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 01A) 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^slrpport### fuI 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 freeto contacr this petition. me at 510-985-1710with arly quesdons regarding
Sincerely, 

# 9.*z% æ_ Shannon S. Broome Counsel to theAuto Industry Forum Attachmont05/20/2011 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 13

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR UN¡TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket ID. 

### EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058

PETITION OF THE AUTO INDUSTRY FORUM FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND SUPPORT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY 

### Pursuant 

### to.section 907(dX7XB) 

## ofthe ctean

### AirAct (,,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 

### ofthe 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 onthe 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,,' EPAfurther 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 ¡ntime 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" 

## inthe 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 13

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 opportunity for comment onthe process and 

### tnresnous 

### in"ì 

### ròrru allow a unit

### to qualify for the Gas 1 category. 

# 2' Boílers 

### and process heaters 

### with hoat ínput capacities 

### .up

## to 10 MMBTU/¡r" 

### particularly 

### natural gas-fired units, should 

### be exemptêd 

### from the final work practice 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 ñotwater 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 ademonstration 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 

### forjudicial review) 

### ífthé 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.

205/20/2011 18:38 FAX ø 004/0 13



### on the date on 

### which EPA issued

### thefinaf Boiler MACT, the Agency agreed to reconsider 

### portions 

### ofthe Boiler, 

### MAcr_along 

### *iür ""u"ral others related 

### final rules. 

## see Nationar 

### Emission standards 

## roi Ëazärdou. À¡i"Èòuuiants; Notice of 

### Reconsideration, 

## T6 Fed. R"q^. 1S,ZO6

# ruai 21, ZO11). EpA,s Notice of Reconsideration 

### stated

### that the 

### Ãgen"y ;¡= ià-ir'tä 

### process

### of developing 

### a proposed reconsideration 

### notice 

### that identifiãs 

### thê speoiri"-"iements 

### of tne

## iul"" for whichwe believe 

### further public comment 

### is appropriäte 

### and any provisions 

### thatwe propose to 

### modifv 

### after more

### fullv 9y3lua-ting 

### tirä uäta 

### ãnã ðomments atready 

### received.,, td. at 

### 15'267' EPA recognized 

### that "ce-rtain issuès 

### óicèntral relevance 

### tðthese 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 underthe 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 

### onthis 

### issue. 

## of equal relevance 

### to

### the Rule's outcome are EPA's 

### raiuieìo-éËñìöiooil"r. with heat input capacities of less

### than Io MMBTu/hr, particut"rty

### ttto"" fireJw¡in natural gas, from 

### thework 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 

### in itsthe 

### final Boiler 

## MAcr' Because members 

### of the AIF w¡if

### érp"i¡"n.e imminent 

### harm from these provisions,the Adrnínistrator should grantthe AlË;s petition 

### to stay

### the effective date of applicability ofthese 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. lnthe

### 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. S63.7575). -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 EPAthatthey 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 canvary depending o.nthe types and quantities ofwastes 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 notfeãõ¡¡¡e, and ttre

# Ãé;;;y;



# . proposed demonstration meohanism 

### is not a

### viable 

### soùt¡òn. - Those AIF members with boilers utilizing LFG anticipatethat 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 theAgency 

### that all emission limíts can be 

### achieved even 

### with

### the application 

### of emíssions 

### õontiol

## t;"h;odgi. tndeed, 

### ÈpÀ,; record. regarding its determination ofthe 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 limitsfor 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 demonstratothat their Gas

### 2 units should be subject tothe standards for Gas 1 units:



### . . . EPA is.requiring 

### a demonstrationthat other 

### gases have levels

### of HzS 

### and Hg

### that are no higher 

### thanthose 

### found in 

### õas 1 

### units. Natural gãs purity i9 comm_only dofíned considering the sulfur oontent ofthe 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 105/20/2011 18:38 FAX @008/0 1 3



### standards. The fuel specifícation would also allow facilitiesto perform pre

### combustion

### 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 meetthe emissions limitsfor 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 forthose 

### 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 H2Semiss¡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 tothe 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

### theterms 

### 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 inthe 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 EPAwholly 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 

### tothe 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 

### tothe 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

505/20/2011 18:38 FAX ø 007/0 1 3

they are similar 

### to Gas 1 units andwill therefore be subject 

### tothe standards 

### for Gas 1 units," in response 

### to publíc 

### comments. /d. 

### Butthe 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 inwhich EpA responded to publíc. comments by le_categoriziñg 

# lrò uo¡lers aJ

### a"é'1 unitswould 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 onthis new Oãnrän.trat¡on mechanism and its impact onthe operators 

### oi LfG-f¡red units. 

# 3. The Boiler MAGT 

### creates dieincentives

### for the use 

## of LFG, 

### which Ís contrary tothe 

### Agency's poficiee 

### regãroing 

### Lro. The All= 

### urges EPA

### to consider 

### how 

### its new demonstration mechanism, which subjects LFG'fired units 

### to unattainable criteria inorderto 

### 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 

### flaríngtheir excess LFG

# - wasting 

### this

## fuel'- ráth"r 

### than redücÍng 

### their pollutant emissions to the levels of boilers anð other more efficient 

### units. eãõùüreswould atso be compelled 

### to use additional natural gas, or other

### fuels, including 

## ;ðäi eotñtnì-flãi¡ñã of LFG and 

### the increased use of tosé¡l fuelswould 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 itswebsite for the 

### LMoÞ, EpA states the tolbùJng, Municipal 

### sglip wagte (MSW) landfílls 

### are the second-largest 

### source of human-related 

### methane ernissions 

### inthe 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 ina 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 offuels, 

## .r.ñ "s'ó*¡, that increase 

### overall .criteria 

### pollutant 

### emissions. But EPA's newly proposed demonstration mechanism in

### thefinal Boiler MACT would instead encouráge inóreased flaring

# ;i lÈö05/20/2011 18:36 FAX ø 008/0 13

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 likethede thatthey 

### 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

# \ "rä unreasonable, arbitrary and 

### capricious. ln fact, the provision's emission limits

## - sucnãs 

### 40 rnm/m3 

### mercury 

### and

### 4 ppm hydrogen 

### sulfidê

# - ãrê actually more stringent than 

### !!to:t for saseous fuels automaticaÍty oãemedto 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 nojustification 

### for subjecting LFG-fireå units 

### to more- stringent limits than thosethat 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 bythose souroes, 

### to qualifo 

### for Gas 1treatment, EÞA should allow LFG- flred unitsto 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 awork 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 thatthey 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 

### fromthese sources 

### are 

### insignificãnt. Êpn ¡n"orreó¡v claims that it has noauthority to:05/20/2011 18:38 FAX @ 00e/0 13

establish 

### a de minimís exemption 

### from em¡ss¡ons standards established 

### under 

### section 112, consistent.with 

### the language

### of section 112(d) and case lawfrom 

### the U.S. Court ofAppeals 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'emittedfròm 

### 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 upwould 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-- avery 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, EPAshould 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, [during which 

### the

### suppl{.9f.F9"_! gas_to

### an affected facility 

### is hafted ?or 

### r"årons beyondthe control of

### theläcilityl.', 76 Fed. Reg. 

### at 15,6Z9, 15,6g5. EPA has improperly dismissed cornmenters' conce-rns regarding thefeasibility 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

### thefact that 

### the burden 

### ofthe 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 ifthe

### 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 onthe grounds 

### that "[t]he notífication requirement w¡l¡ 

### allow EpA 

### to 

## "n"rr" irrgtórV those units that qualify as Gas 1 units remain inthe-Gas 1subcategory,"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 40c.F.R. zo,6(c),05/20/2011 18:37 FAX Eü011/013

beyond 

### those inthe.source category 

### itself. The affected 

### source here is

### the boiler or 

### process heater, not

### the manufacturing 

### facility 

### as 

### awho¡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 

### ofthe 

### 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 

### ofthis 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 inthis 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-pursuantto 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, andjuËtice 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 staywithôut 

### 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 thatthe 

### final rules 

### are logícal outgrowths 

### of

### thè proposals," 

### the Agency woutO 

### have 

### to re- proposo its rules in an altered

### form. 

### ld. EPA, 'intact, 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.

1005/20/2011 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 temperatureswithin

### 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. Boththeflaring 

### of LFG and increased'use offossilfuels 

### 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 workwlth 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.

1105/20/2011 18:37 FAX EÛ01s/01s

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### A copy ofthe preced¡ng wâs sent on May 20,2011 to the followingvia 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. gina@opa. gov Fax No.: 202-501-098o 

# ,?ou%
Matthew Raeburn