to sectíon 307(dX1), 42 u.s.c. s 7607(dX1), ana under 5 u.s,c, Sssgtolfãi.

EPA has al¡qady conceded that it needs to reconsider the Boiler MACT. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 15,267. Accordingly, it makes little sense to-impor" substantial compliance costs on the regulated erit¡t¡es until EPA takes the time to iecons¡der all the appropriate isçues, ln requesting additional time to lssue the Boiler MACT and related rules,.ËPA-argued to the district court that several months were needêd to ré-propô=è the rules. Re-p.roposal "would resutt in standards that are more oefensibie anã rinifi!'i"ìã environmental benefits earlier, because the final standards will more likely w¡tfrsíanã substantive review." EPA's Mem. in Support of Mot. to Arnend OrOer of n¡ai. gi; ã000, at2o, stera club v. Jackson, No. 1:01cV01897 (D.D.c oec. i,-zóto) (oo.. l¡éj: Although the d¡strict court denied the request, EPA also stateO ttrai ,,to ensure that the final rules are logícal outgrowths of thè proposals," the Agency woutO have to re- proposo its rules in an altered form. ld. EPA, 'in 

tact, has alreäoy ís.uåo a notice that it intends to reconsider various aspects of the fìnal Boiier MACT, b"""r"" ',certain issues of central relevance to these rules arose after the period tor'public ãomment or may have been impracticable to cornment upon." z6 Fed. Reg. ai 15,262. As describeá above, the issues identified herein require reconsiderat¡on.

10
05/20/2011 18:37 FAX Ia012/013

Those LFG-fired units that jlay now be subject to EPA's new demonstration mechanisms would be harmed if EPA'é.new prov¡s¡on remains unconsidered. Because those units cannot satisfy the mechanism's'em¡sÁion lim¡ti,l*df,lË*outd flare their excess LFG rather tha1. exploit these gaseous fuets tor a ¡énericiàl puipðsã. combustion oan be controlled much more eñ¡cientl/in a boilei or òro*.s heater than in a flare' Residence times at high temperatures within tt"=s ãi" sig-n-¡ñãangy decreased, whích incroases not only potential HAP emissions, but also cr¡ter¡-á põllutant and other emissions.

ln addition, impac'ted facilities would be compelled to increase their use of natural gas or coal. Both the flaring of LFG and increased'use of fossil fuels io proouce energy would also generate additional criteria pollutant emisJions.

Therefore, nLerely granting reconsideration is not enough to prevent the adverse effects of EPA's action,

CONCLUSION

The AIF requests that EPA include the issues listed above in its reconsideration process for the Boiler MACT. The AIF stands ready to work wlth EpA to resolve the above issues offered for reconsideration, Please 

"oítu"t shannon Broome at 510-gg5- l7'10 with any questions regarding this petition.

11
05/20/2011 18:37 FAX EÛ01s/01s

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the preced¡ng wâs sent on May 20,2011 to the following via facsimile, email, and cert¡f¡ed maih

Lisa P. Jackson

Administrator

U.S, Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building (AR), 1101A

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 2OOO4

jackson.lisa@epa.gov

Fax No.: 202-501-1450

Gina McOarthy

USEPA Headquarters

Ariel Rios Buitding, 61O14

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

mcca rthy. g ina@opa. gov

Fax No.: 202-501-098o

Matthew ,?ou%Raeburn